127EAX22R0015 - Site Maintenance Minor Construction - Notice of Award.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture

Southwestern Region CSA# 7 Regional Office

333 Broadway SE Albuquerque, NM 87102

FAX (505) 842-3800

V/TTY (505) 842-3292

File Code: 6320 Date: June 28, 2022

Re: RFQ 127EAX22R0015 Site Maintenance Minor Construction Award Announcement

Dear Participant:

The purpose of this letter is to provide notice of award for Request for Proposal (RFP), referenced above, for the Site Maintenance Minor Construction project for New Mexico and Arizona.

Six (6) offers were received in response to the RFP posted to Sam.gov, Contract Opportunities, on April 18, 2022 and closed June 15, 2022. A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) was set up to review submitted offers in accordance with criteria set forth in FAR 15.101-1:

15.101-1 Tradeoff process.

(a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

(b) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply:

(1) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and

(2) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.

(c) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with 15.406.

and Section M of the solicitation:

SECTION M--EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation Factors for Award The Government anticipates awarding a contract to the Offeror whose quote is the most advantageous to the Government, technical and price factors considered. The Government will evaluate the proposal based on the evaluation plan and sections below. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions, however it may make an award based on initial offer received without discussions of such offer.

Evaluation Plan Proposals will be evaluated using the Tradeoff Process as defined in FAR 15.101. This process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305 Proposal Evaluation. The government will evaluate proposals and assess their relative qualities solely on the evaluation factors specified in this solicitation. Non-price factors are approximately equal in importance and when compared to price.

Forest Service https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.406#FAR_15_406

Factor A – Prices – Price/Cost realism will be evaluated to ensure that the proposed prices reflect a clear understanding of the work and skills required for contract performance. Price/Cost proposals determined to be unrealistic in terms of technical commitment or unrealistically low in cost or price will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the contract requirements and may be grounds for the rejection of the proposal.

Factor B – Non-Price Technical Approach will be evaluated on the basis of:

Provide written documentation that specifically addresses your firm’s expertise and ability to __perform all the operations for the work specified herein and as stated in the construction drawings

(a) The Offeror’s understanding of the Specifications (List of Attachments – Exhibits), objectives, and requirements.

(b) The comprehensiveness and feasibility of the Offeror’s approach to completing all tasks and ensuring achievement of the Specification performance standards.

Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance supporting various clients, across relevant project types, and under varying conditions by evaluating the quality of Offeror performance in execution of contracts of similar size, scope, complexity, and currency to this scope.

Each Past Performance summary submitted by the Offeror should include the following information:

Indicate whether the Past Performance reference is for the Prime Contractor, Teaming Partner, or Subcontractor;

Customer organization (agency, firm, etc.);

Contract name;

Contract number;

Contract type (firm fixed price, cost reimbursable, time-and-materials, etc.);

Contract value:

Start and completion date (or projected completion date);

Provide contact information for two (2) points-of-contact including:

Name and role/job of the points-of-contact, while associated with the project;

Telephone number; and Email address.

Brief description of the Contract scope and tasking;

Description of performance standards met and unmet, and any corrective actions required; and Description of how the Offeror’s efforts resulted in:

Quality Service Timeliness (Schedule Control) Cost Control Positive and Effective Business Relations Past Performance Notice The information provided by the Offeror is only one of the means used by the Government to obtain relevant Past Performance information. The Government reserves the right to obtain information from other sources (e.g., CPARS, PPIRS) to assess Offeror’s performance risk. The Government may consider positive and negative information not mentioned by the Offeror, but found during the course of assessing relevant Past Performance.

The choice of the Reference project/client and designated point-of-contact is critical to accurate evaluation of the Offeror’s Past Performance. Offerors should provide the Government with the most current data on each reference.

Before including any person as a point-of-contact, verify the accuracy, currency, and completeness of the point-of-contact’s e-mail address and telephone number, and that the point-of-contact is willing to cooperate in this evaluation effort. The inability to reach any of an Offeror’s point-of-contacts or their unwillingness to provide the requested information may adversely affect the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s performance.

Evaluation Criteria Each of the Non-Price Evaluation Factors will be rated based on subfactors as described below. Each Factor will be assigned an adjectival rating based on the narrative associated with each subfactor, if applicable.

The following adjectives will be used in assessing each technical subfactor:

Adjective/Definition Excellent E (Very Low Risk): The proposal contains no identified deficiencies or weaknesses. The proposal demonstrates exceptional capabilities and/or understanding of the services to be provided (as appropriate), exceeding the requirements listed in the PWS. Based on this rating, the highest quality of performance is anticipated.

Very Good VG (Low Risk): The proposal contains no identified deficiencies and only a few minor weaknesses. The proposal demonstrates a high quality of capabilities and/or understanding of the services to be provided (as appropriate), meeting or exceeding the requirements listed in the PWS. Based on this rating, better than average quality of performance is anticipated.

Satisfactory S (Moderate Risk): The proposal contains no identified deficiencies and some weaknesses. The proposal demonstrates an acceptable quality of capabilities and/or understanding of the services to be provided (as appropriate), meeting the requirements listed in the PWS. Based on this rating, an acceptable quality of performance is anticipated.

Poor P (High Risk): The proposal contains deficiencies and/or significant weaknesses. The proposal does not clearly demonstrate an acceptable quality of capabilities and/or understanding of all services to be provided (as appropriate). Based on this rating, an acceptable quality of performance cannot be anticipated without additional clarification.

Evaluation of Past Performance will use the same adjectival definitions. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. A neutral rating or “NO PAST PERFORMANCE” will be utilized if no relevant past performance is available for evaluation.

The Contracting Officer reviewed all of the TEP’s work in assessing each offer, then the recommendation for award and the following offer was determined to be best value for award:

Mountain States Restoration, LLC, 711 S. Carson St. Suite 4, Carson City NV 89701 in the amount of $351,298.00

All Base Line & Option Items have been accepted for a Total Price $351,298.00

Upon receipt of this email document, you will have been provided the award debriefing. If you desire an additional debriefing, you have three-days after receipt of this notice to make that request.

The Government appreciates your participating in this procurement and looks forward to your involvement in future federal procurements. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned by email at michelle.l.bahr@usda.gov

Sincerely, /s/ Michelle Bahr

MICHELLE BAHR

Contract Specialist cc: Maria McGaha Steven McDonald Hailey Stock File

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

15.101-1 Tradeoff process.