B-08 - 127EAX22R0017 - Pinegrove CG Water Well Rehab - Notice of Award - Piedmont Environmental Sciences.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

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: August 23, 2022

Re: RFQ 127EAX22R0033 Pinegrove CG Water Well Rehabilitation Award Announcement

Dear Participant:

The purpose of this letter is to provide notice of award for Request for Proposal (RFP), referenced above, for the Pinegrove Water Well Rehabilitation.

Two (2) offers were received in response to the RFP posted to Sam.gov, Contract Opportunities, on May 17, 2022 and closed July 12, 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

M.1 PROVISIONS

52.217-5 Evaluations of Options (JUL 1990)

M.2 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Quotes will be evaluated using Best Value - Tradeoffs. The government will evaluate quotes based on the Evaluation Factors.

M.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1 Technical Capability

Technical Capability: Shall be submitted in the form of a statement or document that demonstrates the contractor’s capability to perform the work to meet or exceed the requirements of this solicitation. In order to meet the Technical Capability Requirements, offers shall address the following factor:

Factor A – Evaluating the existing well system and operation to replace with an equal or better performing pump to provide an efficient system. It is desired to provide automatic operation of the well pump and the tank level sensors and provide a duplex pumping system with lead-lag operation. Offerors should develop a statement or documentation demonstrating contractor technical capability to perform this work, in accordance with the statement of work contained herein. Offerors may provide your own drawings, illustrations, https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.406#FAR_15_406 technical specification sheets, technical documentation, equipment specification, or calculations to support the capability of the system to perform the work. The offeror may provide as much information as needed to provide best available technical and cost-effective option to replace the existing system.

Factor2. Price Best value will be determined by the offer, which meets or exceeds the requirements contained herein, for the best price (not necessarily the lowest price). The cost, availability, and reliability of the new components shall be considered to provide better performance and efficient operation.

Factor 3. Past Performance – Provide minimum of 2 references for similar work in past 3-years.

The offeror must provide documentation of previous work completed successfully replacing existing submersible well, drop pipe with casing spacers, check valves, level sounding piping, electric and/or plumbing systems for control buildings for potable water systems in the offeror’s proposal. Offeror should include past technical related experience to convey their knowledge, skill, and ability of similar type of completed work.

The offeror should provide details on recently completed contracts (within the last 3 years). This documentation should include the name and number of the owner point of contact familiar with the work performed.

Methodologies the Government will use to evaluate Technical and Past Performance submissions by potential offerors:

Adjectival Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition Exceptional Quote/Offer contains no deficiencies and fully addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an excellent approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Many strengths exist, far outweighing any weaknesses. The highest quality of contract performance is anticipated with very low risk.

Very Good Quote/Offer contains no deficiencies; fully addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates a very effective approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Some weaknesses may exist; however, the weaknesses, if any, are outweighed by strengths. A high quality of contract performance is anticipated with low risk.

Satisfactory Quote/Offer contains no deficiencies; addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. A quality contract performance is anticipated with an acceptable amount of risk.

Marginal Quote/Offer may contain deficiencies; fails to address all of the criteria and does not demonstrate an adequate approach/solution or understanding of the requirements. One or more weaknesses exist which are not offset by strengths. Contract performance is anticipated with high risk.

Unsatisfactory Quote/Offer contains many deficiencies and does not address all aspects of the criteria and/or does not present evidence demonstrating an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Many weaknesses and/or omissions exist creating an unacceptable risk.

Technical Confidence Rating

Confidence Rating Definition

High Confidence (Low Risk)

The Government has high confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence (Moderate Risk)

The Government has some confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence (High Risk)

The Government has low confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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:

Piedmont Environmental Sciences, Inc., 104 Bigbee Trl. Morrisville, NC 27560 in the amount of $182,524.22

All Base Line Items have been accepted for a Total Price $182,524.22

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: Tina Williams File mailto:michelle.l.bahr@usda.gov

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper