J-2_-_Draft_Sections_L_and_M.docx

Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technology Support Services

1284JC18R0001

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 Instructions to Offerors: This section provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The proposal must include all data and information requested by Section L and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offeror must be compliant with the requirements of this RFP, the Model Contract/Solicitation, the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and all other attachments to the RFP. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this section may result in a determination of non-responsiveness or an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

1.2 Teaming Arrangements: The offeror shall obtain approval from the Contracting Officer (CO) prior to making changes to their teaming arrangements during the source selection. Failure to maintain the teaming arrangements established in the proposal may result in being removed from consideration.

1.3 Include Sufficient Detail: The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. The offeror shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities and experience. The Government will base its evaluation on the information presented in the proposal.

1.4 Embellishments Not Desired: Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

1.5 Proposal Acceptance Validity Date: The proposal validity period is specified in Section A of the Model Contract/Solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the contract documentation volume that the proposal is valid until this date. This period may be extended upon the mutual agreement of the offeror and the CO.

1.6 Disposition of Proposals: In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 4.803(a)(10) (Contents of Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of the proposal. The Government will destroy extra copies of proposals. The offeror technical proposal, in whole or in part, may be incorporated into the resulting contract or the Government may require that the offeror submit changed pages to the Government PWS.

1.7 Point of Contact: The CO is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CO. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the CO at the address located in Section A of the Model Contract/Solicitation or by email to mshinney@fs.fed.us. Email is the preferred method of communication.

1.8 Debriefings: The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competition or competitive range; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competition or competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, an offeror excluded from the competition or competitive range is entitled to no more than one debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

1.9 Discrepancies: If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as remedies the offeror is asking the CO to consider related to the omission or error.

1.10 Reference Library: A physical reference library will not be established. Reference documents are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website at https://www.fbo.gov or are available through general Internet search. Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time email notifications identifying when information has been posted to the FBO website for this solicitation.

1.11 Communications: Exchanges of source selection information between the Government and offeror will be controlled by the CO. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors and must include Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 in the subject line.

1.12 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits: The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization table. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in the table below. The contents of each proposal shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies specified:

1.13 Page Limitations: Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be destroyed. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as 2 pages. Each page shall be counted except the following; cover pages, tables of contents, glossaries, tabs, work breakdown structures, and the Cross Reference Matrix. All pages shall be numbered. Sheets printed on both sides shall be numbered on both sides. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

1.14 Page Size and Format: The limitations below shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals. Page size and format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs.

1.14.1 Regular Pages: A page is defined as each face, either landscape or portrait, of an 8 ½ x 11 inch sheet with at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾ inch margins on either side. Except for the reproduced sections of the RFP documents, the text size shall be 12 point. Text lines shall be single spaced.

1.14.2 Fold Outs: Fold-outs (e.g. charts, tables, graphs, or diagrams) may be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc., and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches. Each printed side of a fold-out page shall count as two pages per side. The text size for charts, tables, graphs, or diagrams shall be 10 point.

1.15 Cost/Pricing Information: All cost/pricing information shall be addressed only in the Cost/Price volume with the exception of compensation information requested in Section L, Paragraph 2.3.2.2.

1.16 Cross-Reference Matrix: Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. The offeror shall complete and submit the Cross-Reference Matrix identified in Attachment L-1 indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the Section L, Section M, and the PWS. The matrix shall be in included in Volume 1-Technical.

1.17 Indexing: Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents which provides page numbers and delineates the sections within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. Sections shall correspond to the evaluation factor/sub-factor of the solicitation.

1.18 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms: Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

1.19 Binding and Labeling: Each hard copy volume of the proposal shall be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet shall be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, RFP identification, and the offeror name and Cage Code. Proposal volumes shall have all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-5, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

1.20 Electronic Offers: The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. Electronic proposals shall be Microsoft Office 2007, Project 2007, or Adobe compatible. Word documents and Excel spreadsheets must be editable and not password protected. The offeror shall provide all formulas and calculations used in the Cost/Price volume. Submit electronic versions of all volumes on USB or via email submitted to the CO. Each volume shall be in separate directories on the USB or email transmittal. Use separate files to permit rapid location of volume portions. Refrain from using file compression or disk spanning techniques, however; if files are compressed the necessary decompression program must be included. The offeror shall ensure the submission is free of software viruses. Any USB found to contain viruses will be destroyed and not evaluated.

1.21 Hyperlink: The table of contents of electronic proposal volumes shall be hyperlinked to the corresponding material within each required proposal volume such that clicking the mouse on an item in the table of contents will take the reader to the corresponding section within the body of the proposal volume. Any reference within the body of the proposal volume that refers the reader to another location within the referring document shall be hyperlinked in the manner described above. A hyperlinking reference between different filenames is not necessary. Volume 4 does not need to be hyperlinked. All hyperlinked pages shall be counted against the page limitations in Section L, paragraph 1.12.

1.22 Pre-Proposal Conference: An Industry Day will be held at the Geospatial Technology and Applications Center at 2222 W. 2300 S., Salt Lake City, Utah on XX XXX 2018 (estimated Spring 2018). It will consist of a 2 hour presentation/general session followed by optional one-on-one sessions with government/prime contractors. Prime contractors may bring teammates and subcontractors with them however, combined attendance is limited to 5 people per teaming arrangement. Written questions and the names of all attendees must be submitted to the CO no later than XX XXX 2018.

1.23 Distribution: All completed paper volumes and USBs shall be identified and delivered to the CO at the following address:

Geospatial Technology and Applications Center Attn: Ms. Mary Shinney 2222 W. 2300 S.

Salt Lake City, UT 84119 Do not distribute proposal information in response to this RFP to any other person or agency without the written permission of the CO listed above.

2.0 PROPOSAL VOLUME 1-TECHNICAL

2.1 The Technical volume shall be specific, complete, legible, clear and coherent. Proposals will be evaluated against the Technical factor defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, explain as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing or satisfying the factor and sub-factors. All the requirements specified in the RFP and attachments are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the RFP. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the RFP.

2.2 Factor 1-Technical: In the Technical volume, address your approach to meeting the following sub-factors. For each sub-factor addressed, also state any risks for that sub-factor by identifying those aspects of the proposal you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Include your strategy to mitigate the risks you identify in your proposal.

2.2.1 Sub-factor A-Program and Project Management: Identify your approach to define, review, and optimize business processes to improve results. Describe the techniques you will use to perform effective integration of the technical areas in the PWS Section 2, Scope of Work. Describe how you will ensure efficacious prioritization and re-prioritization of projects in a dynamic environment. Describe your financial cost management system and include: your approach to financial tracking and reporting; your approach to assigning budget and labor resources to Firm Fixed Priced and Time and Material projects; and how you will ensure affordability by reducing or controlling costs. Identify the proposed Program and Project Manager(s) by name/company and include lines of authority, roles and responsibilities, and a resume for each manager.

2.2.2 Sub-factor B-Key Personnel:

2.2.2.1 Provide your plan for recruiting and retaining the key personnel possessing the critical education, experience, and skills needed for successful performance of the requirements of the PWS. Identify reach back capability or other methods to fill vacancies. Provide supported retention rates for the last five (5) years and the basis for those rates. Discuss how you will ensure workforce stability, and attract future employees to meet turnover and program growth. Describe how you will obtain unique, specialized expertise on short notice and expand staff to meet increased workload for quick reaction contingencies.

2.2.2.2 Provide a Professional Employee Compensation Plan (see FAR provision 52.222-46) with itemization of the proposed compensation for the key personnel positions listed in the PWS. The plan shall include salaries and fringe benefits being proposed (e.g. sick leave, health insurance, employee savings plans, vacation, education, etc.) and other forms of compensation and motivation offered such as employer/employee cost sharing arrangements or bonuses. Include supporting information used in establishing the total compensation structure.

2.2.3 Sub-factor C-Technical Approach: Provide detailed and comprehensive narratives demonstrating how you would implement technical solutions dealing with the following typical task elements:

· Geospatial Technology Evaluation

· Geospatial Training

· Helpdesk Support

· Sample Design and Accuracy Assessment

· Resource Inventory, Mapping, and Monitoring

· Geospatial Programming

· Information Technology Management

· International Projects Support Identify and explain how your technical methods will result in qualitative improvements to Forest Service remote sensing and geospatial technology initiatives resulting in benefit to the Government.

2.2.4 Sub-factor D-Sample Tasks: Provide your technical and project management solution to the two (2) sample tasks provided in the Statement of Objectives in Attachment L-2. Pricing for the sample tasks shall be submitted in Volume 3 - Cost/Price (see Section L, Paragraph 4.2.4).

2.2.5 Sub-factor E-Transition Plan: Provide your approach to minimizing disruption of operations due to contract and workload transition at beginning of the contract. Include at a minimum: approach for assuming full contractual responsibility without disruption or degradation of performance; a transition schedule; and identification of resources (including labor) that will be on hand to begin or maintain operations.

3.0 PROPOSAL VOLUME 2- PAST PERFORMANCE

3.1 Submit a past performance volume with your proposal, containing information on the offeror Team (including subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform any aspect of the proposed effort). The offeror is cautioned that the Government may use data provided in this volume, as well as data obtained from other sources, in the best value determination or in a determination of contractor responsibility in accordance with FAR Sub-Part 9.1. The Government will not consider performance on a newly awarded contract without performance history or on an effort that concluded more than five (5) years prior to this source selection. The Past Performance volume shall include:

3.1.1 Relevant Contracts: Submit at least four (4) recent contracts that are relevant in demonstrating the offeror’s past performance that together cover all the technical areas of the PWS (see PWS Paragraphs 2.1-2.8) and at least one (1) recent contract that is relevant in demonstrating the offeror’s past performance in program and project management (i.e. a total minimum of five (5) contracts). At least two (2) of the five (5) required contracts must have been performed by the offeror Prime. Contracts will be submitted via the Past Performance Information Sheet found at Attachment L-3.

3.1.2 Consent Letters: Submit consent letters executed by each joint/teaming partner or subcontractor authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information. A sample consent letter is found at Attachment L-4.

3.1.3 Organization Structure Change History: Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a roadmap describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), your roadmap should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify in your proposal and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

4.0 PROPOSAL VOLUME 3- COST/PRICE

4.1 General Information

4.1.1 Cost/Price Reasonableness, Realism, and Balance: The offeror shall submit data other than certified cost or pricing data sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the proposal’s reasonableness, realism, and balance. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror.

4.1.2 Cost/Price Data: Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted unless you consider it essential to document or support your cost/price position. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price volume. Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal except as allowed in Section L, paragraph 1.15. Data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. In the event that only one offer is received or the CO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine cost/price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to certify their cost and pricing data.

4.1.3 Rounding. All labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

4.1.4 Government Labor Hour Estimate: The offeror should consider the Labor Hour Estimate in Section B of the RFP as a baseline. The Labor Hour Estimate is an analysis of the annual labor hours by key labor category that the Government reasonably believes are required to accomplish the orders under this contract. Labor hours are variable and dependent on individual orders, offerors proposed strategies, and other factors. All requirements in the PWS are required and must be met. The Labor Hour Estimate only includes the technical expertise required to meet the PWS requirements and does not include administrative or business segment labor (e.g. finance managers, human resource managers, contract administrators, buyers, supervisors, program managers, etc.) nor does it account for offeror methodologies for meeting the requirements (e.g. cross-range utilization of resources, reapportionment of labor hours, or reduced staffing).

4.2 Detailed Instructions for the Sections: The Cost/Price volume shall consist of the following sections:

4.2.1 Pricing Assumptions: Summarize all significant pricing assumptions. List any exceptions to the RFP assumptions and provide complete rationale for such exceptions. Discuss any deviations from standard business systems.

4.2.2 Estimating Methodology: Explain the methodology used for cost elements in the proposal. If a portion of the required information is not applicable for a particular cost element, so state. Provide the rate structure used to develop each indirect rate. Provide supporting rate documentation (e.g. Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRA), Forward Pricing Rate Proposals (FPRP), current provisional billing rates). If you do not have a current FPRA/FPRP, provide the basis of the proposed indirect rates and how the rates will be applied. For option periods beyond those that currently have agreed/proposed rates, utilize the indirect rates for the last agreed/proposed year across all final option periods.

Commonality with Other Programs: Any cost reductions made in your proposal that are attributed to commonality with other programs or company funded efforts must be supported.

4.2.3 Labor Rates: Provide a schedule of all proposed direct ceiling labor rates for the labor categories listed in Schedule B. This schedule shall display the rates by category, option period, and identify whether the labor category/rate is Prime labor or team member (e.g. partner, subcontractor, etc.). The schedule shall show the build-up of the direct rate including the unburdened labor rate and all burdens (i.e. fringe, overhead, G&A, profit, and FCCOM (if applicable)).

4.2.4 Sample Tasks: Provide pricing for the sample tasks submitted in response to Section L, Paragraph 2.2.4, utilizing the same labor wrap-rates as proposed in Schedule B. Include the cost build-up and basis of estimate to support proposed prices. Assertions of cost savings to the Government shall be supported. Ambiguous or unrealistic assumptions regarding increased productivity are not acceptable.

5.0 PROPOSAL VOLUME 4-CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

5.1 Model Contract/Solicitation: Provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting files. The offeror shall ensure the following are complete within the Model Contract/Solicitation:

5.1.1 Section A-Standard Form (SF) 1447: Completion of blocks 12 through 18 of the SF 1447 are required. Signature by the prime offeror on the SF 1447 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

5.1.2 Section I-Contract Clauses: Fill-in all Section I clauses that need to be completed by the offeror.

5.1.3 Section K-Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of offerors: Complete all representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements.

5.2 Exceptions to the Solicitation Requirements: The offeror is required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Clearly identify any exception to the solicitation requirements or terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to the paragraph or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of the table below titled RFP Exceptions. Failure to comply with the requirements or terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in a determination of non-responsiveness or an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

RFP Exceptions

5.3 Other Required Information

5.3.1 Organizational Structure: Show company organizational structure for the offeror team to include a narrative description of each company’s roles and responsibilities as it pertains to the technical requirements listed in PWS Section 2, Scope of Work. For any key subcontractor identified, describe the role of that subcontract in meeting the PWS Section 2, Scope of Work requirements. Identify whether a partnership is subject to a teaming agreement via a fully executed contract (i.e. teaming partner) or a subcontract agreement. Identify if the offeror team is a joint venture (i.e. separate legal entity with joint ownership) and if the joint venture is a partnership or a limited liability.

5.3.2 Authorized Offeror Personnel: Provide the name, title, telephone number, and email of the point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal.

5.3.3 Adequate Accounting System: Provide verification from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), or any Federal Civilian Audit Agency of an accounting system that has been audited and determined adequate for the accumulation and reporting of costs. Verification requirements include a copy of the offeror’s official audit report and audit report number from DCAA, if available, and/or official letterhead from DCAA, DCMA, or any Federal Civilian Audit Agency verifying the adequacy of the accounting system. Provide point of contact information that includes the name, address, phone number, and email of the representative at the cognizant DCAA, DCMA, or Federal Civilian Audit Agency that determined the adequacy of the accounting system. The offer shall make reference to the page number and paragraph of the audit report or letter that verifies the adequacy of the accounting system.

5.3.4 Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations: Provide the street address, CAGE code, DUNS code, and size of business for the prime company as well as teaming partners and major subcontractors.

5.3.5 Government Furnished Property: Government-furnished property (GFP) will be identified on each task order. GFP shall not be proposed by the offeror.

ATTACHMENT L-1: CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX

For prospective offeror: See Section L, paragraph 1.16 for information on completion of the Cross Reference Matrix.

Technical

Past Performance

Cost/Price

Contract Documentation

ATTACHMENT L-2: SAMPLE TASKS

SAMPLE TASK 1: DOWNSCALING FOREST LAND SYSTEM INVENTORY FOR MANAGEMENT-SCALE SOILS INTERPRETATIONS

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (SOO)

Instructions Provide your technical and project management approach, schedule, and proposed cost/price to meeting the sample task requirement herein.

Sample Task Objectives

1) Validate Payette National Forest Land System Inventory (LSI) polygons using spatially explicit data and determine probabilities of correct map units based on soil formation concepts.

2) Downscale LSI map units by identifying modes of internal variability.

3) Identify primary modes of disagreement in coarse-scale LSI and finer-scale soils interpretations.

4) Technology transfer to stakeholders.

Background In Western U.S. forests, at all scales under 1:60,000 (i.e., landform assemblages and finer), soil types and their spatial distribution are the primary control on forest ecosystem potentials. Soil types dictate the seasonal landscape water balance, buffer temperatures in the rooting zone within biologically niche-specific ranges, and provide (or limit) nutrient supplies. For this reason a spatial inventory of soil types has traditionally been the first data collected in newly discovered landscapes, and that inventory serves as the basis for a multitude of subsequent natural resource management interpretations.

The art and science of building a soil inventory varies across regions but almost universally employs a fundamental, robust model of soil development that distills soil spatial variability into five natural and observable factors of soil formation. This approach has guided soil inventories for over one hundred years. However, capturing the expression of these five natural factors in discrete soil polygons with spatially explicit boundaries is a scale-dependent exercise in complexity. Prior to the advent of modern remote sensing datasets, several generations of management-based soil inventory research and application determined that a 1:24,000 scale soil inventory provides an adequate level of spatially explicit variability to achieve successful management outcomes on a given soil type. Modern demands on soils information are trending towards much finer scales.

Despite their importance, many Forest Service lands, including the Payette National Forest, do not have a soil survey. Rather, a coarser-level (1:60,000 to 1:85,000) landform inventory is used as a proxy for project-scale soils planning and implementation guidance. Landform (and landtype) inventories primarily characterize patterns in geology and geomorphic process; they are generally inadequate for project-scale soil interpretations. Bridging that deficit between the landform inventory scale and the soil-scape scale breaks down for even the most adept soil scientist because process acting on landforms do not translate cleanly into soil potentials. This is readily observed at the scale of forest management where boots-on-the-ground visits are required to compensate.

The Payette National Forest 1973 vintage LSI is one such example of a coarse landform inventory that lacks the spatial detail necessary to meet 21st century forest management objectives. The original LSI polygon delineations have never been validated to determine whether the LSI map units the conceptual modes of variability that drove their delineation reflect empirical data. Nor is it known quantitatively whether the map units are distinctly different, or the range of variability of soil-landscape factors within a given LSI map unit.

Limitations imposed by the coarse-scale LSI ripple through project lifecycles in the form of deferred uncertainty, which confounds implementation, delays monitoring, and may increase the vulnerability to litigation due to unquantified National Environmental Policy Act assumptions. These effects cannot be adequately offset through piecemeal field efforts by Payette National Forest soil scientists.

Scope of Work The contractor shall deliver a solution to quantify and characterize spatial signatures (i.e., mode and variability) of soil formation factors in the 1973 vintage Payette NF Land System Inventory map layer. Specific datasets to subset include PRISM climate, actual evapotransporation (ET) (from Zach Holden, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT), mean National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), and several principle terrain variables from United States Geological Survey (USGS) DEM. The contractor shall also determine whether signatures are in agreement with inter and intra map unit concepts. The solution shall provide a means to augment Forest LSI map unit legend with quantitative diagnostic information on maps and correct spurious linework in Forest LSI layer.

Validation and downscaling of LSI for project-scale applications will be effectively communicated in presentation(s) to District, Forest, and Regional staff. Additional outreach will be made to Boise and Sawtooth National Forests, who share similar LSI inventories with similar limitations. Presentations will also be made at Forest Service regional watershed meetings, professional conferences, and seminars. These technology transfer sessions will emphasize using modern remote sensing and geographic information system tools as a vehicle for updating and downscaling LSI information that informs landscape-scale project planning under the ongoing Collaborative Forest Restoration Program initiative.

Deliverables

1) Quantified map unit diagnostics written into updated LSI map unit legend.

2) Appended attribute table for LSI layer.

3) No less than four (4) presentations of methods and results to Forest Service personnel, three (3) of which are directed at non-Payette NF units.

Assumptions This project is digital shovel ready and does not require new data acquisition. Work can be performed with corporate Forest Service spectral and terrain data coverages. Specific datasets to subset include PRISM climate, actual ET (Z. Holden), mean NAIP NDVI, and several principle terrain variables from USGS DEM.

SAMPLE TASK 2: TBD

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (SOO)

Instructions

Sample Task Objectives

Background

Scope of Work

Deliverables

Assumptions

ATTACHMENT L-3: PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SHEET

Instructions: All proposed recent and relevant contracts (see Section L, Paragraph 3.1.1) must be listed in a Past Performance Information Sheet. Use additional sheets as needed.

Past Performance Contract #____ of _____

Company Name: The company that holds the contract or subcontract Contract Number: The identification number of the contract Performance Period: The total period of performance if all options are issued Contract Value: The total value of the contract or subcontract if all options are exercised CAGE Code: The CAGE Code for the entity awarded the contract.

POC Name: Name of a point of contact – Government Contracting Officer, Program Manager or the prime contractor representative that can validate performance POC Phone Number: The phone number of the point of contact POC Email: The email of the point of contact

Were you the Prime contractor on this contract?

Explain which services in solicitation 1984JC18R0001, PWS Section 2, that this work is relevant to.

Were cost, schedule and performance successfully managed? Explain.

Were subcontractors used on this contract? If yes, explain the management process utilized and if it was effective.

Were there any negative issues on this contract? What corrective action was taken?

If the CAGE Code on this past performance is not the same as the offeror’s CAGE Code, please explain.

ATTACHMENT L-4: SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING PARTNER CONSENT FORM FOR THE RELEASE OF PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE INFORMATION TO THE PRIME CONTRACTOR

Past performance information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor's or teaming partner's consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor/teaming partner past and present performance information to the prime during exchanges. In an effort to assist the Government in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that the following consent form be completed by the major subcontractors/teaming partners identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms shall be submitted as part of your proposal’s Past Performance volume.

SAMPLE

Dear Mary Shinney, We are currently participating as a (subcontractor/teaming partner) with (prime contractor or name of entity providing proposal) in responding to the Forest Service Request for Proposal number 1284JC18R0001 for the Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technology Support Services contract.

We understand that the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance in order to obtain best value in source selections. In order to facilitate the performance confidence assessment, we are signing this consent form to allow you to discuss our past and present performance information with the prime contractor during the source selection process.

(Signature, Title, and Date Signed of individual who has the authority to sign for and legally bind the company)

Company Name:

Address:

Phone:

Email:

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award: This is a best value trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented by the Department of Agriculture Supplement (AGAR). These regulations are available electronically at http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of the Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price evaluation results. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFP and Section L) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Evaluation Methodology: The Government will evaluate the Technical factor, as described in the table in paragraph 2.2 and Past Performance, as described in the table in paragraph 2.3.5. The Government may perform a trade-off of the Technical and Past Performance factors with the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of the Cost/Price proposal to make a final determination of best value to the Government. This source selection may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the more favorably rated Technical and Past Performance rating of a higher priced offeror outweighs the cost/price difference.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one (1) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract.

1.4 Discussions: It is the Government intent to award without discussions therefore it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the proposal has been evaluated as awardable at the time discussions are closed, any FPR submission which modifies, or fails to conform to the essential requirements or specifications of the RFP shall be considered nonresponsive or receive an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors: The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

2.1.1 Factor 1: Technical

Sub-factor A: Program and Project Management Sub-factor B: Key Personnel Sub-factor C: Technical Approach Sub-factor D: Sample Tasks Sub-factor E: Transition Plan

2.1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

2.1.3 Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.1.4 Relative Importance of Factors: The Technical factor is more important than Past Performance. When combined, the Technical and Past Performance factors are approximately equal to Cost/Price.

2.2 Factor 1 Technical: The SSEB will evaluate the Technical proposal and assign one of the ratings described below.

Technical Ratings

The Technical ratings focus on the offeror approach and understanding of the requirements as well as strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal, defined below.

A separate rating will not be assigned for each sub-factor and only one rating will be applied to the Technical factor. Deficiencies identified will render the entire proposal Unacceptable and therefore unawardable.

The SSEB will evaluate proposals by assessing offeror responses to the following:

2.2.1 Sub-factor A Program and Project Management: The proposal response demonstrates an effective, efficient, and executable approach to Program and Project Management.

2.2.2 Sub-factor B Key Personnel: The proposal response demonstrates an effective, efficient, and executable approach to compensating, recruiting, and retaining a highly-qualified workforce.

2.2.3 Sub-factor C Technical Approach: The proposal response demonstrates an effective, efficient, and executable approach to implementing the technical requirements of the RFP.

2.2.4 Sub-factor D Sample Tasks: The proposal response demonstrates that the offeror understands the scope and requirements of the tasks. The proposed approaches are sound and contain the technical depth necessary to complete the tasks.

2.2.5 Sub-factor E Transition Plan: The proposal response demonstrates an executable approach to transitioning workload and ensuring seamless transition of operations.

2.3 Factor 2 Past Performance

2.3.1 Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an offeror's past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet user's needs, including cost and schedule. Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's recent and relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the Technical factor. A relevancy determination of the offeror's past performance, including joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners, will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Past performance information on work for State and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontracts that is similar to the Government requirement will be evaluated equally with similar Federal contracts. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that contractor is being proposed. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy definitions apply:

2.3.1.1 Very Relevant. Past performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.1.2 Relevant. Past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.1.3 Somewhat Relevant. Past performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.1.4 Not Relevant. Past performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.2 The Government evaluation team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. The Government will, as deemed necessary, confirm past performance data identified by offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past performance data, if available from other sources.

2.3.3 When relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

2.3.4 The Government will assign each offeror an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating for the Past Performance factor. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical factor, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the Past Performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

2.3.5 Each offeror will receive one of the ratings described below for the Past Performance factor.

Performance Confidence Assessment

2.3.6 Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an Unknown Confidence rating for the Past Performance factor.

2.3.7 Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

2.4 Factor 3 Cost/Price

2.4.1 Cost/Price Evaluation: The Cost/Price volume will be evaluated for the criteria of Reasonableness, Realism, and Balance. One or more of the proposal analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404 may be utilized. The Government will develop a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for all performance periods (including FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services). The Government will determine the Probable Cost (PC) of the offeror’s proposed Cost/Price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(2). The evaluation criteria are defined below.

2.4.2 Reasonableness: A cost/price is reasonable when it provides the best value to the Government considering current market conditions, and technical and functional capabilities of the offeror. The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria of price reasonableness. The proposed prices also may be compared with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).