B08_SOL_Attachment_No_8_-_Evaluation_0004.pdf

Attachment No. 8 ‐ Evaluation

Source Selection Information – FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Addendum to Federal Acquisition Regulation Clause 52.212‐2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

1 Evaluation Process A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) composed of U.S. Department of Interior personnel, to include the Acquisition Services Directorate (AQD) and Bureau of Land Management office (BLM), and, as necessary, Government technical advisors will conduct the evaluation. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors. The SSEB will evaluate proposals, using the factors and evaluation criteria described in this section.

1.1 Basis of Award

The Government will award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) firm fixed‐price contract(s) and an initial Task Order to the Offeror whose proposal, conforms to the Solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and has been determined to be most advantageous to the Government through trade‐off analysis, non‐price and price factors considered. The tradeoff process will be used to obtain the best value for the Government to fulfill this requirement. The Government will select the best value offer, based upon an integrated assessment of both price and non‐price factors to include Technical Approach, Relevant Past and Present Performance, and Price. The evaluation will include an assessment of all stated terms, conditions, and all other information required in this solicitation, and a determination that the successful Offeror is deemed responsible.

Individually, Factor 1 is significantly more important than factors 2 and 3, collectively. All evaluation factors, other than price (Factors 1 and 2), when combined, are significantly more important than price (Factor 3). Award will be made on a Best Value Full Trade‐off basis and the source selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3. The award will also be based on the best overall proposal determined to be the most beneficial to the Government with the appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors. As a basis for award, trade‐offs between price and non‐price factors are permitted. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. However, the degree of importance of a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in the non‐ pricefactors. The greater the equality of proposals within the non‐price factors, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value to the Government. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror with a deficiency as defined in FAR 15.001. The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

Negotiations are anticipated, but the government reserves the right not to hold discussions.

The proposals will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the proposal volumes listed below:

Proposal Volumes:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Relevant Past and Present Performance Factor 3: Price

U.S. Department of the Interior Solicitation No. 140D0423R0003 – Herbicide Application

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government reserves the right to award two (2) or more IDIQ contracts per district as a result of this acquisition. The total number of IDIQs shall not exceed 10. This number may be reduced if the same offeror is awarded a contract for two or more districts.

Offerors are encouraged to propose on all districts. However, if not able to do so, the Offeror shall state which district they are submitting a proposal on. Offerors will not be adversely affected if they are unable to propose on all districts. The Government shall make award to the two best offerors per district. A single offeror may receive an award covering more than one district and up to five.

The Government will award a single day one task order.

2 Evaluation Methodology for Factor 1

2.1 Evaluation Methodology for Factor 1

The Technical Approach evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. Overall, the assessment criteria include adequacy of approach; feasibility of approach; completeness; and understanding of the requirement.

3 Evaluation Factors Proposals will be evaluated based upon the factors listed below.

3.1 Non‐Price Factors

3.1.1 Factor 1: Technical Approach

3.1.1.1 Section 1: Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the project technical approach narrative to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements of the solicitation and the degree to which the offeror can meet the requirements in the Statement of Work.

3.1.1.2 Section 2: Project Management

o The Government will evaluate the management approach narrative and will assess the

Offeror’s overall management organizational structure, project teaming arrangements and composition, and ability to manage and meet the requirements of the SOW.

o The degree to which the proposal demonstrates the contractor can ensure the Foreman of crew will be present during application who can accurately communicate with the COR on the progress of the project.

o The degree to which the proposal demonstrates the offer’s record keeping skills in preparing accurate pesticide application records.

o The degree to which the Quality Control Plan:

a. complies with Federal, state, local laws and regulations.

b. demonstrates how the vendor will monitor and evaluate performance for successful completion; and,

c. demonstrates the offeror’s ability to anticipate, resolve, and mitigate and major difficulties, problem areas, and risks.

o The degree to which the proposal demonstrates the vendor’s ability to communicate at all times with each other and the Government.

3.1.1.3 Section 3: Key Personnel

The Government shall evaluate key personnel based on the following:

o The degree to which the proposal complies with and demonstrates the key personnel can perform the requirements of this solicitation and the Statement of Work o The degree to which the proposal demonstrates the key personnel can utilize the specific adjuvants and herbicides listed in the attached SOW and Price List. If the resumes include the required certification from each key personnel that the information contained in their resume is correct and accurate. The Offeror must hold current Oregon or Washington Commercial Applicator Licenses (and federal, if required) for the application of pesticides in the weed control category appropriate for the application and application equipment type. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assure all applicator, equipment and company licenses required for treatments under this IDIQ in the States of Oregon and Washington (and federal, if required) are current at the time of RFQ response. Proof of all required licensing shall be provided as part of RFQ response.

o For the mixing/loading staff, the degree to which the proposal demonstrates their experience and abilities in the following as described in the SOW and instructions to offerors.

o For applicators, if the proposal includes their certification that the information contained in their resume is correct and accurate, and the degree to which the proposal demonstrates their experience and ability as described in the SOW and instructions to offerors.

o For the Contract Manager, that they meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.1.1.4 Section 4: Experience

The Government will evaluate experience based on the degree to which the proposal complies with the requirements of this solicitation and the Statement of Work, and the degree to which the proposal demonstrates the offeror’s experience in the following:

1. Utilizing the specific adjuvants and herbicides listed in the attached SOW and

Price List.

2. Performing herbicide application in the terrain specified in the SOW, and their ability to herbicides evenly on these types of locations

3. Quality control to ensure compliance with specifications and all Federal, state, and local laws and regulations

4. Applying these chemicals safely and to limit runoff/exposure in the service areas to reduce any potential harm or damage to the land, wildlife and to limit human exposure.

5. Managing employees and/or subcontractors

7. Record keeping to prepare accurate pesticide application records

Factor 1 will be rated based on the definitions set forth below. The adjectival ratings as listed in the table below focus on the proposal’s strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Definitions (Includes Technical/Risk Ratings)

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and /or at least on significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal will not be awarded.

3.1.2 Factor 2: Relevant Past and Present Performance

The Government will assess recent, relevant company efforts and quality information provided by the owners of those efforts to assess the Offeror’s past performance and probability of successfully performing the work described in this solicitation. This factor shall be rated using two aspects, Relevancy and Confidence.

3.1.2.1 Relevant and Recent Past and Present Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past and present performance, based off the Offeror’s performance history and the probability of successfully performing the requirements of the solicitation.

Past and Present Performance references are recent/relevant and provide evidence of quality, timeliness, price control, positive business relations, and effective and efficient management.

Offeror shall provide references for the prime Contractor and subcontractor/teaming partners that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the SOW requirements.

Other past performance information obtained through other sources (e.g., CPARS, etc.) demonstrates consistently high quality of service provided on other similar contracts.

The government will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the requirements of this solicitation. There are three criteria to past performance evaluation: Relevant, Recent, and Quality. Relevant is defined as being similar in scope (type, complexity, magnitude and dollar value) to the work required by the SOW’s. Recent is defined as work performed within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation (3 years for teaming partners and/or subcontractors). Past Performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance 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. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

If the Offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture (JV), the SSEB will utilize the information submitted to conduct the relevancy and performance confidence assessment ratings of the JV, or its partners, as previously indicated. Based on the information submitted by the JV Offeror, the SSEB will evaluate and assess information regarding the JV’s Past Performance and/or each JV Partners’ Past Performance.

Present and Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.1.2.2 Confidence of Relevant Past and Present Performance

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine the confidence for how well Offerors have performed on referenced contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.

Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii).

The SSEB will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment utilizing one of the following ratings.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror my not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3.1.2.3 Unknown Past and Present Performance

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive an "Unknown/Neutral" confidence‐rating based upon the rating table. This, however, may have an impact on overall rating of the Offeror’s Relevant Past and Present Performance. Such a proposal may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government when compared to the proposals of other Offerors with recent/relevant past performance.

3.1.2.4 Past and Present Performance Problems

Where relevant performance records indicate 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. The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified.

Submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an Offeror has overcome past problems is required.

3.2 Price Factor

3.2.1 Factor 3: Price

The Price Volume will be evaluated separately from Factors 1 and 2. Pricing should NOT be present or referenced in other volumes, chapters, sections, or documents of an Offerors proposal other than the Pricing Volume. The Offeror is expected to propose competitive and reasonable prices for the ID/IQ contract labor rates and reasonable prices for the initial Task Order in accordance with all guidance provided in FAR 52.212‐1 Instruction to Offerors. An evaluation of the Price Volume will be made to determine if it is reasonable for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the other factors. In evaluating Price, the ID/IQ labor rates and the individual pricing as identified in the bid schedule will be evaluated. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services (FAR Clause 52.217‐8) at the end of any performance period by utilizing the rates of that performance period. No Adjectival Ratings shall be used to evaluate price. Price will not be scored or rated. The best value offer will be determined through tradeoff analysis, the Government is not bound to award to the lowest priced Offeror.

3.2.1.1 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers

Unreasonably high or low proposed prices can be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition. Such a proposal can be viewed as indicative of lack of understanding of the Government’s desired objective. The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis but is not required to do so.

The Government can reject any Offeror that is determined to be unreasonable of program commitments, including terms and conditions, and evaluation criteria or is unreasonably high or low in price, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

In addition, Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. Offers that are determined to be materially unbalanced can be rejected. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices or separately priced line items. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the price for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to price for others. An offer is materially and mathematically unbalanced, if:

a. There is a reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall price to the

Government, even though it is the lowest evaluated offer; or

b. The offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.

4 Discussions

The Government intends to make a determination of contract award based on initial proposals without holding discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, and allow proposal revisions, if the SSEB determines that discussions are in the Government's best interest. Offerors are cautioned that discussions may not be conducted, and Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to revise their proposals after submission.

If discussions are deemed necessary, the SSEB will only include those firms whose proposals are most highly rated, competitive and reasonably acceptable. No discussions will be held with deficient proposals. The evaluation process will be followed. Upon conclusion of the discussions, only those Offerors still within the competitive range will be provided an opportunity to revise their proposal and submit a Final Proposal Revision for evaluation.

If discussions are held, Offerors are required to submit their responses to comments electronically. All documents need to be 8 1/2” x 11” format. Offerors shall submit revisions in pdf format electronically organized in the sequence initially required in this solicitation.

All submissions shall meet the submission deadline established by the SSEB/CO.

5 Responsibility Determination No award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR Part 9.1. A prospective Contractor must affirmatively demonstrate its responsibility, including, the responsibility of its proposed subcontractors.

6 Competitive Range In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), after evaluating all proposals, if it has been determined to be in the best interest of the Government to establish a competitive range, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to limit the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. The Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated technical proposals (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4) and 41 U.S.C.

253b(d)). The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals, based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range.