J.04 IDIQ Evaluation Plan v2 and Exhibit No 1.pdf

General Instructions for Evaluation Plan for Environmental Services IDIQ

Proposal received in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP) will be evaluated in accordance with the process as established below and applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).

INITIAL REVIEW OF PROPOSALS

An adjectival rating system has been established prior to the issuance of this RFP. Before this system will be applied, however, all proposals received will be subjected to an initial review to determine if any proposals are non-responsive. A non-responsive proposal is defined as a proposal that neglects to contain mandatory information or documents requested in the RFP. A non-responsive proposal is also one that does not follow the requested format as stated in the Evaluation Approach section below. Firms submitting non-responsive proposals will be so notified upon the determination of such non-responsiveness.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received prior to the closing date/time of this Request for Proposal (RFP).

EVALUATION APPROACH

Proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. In order for the team to determine that each merit factor or subfactor is acceptable, the proposal must demonstrate:

a. Understanding of the Government's requirements and the means required to fulfill these requirements.

b. Completeness of the Offeror's analysis of each merit factor and subfactor.

c. Feasibility of performing to all the terms and conditions of the offer within the

Government's requirements.

All submittals shall have a separate section for responding to each merit factor. Only information provided within the specific section will be considered in rating the proposal.

Submittals that deviate from this format will not be considered.

The attached Exhibit No. 1, Evaluation Factors, provides the basis to be used in evaluation of each proposal.

The attached Exhibit No.2, Evaluation Sheets, provides space for entry to justify each evaluation factor as applied to each proposal.

The attached Exhibit No. 3, Scoring Adjectives and Definitions, explains the scoring adjectives that will be used on the evaluation sheets.

A complete set of proposals, excluding Volume II, Price Proposal, will be provided to each member of the evaluation team.

The evaluation team will evaluate each proposal in terms of the factors listed in Exhibit No. 1, Evaluation Factors, of this evaluation plan. Each proposal will be evaluated strictly in accordance with its written content. The evaluation team will not assume that Offeror's performance will include areas of investigation or development not specified in the Offeror’s written proposal. Each member of the evaluation team will make an independent evaluation of each proposal. The evaluation will proceed as follows:

a. Using Exhibit No. 1, Evaluation Factors, the evaluation team will evaluate each proposal in terms of the factors listed.

b. Using Exhibit No.2, Evaluation Sheets, each team member will independently review the proposal as it relates to each individual evaluation factor noting strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, according to the definitions in Exhibit No. 3.

c. The team members will keep careful notes on Exhibit No. 2, Evaluation Sheets, indicating the supporting reasons for the evaluation given. The net results of the individual determinations will be reported on the "Master Justification for Evaluation" by the Chairperson of the evaluation board.

d. Upon completion of evaluation of all proposals, each member will sign and date Exhibit

No. 2, Evaluation Sheets. Each member's exhibits will be attached as backup to the Master documents prepared by the Chairperson.

Any proposal that is deemed so deficient or unacceptable that it could not reasonably be made acceptable by reasonable clarification or revision will be judged “Unsatisfactory” (see Exhibit No. 3). The justification for assigning this rating will be provided in a narrative format by the evaluation team. Any proposal having an overall rating of "Unsatisfactory" will not be considered further.

Only after the evaluation team has completed the evaluation on the non-price factors, will the Price Proposal be reviewed. Price is not a scored factor.

ORAL PRESENTATION

Each offeror will provide an oral presentation. The CO will notify the offerors of the date and time they are scheduled to give the oral presentation. Offerors will be provided advance notice of the date and time they are scheduled to present. The CO will determine the order in which offerors are scheduled. Requests to reschedule will be at the discretion of the CO.

The proceedings will be formal and structured, consisting of a timed presentation of no more than 1 hour by the offeror followed by a question and answer session. The offerors must conform to the oral presentation rules outlined in the RFP. Oral presentations will take place at the USIBWC Headquarters office in El Paso, Texas, and additional participants may participate virtually.

DISCUSSIONS/NEGOTIATION

The Government anticipates that discussions will be conducted during this procurement with all Offerors determined to be within the competitive range (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.306). However, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions. The determination of the competitive range shall be the responsibility of the Contracting Officer and be comprised of the most highly rated proposals. The Government may also reduce the number of highly rated proposals within the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. Negotiations will be conducted with all vendors within the competitive range. Discussions/negotiations will likely be in the form of written questions requiring written responses from each offeror, and may include face-to-face meetings or telephonic discussions.

Discussions/negotiations will culminate with a request for final proposal revision from those Offerors who remain in the competitive range. Offerors may be eliminated from the competitive range at any time if they are found unacceptable in one or more evaluation factors in accordance with FAR 15.306(d)(5). In the event discussions are held with Offerors determined by the CO to be within the competitive range, the chairperson of the evaluation team shall:

a. Assist the Contracting Officer in the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of cost proposals.

b. Perform final evaluation, including scoring of "Final Revised Proposal" offers. Initial scores may be adjusted as a result of the submission of "Final Revised Proposal" offers.

FINAL REVISED PROPOSALS

Negotiations may be conducted on the content of the proposal to the extent deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer with all Offerors determined to be in the competitive range in accordance with the preceding paragraph. Following negotiations, all Offerors still within the competitive range may be requested to submit a written Final Revised Proposal.

FINAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The adjectival ratings for the non-priced factors assigned to proposals within the competitive range may be revised by any additional information or data provided during negotiations or furnished with the "Final Revised Proposals." Ultimately, all adjectival ratings will be combined into an overall rating which will be given consideration, along with the proposed price and profit, for award.

BEST VALUE DECISION

The ultimate source selection decision will not be made by the application of a mathematical formula, but by the exercise of sound business judgment on the part of the Contracting Officer.

This decision will be based on the price to the Government as compared with the evaluations of the proposal. Significant differences in measured proposal merit may or may not be deemed affordable or worth an additional amount of money, depending upon the best interest of the Government.

BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose non-priced factors - experience, past performance, professional qualifications, resources, location, technical proposals - and priced factors, when considered together, are determined to represent the best value to the Government. The price of the respective proposals will be compared to the offered merits of experience, past performance, professional qualifications, resources, and location. Price is of secondary importance to experience, past performance, professional qualifications, resources, location, and technical approach; however, price may determine the Government’s ability or inclination to purchase the merit offered by the non-priced factors. Significant differences in measured merit may or may not be deemed affordable depending upon the best interests of the Government. Ultimately the source selection decision will be based on an acceptable offer, the price of which may not be the lowest, but which is sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest price so as to justify the payment of additional amounts.

EXHIBIT No. 1 –

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

MERIT FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following merit factors will be used to evaluate the proposals. Merit factor 1and 6 are twice the importance of merit factors 2, 3, and 4. Merit factors 2, 3, and 4 are of equal importance. Merit Factor five 5 will be considered 1/4 of importance as factors 2, 3, and 4.

Merit Factor 1 - Experience Merit Factor 2- Past Performance Merit Factor 3- Professional Qualifications Merit Factor 4 - Resources Merit Factor 5 - Location of Prime and Subcontractors Merit Factor 6 – Sample Task Order Technical Proposals

MERIT FACTOR 1 - EXPERIENCE

This area will be evaluated on the subfactors listed below. Subfactor A is equal to Subfactor B.

• Subfactor A - Management

Demonstration of managerial ability for a minimum of 3 complex projects (e.g. multiple governments, agencies, states, disciplines, etc.) through documented history of timely completion of past projects and efficient organizational framework.

• Subfactor B - Specialized Experience

(1) Demonstrate experience (5 years minimum within the previous 10 years) in studies/analysis of environmentally sensitive areas, with emphasis on biological preservation and ecosystem enhancement in the southwestern United States, especially in the international border to include the Rio Grande and the Colorado River ecosystems.

(2) Demonstrate experience (5 years minimum within the previous 10 years) in preparation of

EAs, FONSIs, EISs, RODs, etc. and conduct public participation programs in development of environmental documents. Demonstrate experience in post construction monitoring.

(3) Demonstrate training (last 3 years) in NEPA, ecosystem preservation, endangered and threatened species, cultural, natural and cultural resource surveying/monitoring, and GIS development.

(4) Demonstrate experience (5 years minimum within the previous 10 years) working on historical resource projects to include mitigation projects with the State Historical Preservation Office, development of HABS/HAER documentation, archaeological field studies, and historical inventories.

MERIT FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

Subfactors A, B, C, D, E, and F are of equal importance. The criteria for a rating of excellent are described with each subfactor.

• Subfactor A - Quality of Service - compliance with contract requirements, accuracy of reports, technical excellence; pattern of deliverables that are of good quality; pattern of successful completion of tasks.

• Subfactor B - Timeliness of Performance - met interim milestones, reliable, responsive to technical direction, completed on time, including contract administration; pattern of deliverables that are timely. No liquidated damages assessed.

• Subfactor C - Cost Control; within budget; current, accurate and complete billings;

respect for stewardship of Government funds.

• Subfactor D - Business Relations - effective management; effective small disadvantaged business subcontracting program; reasonable/cooperative behavior; flexible; effective contractor recommended solutions, pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.

• Subfactor E - Customer Satisfaction - satisfaction of end user with the contractor's service based on past performances references, PPIRS, CPARS, or other method. A performance survey may be mailed and/or emailed to each reference as determination of customer satisfaction.

• Subfactor F – Similar task past performance. Tasks are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand.

Assessment of the Offeror's past performance will be one means of evaluating the credibility of the Offeror's proposal, and relative capability to meet performance requirements.

Information utilized will be obtained from the references listed in the proposal, other customers known to the Government, consumer protection organizations, and others who may have useful and relevant information. Information will also be considered regarding any significant subcontractors and key personnel records. The Government will utilize the information in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and/or CPARS.

Evaluation of past performance will often be quite subjective based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will include a determination of the Offerors commitment to customer satisfaction and will include conclusions of informed judgment. However, the basis for conclusions of judgment will be documented.

Award may be made from the initial offers without discussions. However, if discussions are held, Offerors will be given an opportunity to address unfavorable reports of past performance, if the Offeror has not had a previous opportunity to review the rating. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

If an Offeror, or the proposed employees for the Offeror, does not have a past performance history relating to this solicitation, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this factor.

MERIT FACTOR 3 - PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

This area will be evaluated on the subfactors listed below. Subfactor A is of equal importance as Subfactor B.

• Subfactor A - Project Manager or Principal Investigator and Discipline Managers

(1) At least one Ph.D. degree will be represented by the prime contractor and/or team/subcontract firms, for at least three of the disciplines listed in the PWS (engineering, environmental sciences, biological sciences, ecological sciences, cultural, and natural resources) (i.e. at least 3 Ph.Ds across the team).

(2) Education level and professional experience (5 years minimum) of key personnel including relevant disciplines research experience as supported by vitae, a list of authored reports, articles and research and/or management reports.

(3) Experience (5 years minimum) with study methods and techniques, NEPA and related laws and regulations.

• Subfactor B - Field Supervision

(1) At least 3 Masters Degrees will be represented by the prime contractor and/or team/subcontract firms for any of the disciplines listed in the PWS (engineering, environmental sciences, biological sciences, physical sciences, cultural, and natural resources).

(2) Education level (Bachelors Degree) and professional experience (3 years minimum) of key personnel, including relevant disciplines research experience as supported by vitae, a list of authored reports, article and research and/or management reports.

(3) Experience (3 years minimum) with study methods and techniques, NEPA and related laws and regulations.

MERIT FACTOR 4 – RESOURCES

This area will be evaluated on the subfactors listed below. Subfactors A and B are equal in importance.

• Subfactor A - Key Personnel and team composition and availability.

(1) Show team composition with minimum of 50% "in-house" capabilities (per contract option year).

(2) Demonstrate rapid response capabilities of accomplishing work orders (provide at least 2 examples).

• Subfactor B - Capabilities of performing work in the United States and Mexico border region.

(1) Show awareness of Mexican laws and regulations as evidenced by environmental projects conducted in both countries.

(2) Show safety awareness for border work.

(3) Border projects experience and knowledge, both federal and state.

MERIT FACTOR 5 - LOCATION OF PRIME AND SUBCONTRACTORS

This area will be evaluated on the subfactors listed below. Subfactor A is of equal importance as Subfactor B.

• Subfactor A - An office for the Project Manager and key personnel should be located within 200 miles of the border preferably located near El Paso, Texas.

• Subfactor B- The subcontractor's key personnel should have key offices located near the

United States and Mexico border preferably with offices in key cities in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

MERIT FACTOR 6 – Sample Task Order TECHNICAL PROPOSALS This factor will evaluate the sample task order technical proposals to the three (3) Work Plans submitted in response to the three (3) Statements of Work (SOW) provided in Section L of the Solicitation. The Work Plans shall be prepared in accordance with section 5.3 Work Plans as provided in the PWS. All subfactors are equal in weight.

• Subfactor A – Understanding of the SOW requirements.

(1) Work Plan provides a detailed plan to accomplish the goals of the SOW and shows an understanding of the requirements and needs of the SOW.

(2) Proposal is written in a concise and professional manner that allows the reviewer to confidently assess the work plan.

(3) Met Work Plan requirements as set forth in Section 5.3 of the PWS.

(4) ability to develop a work plan that provides the government with the recommendations and subject matter expertise that will inform the government of the method the Offeror will use to accomplish the requirements of the SOW.

• Subfactor B – Personnel Qualifications

(1) Proper and sufficient personnel are assigned to accomplish the requirements and needs of the SOW.

(2) Personnel possess the proper education, experience, specialized credentials to competently accomplish the requirements of the SOW.

• Subfactor C – Resource Allocation

(1) ability to properly allocate resources to accomplish the requirements in the SOW without using unnecessary or excessive resources.