23 - Section L and M - JB CHS Grounds Mx.pdf

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information, and in the format specified in the preparation instructions, to permit a meaningful evaluation of past performance. Offerors may be asked to make clear certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. 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. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute interchanges and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for revision.

The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussion using Evaluation Notices (ENs) if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offeror responses to ENs will be considered in making the award decision. The Government may conduct discussions with one, some, none, or all Vendors at its discretion.

The provision at 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisitions, applies to this acquisition, and is amended as follows:

The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 120 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers. The response will consist of four separate parts:

PART I – The Request for Proposal (RFP) consists of a cover page that is signed and includes the authorizing point-of-contact. Also include any signed amendments that were issued. In doing so, the offeror agrees to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation, to include all attachments. The cover letter may state any delineating exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their Proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require "fill in" information are appropriately completed.

PART II - PRICE - Submit one (1) electronic copy of the completed JB CHS Grounds Maintenance Price Schedule (electronic copies must be compatible with Microsoft excel).

All green highlighted cells within JB CHS Grounds Maintenance Price Schedule must be filled in.

PART III – PAST PERFORMANCE

Only references for same or similar type contracts will be accepted. Provide at least three references of "Recent" and "Relevant" projects. Recent is defined as performance during the preceding three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. "Relevant" is defined as performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexity this solicitation requires to include quantity or size of area for performance of Improved Grounds (908 acres), Semi-Improved Grounds (691 acres), Un-Improved Grounds, edging, trimming, shrub and hedge maintenance, vegetative bed maintenance, weed control, elimination of vegetation (i.e. walking paths, jogging trails, sidewalks, curbs, and expansion joints), playground maintenance, artificial turf, leaf removal, fertilization, aeration, munitions storage areas (206 earth covered magazines), fence-line maintenance, BASH maintenance (716 acres), surface drainage ditches, retention/detention pond and bio-swale maintenance, tree care (i.e. trimming, pruning, removal and stump removal), xeriscaping, debris removal, and performance of geographically separated areas. The evaluation of past performance information will consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

Furnish the following information for each contract referenced:

1) Company/Division name

2) Service (Current PWS)

3) Contracting Agency/Customer

4) Contract Number and Contract Type (e.g., Firm Fixed-Price, Time & Materials, etc.)

5) Contract Dollar Value (Initial, final and an explanation of the difference)

6) Period of Performance

7) Verified, up-to-date name, address, email, and telephone number of contracting officer

8) Contracting Officer Representative's name, address, telephone & email

9) Brief summary of the requirements

10) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

11) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions

PART IV – The contractor shall submit a Mission Essential Services Plan to include the required elements IAW DFARS 252.237-7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services.

General Information Site Visit Information: Prior to submission of proposals, parties interested in responding to this RFP are required to attend a two-day SITE VISIT CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR November 7th and 8th 2024. This requirement includes a wide variety of terrain involved that a site visit is critical for a comprehensive understanding of the requirement in order to determine manning and equipment necessary for accurate proposal submissions. Offers will only be considered responsive if a representative attended the site visit. No other Site Visit opportunities will be made available. Attendees are limited to two (2) personnel per offeror. Registrants shall submit request for attendance via email to Brennen Miller, brennen.miller.1@us.af.mil AND Roger “Dale” Crews, roger.crews@us.af.mil no later than Close of Business (COB), 30 Oct 2024. Upon registration, Vendors will receive detailed instructions for the Site Visit.

Request for Information (RFI): Questions received, in writing, and subsequent answers will be posted to Sam.gov.

Offerors are required to submit in writing all questions and requests for clarifications no later than noon Eastern Standard Time, 11 Nov 2024. The decision whether to respond to questions and requests for clarification made after noon EST, 11 Nov 2024 shall be at the sole discretion of the contracting officer.

Failure of a prospective offeror to submit any questions will be construed to mean that the prospective offeror fully understands all requirements of the solicitation. Questions must be emailed to:

roger.crews@us.af.mil. If there are any issues call Roger “Dale” Crews at (843) 963-3568.

INFORMATION REGARDING SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS: Response to this solicitation must be received via email by 25 Nov 2024, no later than 11:30 AM Eastern Standard Time.

Proposals must be emailed electronically. The solicitation number (FA441824R0012), and the name of the offeror must be in the subject line. Emails with a time stamp after the solicitation has closed will be late proposals and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208 and 52.215-1(c)(3)(iii).

For information regarding the solicitation, please contract Roger “Dale” Crews, Contract Specialist, at roger.crews@us.af.mil.

Please note that .zip files are not an acceptable format for the Air Force Network and will not go through our email system. Email size is limited to no more than 3MB per document and less than 10 MB per email.

Vendors are advised proposals may require multiple emails.

All companies must be registered in the System for Award Management at https://www.sam.gov to be considered for award. The Government will not provide contract financing for this acquisition. Invoice instruction shall be provided at time of award.

mailto:roger.crews@us.af.mil.

mailto:roger.crews@us.af.mil.

https://www.sam.gov/

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

FAR 52.215-1(f) applies to this acquisition and is amended as follows:

The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

1) PRICE

2) PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance is significantly more important than price.

Options. The government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

This is a competitive best value acquisition following source selection procedures IAW FAR Part 15 in which competing offerors past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Factor 1: Price. The evaluation of offers will begin by ranking according to price, including option prices, from lowest to highest. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by adding the base period of performance price plus all option period pricing.

Factor 2: Past Performance. Beginning with the lowest priced offer, the contracting officer will seek recent and relevant performance information on all offers based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

Recent is defined as performance during the preceding three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Relevant past performance includes performance of grounds maintenance services of similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexity to include quantity or size of area for performance of Improved Grounds (908 acres), Semi-Improved Grounds (691 acres), Un-Improved Grounds, edging, trimming, shrub and hedge maintenance, vegetative bed maintenance, weed control, elimination of vegetation (i.e.

walking paths, jogging trails, sidewalks, curbs, and expansion joints), playground maintenance, artificial turf, leaf removal, fertilization, aeration, munitions storage areas (206 earth covered magazines), fence-line maintenance, BASH maintenance (716 acres), surface drainage ditches, retention/detention pond and bio-swale maintenance, tree care (i.e. trimming, pruning, removal and stump removal), xeriscaping, debris removal, and performance of geographically separated areas. Scope, magnitude, and complexity of past performance will also be compared to the environmental conditions of Joint Base Charleston.

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance.

The evaluation process will result in an overall past performance evaluation rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in the table below.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. The following table describes past performance relevancy ratings.

If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” rating, then that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” rating, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated, and the process will continue (in order of price lowest to highest) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” rating or until all offerors are evaluated. The Government shall then make a best value award decision.

Table 2. Past Performance Evaluation Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

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 effort.