0011 RFP_Addendum_Submission Instructions_ Evaluation.docx

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

This solicitation is issued in accordance with Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO or FAR) Part 15 procedures and will utilize a best-value tradeoff source selection process as described in FAR 15.103-1. The Government intends to evaluate proposals based on the evaluation factors identified in this solicitation and may award to other than the lowest-priced offeror or the highest technically rated offeror. Offerors are advised that award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, considering both price and non-price factors. Non-price factors when combined are more important than price.” Accordingly, offerors are encouraged to submit proposals that are complete, clearly demonstrate an understanding of the requirements, and provide sufficient detail to allow for a thorough evaluation in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria.

A. General Instructions

To ensure timely and equitable evaluation of offers, offerors shall follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements.

Failure to comply with these instructions may result in the offers being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Offerors shall clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation and provide supporting rationale. The Government may reject any offerors containing exceptions.

Submission of a offers alone does not demonstrate compliance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Offerors must clearly describe how requirements will be performed.

Offerors shall submit proposals in three volumes:

VOL1 / Factor 1: Technical Capability VOL 2 / Factor 2: Past Performance VOL 3 / Factor 3: Price

Non-price factors when combined are more important than price.

BASIS OF AWARD:

This procurement is a best value source selection and is being conducted pursuant to FAR 15.103-1 and 15.104 procedures. The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation, based on the evaluation factors listed below and whose offer represents the best value to the Government. A contract may be awarded to the offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required in the Performance Work Statement of this solicitation) and is evaluated by an overall assessment of the evaluation factors to represent the most advantageous to the Government. As part of making the assessment, a tradeoff analysis will be performed to determine as whether exceeding the minimum requirements at an associated price provides the best value to the Government.

AWARD FOR ALL OF THE WORK.

Offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in the schedule shall be considered non-responsive and ineligible for award. The Government, however, reserves the right to make an award for any item from any offeror for a quantity less than or equal to the quantity offered, at the unit prices offered.

EVALUATION PROCESS:

Evaluation Factors. Evaluation of offers will be made using procedures under FAR 15.103-1 and 15.104. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions at any time if determined by the contracting officer to be in the Government’s best interest. Offers will be evaluated in accordance with the following factors and sub-factors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors:

Technical Capability (Factor 1) is equal to Past Performance (Factor 2). When combined, the two non-price factors are more important than Price (Factor 3).

FACTOR 1 – Technical Capability (Instructions):

Offerors shall submit a technical proposal that clearly demonstrates their understanding of the requirement and their ability to successfully perform the work in accordance with the Performance Work Statement. The technical proposal shall be organized by subfactor and shall address the specific submission instructions for each subfactor. The proposal must describe the offeror’s actual technical approach, management controls, staffing assumptions, quality controls, schedules, and risk-mitigation methods for accomplishing the required services. General statements of compliance, repetition of the PWS, marketing materials, or vague promises of performance are not sufficient. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the proposal provides a clear, feasible, and low-risk approach that is tailored to this requirement

FACTOR 1 – Technical Capability (Evaluation Method):

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical proposal to assess the quality, feasibility, and favorability of the proposed approach under each subfactor. Offers that merely state offerors will comply with the PWS are non-responsive and ineligible for award. The Government will evaluate offers that state how well the proposal demonstrates a clear, detailed, and low-risk approach for successfully performance of the work. Greater favorability may be assigned to proposals that provide specific, well-supported, technically sound methods that reduce performance risk, demonstrate strong understanding of cemetery operations, and show a practical ability to meet or exceed the Government’s needs. Lower favorability may be assigned to proposals that are vague, generic, incomplete, unrealistic, internally inconsistent, or present increased performance risk.

Assessments of proposals by subfactors may result in one of the following ratings:

Most Favorable Proposal demonstrates an exceptionally strong, detailed, and well-supported approach that is highly tailored to the requirement. The proposal shows a thorough understanding of the work, provides specific methods, controls, schedules, and technical procedures, and reflects little to no performance risk. The proposed approach is likely to produce consistently successful performance with minimal Government intervention.

Very Favorable Proposal demonstrates a strong, detailed, and well-developed approach that is tailored to the requirement. The proposal shows a some understanding of the work, and presents a technically sound method of performance with low performance risk. Any weaknesses are minor and are not expected to materially impact successful performance.

Somewhat Favorable Proposal demonstrates an acceptable, but less developed approach. The proposal addresses the requirement in a general manner, lack specificity, tailoring, detail, or clear execution methods. The proposal reflects moderate performance risk because certain aspects of the approach may require clarification, closer oversight, or increased contractor correction during performance.

Not Favorable Proposal does not demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the requirement or fails to provide a clear, feasible, and reliable technical approach. The proposal is vague, unrealistic, or materially omits important elements of performance. The proposal reflects high performance risk and provides limited confidence in successful performance.

Non-responsive/Ineligible Proposal is generic, incomplete, inconsistent, materially omits important elements of performance, and/or a mere re-statement of the (PWS) requirement.

Subfactor 1 - Setting New and Replacement Headstones (Instructions) The offeror shall describe its technical approach for transporting, storing, protecting, setting, replacing, aligning, documenting, and warranting upright headstones. At a minimum, the proposal shall address:

1. The offeror’s process for receiving, transporting, storing, and safeguarding headstones to prevent breakage, staining, weather damage, or other damage prior to installation.

2. The offeror’s method for ensuring headstones are installed at the correct gravesite or site number, within the required timeframe, and only after COR inspection/approval.

3. The offeror’s installation procedures for ensuring each headstone is plumb, level, aligned with adjacent stones, set to required grade and height, and stable after installation.

4. The offeror’s approach for identifying and handling damaged, defective, or incorrectly inscribed headstones, including notification procedures and destruction/removal procedures where required.

5. The offeror’s reporting procedures for daily installation reporting and weekly inspection reporting.

6. The offeror’s approach for protecting surrounding turf and repairing damage caused by installation activities at no additional cost to the Government.

7. The offeror’s method for meeting the required 90-day alignment warranty, including how the offeror will address settling, improper compaction, realignment, raising/resetting, and related turf repair.

8. The labor, equipment, lifting devices, and quality-control procedures the offeror will use to safely and efficiently perform this work.

The proposal should demonstrate a practical, repeatable, and cemetery-specific method for performing large-volume headstone setting work with minimal risk of damage, misplacement, misalignment, rework, or disruption to cemetery appearance and operations.

Subfactor 1 - Setting New and Replacement Headstones (Evaluation Method) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear, feasible, and low-risk approach for transporting, storing, protecting, setting, replacing, aligning, documenting, and warranting upright headstones.

The evaluation will consider:

1. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates an effective process for preventing headstone damage during transport, storage, handling, and installation.

2. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates reliable controls for ensuring correct site placement, COR coordination, inspection compliance, and timely installation.

3. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates sound installation methods that are likely to result in plumb, level, stable, properly aligned headstones with minimal rework or settlement.

4. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a practical reporting and quality-control approach for daily installation reporting, weekly reporting, issue identification, and corrective action.

5. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates an effective approach for protecting and restoring surrounding turf and fulfilling the required no-cost warranty obligations.

6. The extent to which proposed labor, equipment, lifting methods, sequencing, and oversight reduce risk of breakage, misalignment, misplacement, unsafe handling, or appearance deficiencies.

A more favorable proposal will provide a detailed, cemetery-specific, quality-controlled approach that reduces performance risk and increases confidence in timely, accurate, and damage-free performance.

Subfactor 2 - Turf Renovation & Irrigated Turf (Instructions) The offeror shall describe its technical approach for turf renovation, including vegetation removal, soil preparation, grading, sodding, turf establishment, and restoration of individual gravesites. At a minimum, the proposal shall address:

1. The offeror’s process for complete vegetation removal, including herbicide applications, timing, irrigation sequencing, regrowth treatment, and plant debris removal.

2. The offeror’s approach to soil preparation, including use of soils reports, compost incorporation, soil amendments, fertilizers, tilling depth, and submittals for COR/Pacific District Agronomist review.

3. The offeror’s method for fine grading and preparing a suitable seed/sod bed, including correction of depressions and high spots, finish grades, compaction, and protection of prepared areas.

4. The offeror’s sodding procedures, including sod sourcing, delivery timing, storage/protection, installation sequencing, matching of species/cultivars, fit around markers/headstones, seam treatment, moisture management, and warranty approach.

5. The offeror’s approach for establishing healthy turf within required timeframes, including watering, mowing, hand mowing, fertilization, weed control, and protection of newly installed turf.

6. The offeror’s approach for maintaining irrigated turf at the fixed mowing height of 3.5 inches and weekly mowing frequency, including how it will avoid scalping, overgrowth, or establishment failure.

7. The offeror’s method for achieving satisfactory turf results for both general turf renovation and individual gravesite sodding, including how it will meet the required standards for rooting, color, weed control, coverage, and acceptable bare spot thresholds.

8. The labor, equipment, sequencing, and quality-control measures the offeror will use to minimize establishment failure, erosion, surface irregularities, washout, mismatch, or visible cemetery appearance issues.

The proposal should demonstrate a technically sound and agronomically appropriate approach that is tailored to the cemetery environment and capable of producing uniform, healthy as defined in the Performance Work Statement, well-established turf with minimal rework.

Subfactor 2 - Turf Renovation & Irrigated Turf (Evaluation Method) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a technically sound, agronomically appropriate, and low-risk approach for vegetation removal, soil preparation, grading, sodding, turf establishment, and gravesite restoration.

The evaluation will consider:

1. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a logical and effective sequence for vegetation removal, regrowth control, debris removal, and transition to renovation work.

2. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates understanding of soil preparation requirements, including soils reports, amendments, compost incorporation, fertilizers, tilling depth, and approval submittals.

3. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates sound grading and bed-preparation methods likely to produce uniform finished grades and minimize irregularities, settlement, erosion, or poor sod contact.

4. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates an effective sodding approach, including sod quality, matching of existing turf, handling, installation, moisture management, seam treatment, and protection from drying or failure.

5. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a credible establishment and maintenance approach likely to achieve healthy, well-rooted, even-colored turf within required timeframes and performance standards.

6. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of cemetery-specific appearance requirements, including mowing height, hand mowing near gravesites, and restoration of individual gravesites to an acceptable condition.

7. The extent to which proposed labor, equipment, schedules, and quality controls reduce the risk of turf failure, weed infestation, mismatch, washout, delayed establishment, or visible deficiencies.

A more favorable proposal will provide a detailed and technically credible approach that is likely to result in uniform, healthy, cemetery-appropriate turf with minimal rework and low performance risk.

Subfactor 3 - Irrigation System Maintenance (Instructions) The offeror shall describe its technical approach for maintaining the cemetery irrigation system in an operable condition through preventative maintenance, inspection, monitoring, reporting, timely repair, and specialized servicing. At a minimum, the proposal shall address:

1. The offeror’s overall irrigation maintenance approach, including weekly inspection, monitoring, reporting, leak control, defect identification, inventory management, and repair prioritization.

2. The offeror’s approach to maintaining and servicing irrigation infrastructure and components addressed in the PWS, including, as applicable, pump stations, pump station filters, pressure reducing and lake fill valves, weather sensors, backflow prevention devices, master valves, flow meters, basket strainers, automatic control valves, pressure regulating valves, combination valves/air-vac valves, isolation valves, sprinkler heads, controllers, and related components.

3. The offeror’s method for leak detection, isolation, response, and repair, including how it will meet required response times for visible leaks, landscape mainline/submain leaks, and emergency conditions.

4. The offeror’s approach for maintaining system operability while minimizing flooding, washouts, water waste, overspray, and damage to cemetery grounds and infrastructure.

5. The offeror’s method for developing, maintaining, and using required plans, logs, reports, inventories, maps, tabular inspection reports, and service records.

6. The offeror’s approach for providing qualified technicians, manufacturer-authorized service providers where required, certifications, and specialized support for pump stations, filters, backflow testing, controls, and other specialized equipment.

7. The offeror’s method for maintaining adequate inventory and commonly needed parts to support timely repairs and continuity of operations.

8. The offeror’s approach for Calsense irrigation control system maintenance, software updates, controller inspection, communication checks, threshold programming, and system functionality verification.

9. The offeror’s quality-control procedures for ensuring inspections are meaningful, reports are accurate, repairs are timely, and the irrigation system remains reliable and fully functional.

The proposal should demonstrate a comprehensive and technically credible approach for maintaining a complex cemetery irrigation system with low performance risk and minimal service interruption.

Subfactor 3 - Irrigation System Maintenance (Evaluation Method) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a comprehensive, organized, and low-risk approach for preventative maintenance, inspection, monitoring, reporting, troubleshooting, repair coordination, and specialized irrigation system servicing.

The evaluation will consider:

1. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the irrigation system components and required maintenance activities addressed by the PWS.

2. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a reliable and timely approach for weekly inspections, system monitoring, defect identification, leak control, reporting, and repair response.

3. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a credible preventative maintenance strategy for specialized components such as pump stations, filters, valves, weather sensors, backflow devices, control systems, and related equipment.

4. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates the ability to provide qualified personnel, certifications, manufacturer-authorized support, and specialized technicians where required.

5. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a practical inventory, parts, mapping, recordkeeping, and tabular reporting approach that supports continuity of operations and timely repairs.

6. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates an effective Calsense control system maintenance approach, including software updates, communication checks, threshold programming, and controller functionality.

7. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a low-risk method for minimizing flooding, washouts, water loss, overspray, equipment downtime, and deferred maintenance.

A more favorable proposal will provide a detailed, system-specific, and technically credible approach that supports reliable irrigation performance, timely issue resolution, and low risk of operational disruption.

Subfactor 4 - Pond Services (Instructions) The offeror shall describe its technical approach for irrigation pond/lake/canal maintenance and stormwater pond/wetland maintenance. At a minimum, the proposal shall address:

1. The offeror’s overall pond and water-feature management approach for maintaining ponds, lakes, canals, stormwater ponds, and wetlands in functional condition and free of material accumulations of vegetation, algae, pests, debris, erosion, exposed liner conditions, and safety hazards.

2. The offeror’s approach for maintaining irrigation ponds/lakes/canals, including water levels, fill lines, valves, drains, rip-rap, debris removal, intake/outfall clearing, aeration fountains, submerged aeration systems, and related equipment.

3. The offeror’s method for pond monitoring, testing, treatment, and reporting, including annual water-quality testing, identification of weeds/algae, treatment recommendations, licensed aquatic pesticide application, and coordination of treatment activities.

4. The offeror’s approach for developing and implementing a pond management plan prepared by a licensed and trained aquatic biologist.

5. The offeror’s method for maintaining pond aeration equipment and submerged aeration systems, including preventative maintenance, inspections, repairs, service reports, storm-event checks, and seasonal/winterization requirements.

6. The offeror’s approach for maintaining stormwater ponds and wetland mitigation areas, including vegetation control, invasive species treatment, mowing, debris removal, algae treatment, drainage feature maintenance, and preservation of intended stormwater/wetland function.

7. The offeror’s approach for controlling undesirable insects and mosquito/vector breeding conditions consistent with the PWS.

8. The qualifications, licenses, laboratory/testing resources, subcontractors or specialists, equipment, and quality-control methods the offeror will use for this subfactor.

The proposal should demonstrate a technically sound and environmentally appropriate approach that will maintain water features in safe, functional, and presentable condition with minimal risk of equipment failure, degraded water quality, or regulatory/noncompliance issues

Subfactor 4 - Pond Services (Evaluation Method) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a sound, organized, and low-risk approach for irrigation pond/lake/canal maintenance and stormwater pond/wetland maintenance.

The evaluation will consider:

1. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the functional, environmental, appearance, and safety requirements applicable to the cemetery’s ponds, lakes, canals, stormwater facilities, and wetlands.

2. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a technically sound pond management approach, including water-quality testing, weed/algae identification and treatment, debris removal, aeration maintenance, water level management, and bank/liner protection.

3. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates an effective method for maintaining stormwater ponds and wetlands while preserving intended detention, treatment, and mitigation functions.

4. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a credible approach for use of licensed applicators, accredited laboratory support, aquatic biologist involvement, approvals, and environmentally appropriate treatment methods.

5. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a practical maintenance and reporting approach for fountains, aeration systems, pumps, valves, drains, intake/outfall structures, and storm-event response.

6. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates an effective approach for preventing safety hazards, vector breeding conditions, erosion, excessive growth, equipment failures, or degradation of pond/stormwater function.

A more favorable proposal will provide a detailed, well-coordinated, and environmentally sound approach that reduces operational risk, appearance, safety risk, and regulatory risk.

FACTOR 2 - Past Performance (Instructions):

Offerors shall provide a minimum of three (3) past performance references for contracts performed with the last three (3) years from date of this solicitation. If the offeror does not have three (3) relevant contracts, the offeror shall clearly acknowledge this in their submission and provide an explanation of available experience.

This requirement ensures the Government can accurately assess the depth, breadth, and consistency of the offeror’s performance history and prevents assumptions regarding missing or omitted past performance information.

Provide past performance including:

· Contract number, value, and period of performance

· Scope and relevance

· Offeror’s role

· Point of contact

· Do not submit marketing materials.

Offerors shall submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for each past performance reference provided. The PPQ shall be completed by the customer/end user familiar with the contractor’s performance. PPQs not received by the closing date may not be considered in the evaluation.

FACTOR 2 - Past Performance (Evaluation Method):

Past performance will be evaluated based on recency, relevance, and quality. Only past performance references for contracts performed with the last three (3) years from date of this solicitation will be considered.

The Government may consider - through CPARS, customer feedback, and documented issues - patterns of late performance, quality deficiencies, safety issues, failure to meet contract requirements, or ineffective corrective actions as indicators of increased performance risk.

Relevancy will be assessed based on how closely the prior effort matches the Sacramento Valley National Cemetery requirement in scope, complexity, operational environment, and performance standards. Because this cemetery is very small in developed acreage, acreage alone will not control the relevance assessment. Greater weight will be given to contracts demonstrating similar burial support operations, headstone services, gravesite restoration, precision grounds maintenance in constrained spaces, reporting requirements, and performance in high-visibility or dignity-sensitive environments.

≥ 75% of key workload elements identified in Attachment H (e.g., ≥ 100 developed acres, ≥ 25,000 headstones, and similar multi-system maintenance), AND includes integrated management of multiple service areas.

≥ 50% of key workload elements (e.g., ≥ 70 developed acres or similar combination of acreage and infrastructure), May not include full cemetery-specific services but includes complex grounds systems (e.g., irrigation, drainage, turf, hardscape).

≥ 25% of key workload elements, Typically includes general grounds maintenance but lacks cemetery-specific complexity.

< 25% of key workload elements, or Lacks comparable complexity.

While relevance and recency determine how applicable past performance is to this requirement, performance quality is the primary driver of the Government’s confidence assessment. Confidence ratings reflect the Government’s judgment of the likelihood that the offeror will successfully perform the Sacramento Valley National Cemetery requirement, considering relevancy, recency, and performance quality, with performance quality as the primary driver.

FACTOR 3 – Price (Instructions):

This factor shall be used to assess the fair and reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed price. For this factor, Offerors shall submit their Price Schedule of Services including annual and grand total summaries.

FACTOR 3 – Price (Evaluation Method):

Price will be reviewed for reasonableness and cost-effectiveness. Lower prices will be viewed more favorably, assuming all other evaluation factors are met.

The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced or if the proposed price for the basic requirement or any option exceeds the amount of funding available for any of those requirements. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK SUMMARY

The table below provides a high-level visual summary of the evaluation factors, subfactors, and most favorable ratings achievable under each. This chart is intended to enhance clarity and understanding of the evaluation structure and does not modify, supercede, or replace the evaluation criteria established in the solicitation

Best Possible Ratings

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Most Favorable

(End of provision)