A05_-_Wildfire_Noxious_Weed_Trt_BPA_Evaluation_Factors.docx
DOCX document 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- BDO BLM BPA WILDFIRE NOXIOUS WEED TRT Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140L2625Q0008
About this file
This is an Evaluation Factors document for a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) for wildfire noxious weed treatment services issued by the Bureau of Land Management Idaho Region. The government intends to make one or multiple BPA awards without discussions based on five evaluation factors.
The evaluation factors include: (1) Pesticide Applicator Certification requiring current Idaho Professional Applicator's License with Agricultural Herbicide and Right-of-Way Herbicide categories; (2) Herbicide Application Equipment including details of vehicles, pack animals, and sprayer configurations; (3) Past Experience requiring three years of herbicide application in rangeland settings with demonstrated proficiency in map reading, weed identification, and equipment operation; (4) Past Performance requiring satisfactory ratings on similar projects with verifiable references; and (5) Price, which will be evaluated for reasonableness but not rated. Each non-price factor will be rated as either Technically Acceptable or Not Technically Acceptable based on meeting minimum standards.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| B03_-_Wage_Determination_Payette__Washington__Adams__Elmore__Valey.pdf | ||
| Sol_140L2625Q0008.pdf | ||
| A06_-_Lava.pdf | ||
| A06_-_Paddock.pdf | ||
| B03_-_Wage_Determination_Ada__Boise__Canyon__Gem__Owyhee.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD
BDO BLM Wildfire Noxious Weed Treatment Blank Purchase Agreement
BASIS OF AWARD
This solicitation will result in the award of one (1) or multiple Blanket Purchase Agreement contracts. The government intends to award, without discussion, to responsible offeror(s) submitting a proposal. Proposals are evaluated for Pesticide Applicator Certification, equipment configuration, past experience, past performance, and price.
Contractors shall submit a proposal package detailing their ability to meet each evaluation factor below.
2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD
2.1 Evaluation Factor No. 1 - Pesticide Applicator Certification in the State of Idaho
Minimum Acceptable Standard for this factor: Offerors and all Contractor Applicators shall hold a current Idaho Professional Applicator’s License with minimum category ratings of AH Agricultural Herbicide and RW Right-of-Way Herbicide.
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| Technically Acceptable |
| Meeting or exceeding the minimum acceptability level. |
| Not Technically Acceptable |
| Not meeting the minimum acceptability level. |
2.2 Evaluation Factor No. 2 - Herbicide Application equipment
Minimum Acceptable Standard for this factor: Offerors shall list available herbicide application equipment relevant to each line item for which a bid was submitted including vehicle and/or pack animal type and configuration where applicable. For example, equipment could include backpack sprayer, OHV with mounted spot or boom sprayer, vehicle with mounted spot or boom sprayer, tractor with mounted boom sprayer, or pack animal-mounted sprayers.
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| Technically Acceptable |
| Meeting or exceeding the minimum acceptability level for configuration to meet each line item. |
| Not Technically Acceptable |
| Not meeting the minimum acceptability level. |
2.3 Evaluation Factor No. 3 - Past Experience
Minimum Acceptable Standard for this factor: Offerors shall have and demonstrate three (3) years of required experience in herbicide application in rangeland settings and provide resumes listing information of key personnel. Identify proficiency in map reading, noxious and invasive weed identification, and vehicle/pack animal and equipment operation.
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| Technically Acceptable |
| Meeting or exceeding the minimum acceptability level. |
| Not Technically Acceptable |
| Not meeting the minimum acceptability level. |
2.4 Evaluation Factor No. 4, Past Performance
Minimum Acceptable Standard for this factor: Successful past performance on recent similar type projects where the final performance rating was Satisfactory (or comparable) or higher. Provide references, including contact name and valid phone number, that will be utilized to verify work performance.
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| Technically Acceptable |
| Meeting or exceeding the minimum acceptability level. |
| Not Technically Acceptable |
| Not meeting the minimum acceptability level. |
2.5 Evaluation Factor No. 5, Price. Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness but not rated.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .