Amendment 01 AG-04R3-S-10-0013 Attachment 2.doc

Amendment 01

AG-04R3-S-10-0013

Attachment 2

Amended Solicitation bid Form

PRICE

24.AMOUNT

Umatilla National Forest Stand Exams, Reforestation/Timber Stand Improvement Stocking Surveys, and Fuel (Planar Intercept) Surveys

PRICING MUST BE SUBMITTED ON ALL ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED RESPONSIVE TO THE SOLICITATION. Please provide the total number of plots for 1A through 2D your company could complete if awarded (Fill in: ______________). Additionally, please estimate yearly plot capacity maximums, assume “Extensive” protocols are required (Fill in: ___________).

QUICK PLOTS

With Fuel Photo series added:

EXTENSIVE PLOTS

With Fuel Photo series added:

With Planar Intercept (Brown’s Protocol) Fuel Inventory added:

See section F for delivery schedule for above Items

Scenario Items:

Refer to Section L under Technical Approach for Item Scenarios to price Items listed below. Odering may include combinations of stand exam and or fuels data to be collected at the same time or as stand alone items.

Sub Item

Note: For those Exams and Planar Intercept Exams described in the secario, please provide a price estimate. This will be used to establish a pool of contractors to compete future Task Orders. Refer to section L for insrtuctions.

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM CONTRACT AMOUNTS (FEB 1988)

During the period specified in FAR clause 52.216-18 ORDERING, the Government shall place orders totaling a minimum of $2,500.00 but not in excess of $999,999.00

M-4. EVALUATION CRITERIA

General. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis that the following technical factors are in descending order of importance. When combined, all non price evaluation factors are approximately equal to cost or price.

1. Technical Proposal. A firm’s Technical Proposal will be evaluated based upon their technical approach to the Performance Work Statement, relevant past performance and the related qualifications of the personnel proposed. The sub-factors are all of equal value.

A.

Relevant Past Performance. Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an offeror, as an organization, has: (1) satisfied its customers, and (2) complied with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Government will inquire about the following elements, which are all of equal importance in relation to each other, (1) quality of the offeror’s work; (2) customer satisfaction; (3) timeliness of the Firm during performance and the final completion of the project; and (4) overall business relations. Each offeror will be evaluated on their performance under existing and prior contracts of a similar nature.

(1) Quality of Services: Demonstrates ability to perform services similar to those required in this solicitation. Contractor demonstrates conformance to good standards of workmanship.

(2) Customer Satisfaction: Satisfaction of end users with the Contractor's completed products and services.

(3) Timeliness of performance: Compliance with delivery schedules; reliability; responsiveness to technical direction, no assessment of liquidated damages.

(4) Business relations: Effective management; ability to manage projects involving subcontracts; working relationship with the Contracting Officer and technical representatives; reasonable/cooperative behavior; flexibility; effective contractor recommended solutions; businesslike concern for Government's interests.

The Government may research offeror performance on any federal, state, local, and commercial contract performance of the offeror that is known to the Government, but not included on the submitted Performance Information. Additionally, personal experience and evaluator knowledge of offeror performance may be utilized. The Government is not obligated to request additional information and in the absence of requested information, offerors may be rated deficient.

The Government will consider the relevance of past performance information obtained in relation to the scope of this procurement with respect to both a similar efforts, and the length and scope, number, complexity, and diversity of contracts completed by the firm.

Offerors with past performance data will be evaluated in the same manner as all other evaluation factors; however, those offerors with no past performance data will treated as an unknown performance risk and neither be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably. Therefore, offerors will receive credit for good past performance, lose credit for poor past performance, and will neither receive nor lose credit for no relevant past performance. Contractors that fail to submit past performance information will not be considered any further.

B. Key Personnel. The evaluators will conduct an appraisal of the offeror’s key personnel’s knowledge, experience, and qualifications to successfully and independently perform common stand exams, use of field PDRs, and can properly identify plant association indicator plants and their use in the determination of plant associations or habitat types. Offerors that do not provide information on their key personnel will not be considered any further.

C. Technical Approach. The firm’s methods and schedule for completing the scenario work items listed Section L. The evaluation of this scenario will be based upon the firm’s ability to accomplish the listed activities indentifying procedures, equipment and scheduling needs anticipated for this project.

*A Contractor would be highly rated under Relevant Past Performance if, in the last three years, the Contractor has completed in a timely manner, with a pay range of 90% or higher, with high customer satisfaction/business relations in specific common stand exam contracts that are similar in nature and complexity with the requirements of this solicitation.

*A Contractor would be highly rated under Key Personnel if the key personnel listed have been involved with at least three common stand exam contracts, have used field PDRs for this type of work at least three times, and have knowledge and experience in the identification of plant associations indicator plants and their use in the determination of plant associations or habitat types.

*A Contractor would be highly rated under Technical Approach if they are able to demonstrate the ability to complete the set tasks with a high degree of skill and a short time period through the deployment of proven data gathering technologies and efficient highly productive work standards.

2. Price Evaluation Criterion. The degree of importance of the price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based, or when the price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government. Award(s) will not be made if the Contracting Officer determines that the price is not reasonable.