Attach 3 Evaluation Factors.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

BASIS OF AWARD:

Award will be made to the lowest priced responsive proposal that meets or exceeds both technical and past performance standards. All proposals received prior to the established suspense date and time will be ranked from lowest to highest by overall total evaluated price (TEP). The TEP will be derived by the total of all CLINs inclusive of options and the six month extension services. Once all proposals are ranked by price, a technical evaluation will begin on the lowest priced offeror.

Once a technically acceptable proposal is found the selection process will move to the past performance evaluation. The government will repeat this process until three technically acceptable proposals are found; and at least one proposal is deemed to have “substantial confidence” Performance Confidence Assessment rating. At that point a tradeoff analysis between price and performance confidence will be conducted and the Government will make a determination as to the best value to the Government. If no contractor’s past performance is rated “substantial confidence” the Government will evaluate all technically acceptable proposals and will make a determination as to the best value to the Government.

Proposal Organization

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE COPIES PAGE LIMIT

I Executive Summary & Technical

1 Digital Copy on a Compact Disk, emailed proposals will not be accepted.

25, one-sided

II Past Performance 1 Digital Copy on a Compact Disk, emailed proposals will not be accepted.

Maximum 3 contracts/questionnaires, 3 pages per contract listed.

III Cost/Price 1 Digital Copy on a Compact Disk, emailed proposals will not be accepted.

No Limit

EVALUATION FACTOR 1:

1.0 Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror on its entire proposed technical approach for compliance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Offerors are required to submit the following as part of their technical approach (cannot be more than 25 one-sided pages; must be 12pt Font, Times New Roman and encompass section 1.0 of this document). All Offerors must include the following:

1.1 Mission Capability: The offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and elsewhere in this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel will use their technical skills, knowledge, and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposal. The following specific factors and sub-factors will be evaluated in the Mission Capability Proposal

1.1.1 Invasive Plant Species Eradication and Control. The offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and the technical capability to meet the Government’s performance requirements in the following areas of the PWS [Para 1.1 through 1.3.3].

1.1.1.1 The proposal includes how the offeror will accomplish herbicide applications to control growth of invasive species within treatment areas identified in the PWS. If these services will be accomplished or provided by a subcontractor, please describe in detail how the subcontractor will accomplish the work and how completion of this work will be verified by the general contractor, documented and reported to the Government.

1.1.1.2 The proposal includes a description of the technical approach to accomplishing mechanical vegetation clearing as identified in the PWS. If these services will be accomplished or provided by a subcontractor, please describe in detail how the subcontractor will accomplish the work and how completion of this work will be verified by the general contractor, documented and reported to the Government.

1.1.2 Aquatic Invasive Species Control in lakes, ponds and drainage canals.

The offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and the technical capability to meet the Government’s performance requirements in the following areas of the PWS [PWS para 1.4].

1.1.2.1 The proposal includes how the offeror will accomplish herbicide application of invasive and nuisance aquatic vegetation, including, but not limited to, hydrilla, water hyacinth, and cattails and maintain control of these species in our freshwater lakes, storm water ponds, and drainage canals during the period of performance. If these services will be accomplished or provided by a subcontractor, please describe in detail how the subcontractor will accomplish the work and how completion of this work will be verified by the general contractor, documented and reported to the Government.

1.1.3 Native Vegetation Plantings. The offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and the technical capability to meet the Government’s performance requirements in the following areas of the PWS [PWS para 1.5].

1.1.3.1 The proposal includes how the offeror will accomplish planting of nursery grown, native plant material IAW PWS para 1.5. If these services will be accomplished or provided by a subcontractor, please describe in detail how the subcontractor will accomplish the work and how completion of this work will be verified by the general contractor, documented and reported to the Government.

1.1.4 GPS & GIS Documentation. The offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and the technical capability to meet the Government’s performance requirements in the following areas of the PWS [PWS para 1.6].

1.1.4.1 The proposal includes how the offeror will accomplish the collection of GPS data to document areas where the invasive vegetation control treatment has occurred and how that GPS data will be provided to MacDill for incorporation into our GIS database IAW PWS para 1.6. If these services will be accomplished or provided by a subcontractor, please describe in detail how the subcontractor will accomplish the work and how completion of this work will be verified by the general contractor, documented and reported to the Government.

1.1.5 Additional Contract Requirements. The offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and the technical capability to meet the Government’s performance requirements in the following areas of the PWS [PWS para 1.7].

1.1.5.1 A detailed project coordination approach that demonstrates an understanding of pesticide usage reporting and pesticide applicator requirements and the technical capability to meet the Government’s performance requirements.

1.1.5.1.1 The proposal includes an acknowledgement that pesticides will only be procured from the Armed Forces Pest Management Board Standard Pesticides List. Alternatively, the proposal includes a description of the process that will be followed to obtain approval of a non-stock listed product by the Air Force Pest Management Consultant.

1.1.5.1.2 The proposal includes a description of how pesticide usage data will be recorded on the DD Form 1532, Pest Management Report, on a daily basis and reported to the Government weekly as described in the PWS para 1.7.1 and Table 3. If these services will be accomplished or provided by a subcontractor, please describe in detail how the subcontractor will accomplish the work and how completion of this work will be verified by the general contractor, documented and reported to the Government.

1.1.5.1.3 The proposal includes acknowledgment that pesticides will only be applied by individuals with a current Commercial Pesticide Applicators License provided by the State of Florida. A Natural Areas endorsement is required for terrestrial chemical applications and an Aquatic endorsement is required for aquatic chemical applications. Proof of licensure will be provided to the Government as described in the PWS para 1.7.2, Table 3, and para 4.3.

1.1.5.1.4 The proposal includes acknowledgement that any incidents involving a state or federally listed threatened or endangered species requires that the 6 CES/CEIE be notified immediately as described in PWS para 1.7.4.

1.1.5.1.5 The proposal includes acknowledgment that the contractor will prepare a general work plan before starting work for each delivery order as described in PWS para 1.7.5 and Table 3.

1.1.5.2 Quality Control Plan (QCP) that adequately meets the requirements and addresses all areas covered under Quality Control.

1.1.5.2.1 The proposal includes procedures that the contractor will utilize to evaluate the quality of their habitat restoration services and how quality control will be report to the government as described in PWS para 1.7.3 and Table 3.

1.1.5.2.2 The proposal includes a description of corrective measures that will be employed to improve work quality when Performance Objectives are not achieved as described in PWS para 1.7.3 and Table 3.

1.2 Staffing Approach: Each offeror shall provide a detailed and effective staffing plan. The staffing plan shall represent the offeror’s approach to perform PWS tasks by identifying necessary personnel resources. The Staffing Approach must include the following:

1.2.1 Personnel Matrix.

1.2.1.1 Offeror shall provide a detailed and effective staffing plan containing a personnel matrix which identifies the personnel resources to perform the PWS tasks. The plan shall provide a logical approach that ensures timely support IAW the PWS and shall specifically address the following requirements.

1.2.1.2 The contractor shall submit its plan on how the work will be accomplished pursuant to the PWS. The plan shall identify the personnel, tools, and other resources the contractor will use to complete the work tasks identified in the PWS.

1.2.1.3 The plan must include an organizational chart depicting projected staffing and wiring diagrams for work centers.

1.2.1.4 The plan shall describe the process and methods used to recruit and retain qualified personnel needed to perform the work tasks described in the PWS.

The plan shall include:

1.2.1.4.1 Recruiting and retention procedures, vetting, including security clearances, and recruiting incentives. The plan shall include the time it takes to recruit and replace employees lost for any reason during the performance of the contract.

1.2.1.4.2 Retention policy and incentives, including raises, bonuses, and advancement.

1.2.1.4.3 Staffing risk mitigation efforts. The plan shall include the process the company will employ to mitigate contract performance risk associated with personnel turnover, labor disputes, and meeting contract security clearance requirements.

1.2.2 Management Plan.

1.2.2.1 This plan will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror has developed a strategy for the effective and efficient management of contract activities to successfully fulfill the requirements of the PWS. The Management Plan must specifically address:

1.2.2.2 Training Program

1.2.2.3 A summary of your Quality Control process

EVALUATION FACTOR 2:

2.0 Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror on its entire Past Performance history.

Offerors are required to submit the following as part of their Past Performance (must be 12pt Font, Times New Roman and encompass section 2.0 of this document, with exception of the Questionnaires which shall be sent directly to the procuring office). The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. All Offerors are required to submit Past Performance and include the following:

2.1 The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data and general trends in contractor’s performance will be evaluated as part of past performance. 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 RFP. Past Performance Criteria includes:

2.1.1 Provide a list of three (3), of the most relevant contracts performed for government agencies within the last five (5) years. Information shall include company or agency contact information, address and the nature of the contract performance.

2.1.2 Questionnaires. The Contractor shall submit questionnaires to three (3) references for completion to be returned to the Government POC identified within the RFP. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the questionnaire is completed and returned no later than the closing date of this RFP. Greater consideration will be given to Offeror’s who submit three recent (within 5 years) and “very relevant” questionnaire.

2.1.3 If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of three (3) past and present relevant contracts.

2.1.4 Subcontractor and Joint Venture Consent: Past Performance information pertaining to a subcontractor or Joint Venture cannot be disclosed to the prime Offeror without consent. Provide with the quote a letter from all subcontractors or Joint Ventures that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

EVALUATION FACTOR 3:

3.0 Price. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the quoted total price offered by the contractor. For the purpose of evaluation, and to establish reasonableness and affordability, the Government will compare the Offerors quoted price against the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), historical data from previous similar efforts; or any other pertinent information. There is no page limit for this section. All Offerors are required to submit Price information to include:

3.1 Quoted prices shall be fully burdened inclusive of all direct and indirect costs (e.g., profit, fringe benefits, salary, indirect rates). Round all prices up to the nearest penny.

3.2 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).

4.0 EVALUATION PROCESS:

4.1 Step 1: Evaluate price reasonableness of all proposals, and then rank by total evaluated price. The Government shall rank all offers by price (including options) from lowest to highest.

4.2 Step 2: Evaluate lowest priced Offeror for technical acceptability. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical approach on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. If one sub factor is determined to be unacceptable, the entire proposal will be deemed unacceptable. If the lowest priced Offeror is determined “Technically Acceptable”, the evaluation team will proceed to rate the lowest priced Offerors past performance. The lowest priced Offeror’s technical approach shall be rated in accordance with the following:

4.2.1 Approach for Evaluation under the Technical Approach Factor. The

Technical Approach evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The Technical Approach criteria will receive one of the ratings described in Table 1 – Technical Approach Ratings, excerpted below.

4.3 Should the lowest priced Offeror be rated “Technically Unacceptable,” evaluation of the next lowest priced Offeror will continue in Step 2, until technical acceptability can be determined, at that point the evaluation team will proceed to rate the technically acceptable Offeror’s past performance.

4.4 The government will repeat this process until three technically acceptable proposals are found; and at least one proposal is deemed to have “substantial confidence” Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

Table 1 –Technical Approach Ratings

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4.5 Step 3 - Evaluate technically acceptable Offeror’s past performance. Once a technically acceptable proposal is found, the selection process will move to the past performance. The government will repeat this process until three technically acceptable proposals are found; and at least one proposal is deemed to have “substantial confidence” past performance rating. At that point a tradeoff analysis between price and performance confidence will be conducted and the Government will make a determination as to the best value to the Government. If no contractor’s past performance is rated “substantial confidence,” the Government will evaluate all proposals and will make a determination as to the best value to the Government.

4.5.1 Approach for Evaluation under the Past Performance Factor. With respect to the

Performance Confidence/Past Performance factor, the Government will assign a rating to the Offeror’s past performance that reflects a judgment as to the level of confidence that the work described in the Performance Work Statement will be successfully performed based on the quality of work reflected in the record of relevant past performance. An Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will be assigned an “N/A” performance quality rating.

4.5.2 The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Table 4: Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information contained in the Offeror’s submittals will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past five (5) years. Any single reference that fails this condition may be deemed to be “Not Recent” and may result in an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating lower than “Substantial Confidence”.

Relevancy Ratings: The Government will use the following relevancy definitions/ratings when assessing relevant past performance (Table 2). To obtain a “Relevant” rating, offerors must describe in detail how closely the provided services performed under identified contracts relate to the Performance Work Statement. Failure to provide required detail will result in a rating less than “Relevant”. References evaluated as less than “Relevant” may result in an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of less than “Substantial Confidence”.

Table 2: Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e. Reference describes experience in fulfilling same market segment and describes in detail how closely the provided services performed under identified contracts relate to the Performance Work Statement).

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e. Reference does not describe experience in fulfilling same market segment and/or provides no detail resembling how closely the provided services performed under those contracts relate to the Performance Work Statement).

Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance reference reviewed, a Performance Quality Rating (PQR) will be assigned by the performance raters in accordance with the Performance Quality Ratings (Table 3).

More relevant and more recent past performance may be weighed more heavily than less relevant less recent past performance.

Table 3. Performance Quality Ratings

CODE PERFORMANCE LEVEL

Exceptional

EXCEPTIONAL – The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

VERY GOOD – The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

SATISFACTORY – The contractor’s performance met contractual requirements.

The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or was resolved satisfactorily.

Marginal

MARGINAL – Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflected a serious problem for which the Contractor did not yet identify corrective actions or the Contractor’s proposed actions appeared marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contained serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appeared, or were, ineffective.

N/A NOT APPLICABLE – Unable to provide a performance level.

The Government will use the following definitions/ratings in Table 4 when making an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA). Below are the definitions and evaluation process that the government will utilize:

Table 4: Performance Confidence Assessment 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 Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the 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 Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the 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 required effort.

Factor 3 - Price

Price Analysis will be conducted. Proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness, balance, and completeness. The proposed price will be evaluated for the entire effort, inclusive of all options.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Some of those techniques are, but not limited to, comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and/or comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate. Price must be determined fair and reasonable.

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

Award will be made to the Offeror providing an offer that is deemed most advantageous to the Government whose technical proposal has been determined to be “Acceptable” and by trading off Past Performance against Price. Past Performance will be significantly more important than Price.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. The Government will rank all offers according to price, including any option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the pricing schedule by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to confirm the extended amount for each.

B. The Government will begin evaluation at the lowest priced proposal and shall evaluate the technical proposal on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror’s technical proposal is determined to be unacceptable the offer will no longer be considered for award and the Government will continue evaluation (in order by price) of the next proposal.

C. After the Government determines an offeror’s technical proposal to be acceptable, past performance shall be evaluated and assigned an adjectival rating based on the overall Performance Confidence Assessment.

D. The government will repeat this process until three technically acceptable proposals are found and at least one proposal is deemed to have a “substantial confidence” Performance Confidence Assessment rating. At that point a tradeoff analysis between price and performance confidence will be conducted and the Government will make a determination as to the best value to the Government. If no contractor’s past performance is rated “substantial confidence” the Government will evaluate all proposals and will make a determination as to the best value to the Government.

E. Award will be made to the Offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that they will best meet or exceed the requirements and provide affordability. This may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced offer, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer determines that the past performance of the higher-priced offer outweighs the price difference. While the entire evaluation team strives for maximum objectivity; the selection process is subjective by nature and professional judgment is implicit throughout the tradeoff process. Ultimately, the award will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal, based upon the evaluation criteria, represents the best value to the Government.

F. Award may be made without discussions with Offerors (except communications conducted for the purpose of minor clarification). Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a technical, past performance and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. When discussions/negotiations occur, each participating Offeror shall be given an opportunity to revise their proposal to reflect any changes that may have resulted from the discussions/negotiations. The Contracting Officer will award the contract to the Offeror offering the best value to the Government, based on either the initial or a revised proposal.