Attachment 08 SECTION L and M for CSC-23302.pdf

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERRORS

DOCUMENTATION OF TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

To be rated Acceptable, the Contractor shall submit with its offer at least Three (3) previously awarded and completed contracts of similar size and scope that are deemed to meet recency, relevancy and quality requirements. For this acquisition, recency refers to contracts awarded and completed within the last three (3) years as of the closing date of the solicitation. Relevancy refers to contracts of similar size and scope to this acquisition as described in the PWS. Quality refers to contracts that were satisfactorily completed within their designated periods of performance. All submissions shall include the following information:

Offerors should identify no less than THREE (3), and no more than FIVE (5), previously-awarded, and completed landscaping and snow removal contracts, which were issued by either:

Federal, State, or Local Government Agencies; and/or Private Organizations. To be evaluated as Relevant Past Performance, the contracts submitted by offerors must involve:

● Landscaping and snow removal work as a prime contractor;

● A dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than $250,000.00;

● Work that was 100% completed within a time period of no more than THREE (3) years prior to the date of submitting this proposal. If the work is still incomplete, or was completed more than three years prior to the date of submitting this proposal, it will not be deemed relevant.

For each of the submitted Relevant Past Performance contracts, provide the following information:

(a) The name of the contract, and the contract ID number;

(b) The name of the contracting agency or organization the contract was awarded by;

(c) The date of the contract award and the contract award amount in dollars;

(d) The date of the contract completion, and the final contract amount, in dollars;

(e) A brief description of the contract scope of work; and

(f) Identification of at least one point-of-contact at the organization that awarded the submitted contract, including: the name of the point-of-contact; their current mailing address; phone number; and email address (if applicable).

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

To be technically acceptable, the contractor shall submit the following as part of their proposal:

Offerors must provide a written technical management plan to demonstrate their understanding and capabilities of completing all work in accordance with the Performance Work Statement, specification, and project drawings. The plan must identify all work that can be accomplished with in-house resources and demonstrate that they are capable of obtaining any project requirements that cannot be self-performed. The technical management plan must identify how the offeror will directly superintend the work, perform project and quality control management, comply with safety and environmental regulations; any project requirements that cannot be self-performed must be identified (e.g. subcontractors list and manufacturers of key material components for the project) The offeror shall provide this information with their company proposal submission.

Proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with procedures outlined in Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 15.101-2 for the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Offer.

PRICE PROPOSAL

Offerors must complete the pricing in Section B of the solicitation and the attached pricing sheets. Offerors must provide a price for all CLINs/Option Years.

3. BASIS OF AWARD

The Government will make the award based on the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. Note that offers that are not technically acceptable cannot be selected, regardless of price.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Basis for Award and Summary Evaluation Factors.

(1) Proposals will first be evaluated on the basis of technical acceptability, which will be determined by evaluating both the Technical and Past Performance factors. The evaluation factors are: Technical Experience, Past Performance, and Price.

(2) The technical non-price factor is Technical Experience. This factor addresses the contractor’s capability and provide evidence that they can perform the requirements described in the PWS.

(3) Past Performance information will be provided by the Contractors to show their history of successfully accomplishing PWS tasks and to determine the quality of their relevant past performance. Assessment for this area will be subjective based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Evaluation will investigate information furnished by the contractor to ensure they have consistently demonstrated a commitment to administration, customer satisfaction, timely delivery, and quality goods and services in prior contracts of similar scope and complexity. This is a matter of judgment and will be a subjective assessment based on investigative findings.

(4) Only the proposals found to be technically acceptable will be further evaluated for award.

This means a proposal is “acceptable” for all factors.

(5) Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness.

(6) Contract Award will be made to the responsible vendor that offers the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal.

Evaluation factors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant RFP requirements. They are the uniform baseline against which each offeror’s proposal is evaluated allowing the Government to make a determination of acceptability. The TWO (2) evaluation factors for determination of technical acceptability consist of:

1. Past Performance; and

2. Technical Capability;

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE. Past Performance shall be used as an evaluation factor within the LPTA selection process.

(1) Aspects of Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance requirements.

This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

The vendor shall identify its past performance information as requested in the solicitation. The basis of this assessment is from two aspects: 1) Recency and Relevancy and 2) Quality of Historical Contracts. In rating past performance, the following will be considered:

(a) Recency and Relevancy. The first aspect is to evaluate whether the vendor’s present / past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration shall be given to what aspects of a vendor’s contract history would give the most confidence that the vendor will satisfy the current procurement. Common elements of relevancy include similarity of service / support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontract / teaming.

b) Quality of Historical Contracts: The second aspect is to determine how well the vendor performed on present / past contracts. The past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the vendor performed those past contracts and includes history of successful completion of projects; history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables; commitment to customer satisfaction and history of staying on schedule and within budget. Past Performance information may be obtained from Past Performance Questionnaires, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance / Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other sources available to the Government. The Past Performance evaluation process does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on present / past contracts.

(2) Past Performance Evaluation Rating. Past Performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table 1.

Table 1. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable (A) Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

See Note Below.

Unacceptable (U) Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In accordance with FAR Part 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable” (DOD Evaluation Guide, Section 3.1.3.3.). Such offerors may submit relevant past performance information regarding: predecessor companies; key personnel who have relevant experience; or subcontractors that will be performing major or critical aspects of this requirement; provided that such information is relevant to the construction in this solicitation. Offerors may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective action, which may be considered by the Government. The Government also reserves the right to consider past performance information from all available sources, in addition to any information submitted by offerors.

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY. The term “technical,” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. More than one “technical” factor can be used and titled to match the specific evaluation criteria appropriate for the RFP. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The evaluation team shall evaluate the offeror’s proposal against the minimum requirements established by the RFP to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.