Attachment 2 - NR- Evaluation Factors 4.25.pdf

Attachment 2

FA8601-24-R-0023

25 April 2024

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. PURPOSE

a. The Government will use FAR Part 12.602 Streamlined Evaluation of Offers vs. FAR

15.3 Source Selection to evaluate offers submitted in response to the synopsitation. The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are Technical and Price, as expounded below.

All evaluation factors are equal in importance; however, a proposal is not awardable at any price if, after final evaluation, the Technical factor receives a rating of “Unacceptable." The evaluation does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Award shall be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the synopsitation; (2) that receives a rating of “Acceptable" on the Technical evaluation factor; and (3) that submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and

(2) the fair and reasonableness of the pricing of proposals received.

Rating Description

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirement of the solicitation.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub-factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY:

a. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror's Technical Capability Proposal shall be made. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

b. Each offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the Statements of Work (SOWs) and elsewhere in this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel shall use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals. In evaluating the Mission Capability Proposal, the Government shall use the following evaluation criteria:

(1) Compliance with the requirements of the Statements of Work (SOWs) and this entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the Statements of Work (SOWs) and this entire solicitation.

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the SOWs as applied specifically to each factor/subfactor listed below.

c. The following specific factors and subfactors shall be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable shall render the entire Technical Capability Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it shall not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

d. Technical Capability Evaluation Factors and Sub Factors are as follows:

(1) SUBFACTOR 1: Equipment and Supplies

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a detailed list of all equipment and supplies that will be supplied to fulfill the service requirements listed in the SOW.

Measure of Merit: The measure of merit is met when the offeror submits a proposal that includes a complete list of the size, number, and type of equipment and supplies that demonstrate an adequate understanding of the scope and size service required in the SOW.

(2) SUBFACTOR 2: Staffing/Certifications

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide an appropriate staffing plan in relation to the required services IAW the terms of the SOW.

1. Element 1: Pesticide Applicator License

Description: The element will evaluate the offeror’s certifications in accordance with the licenses required in the SOW.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror provides an Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODOA) license for the following categories:

1. Category 3 - Aquatic Pest Control Certification

2. Category 4 - Forest Pest Control Certification

3. Category 5 - Industrial Vegetation Control Certification

2. Element 2: Arborists License

Description: The element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to have a Certified Arborist(s) on site and evaluate the offeror’s certifications in accordance with the licenses required in the SOW.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror provides an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) license reflecting a level of professional certification in:

1. Surveying hazard trees.

2. Recommending treatment options.

3. Disease/pest identification

4. Pruning recommendations

5. Identifying potential tree planting locations and suggested species for planting across entire installation.

(3) SUBFACTOR 3: Invasive Species Removal

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror's ability to provide their method and approach to removing invasive species.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror submits a proposal illustrating their approach to removing invasive species in accordance with 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.3 in the Statement of Work.

(4) SUBFACTOR 4: Prior Experience

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide prior experience for a minimum of three (3) relevant contracts/jobs. For each relevant contract provided, please provide the following administrative data:

a. Company/Division Name

b. Program Title

c. Contracting Agency

d. Contract Number

e. Type of Contract

f. Dates Performed

g. Contract Value

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal provides sufficient proof of at least three (3) relevant contracts performed within five years of the issue date of the solicitation.

e. The above specified technical factors/subfactors will be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal. Any subfactor judged unacceptable may render the entire Technical Capability Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is “unacceptable”, the Contracting Officer shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate the basis for the determination.

3. PRICE:

a. Price proposals shall be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

(1) Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with solicitation clause FAR 52.212-1 and Attachment 1—Additional Instructions to Offerors.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government shall analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the option prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(3) Fair and Reasonableness: The offeror's Price proposal shall be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-l(b) or DFARS 215.371-3 if only one offer is received.

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government shall add the total price for all 5 years of the Blanket Purchase Agreement

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

a. The Government will initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of a proposal including whether any proposal deficiency can be rectified and whether any uncertainty can be resolved. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government.

b. If pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, and in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable; the Contracting Officer (CO) may open discussions and may continue discussions as long as, in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable.

c. For the purpose of conducting discussions, if the Government rates the Technical factor as

“Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable.”

At the conclusion of discussions, if the Technical factor is rated “Unacceptable” or if any deficiency or uncertainty relative to the proposal has not been unresolved, evaluation of that proposal will be considered final. The entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

d. For the purpose of award without discussions, if pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, notwithstanding that any deficiency may be rectifiable or any uncertainty may be resolvable, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

e. The Government reserves the right to create a competitive range if it is in the best interest of the Government.

f. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.