Attachment 3 - Evaluation Factors.pdf

Attachment 3 Evaluation Factors

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The Government will use FAR Part 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures vs. FAR 15.3

Source Selection to evaluate offers submitted in response to the solicitation. The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are Technical Capability and Price, as expounded below. All evaluation factors are equal in importance; however, a proposal is unawardable 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 will be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (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.

a. 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 Mission 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 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 proposals. In evaluating the Mission

Capability Proposal, the Government will use the following evaluation criteria:

(1) Compliance with the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

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

c. The following specific factors and subfactors will be evaluated in the Technical Capability

Proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable will 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 will 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:

SUBFACTOR 1: Quality Control Plan

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal has included quality control procedures that demonstrate adequate understanding of the PWS requirements. It must be determined workable and acceptable with only minor clarification. Offeror must include the descriptions of the duties and responsibilities of the Quality Control Inspectors. Proposal must also show minimum requirements of the Quality Control Plan.

SUBFACTOR 2: Scheduling Methodology

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a realistic work schedule and exhibits an understanding of work by addressing all requirements listed in the

PWS to include the Work Load Data.

SUBFACTOR 3: Personnel

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal has included resumes of immediate supervisors assigned to the performance of the contract. Resumes shall contain, at a minimum, the following: name, technical experience and any certifications they have relating to this type of work (EPA, ODA, etc).

Offerors must also include the company names and resumes of all potential subcontractors to be used.

SUBFACTOR 4: Licenses

Offerors must provide proof that at least one employee meets the licensing requirement.

Measure of Merit:

An acceptable rating is met when the offeror provides proof they have an International Society of

Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist services capable of:

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.

SUBFACTOR 5: Equipment and Supplies

Offeror must provide a statement that they own or can obtain all equipment and supplies necessary to complete required work in all paragraphs of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal includes the appropriate size, appropriate number, and appropriate type/description of equipment and supplies to be used and maintained in the performance of the contract.

SUBFACTOR 6: Prior Experience

Offeror must provide a narrative that details the type of work relating to natural resources management such as urban and non-urban tree removal, urban and non-urban tree planting, habitat restoration, land clearing, herbicide application, general grounds maintenance, and/or specific equipment utilization.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s Technical Capability Proposal includes documentation that clearly demonstrates that the offeror has performed services, within five years of the effective date of the solicitation, that were similar in type and scale to those called for in the PWS.

e. The above specific 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: Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, significantly unbalanced or contains otherwise unbalanced pricing that poses an unacceptable risk to the Government, or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

(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 will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different

Contract Line Items Numbers (CLINs) 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 will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), Price analysis for commercial and non-commercial items. For additional information, reference FAR 31.201-3, Determining Reasonableness.

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will add the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as:

(i) The sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for CLINs 0001 through 4007 for the base performance period and option periods 1 – 4.

The table below illustrates calculation of a proposal’s TEP using the methodology described above. The table is provided for illustration purposes only. Prices reflected in the table are notional and in no way reflect the actual value of the requirement or an actual evaluation of proposed prices submitted in response to this solicitation or any other solicitation for the same or similar requirements.

Period of Performance

POP Length CLINS (Example) Notional Proposed Price (Example)

Base 12 Months 0001-0007 $100,000

Option 1 12 Months 1001-1007 $105,000

Option 2 12 Months 2001-2007 $110,000

Option 3 12 Months 3001-3007 $115,000

Option 4 12 Months 4001-4007 $120,000

Total Evaluated Price $550,000

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.

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.