Attachment_No__9_-_Evaluation.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior Solicitation No. 140D0422R0077

Source Selection Information – FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Addendum to Federal Acquisition Regulation Clause 52.212‐2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

1 Evaluation Process A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) composed of U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Air Force, U.S.

Space Force personnel, and, as necessary, Government technical advisors will conduct the evaluation.

The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors. The SSEB will evaluate proposals, using the factors and evaluation criteria described in this section.

1.1 Basis of Award

The Government will award an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) firm fixed‐price contract and initial Task Order to the Offeror whose proposal, conforms to the Solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and has been determined to be most advantageous to the Government through trade‐off analysis, non‐ price and price and other factors considered. The tradeoff process will be used to obtain the best value for the Government to fulfill this requirement. The Government will select the best value offer, based upon an integrated assessment of both price and non‐price factors to include Technical Approach, Management Approach, Relevant Past and Present Performance, and Price. The evaluation will include an assessment of all stated terms, conditions, and all other information required in this solicitation, and a determination that the successful Offeror is deemed responsible.

Individually, Factors 1 and 2 are significantly more important than Factors 3 and 4. All evaluation factors, other than cost (Factors 1, 2 and 3), when combined, are significantly more important than price (Factor 4). Award will be made on a Best Value Full Trade‐off basis and the source selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3. The award will also be based on the best overall proposal determined to be the most beneficial to the Government with the appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors. As a basis for award, trade‐offs between price and non‐price factors are permitted. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. However, the degree of importance of a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in the non‐cost factors. The greater the equality of proposals within the non‐cost factors, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value to the Government. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror with a deficiency as defined in FAR 15.001. The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Management Approach Factor 3: Relevant Past and Present Performance Factor 4: Price

Negotiations are anticipated, but the government reserves the right not to hold discussions.

The evaluation will consider the proposals based on the following:

ID/IQ Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Day One Services Task Order (Fence‐to‐Fence F2F PWS)

Solicitation No. 140D0422R0077 – Environmental Services Contract

Evaluation Criteria

Source Selection Information – FAR 2.101 and 3.104

1.1.1 Proposal Volumes and Evaluation Factors

The proposals will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the proposal volumes listed below and against the following evaluation factors:

Proposal Volumes:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Management Approach Factor 3: Relevant Past and Present Performance Factor 4: Price

The evaluation will consider the ID/IQ contract proposals and the proposals for the initial task order (F2F). However, as specified below, certain parts of the proposal will not be evaluated against every non‐price evaluation factor at the task order level.

ID/IQ Master Contract: The ID/IQ Master Contract will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the following proposal volumes and evaluation factors:

Proposal Volume/Evaluation Factor:

Volume 1: Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Note: Under Factor 1, Section 1, Technical Approach, the Government shall only evaluate Natural Resources at the ID/IQ level.

Volume 2: Factor 2 – Management Approach Volume 3: Factor 3 – Relevant Past and Present Performance Volume 4: Factor 4 – Price

Day One Task Order: The Day One Task Order will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the following proposal volumes and evaluation factors:

Proposal Volume/Evaluation Factor:

Volume 1: Factor 1 – Technical Approach.

Note: Under Factor 1, Section 1, Technical Approach, the Government shall only evaluate Hazardous Waste Management, Air Quality, Sampling, Testing, Analysis and Monitoring, and Stormwater at the Day One Task Order Level.

Volume 4: Factor 4 – Price

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

It is the Government’s intention to award a single Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government also intends to award an initial Task Order. The

Government reserves the right to not award a Contract or Task Orders as a result of this solicitation, depending upon the quality of the proposal(s) submitted or other unforeseen reasons.

2 Evaluation Methodology for Factors 1 and 2

2.1 Evaluation Methodology for Factors 1 and 2

The Technical Approach and Management Approach evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. Overall, the assessment criteria includes adequacy of approach; feasibility of approach; completeness; and understanding of the requirement. The following will be evaluated for an overall assessment of the Technical Approach and Management Approach

3 Evaluation Factors Proposals will be evaluated based upon the factors listed below.

3.1 Non‐Price Factors

3.1.1 Factor 1: Technical Approach

3.1.1.1 Section 1: Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the project technical approach narrative to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the narrative to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the Hazardous Waste Management; Air Quality; Sampling, Testing, Analysis and Monitoring; Stormwater; and Natural Resources program areas specifically for vulnerability reductions of enforcement actions and compliance with the PWS as well as other regulations and policies.

3.1.1.2 Section 2: Phase‐In

The Government will evaluate the project specific phase‐in plan for this Task Order to assess the Offeror’s understanding for assuming complete responsibility of the project over a one‐month period for its logic, reasonableness, and pertinence to the requirement of the project. The Government will evaluate the milestones for assuming 100% responsibility for all PWS requirements, workforce mobilization, interfacing with incumbent contractor, and transferring of Government Furnished Property.

3.1.1.3 Section 3: Work Control Plan

The Government will evaluate the Work Control Plan specifically for capability to execute numerous recurring and unanticipated tasks simultaneously to meet timeline without impacting any contract requirements; management understanding of scheduled, underway, and completed work; and expertise to rapidly resolve all regulatory, equipment, material, procurement, staffing, and contractual issues.

3.1.1.4 Section 4: Quality Control Plan

The Government will evaluate the Quality Control Plan for logic, reasonableness, and pertinence to the requirement of the project.

3.1.1.5 Section 5: Property Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the Property Management Plan for logic, reasonableness, and pertinence to the requirement of the project.

3.1.1.6 Section 5: Assumptions, Conditions and /or Exceptions It is not the responsibility of the Government to seek out and identify assumptions, conditions, or exceptions buried within the Offeror’s proposal.

3.1.2 Factor 2: Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the Management Approach narrative, as structured in Section 3.2, Attachment 7. The Government will assess the Offeror’s overall management organizational structure, project teaming arrangements, and ability to manage and meet the unique requirements and ensure it reflects an understanding of the requirements of the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the overall management organizational structure to the degree to which teaming relationships, experience, integration, and organizational support meet the requirements of the PWS, as well as how well the Offeror identifies and demonstrates how key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications. The project management approach will be assessed for its logic, reasonableness, and pertinence to the requirements of this project.

Factor 1 and Factor 2 will be rated based on the definitions set forth below. The adjectival ratings as listed in the table below focus on the proposal’s strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Definitions (Includes Technical/Risk Ratings)

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and /or at least on significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal will not be awarded.

3.1.3 Factor 3: Relevant Past and Present Performance

The Government will assess recent, relevant company efforts and quality information provided by the owners of those efforts to assess the Offeror’s past performance and probability of successfully performing the work described in this solicitation. This factor shall be rated using two aspects, Relevancy and Confidence.

3.1.3.1 Relevant and Recent Past and Present Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past and present performance, based off the Offeror’s performance history and the probability of successfully performing the requirements of the solicitation.

Projects that demonstrate the following criteria may be rated more favorably; however, Offerors are not limited to this information:

Located in the State of Florida Performed on military installations Similar dollar value to this solicitation Performed as the prime contractor, as opposed to a sub‐contractor With a project portfolio that reflects successful performance of projects similar to this solicitation

The work described in this solicitation is for environmental compliance support activities necessary to support USAF environmental mission requirements at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), Patrick Space Force Base (PSFB), Jonathan Dickinson Missile Tracking Annex (JDMTA), Malabar Transmitter Annex (MTA), Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR), and MacDill Air Force Base (MAFB). The project requires Hazardous Waste Management, Air Quality, Sampling, Testing, Analysis and Monitoring, Stormwater Management, Natural Resources and other compliance, pollution prevention, and sustainability programs.

Past and Present Performance references are recent/relevant and provide evidence of quality, timeliness, cost control, positive business relations, and effective and efficient management.

Offeror shall provide references for the prime Contractor and subcontractor/teaming partners that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the PWS requirements.

Other past performance information obtained through other sources (e.g., CPARS, etc.) demonstrates consistently high quality of service provided on other similar contracts.

The government will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the requirements of this solicitation. There are three criteria to past performance evaluation: Relevant, Recent, and Quality. Relevant is defined as being similar in scope (type, complexity, magnitude and dollar value) to the work required by the PWS’s. Recent is defined as work performed within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past Performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

If the Offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture (JV), the SSEB will utilize the information submitted to conduct the relevancy and performance confidence assessment ratings of the JV, or its partners, as previously indicated. Based on the information submitted by the JV Offeror, the SSEB will evaluate and assess information regarding the JV’s Past Performance and/or each JV Partners’ Past Performance.

Present and Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.1.3.2 Confidence of Relevant Past and Present Performance

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine the confidence for how well Offerors have performed on referenced contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.

Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii).

The SSEB will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment utilizing one of the following ratings.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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 my 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.

3.1.3.3 Unknown Past and Present Performance

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive an "Unknown/Neutral" confidence‐rating based upon the rating table. This, however, may have an impact on overall rating of the Offeror’s Relevant Past and Present Performance. Such a proposal may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government when compared to the proposals of other Offerors with recent/relevant past performance.

3.1.3.4 Past and Present Performance Problems

Where relevant performance records indicate performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified.

Submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an Offeror has overcome past problems is required.

3.2 Price Factor

3.2.1 Factor 4: Price

The Price Volume will be evaluated separately from Factors 1 through 3. Pricing should NOT be present or referenced in other volumes, chapters, sections, or documents of an Offerors proposal other than the Pricing Volume. The Offeror is expected to propose competitive, reasonable, and realistic prices for the ID/IQ contract labor rates and realistic cost and prices for the initial Task Order in accordance with all guidance provided in FAR 52.212‐1 Instruction to Offerors. An evaluation of the Price Volume will be made to determine if it is reasonable for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the other factors (realism shall be performed if necessary). In evaluating Price, the ID/IQ labor rates and the individual pricing as identified in the bid schedule will be evaluated. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services (FAR Clause 52.217‐8) at the end of any performance period by utilizing the rates of that performance period. No Adjectival Ratings shall be used to evaluate price. Price will not be scored or rated. The best value offer will be determined through tradeoff analysis, the Government is not bound to award to the lowest priced Offeror.

3.2.1.1 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

Unrealistically high or low proposed prices can be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition. Such a proposal can be viewed as indicative of lack of understanding of the

Government’s desired objective. Cost realism means that the costs in an Offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal. Realism will only be performed if the Government finds it necessary.

The Government can reject any Offeror that is determined to be unrealistic of program commitments, including terms and conditions, and evaluation criteria or is unrealistically high or low in cost, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

In addition, Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. Offers that are determined to be materially unbalanced can be rejected. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices or separately priced line items. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the cost for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to cost for others. An offer is materially and mathematically unbalanced, if:

a. There is a reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the

Government, even though it is the lowest evaluated offer; or

b. The offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.

4 Discussions

The Government intends to make a determination of contract award based on initial proposals without holding discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, and allow proposal revisions, if the SSEB determines that discussions are in the Government's best interest. Offerors are cautioned that discussions may not be conducted, and Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to revise their proposals after submission.

If discussions are deemed necessary, the SSEB will only include those firms whose proposals are most highly rated, competitive and reasonably acceptable. No discussions will be held with deficient proposals. The evaluation process will be followed. Upon conclusion of the discussions, only those Offerors still within the competitive range will be provided an opportunity to revise their proposal and submit a Final Proposal Revision for evaluation.

If discussions are held, Offerors are required to submit their responses to comments electronically. All documents need to be 8 1/2” x 11” format. Offerors shall submit revisions in pdf format electronically organized in the sequence initially required in this solicitation.

All submissions shall meet the submission deadline established by the SSEB/CO.

5 Responsibility Determination No award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR Part 9.1. A prospective Contractor must affirmatively demonstrate its responsibility, including, the responsibility of its proposed subcontractors.

6 Competitive Range In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), after evaluating all proposals, if it has been determined to be in the best interest of the Government to establish a competitive range, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to limit the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. The Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated technical proposals (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4) and 41 U.S.C.

253b(d)). The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals, based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range.