B08_Attachment_6_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

140L0622R00025

52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

• Technical Approach

• Treatment Plan

• Product Utilization Plan

• Innovation Plan

• Experience

• Past Performance

• Price

Relative Importance of Factors.

When combined, all non-price factors are significantly more important than price. Price is still a major consideration in the source selection decision. The price factor may become more significant in contributing to the source selection decision if competing proposals offer comparably evaluated technical proposal and past performance assessment. All non-price factors are approximately equal.

Basis for contract award.

This is a competitive best value source selection. The Government will select the best overall proposal based upon an integrated assessment of technical approach, experience, past performance, and price. This may result in award to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the technical superiority, overall business approach or superior past performance of a higher-priced proposal outweighs the price difference. While the source selection evaluation team will strive for maximum objectively, the source selection process by its nature is subjective. To be eligible for award, the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104; provide all documentation/information required in the instruction section of this solicitation, meet all requirements of the solicitation, and conform to all required terms and conditions. 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.

Number of contracts to be awarded.

The Government intends to award approximately five IDIQ contracts to the offerors that provide the best overall value to the Government based on the evaluation criteria of this solicitation.

Evaluation Process.

An adjectival rating will be used to evaluate the Technical Proposal. Past Performance will use an acceptable or unacceptable rating. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offeror’s price proposals. Risk is integral to the evaluation of all factors.

In evaluating proposals, the Government will award to the responsible offeror who provides the best overall value to the Government based on the evaluation criteria of this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information as required by this solicitation, FAR 52.212-1 – Instructions to

Offerors and its Addendum (see Attachment 6). Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. The following addresses how each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated.

Technical Evaluation Factor 1 – Treatment Plan

Redundancy of equipment represents less risk to the Government. Special equipment that allows for methods advantageous to BLM and land management goals represents less risk to the Government.

Ability to self-perform represents less risk to the Government.

RATING EVALUATION BASIS

Outstanding The OFFEROR’S Treatment Plan demonstrates an outstanding approach to completing work. Strengths far outweigh weaknesses. The Treatment Plan represents very low risk that the offeror’s performance of any work will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Good The OFFEROR’S Treatment Plan demonstrates a good approach to completing work. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. The Treatment Plan represents low risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Acceptable The OFFEROR’S Treatment Plan demonstrates an acceptable approach to completing work. Any strengths are offset by weaknesses. The Treatment Plan represents moderate risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Marginal The OFFEROR’S Treatment Plan demonstrates a marginal approach to completing work. Weaknesses outweigh any strengths. The Treatment Plan represents high risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Unacceptable The OFFEROR’S Treatment Plan fails to convey an understanding of the requirements. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the Treatment

Plan. The Treatment Plan represents very high risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Technical Evaluation Factor 2 – Production Utilization Plan

The more markets that a contractor has access to represents less risk to the Government.

Methods of product removal and disposal that minimize fuel loading in the unit and minimize the need for

BLM post-harvest slash burning represent less risk to the Government.

Outstanding The OFFEROR’S Product Utilization Plan demonstrates an outstanding approach.

Strengths far outweigh weaknesses. The Product Utilization Plan represents very low risk that the offeror’s performance of any work will negatively impact schedule, cost or performance.

Good The OFFEROR’S Product Utilization Plan demonstrates a good approach.

Strengths outweigh weaknesses. The Product Utilization Plan represents low risk that offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, cost, or performance.

Acceptable The OFFEROR’S Product Utilization Plan demonstrates an acceptable approach.

Any strengths are offset by weaknesses. The Product Utilization Plan represents moderate risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, cost, or performance.

Marginal The OFFEROR’S Product Utilization Plan demonstrates a marginal approach.

Weaknesses outweigh any strengths. The Product Utilization Plan represents high risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, cost, or performance.

Unacceptable The OFFEROR’S Product Utilization Plan fails to convey an understanding of the requirements. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the Product

Utilization Plan. The Product Utilization Plan represents very high risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, cost, or performance.

Technical Evaluation Factor 3 – Innovation Plan

Innovative methods and technologies that provide cost saving measures, environmental protections, new markets, new wood products and other practices that are beneficial to the Government represents less risk to the Government.

Outstanding The OFFEROR’S Innovation Plan demonstrates an excellent approach. Strengths far outweigh weaknesses. The plan represents low risk that the offeror’s performance of any work will negatively impact schedule, cost or performance.

Good The OFFEROR’S Innovation Plan demonstrates a good approach. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. The plan represents low risk that the offeror’s performance of any work will negatively impact schedule, cost or performance.

Acceptable THE OFFEROR’S Innovation Plan demonstrates an acceptable approach. Any strengths are offset by weaknesses. The plan represents moderate risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, cost, or performance.

Marginal THE OFFEROR’S Innovation Plan demonstrates a marginal approach.

Weaknesses outweigh any strengths. The proposal represents high risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, cost, or performance.

Unacceptable The OFFEROR’s Innovation Plan fails to convey an approach. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the plan. The plan represents very high risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, cost, or performance.

Technical Evaluation Factor 4 – Experience

Outstanding The OFFEROR’s Experience demonstrates execution of four (4) relevant projects within the past three (3) years.

Good The OFFEROR’s Experience demonstrates execution of three (3) relevant projects within the past three (3) years.

Acceptable The OFFEROR’s Experience demonstrates execution of two (2) relevant project within the past three (3) years.

Marginal The OFFEROR’s Experience demonstrates execution of one (1) relevant projects within the past three (3) years.

Unacceptable The OFFEROR’s Experience demonstrates execution of zero (0) relevant projects within the past three (3) years.

Past Performance:

Past performance will be evaluated to assess how well the offeror has successfully managed and performed contracts similar in nature and complexity of this acquisition. Past Performance information can be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the clients provided in experience, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; knowledge of

Contracting Officers and Contracting Officer’s Representatives within BLM or other agencies. Any or all of these sources may be used in this evaluation to obtain a complete picture of past performance The final past performance rating will be acceptable or unacceptable. Lack of past performance information will result in a neutral rating.

Price:

A price evaluation will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the proposed unit and product prices for all services and products. Individual unit prices of services and products will be evaluated to determine if any imbalanced pricing exists.

Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offeror’s price proposal. It is anticipated that there will be adequate price competition; therefore, no additional data will be required from offerors. If the Contracting

Officer determines there is not adequate price competition, then additional data may be necessary to determine prices fair and reasonable.

(b) 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.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions. The offeror is required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements in addition to those identified as factors and/or criteria. 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 the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

Award Without Discussions. As set forth in FAR 52.212(g), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except potential clarifications).

Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint.