B08(a_3)_-_Attachment_2_-_Addendum_1_-_Offer_Submission_Requirements.pdf

Addendum 1

140P2125Q0054 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

OFFER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND BASIS OF AWARD

VETERINARIAN SERVICES

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. Interested firms or joint venture entities (here after referred to as Offerors) must submit quotes demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the work as outlined in the SOW in accordance with the criteria described herein.

1.2. The anticipated award is a Firm Fixed Price contract for veterinarian services for the National Park Service, United States Park Police. The Government will evaluate offers in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whose offer is determined by the source selection authority to conform to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1. The Contracting Officer will award a Firm Fixed Price contract to the responsible Offeror whose offer is determined by the source selection authority to conform to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government. IAW FAR Part 13.106-2(b) evaluation will be conducting by comparative evaluation of offerors. This solicitation is not stating nor required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor and/or sub factor (FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)). The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best valued offer. After the Government individually evaluates each offer, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority will compare offers to determine which offer represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offerors. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose offer contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify award to that offeror.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions.

However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines discussions are necessary. Therefore, offers should be submitted on the most favorable terms the offeror can submit to the Government. Do not assume offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their offer.

3.2. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experience.

Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the offeror. The Government may reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration. Complete offers shall meet the basic requirements identified in the solicitation.

140P2125Q0054

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

Volume I: Technical

Factor Description

Factor 1 USDA Category II Veterinarian

Factor 2 Relevant Experience

Factor 3 Distance to USPP HMP Stables

Factor 4 Specialized Care Plan

Volume II: Price

Factor Description

Factor 1 Price Schedule

5.0 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL FACTOR 1: USDA CATEGORY II VETERINARIAN

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1 The offeror shall provide an electronic copy of the accreditation for each veterinarian who will be assigned work as a part of this contract. USDA Category II accreditation will be verified for the states of Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

5.2 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL FACTOR 1: USDA CATEGORY II VETERINARIAN

EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.2.1 The Government will evaluate factor 1 by reviewing the USDA’s database of accredited veterinarians at VSPS Veterinary Services Process Streamlining (usda.gov) with a search by the veterinarian’s name and accreditation number. The evaluation standard has been met when the offeror provides the name and accreditation number for each veterinarian who will perform work as a part of this contract.

5.3 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL FACTOR 2: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

https://vsapps.aphis.usda.gov/vsps/public/VetSearch.do

140P2125Q0054 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

5.3.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.3.2 Recent and relevant experience shall be no longer than three (3) pages in length for each example. The offeror shall demonstrate recent and relevant specialized experience and technical competence as follows:

- Minimum of three years of veterinarian experience.

- Ability to describe experience with herd management of a similar size for horses who routinely work in an urban environment 4+ hours per day.

5.3.2 The offeror shall provide examples of a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) veterinarian jobs that are similar in scope of work and complexity to the tasks as needed for the requirements as specified in this solicitation. Scope and complexity are further defined as follows:

Scope: Demonstrate the ability to provide expertise/knowledge of veterinarian services, including handling skills when working on a nervous or difficult horse.

Complexity: Demonstrate clear abilities to meet all requirements as it relates to the statement of work, specifically as it relates to the care of an urban herd.

5.4 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL FACTOR 2: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE EVALUATION

CRITERIA

5.4.1 The Government will comparatively evaluate factor 2 by reviewing the relevant past experience as a basis for comparing offerors. The evaluation standard has been met when the offeror demonstrates successful past experiences with veterinarian work which includes care for a comparably sized herd, or horses which routinely work in an urban environment.

5.5 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL FACTOR 3: DISTANCE TO USPP STABLES

5.5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.5.2 The veterinarian clinic/office should be within 50 air miles of Washington, DC.

5.6 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL FACTOR 3: DISTANCE TO USPP STABLES

EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.6.1 The Government will comparatively evaluate factor 3 by reviewing the distance by using the measure distance feature of Google maps or other recognized map service. The evaluation standard has been met when the offeror provides the physical address of the veterinary clinic.

5.7 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL FACTOR 4: SPECIALIZED CARE PLAN

5.7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.7.2 The proposed specialized care plan shall be no longer than three (3) pages in length. The offeror shall demonstrate the specialized care plan as follows:

140P2125Q0054 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

- Describe how you would obtain specialized care and certify the credentials of any veterinarian used for subcontracted work

- Describe your plan if you cannot respond to an emergency as outlined in the SOW.

- Describe your plan if you do not have the required equipment to perform specialized care.

5.8 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL FACTOR 4: SPECIALIZED CARE PLAN EVALUATION

CRITERIA

5.8.1 The Government will comparatively evaluate factor 4 by reviewing the specialized care plan as a basis for comparing offerors. The evaluation standard has been met when the offeror demonstrates a specialized care plan which describes how specialized care will be obtained and how credentials will be verified; the plan if you cannot respond to an emergency as outlined in the SOW; and the description of the plan if you do not have the required equipment to perform specialized care.

6.0 VOLUME II: FACTOR 1 - PRICE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.1.1 Submit a properly completed Pricing Schedule, containing offered line item and total pricing. For unit price items, ensure the number of units multiplied by the unit price equals the extended price exactly.

The offeror’s price shall contain all costs to complete the work to include profit, all overhead, labor burden, insurance, adjustments to listed prices, general and administrative expenses, Sub- Contractor mark-up, and all other costs.

6.1.2 Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price schedule, the Government will request a price breakdown of the Contract Line items in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three (3) working days after the offer submission due date. This information may be required for the initial offer and, if requested, for any revised offers. This information is not an opportunity for an offeror to revise its non-price or price offer.

6.1.3 Price will be determined by the total evaluated price presented in the Price Schedule, will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness using a price analysis.

The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be requested and used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

6.2 VOLUME II: FACTOR 1 - PRICE EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.2.1 Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of price analysis and comparison to the prices of other offerors and the

140P2125Q0054 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov independent Government estimate. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc, and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as overhead, etc.

to the appropriate contract line items.

6.2.2 If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

6.2.3 Quantities in the price schedule are estimates for evaluation purposes only and do not create additional obligations. The rates will be binding for all orders.

7.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.1.2 An SSEB will be established to conduct the comparative evaluation of offers received in response to this solicitation. The comparative evaluation will be based on the content of the offer, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

7.2. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

7.2.1. The SSEB will conduct comparative evaluations of offers.

7.2.2 The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it.

7.3. DEFINITIONS

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength: Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

140P2125Q0054 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Deviation: Offer implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

7.4 EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

7.4.1 General: The Government will conduct comparative evaluations of offers and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each offer against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare offers at this time. After all offers are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of offers against each other in order to determine which offeror provides the best value to the Government.

7.4.2 Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

7.4.3 Rating System: After listing offer strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable” to each factor (except the Past Performance Factor), which reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its offer, to perform the requirements stated in the solicitation. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned using the following criteria, which incorporate an offer risk assessment:

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

140P2125Q0054

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.