B08(b)_-_Attachment_2_-_Addendum_1_-_Offer_Submission_Requirements_140P2125Q0048.pdf

Addendum 1

140P2125Q0048 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

OFFER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND BASIS OF AWARD

MANURE REMOVAL 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 manure removal 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 offer 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 offer details shall be the sole responsibility of the offeror. The Government may reject incomplete offers after initial evaluation without further consideration.

Complete offers shall meet the basic requirements identified in the solicitation.

140P2125Q0048

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

Volume I: Technical

Factor Description

Factor 1 Past Performance

Volume II: Price

Factor Description

Factor 1 Price Schedule

5.0 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL OFFER FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.2 For each project submitted, the offeror also shall provide past performance information:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, submit it with the offer.

If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project, provided as an attachment to this solicitation. Offerors are advised to ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is available.

• If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before offer closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the offer the first page of the PPQ. Offerors should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Michelle Shoshone, via email at michelle_shoshone@nps.gov, prior to offer closing date.

Offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

• PPQs are source selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an email confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the mailto:michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

140P2125Q0048 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov confirmation, it is the offeror’s responsibility to follow up to ensure the Government has received the information.

5.1.3 Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their offer PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other procurements. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS/UIE numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s offer, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

5.1.4 While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

5.2 VOLUME II: FACTOR 1 - EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.2.1 The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The evaluation method that the Government will use with respect to Factor 1 – Past Performance is detailed below.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. For this solicitation, recent projects are those completed or substantially completed (as defined above) within five (5) years of the date that offers are due.

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the work required by this solicitation. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below.

140P2125Q0048

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description 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 Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude Relevant 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.

5.2.2 In determining the relevancy of each submitted project, the Government will consider the following:

• The extent to which the submitted project involved removal of full dumpster and replacement with empty dumpster

• The extent to which the submitted project demonstrates experience the proper transportation and disposal of waste

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation, quality, is to determine how well the offeror performed on its past performance projects.

5.2.3 A final Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be given for this factor based on the assessment of recent and relevant past performance information and the assessment of the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts. The Government will review the past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the Table below.

Performance Confidence Assessments

RATING DESCRIPTION

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.

140P2125Q0048 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

The offeror may 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 be able to 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.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror may receive a Neutral Confidence rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable; it is considered neutral.

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 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, 140P2125Q0048 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov 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. OFFER 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 offers. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their offer after submitting it.

7.3. DEFINITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

140P2125Q0048 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

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 offer 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

Offer 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

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

Acceptable

Offer 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

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

Unacceptable

Offer does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Offer is unawardable.

140P2125Q0048