Combined_Synopsis_Solicitation.pdf

This is a combined synopsis solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

Synopsis Solicitation 140F0621Q0124 is issued as a Request for Quotation RFQ. The synopsis solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through the

Federal Acquisition Regulation as indicated in the attached SF1449. The SF1449 form is being utilized to generate the applicable clauses from the Standard Procurement System.

This procurement is 100 percent set aside for small business, and the primary NAICS code is 115310, with a small business size standard of $8 Million.

Project site In Rappahannock River Valley NWR (Figure 1), our request is for the control and treatment of target kudzu on 12 acres of the Styer-Bishop Tract (King George Co., VA; Figure 2). In James River NWR (Prince George Co. , Figure 3), our request is for the control and treatment of 7.1 acres of Chinese privet (Figure 4). Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) will be utilized for award in accordance with FAR Part 13. The order shall be firm fixed price.

All responsible sources may submit a capability statement, proposal, or quotation which shall be considered by the agency. At time of proposal submission please submit any historical data as well as published pricing. Award will be made based on Lowest Price Technically Acceptable.

In order to be eligible for award, firms must be registered in the System for Award Management

(SAM). Offerors may obtain information on registration in SAM by calling 866-606-8220, or via the Internet at https://www.sam.gov.

Note: Quotes will be evaluated based on a best value, trade-off process.

Best Value allows the Government to consider or award to an offer who’s Price might not be the lowest offer, but the offeror’s proposal is more advantageous in Technical Capability and/or Past Performance. The Government may consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror when it is in the best interest of the Government.

(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 (in descending order of importance):

(i) Technical Capabilities:

Offeror shall submit a technical narrative to address, at a minimum, the following items:

1.Copy of the contractors current Professional Applicator License.

2. The suggested technical approach to accomplish the tasks in the Statement of Work.

a. proposed distribution method

b. planned mobilization

c. number of employees/crews

3. Schedule proposed to demonstrate plan to complete the project in the required number of contract days, including any temporary delays for weather, or other unexpected issues.

4. Type of equipment: Describe equipment to be used to accomplish the tasks in the

Statement of Work

5. Key Personnel: Identify personnel and their relevant experience, for this specific project.

Also describe work crew experience.

- Experience handling and mixing herbicides.

- Applicator(s)’s previous experience and knowledge of GPS Differential Guidance Systems applying seed over featureless terrain, where the system was utilized, and which agency services were provided.

- example map(s) of prior GPS seeding using GPS Differential Guidance Systems of each Applicator.

6. Safety Plan: a. Identify plan to address pesticide safety, accidental spills, containment kit, and knowledge of nearest medical facilities (location and contact information).

Include only information relevant to this project and the contractor's proposal only. Address each item described above, at a minimum.

(ii) Past Performance:

Offeror is cautioned that sufficient information must be presented to enable the Government to evaluate the Contractor's proposed past performance and determine relevancy to this project. It is the quoter’s responsibility to ensure contact references are provided with current and accurate contact information.

Provide a list of at least three (3) projects similar in type, complexity, and magnitude working in remote locations, that have been completed within the last five (5) years. Include a brief narrative of the projects to show relevancy to the work described in the attached Statement of Work. It is desirable, but not required, that references be other Federal Agencies.

Provide past performance references including, at a minimum, the following information:

1. Name of Project

2. Location of Project

3. Contract Number

4. Period of Performance

5. Total cost for Project

6. Name of Agency/Entity

7. Point of Contact for Agency/Entity (including Phone & Fax Numbers)

8. Complete and thorough description of services performed (to show specific relevancy to this project). Description should include specifics about the scope of projects completed. This information is requested to assist in evaluation of relevancy to this project in terms of type, complexity, and magnitude. Submissions that do not include this information will be rated accordingly.

Offerors WITHOUT RECENT OR RELEVANT REFERENCES shall submit a statement to such effect in order to be considered as having "Neutral" Past Performance history. All others will be rated deficient in the past performance category.

(iii) Price:

Offeror to complete the Standard Form (SF) 1449 and indicate a cost per acre. Price should include ALL costs associated with the completion of the project.

Technical and Past performance, when combined, are more important than price.

(c) 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.

Evaluation Factors:

Quotes submitted will be evaluated according to the criteria stated below. An evaluation will be performed on each offeror's submission based on the information furnished and subsequent information gathered after quotes are received, such as responses from references or data from past performance databases.

Technical Evaluation - Sufficient and detailed information must be presented in the submission to enable the Government to evaluate the quote fully in accordance with the solicitation. The Government is not obligated to ask for additional information and in the absence of complete information the contractor’s quote will be rated deficient.

Quotes will receive an evaluation rating of Technically Acceptable or Technically Unacceptable.

If an offeror received a technical rating of Technically Unacceptable, they will not be considered for award. The government is not required to request clarifications on incomplete packages

Past Performance Evaluation: The following factors shall be used in the evaluation of the proposals.

Past Performance

1. Relevancy of past performance provided (unless a neutral rating is requested per instructions). Relevancy should include projects similar in size and complexity as described in Evaluation Criteria section discussed above.

2. References and past performance of the company to show quality of work necessary to successfully provide these services and meet required deadlines.

3. How quality control was monitored to ensure compliance with specifications.

4. Timely completion of project to ensure completion before ending performance time.

5. Ability to manage employees and/or subcontractors.

6. Ability to manage project and complete within budget.

7. Experience with mapping/track log capability utilizing GPS.

The following ratings and related definitions will be used to define the performance risk.

Level of Risk Qualifications Very Low Risk Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded many to the Government’s benefit. Problems, if any, were negligible and were resolved in a timely and highly effective manner. Performance was current and very relevant to relevant. Excellent probability of success with overall very low degree of risk in meeting Government’s requirements.

Low Risk Performance met contract requirements. Good quality. Minor problems were identified however; contractor took satisfactory corrective action to resolve where appropriate.

Performance was current and very relevant to relevant. Good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the government’s requirements.

Average Risk Performance met most contract requirements. Adequate quality. Problems were identified however; contractor usually took adequate correction action.

Performance was current and very relevant to semi-relevant. Good probability of success with an average degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Above Average Risk Performance met some contract requirements. Fair quality. Problems were identified however; contractor sometimes took corrective action, but not always to the owner’s satisfaction. Performance was current and very relevant to semirelevant.

Fair probability of success with an overall above average risk inmeeting the Government’s requirements.

High Risk Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. There were problems, some of a somewhat serious to serious nature. Contractor’s corrective action was sometimes marginally effective to ineffective. Performance was current and very relevant to semi-relevant. Probability of success is questionable with an unacceptably high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Neutral No current and/or relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. A search was unable to identify any relevant Past Performance information for the offeror or key team member/subcontractors or their key personnel. This is neither a negative or positive assessment. Unknown.

Price Evaluation – The purpose of the Price/Cost evaluation is to provide an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed price in relation to the solicitation requirements. Proposals will be evaluated in the following manner.

a) The Government evaluation team will review each offeror’s Price proposal to determine whether or not each proposal complies with the stated criteria: “Reasonableness”. If the proposed price is determined to be reasonable a GO rating will be given, if found to be unreasonable and/or unrealistic, a NO GO rating will be assigned to the Price evaluation factor.

(b) Those proposals evaluated as not satisfying all of the price/cost criteria may be eliminated from consideration for award unless the Contracting Officer determines.

(i) A minor clerical error has occurred, then the offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the “clarifications” process or

(ii) The Contracting Officer determines discussions are required.

Quote is due 3 August 2021, no later than 5:00 p.m. EST with an anticipated award date by 8

August 2021. Questions and responses regarding this synopsis/solicitation may be submitted by e-mail to Jamel_Hooker@fws.gov prior to the RFQ closing. Email should reference Synopsis

Solicitation Number 140F0621Q0124 in the subject line.