D.2 Instruction to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria_Final.docx

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

National Geospatial Services Request for Proposal Instruction to Offerors and Evaluation Factors

Contents

Instructions to Offerors

Offers shall use Calibri or Arial, 11 pt-font for the body of the proposal, with no smaller than 10-pt font for descriptions of any included images, illustrations, or table of contents. Line spacing can be 1, 1.5, or 2 and margins for body text can be no less than 1” on sides, top, and bottom, exclusive of headers and footers. File type format may be .docx, .pdf or .xlxs. Excel spreadsheets shall have no hidden or locked columns, rows, or cells, and must be editable and not password protected.

a) Technical: The Technical proposal shall address all Technical Evaluation Subfactors listed at 1.1 Factor 1: Technical. For Technical Subfactors 1 – 4, submit a written narrative describing how you will address the relevant Primary Geospatial Services. The response to Technical Subfactors 1 – 4 shall be limited to twenty (20) pages total.

For Technical Subfactor 5, submit resumes for each key personnel position, not to exceed 1-page each, and an organizational chart/staffing plan. The response to Technical Subfactor 5 shall be placed in a Technical Proposal Appendix and may not exceed a total of twelve (12) pages. Only resumes and organizational charts/staffing plan may be included in this appendix.

See PWS Section 3.2.2, Primary Geospatial Services, PWS Section 4, Key Personnel, and solicitation Attachment D.4. for Technical Subfactors.

b) Past Performance: Offeror to complete Sections A and B of Attachment D.3, Past Performance Questionnaire, and transmit questionnaire to no more than three (3) references. References to complete Sections C and D and transmit back to the Contract Specialist listed in section E of Attachment D.3.

c) Price: The Price Proposal shall include the following: 1) the completed, signed SF-1449; 2) acknowledgement of any amendments to this solicitation by following the instructions that accompany the amendment(s); 3) the completed Schedule of Items contained in Attachment “D.4 Schedule of Items and Labor Category Descriptions” submitted in Microsoft Excel; and 4) a total compensation plan, limited to five (5) pages.

Evaluation Factors

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are more important than price.

Each evaluation factor will be evaluated by a panel of subject matter experts. The evaluation factors are in descending order of importance, with the Technical Subfactors being of equal importance within Factor 1.

1.1 Factor 1: Technical

The technical approach defines your means, methods, and resources for completing the Primary Geospatial Services described in the Performance Work Statement (Geospatial Data Management, Data Publication, Analysis and Product Generation, non-Information Technology Application Development, Technical Support, Geospatial Analysis, Assessment and Monitoring, Cartographic Product Generation, and Graphic User Interface Design).

Subfactor 1: Remote Sensing Submit a written narrative describing your technical approach for completing any or all of the relevant Primary Geospatial Services as described in the Performance Work Statement using remotely sensed data. Pictures can be included and will count towards the page limitation. There is no preprinted form for this submittal.

Subfactor 2: GIS Submit a written narrative describing your technical approach for completing any or all of the Primary Geospatial Services as described in the Performance Work Statement using geospatial data. Pictures can be included and will count towards the page limitation. There is no preprinted form for this submittal.

Subfactor 3: Lidar Submit a written narrative describing your technical approach for completing any or all of the Primary Geospatial Services as described in the Performance Work Statement using lidar data. Pictures can be included and will count towards the page limitation. There is no preprinted form for this submittal.

Subfactor 4: Cartography Submit a written narrative describing your technical approach for completing any or all of the Primary Geospatial Services as described in the Performance Work Statement using cartographic data. Pictures can be included and will count towards the page limitation. There is no preprinted form for this submittal.

Subfactor 5: Key Personnel and Staffing Plan Submit résumés for the key personnel listed below and as identified in this solicitation in Section 4 of the Performance Work Statement. Key personnel proposed are subject to substitution requirements contained in the Performance Work Statement. There is no preprinted form for this submittal.

Please provide 1-page résumés for these positions:

1. Program Manager

2. Geospatial Principal Investigator

3. Geospatial Project Manager

Contractors are also required to provide an organizational chart. The organizational chart will identify the project team with major subcontractors and key personnel, identifying specific roles, responsibilities, and lines of authority, and your staffing plan for staffing up or down as contract needs evolve.

Technical Evaluation Criteria: Technical approaches for Subfactors 1 – 4 that demonstrate clear logic and scope of understanding to the PWS, and that are realistic, appropriate and efficient present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated. Technical approaches for Factor 5 that demonstrate the following attributes present a lower level of risk and will be more favorably rated: (1) capability in same or similar key personnel positions on successful relevant projects of similar scope and magnitude to this solicitation; (2) strong technical knowledge and skill required for this solicitation; and (3) effective problem solving, communication, coordination, and organization.

Evaluation Methodology: Technical approach ratings

1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

In addition to the Past Performance Questionnaires, past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, Sam.gov or other databases; and interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers.

Evaluation Criteria: Relevant experience demonstrating (1) capability to successfully complete relevant projects of similar scope and magnitude to this solicitation; (2) strong technical knowledge and skill required for this solicitation; and (3) effective management, problem solving, communication, coordination, and organization. Recency must be for government or commercial work completed within the past three (3) years from the RFP release date. Work completed in the past three (3) years on an ongoing contract is acceptable, provided the offeror has performed for a minimum of one (1) year.

Evaluation Methodology: Relevance and Recency will be used to determine a Performance Confidence Assessment rating, which is the likelihood that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements. Proposals demonstrating the recency and relevancy attributes listed above represent lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated.

Past Performance Relevance ratings

Relevant

Past/present performance effort involved much of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past/present performance effort involved some of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation required.

Performance Confidence Assessment ratings

1.3 Factor 3: Price

The price proposal will be evaluated using one or more proposal analysis techniques listed at FAR 15.404(b) and the compensation plan to determine fair and reasonable pricing.

Reasonableness: Normally, adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness price; however, additional techniques may be used.

Realism: Unrealistically low prices proposed initially or subsequently may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or the Offeror has submitted an unrealistic proposal.

image1.jpeg image2.png