Source_Selection_Plan.pdf

Commissary/Dining Area Pest Control Service Source Selection Plan

The evaluation process and source selection for the USMMA Commissary/Dining Area Pest Control Service will involve technical review by the USMMA technical team and Price and Past performance review by the MARAD Contracting Officer (CO).

I. Technical Approach Factor (Includes Description of Sub-Factors)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government reserves the right to trade off non-price factors with price.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the technical evaluation factors:

• Factor 1: Technical Approach

Sub-factor A - Qualifications/Experience Qualifications/Experience for interested offeror's must be within the past five (5) years. The execution of similar work as well as the quality of the work with consideration to timeliness and technical success should be noted. This factor also considers size and complexity of past projects and degree of conformance to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles and procedures.

Evaluation Standards: Performance on two contracts, each of which pertained to property of roughly the same size as the current solicitation. A contract might be considered "similar" to the current solicitation if it included such components as:

• Pesticide application by need only

• Insecticides limited to bait formulations except for special circumstances

• Routine use of sticky traps

• All on-site service delivered by certified technicians only

• Service delivered weekly for major buildings

Sub-factor B - Operating Plan and Staffing Offeror' s plans for carrying out all phases of the contract work as it pertains to scheduling work assignments, allocating work resources, and delivering emergency and special services.

This factor also considers the education, experience, knowledge, and necessary skills of the offeror's staff entomologist and each service technician or other technical personnel assigned to the contract.

Evaluation Standards: A reasonable standard might include the following items:

• Realistic service frequencies for the various facilities under contract

• A realistic plan for responding to emergency and special service calls in a timely manner

• The resumes of the proposed technicians reflect experience with "IPM" service delivery

• The staff entomologist's resume reflects experience on two similar contracts meeting the same size and technical criteria as the Qualifications/Experience sub-factor

Sub-factor C - Pesticide Control Procedures Proposed methods for controlling pests with pesticides, including specific chemical products and application equipment to be used will be assessed.

Evaluation Standards: A reasonable standard might include the following items:

• Two different bait products (including at least one gel) for cockroach control

• Two different bait products for ant control

• Two different types of bait for rodent control

• Tracking powder for application to rodent burrows outside buildings

• Not proposing the routine use of liquid, aerosol, and dust formulations

Sub-factor D - Non-Pesticide Control Procedures Offeror' s proposed methods for controlling pests without pesticides, including specific products and equipment to be used.

Evaluation Standards: A reasonable standard might include the following items:

• Two different types of flying insect trapping devices

• Two different types of rodent trapping devices

• Not proposing the routine use of glue boards for rodent control

Sub-factor E - Monitoring and Recordkeeping Proposed methods for monitoring and reporting pest populations and structural or sanitary conditions conducive to pest infestation are outlined. Also, consideration to the method and format for recording data pertaining to monitoring, control, and pesticide application will be evaluated.

Evaluation Standards: A reasonable standard might include the following items:

• An emphasis on the use of sticky traps in problem areas

• A standard procedure for expert identification of trapped or collected specimens that cannot be identified by technicians in the field

• A clear and concise service report form

Sub-factor F - In-House Training Offeror' s in-house program for continually developing its employees' professional skills and for keeping employees up-to-date on rapidly changing IPM procedures and technology is evaluated.

II. Evaluation Ratings

The Technical Approach and Sub-factors will be evaluated using the criteria in the tables below.

Technical Rating Chart

Past performance projects will be assessed using the criteria in the tables below.

Past Performance Rating Chart Assessment

Ratings Definition

Exceptional/High Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Very Good/Significant Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence/Neutral

Based on the offeror's performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort or no performance record identifiable (see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iii) and (iv)).

Marginal/Little Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Changes to the offeror's existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Unsatisfactory/No Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Adjectival Ratings Definition

Excellent

The proposed approach indicates an exceptionally thorough and comprehensive understanding of the program goals, resources, schedules and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. There are no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good

The proposed approach indicates a thorough understanding of the program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths.

Satisfactory

The proposed approach indicates an adequate understanding of the program goals and the methods, resources, schedules and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths

Marginal Mam

The proposed approach indicates a superficial or vague understanding of the program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. Numerous weaknesses and/or some deficiencies exist.

Unsatisfactory R

The proposed approach indicates a lack of understanding of the program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. Significant weaknesses and/or some deficiencies exist.