Attach 3 Evaluation Factors Amendment 1.pdf

QUOTATION PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION

All quotations must be submitted via e-mail to the Contracting Officer and the Contract Administrator prior to the closing date/time of this RFQ. Failure to submit a quote by the closing date and time shall result in exclusion from consideration. Prior to submitting a quote, the offeror shall be actively registered in System for Award Management (SAM), per FAR 52.204-7 System for Award Management. Registration instructions may be obtained and online registration may be accomplished at www.sam.gov. By submitting a quote, the offeror acknowledges the requirement to be registered in the SAM prior to award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract resulting from the solicitation. To be eligible for award, the offeror must be registered in SAM under the appropriate business category and NAICS code 562111 with a size standard of $41.5M. In addition, unless available via SAM (i.e. www.sam.gov) offerors are also to include a completed copy of their Representations and Certifications as per FAR 52.212- 3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items. All quotes must be held valid for 90 days.

QUOTATION FORMAT AND CRITERIA

The non-price portion of the quote shall be submitted in an 8½-in X 11-in format using 12-point Times New Roman type and 1-in margins. Use of graphics shall be minimized. Text within tables and graphics may be smaller, if necessary, but shall be legible and readable when printed.

All quotes shall be in the described format and contain the information necessary, and in sufficient detail, to clearly satisfy the requirements described in this RFQ. If an offeror fails to submit their quote with the required information, in sufficient detail, and as stated in this RFQ, they may be considered non-responsive and, therefore, may be eliminated from further award consideration at any stage of the evaluation process.

Quotes shall include the following within the page limits as specified. Pages or written material exceeding the number specified will not be considered in the evaluation by the Government.

Title pages and table of contents are excluded from the page count specified below. If final revisions are requested, separate page limitations will be specified in the Government’s request for that submission.

QUOTATION ORGANIZATION

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE PAGE LIMIT

I Executive Summary

& Technical 25, one-sided (Reps and Certs not included in page total)

II Past Performance Maximum 3 contracts, 3 Pages per contract listed, not to exceed 9 pages total.* (CPARs not included in page total)

III Bid Schedule Shall be IAW Attachment 2 - CLIN Structure and submitted in excel.

*If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, 3 contracts from both contractors in the joint venture are required, extending the total allowable pages to 18.

http://www.sam.gov/

The offeror’s submission of VOLUMES one (1) and two (2) shall include a page reference chart that identifies the page numbers from the offeror’s quote submission that provides the offeror’s response to particular evaluation factors. No price information shall be included in the Cover Letter or in any of the other VOLUMES. For each evaluation factor, the Government will only evaluate the pages that an offeror includes on their page reference chart.

EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS OF AWARD

This procurement is being conducted under FAR Part 13.106-2 Evaluation of quotations or offers. This is not a FAR 15 negotiated competition; therefore, the procedures in FAR Part 15.3 (Source Selection) DO NOT apply to this solicitation. The acquisition evaluation will be conducted utilizing the Best Value – Tradeoff Process, which seeks to select a quote with the best value to meet the Government’s need. Best value is defined as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement, in accordance with FAR 2.101. The Government reserves the right to reject any quote that includes any assumption or condition that impacts or adversely affects the Government’s requirement.

The best value will be determined by comparing differences in the value of non-price factors with differences in price to the Government. In making this comparison, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior non-price factors than with making an award at the lowest overall cost to the Government. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve slightly superior non-price factors. The evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Therefore, price is not expected to be the controlling factor in the selection of an offeror, but the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the quote for other factors evaluated. When competing quotes are determined to be substantially equal after evaluation of all non-price factors, the price could become the controlling factor. The Government reserves the right to make a selection based upon initial quotes; therefore, the offeror should submit their best terms in their initial quotation.

The Government also reserves the right to confer with offerors to clear up quote details if necessary in the Government’s discretion, and may also determine to make no award.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Offeror shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their skills, experience, capabilities, etc., and will base its evaluation solely on the information presented within the offeror's quote. It is not sufficient to simply restate or rephrase the Government’s requirements in the PWS. Rather, the offeror shall demonstrate in their own words a thoughtful and convincing business approach to address HOW the offeror intends to perform based on each evaluation criteria for the specific requirement. This is a Best Value Trade-off and the evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Evaluation Factor 1 - Technical Approach

Under the Technical Factor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s quote demonstrates a sound, practical approach for satisfying the requirements stated in the solicitation.

The approaches, plans, processes, and team capabilities required to be demonstrated within these subfactors are equally important in order to achieve successful contract performance.

Each offeror must provide as part of their Technical Approach clear evidence of their capability to meet the minimum requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), solicitation and all sub factors. A technical evaluation team composed of key Government personnel will use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of technical submissions.

Subfactor 1 - Integrated Solid Waste Management.

The offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and the technical capability to meet the Government’s performance requirements in the following areas of the PWS [Para 1.1.1.1, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.8, 1.1.9, 1.1.10, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.5.1]:

The Technical Approach for Integrated Solid Waste Management must describe:

(a) How the offeror will accomplish emptying MSW containers/dumpsters based on workload history provided in appendix A.

(b) The size, number, and type of personal, equipment, and/or supplies needed to accomplish the Integrated Solid Waste Management requirements.

(c) The technical approach includes how the offeror will provide reports and records detailing total tonnage of solid waste (MSW and C&D) collected, landfill tipping fees, weight tickets and GHG reports.

Subfactor 2 - Recycling Materials Process.

The offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and the technical capability to meet the Government’s performance requirements in the following areas of the PWS [Para, 1.1.1.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.1.8,1.1.9, 1.1.10, 1.2, 1.2.1 thru 1.2.5, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.5.1]:

The Technical Approach for Recycling Materials Process must describe:

(a) How the offeror will provide a detailed accounting of recyclable commodities sold (type/weight/price).

(b) The technical approach will include a sample of reports and records detailing total tonnage of recycling materials collected, landfill tipping fees and weight tickets utilized to account for amount sold that will be provided to the Government.

(c) The technical approach includes size, number, and type of personal, equipment, and/or supplies needed to accomplish the Recycling Materials requirements.

(d) The technical approach includes how the offeror will provide pick up and collection of recyclable materials at large facilities.

(e) The technical approach includes how the offeror will provide tracking and reporting of curbside recycling material via RFID.

Subfactor 3 - Continuity of Services.

The offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and the technical capability to meet the Government’s performance requirements in the following areas of the PWS [Para 1.1.1.4.1 thru 1.1.1.4.6 and 4.1]:

The Technical Approach for Continuity of Services must describe:

(a) The technical approach includes a Transition Plan that adequately meets the requirements and addresses all areas covered in the PWS [Para 1.1.1.4.1 through 1.1.1.4.6].

1. The technical approach includes a workable staffing plan, which includes a schedule and an adequate number of employees for the transition in/out.

2. The technical approach includes size, number, and type of equipment, and/or supplies needed to accomplish the transition in/out requirements.

3. The technical approach includes how the offeror will provide reports and records detailing a transition in/out schedule and milestones.

(b) The technical approach includes a Quality Control Plan (QCP) that adequately meets the requirements and addresses all areas covered in PWS [Para 4.1]

1. The technical approach includes quality control procedures addressing the areas identified in paragraph 2. Service Summary and Performance Plan.

2. The technical approach includes a detailed schedule of how many inspections will be conducted yearly, quarterly and monthly.

3. The technical approach includes a detailed scheduling methodology/staffing approach that demonstrate an understanding

Subfactor 4 - Special Events.

The offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and the technical capability to meet the Government’s performance requirements in the following areas of the PWS [Para 1.1.3.1 thru 1.1.3.2]:

The Technical Approach for Special Events must describe:

(a) The technical approach includes how the offeror will manage unscheduled/special events.

(b) The technical approach includes size, number, and type of personal, equipment, and/or supplies needed to accomplish unscheduled/special events.

Subfactor 5 - Universal Waste

The offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and the technical capability to meet the Government’s performance requirements in the following areas of the PWS [Para 1.6 and 1.6.1 thru 1.6.3]:

The Technical Approach for Universal Waste must describe:

(a) The technical approach includes how the offeror will manage, maintain, and operate a Universal Waste program.

(b) The technical approach includes size, number, and type of personal, equipment, and/or supplies needed to accomplish the Universal Waste requirements.

(c) The technical approach includes how the offeror will provide reports and records detailing total tonnage of universal waste collected, landfill tipping fees and weight tickets.

Subfactor 6 - Regulated Waste (International)

The offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and the technical capability to meet the Government’s performance requirements in the following areas of the PWS [Para 1.7 and 1.7.1]:

The Technical Approach for Regulated Waste must describe:

(a) The technical approach includes how the offeror will properly dispose of international regulated waste.

(b) The technical approach includes size, number, and type of personal, equipment, and/or supplies needed to accomplish the International Waste requirements.

(c) The technical approach includes how the offeror will provide reports and records detailing total tonnage of international waste collected, landfill tipping fees and weight tickets.

Method of Evaluation:

Each Technical Subfactor will be evaluated as part of the offerors Technical Approach (as outlined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1). Any sub factor rated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire Technical Approach as “Unacceptable”. If all Subfactors are determined to be “Acceptable”, the Technical Approach will receive an overall acceptable rating, and that quote will proceed to the Past Performance evaluation. The technical rating definitions are as follows:

TABLE 1: RATING METHOD FOR EVALUATION FACTOR 1

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements Unacceptable Quote has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements

Evaluation Factor 2 - Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror on its Past Performance history. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance quote volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

All Offerors are required to submit Past Performance and include the following:

1. Provide a list of three (3), of the most relevant contracts performed for government agencies within the last five (5) years. Information shall include company or agency contact information, contract number, address and the nature of the contract performance.

At least one (1) of the contracts submitted shall be from the Federal Government(includes U.S. Department of Defense) with an annual dollar value of atleast $1M/and or 3500 tons annually. Offeror shall submit the Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) for the referenced contracts/task orders listed in their quotation. The purpose of CPARS evaluation is to determine “how well” the contractor performed on the referenced contracts/task orders. CPARs is not included in page total.

2. If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of three (3) past and present relevant contracts.

3. Subcontractor and Joint Venture Consent: Past Performance information pertaining to a subcontractor or Joint Venture cannot be disclosed to the prime Offeror without consent. Provide with the quote a letter from all subcontractors or Joint Ventures that will

1006134188C Highlight perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

The recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data and general trends in contractor’s performance will be evaluated as part of past performance. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFQ. Past Performance Criteria includes:

Method of Evaluation:

Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information contained in the Offeror’s submittals will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past five (5) years. Any single reference that fails this condition may be deemed to be “Not Recent” and may result in an overall Past Performance rating lower than “Substantial Confidence”.

Relevancy Ratings: The Government will use the following relevancy definitions/ratings when assessing relevant past performance (Table 2). To obtain a “Relevant” rating, offerors must describe in detail how closely the provided services performed under identified contracts relate to the Performance Work Statement. Failure to provide required detail will result in a rating less than “Relevant”. References evaluated as less than “Relevant” may result in an overall Performance Confidence Assessments Rating of less than Substantial Confidence.

TABLE 2: RELEVANCY RATINGS

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., Reference describes experience in fulfilling same market segment and describes in detail how closely the provided services performed under identified contracts relate to the Performance Work Statement).

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., Reference does not describe experience in fulfilling same market segment and/or provides no detail resembling how closely the provided services performed under those contracts relate to the Performance Work Statement)

Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance reference reviewed, a Performance Quality Rating (PQR) will be assigned by the performance raters in accordance with the Performance Quality Ratings (Table 3).

TABLE 3: QUALITY ASSESSMENT RATING

QUALITY RATING DESCRIPTION

Exceptional The Contractor’s performance meets and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

Very Good The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Satisfactory The contractor’s performance met contractual requirements.

The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were resolved satisfactorily.

Marginal Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflected a serious problem for which the Contractor did not yet identify corrective actions or the Contractor’s proposed actions appeared marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contained serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appeared, or were, ineffective.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a performance quality rating.

Performance Confidence Assessment: After evaluating each Past Performance contract for recency, relevancy and quality, the Government will determine an overall Past Performance confidence rating. The Government will use the following definitions/ratings in Table 4 when making an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA). Below are the definitions and evaluation process that the government will utilize:

TABLE 4: PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING METHOD

CONFIDENCE RATING DESCRIPTION

Substantial Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant/quality performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant/quality performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral No recent/relevant/quality performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance

Limited Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant/quality performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant/quality performance record, the Government has no confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Evaluation Factor 3 – Price

Price Analysis will be conducted. Quotes will be evaluated for price reasonableness, balance, and completeness. The proposed price will be evaluated for the entire effort, inclusive of all options.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Method of Evaluation:

In evaluating submitted price quotes, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for reasonableness. The TEP will be utilized for evaluation purposes only.

The TEP is the sum of all costs/prices proposed by the offeror for the base year, 4 out-year options, and the FAR 52.217-8 Extension of Services.

Reasonableness: The proposed price will be evaluated for reasonableness. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price realism will not be a part of this analysis. The Government may also utilize comparisons of proposed prices with independent government cost estimates (IGCE), or any other measure deemed appropriate. Quoted prices shall be fully burdened inclusive of all direct and indirect costs (e.g., profit, fringe benefits, salary, indirect rates). Round all prices up to the nearest penny.

Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

TRADE-OFF PROCESS

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. The Government will rank all offers according to price, including any option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the pricing schedule by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to confirm the extended amount for each.

B. The Government will begin evaluation at the lowest priced quote and shall evaluate the technical quote on a Acceptable or Unacceptable basis. If an Offeror’s technical quote is determined to be unacceptable the offer will no longer be considered for award and the Government will continue evaluation (in order by price) of the next quote.

C. After the Government determines an offeror’s technical quote to be acceptable, past performance shall be evaluated and assigned an adjectival rating based on the overall Performance Confidence Assessment.

D. The government will repeat this process until all technically acceptable quotes have received a Performance Confidence Assessment rating. At that point a tradeoff analysis between price and performance confidence will be conducted and the Government will make a determination as to the best value to the Government. The Government will evaluate all quotes and will make a determination as to the best value to the Government, or until the CO determines to make no award.

E. Award will be made to the Offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that they will best meet or exceed the requirements and provide affordability. This may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced offer, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer determines that the past performance of the higher-priced offer outweighs the price difference.

While the entire evaluation team strives for maximum objectivity; the selection process is subjective by nature and professional judgment is implicit throughout the tradeoff process. Ultimately, the award will be awarded to the Offeror whose quote, based upon the evaluation criteria, represents the best value to the Government.

F. Award may be made without discussions with Offerors (except communications conducted for the purpose of minor clarification). Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a technical, past performance and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. When discussions/negotiations occur, each participating Offeror shall be given an opportunity to revise their quote to reflect any changes that may have resulted from the discussions/negotiations. The Contracting Officer will award the contract to the Offeror offering the best value to the Government, based on either the initial or a revised quote.