Attachment_2_Evaluation_Factor.doc

Attachment 2

FA8601-19-R-0004

14 November 2018

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The Government will use FAR Part 12.602 Streamlined Evaluation of Offers vs. FAR 15.3 Source Selection to evaluate offers submitted in response to the synopsitation. The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are Technical and Price, as expounded below. All evaluation factors are equal in importance; however, a proposal is unawardable at any price if, after final evaluation, the Technical factor receives a rating of “Unacceptable.” The evaluation does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Award shall be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the synopsitation; (2) that receives a rating of “Acceptable” on the Technical evaluation factor; and (3) that submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and (2) the fair and reasonableness of the pricing of proposals received

2. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY:

a. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s Technical Capability Proposal shall be made. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

b. Each offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the Statements of Work (SOWs) and elsewhere in this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel shall use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals. In evaluating the Mission Capability Proposal, the Government shall use the following evaluation criteria:

(1) Compliance with the requirements of the Statements of Work (SOWs) and this entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the Statements of Work (SOWs) and this entire solicitation.

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the SOWs as applied specifically to each factor/subfactor listed below.

c. The following specific factors and subfactors shall be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable shall render the entire Technical Capability Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it shall not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

d. Technical Capability Evaluation Factors and Sub Factors are as follows:

(1) SUBFACTOR 1: Prior Experience Description: This sub-factor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide sufficient prior experience.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal provides sufficient proof of at least one (1) relevant contract performed within five years of the issue date of the solicitation. Provide your relevant performance as it relates in sufficient detail

1. Narrative details the type of work relating to natural resources management such as urban and non-urban tree removal, urban and non-urban tree planting, habitat restoration, land clearing, herbicide application, warm-season grass/vegetation habitat restoration, and/or specific equipment utilization.

(2) SUBFACTOR 2: Firewood Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s process in which the firewood will be cut and transported in accordance with the instructions Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal has a detailed approach of the process containing the following instructions Statement of Work (2.3.3).

1. Brush and Limbs shall be chipped and shipped off-site. Wood larger than 20 inches shall be shipped off site.

2. All Firewood sized pieces (larger than 4 inches and smaller than 20 inches) shall be cut into transportable pieces (no more than 10’ long) and transported to either the Area A or Area B wood storage lots.

(3) SUBFACTOR 3: Stump Removal Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide necessary equipment capable of performing in accordance with the Statement of Work (2.3.1).

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror provides a list of the equipment that they will use capable of removing tree stumps 12 inches below ground level, mulch/wood chips removed and replaced with top soil and the area sown into grass seed.

(4) SUBFACTOR 4: Licenses Description: This sub-factor will evaluate the offeror’s certifications in accordance with the licenses required in the Statement of Work (2.4.1).

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror provides an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) license reflecting a level of professional certification in:

1. Surveying hazard trees.

2. Recommending treatment options.

3. Disease/pest identification

4. Pruning recommendations

5. Identifying potential tree planting locations and suggested species for planting across entire installation.

(5) SUBFACTOR 5: Invasive Species Removal Description: This sub-factor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide their method and approach to removing invasive species. Mechanical and manual methods are acceptable Statement of Work (2.1.1).

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror submits a proposal illustrating their approach to removing invasive species in accordance with 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.3 in the Statement of Work.

e. The above specific technical factors/subfactors shall be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal. Any subfactor judged unacceptable shall render the entire Technical Capability Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is “unacceptable”, the Contracting Officer shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award.

3. PRICE: Price proposals shall be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

(1) Completeness: The Government shall review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with solicitation clause FAR 52.212-1 and Appendix 1—Additional Instructions to Offerors.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government shall analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different Contract Line Items Numbers (CLIN) for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the option prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(3) Fair and Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal shall be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) or DFARS 215.371-3 if only one offer is received.

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government shall add the total price for all 5 years of the Blanket Purchase Agreement.

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

(a) The Government shall initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals. The Government shall consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of a proposal including whether any proposal deficiency can be rectified and whether any uncertainty can be resolved. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government.

(b) If pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, and in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable; the Contracting Officer (CO) may open discussions and may continue discussions as long as, in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable.

(c) For the purpose of conducting discussions, if the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable.” At the conclusion of discussions, if the Technical factor is rated “Unacceptable” or if any deficiency or uncertainty relative to the proposal has not been unresolved, evaluation of that proposal shall be considered final. The entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration shall be given to that proposal for award.

(d) For the purpose of award without discussions, if pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, notwithstanding that any deficiency may be rectifiable or any uncertainty may be resolvable, the entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

(e) The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

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.