Attachment 11 Site Visit Briefing Slides FA9301-24-R-0007.pptx
PPTX presentation 298 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Base and Golf Course Pest Control Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA930124R0007
About this file
This document is a set of briefing slides regarding a federal contract opportunity for Base and Golf Course Pest Control Services at Edwards Air Force Base (EAFB), Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Murdoc Golf Course, and Air Force Plant 42.
The key details are:
- This is a 100% Small Business Set-Aside solicitation for a single award, firm-fixed-price, IDIQ contract with a 5-year base period and 6-month extension option.
- The contract will be awarded using simplified acquisition procedures, evaluating price and past performance. Technically unacceptable offers will be ineligible for award.
- A site visit is scheduled for June 18, 2024, and questions are due by June 21, 2024. Offers are due by July 15, 2024, with an anticipated contract start date of October 1, 2024.
- The solicitation includes CLINs for various pest control services at the specified locations, including inspections, service calls, pest control for athletic fields/parks, mosquito control, and golf course services.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Air Force Test Center
Integrity - Service - Excellence
Base and Golf Course Pest Control Service
FA9301-24-R-0007
Presenters:
Eric Romero Lisa Davis
War-Winning Capabilities … On Time, On Cost
AFTC
Sign-in
Base and Golf Course Site Tour
Return for brief solicitation presentation and Q&A session
Hold ALL questions until Q&A session Agenda
Restrooms
Break Area
This slide deck, and any amendments to it, will be posted with the solicitation (or on a solicitation amendment) on the “Solicitation” module within PIEE Administrative
Partner with Industry Fair, Open, Communications Complete Understanding Acquisition Process Enhance Competition Facilitate Quality Quotations Purpose
Question Forms will be provided and shall be used during the briefing One Question Per Sheet Submit Question Forms to Contracting Personnel Please submit your Question Form at the item you are verbally stating your question Hold technical questions for the Subject Matter Expert (SME) post tour and submit via email Questions are permitted; however, the question shall ALSO be submitted via email
Formal Question Submission
Formal Answers will be posted as an amendment to the original SAM.gov solicitation posting Questions received via email will also be answered in the same amendment to the Solicitation A direct response to questions submitted via email will not occur Submit Questions Forms to Contracting Personnel prior to departing; or Submit emailed questions by 12 am PST 21 June 2024 (i.e., the Q&A Window) Formal Question Submission (Con’t)
Acquisition Team Description of Requirement Important Solicitation Details Estimated Milestones Q&A Session Overview
Contracting Officer Eric Romero, AFTC/PZIOB Contract Specialist Lisa Davis, AFTC/PZIOB Primary Project Manager Lee Manning, 412 TW/CEOES Plant 42 Project Manager Melissa Alvarez, 412 TW-OL, Plant 42 Acquisition Team
Contracting Overview Mr. Eric Romero, AFTC/PZIOB Ms. Lisa Davis, AFTC/PZIOB Briefer
Competitive Procedures 100% Small Business Set-Aside Contract Type Single Award, Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) with Task Orders Period of Performance 1 October 2024 – 30 September 2029 Five Year contract, with a 6-month extension if required Evaluation Method Simplified Acquisition Procedures Price and Past Performance Important Solicitation Details
Price Quote Fair, Reasonable, and Balanced Total Evaluated Price ELIN Schedule Propose Unit Prices (Five Years, plus 6 months) CLINs Total Price of CLINs Must incorporate Wage Determinations for LA and Kern County (Attachments 3 and 4)
Price Information that will be evaluated:
Price analysis will be conducted, starting with the Lowest Price offer If acceptable, the quote will move on to Past Performance
Present and Past Performance Information that will be evaluated:
Past performance questionnaire replies;
The Government wide Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at www.ppirs.gov; and Any other reasonable information basis.
Recency, Relevancy, and Quality Recency: Recent contracts are: (a) contracts, which have been completed within the last 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation, or (b) contracts that are currently being performed (with a performance record of at least 1 year from the date of issuance of this solicitation).
Relevancy: See Ratings/Definitions below.
Important Solicitation Details
| Past Performance Relevancy Rating Definitions | |
| Rating | Definition |
| Very Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Somewhat Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Not Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
Quality: All recent and relevant past performance information will be evaluated and given a Quality Assessment Rating using the following ratings and definitions below.
Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Each offeror will be given a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating based on the relevancy and quality rating of all recent past performance information using the ratings and definitions below.
| Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Definitions | |
| Adjective Rating | Definition |
| Substantial Confidence | Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Satisfactory Confidence | Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Neutral Confidence | No recent/relevant 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 Confidence | Based on the offeror's recent/relevant 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 performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required efforts. |
Site Visit Bldg. 2800 18 June 2024 1000 PST Last day to submit questions 21 Jun 2024 by 12 noon Responses to questions posted 26 June 2024
| Offers Due Date | 15 Jul 2024 by 4 pm PST | |
| Contract Award | 1 Oct 24 (subject to | change) |
Period of Performance Start Date 1 Oct 24
Estimated Milestones
Q&As image4.png image5.png image1.wmf
Quality Assessment Rating Definitions
E
V
S
M
U
N
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
Neutral
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeded many to the Government's benefits. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeded some to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against.
image6.emf image2.png image3.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .