Instructions Conditions Notices to Offerors and Evaluation Factors for Award Rev2 1.pdf

APPENDIX G

Request for Proposal Sections

SECTIONS L & M – Instructions, Conditions & Notices to Offerors & Evaluations Factors for Award – Reference the Solicitation for this information.

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1.1 Intent

The intent of this solicitation is to award one (1) firm fixed-price Indefinite Delivery Requirements Contract for Operations and Maintenance Services at Center Hill.

1.2 Project Description

The Nashville District Contracting Division has a requirement from the Nashville District Operations Division to provide O&M Services at Center Hill Lake Project. Center Hill is located on the Caney Fork River approximately 60 miles east of Nashville, Tennessee.

The areas of work are located within Dekalb, Putnam, White and Warren counties in Tennessee. Principal cities in the area include Cookeville, Smithville, McMinnville, and Sparta Tennessee. The dam is located at river mile 26.6 up the Caney Fork River in Dekalb County.

• Grass Mowing and Maintenance of Landscaped Areas

• Cleaning Services; consisting of cleaning and servicing public use areas and facilities at various recreation and operational areas, and removal of refuse and litter.

• Janitorial Services

• Facility repair, maintenance

• Cleaning Services at primitive sites.

• Herbicide Application

• Marking and Painting Boundary Lines

• Beach Water Testing and Septic Pumping

• Beach and Playground Maintenance

• Pavement Striping and Sealing

• Janitorial Services Center Hill Power Plant

1.3 Basis of Award

The award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best value to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Performance

Confidence Assessment, Operations Plan; and Price. Factors are listed in descending order of importance. NOTE: When combined, the non-cost/price factors are APPROXIMATELY EQUAL to Price. Factors are illustrated:

Factor I – Performance Confidence Assessment 1st

Factor II – Technical Approach / Operations Plan 2nd

Factor III - Price Approximately EQUAL to Non-Cost/Price Factors

Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to assume they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

Proposals are intended to be evaluated and an award made without discussions with Offerors unless discussions are determined to be necessary.

Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

1.4 Type of Contract

The Government intends to award one (1) firm-fixed price Indefinite Delivery Requirements contract with a base and four (4) option years.

1.5 Who May Submit

This procurement is a total small business set aside.

1.6 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and Small Business Size Standard

The NAICS code for this project is 561210 with a size standard of $47,000,000.

1.7 Availability of Plans (Drawings), Technical Specifications and Additional Documents

All drawings, technical specifications, and additional documents relating to this Request for Proposal (RFP) are available for download at this solicitation posting on the SAM website, www.SAM.gov. No printed copies of the aforementioned documents will be provided by the Government. Although provided as separate attachments, the following documents are considered an official part of the solicitation.

The Specifications and Drawings are part of the contract and shall be considered as such (see Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.236-7001, Contract Drawings and Specifications).

http://www.sam.gov/

1.8 Pre-Proposal Site Visit

An organized site visit is scheduled during the solicitation period. Offerors should inspect the job site prior to submitting a proposal. Offerors should take such other steps as may be reasonably necessary to ascertain the nature and location of the work and the general and local conditions that can affect the work or the cost thereof. Failure to do so will not relieve Offerors from the responsibility for properly estimating the difficulty or cost of successfully performing the work. The Government assumes no responsibility for any understanding or representations concerning conditions made by any of its officers, agents or employees, unless included in the solicitation, the specifications or related documents.

Please refer to FAR 52.237-1, Site Visit, incorporated by full text in this solicitation, for information pertaining to the scheduled site visit.

This will be the only site visit for this project. If you miss the scheduled site visit, no other arrangements will be made due to personnel and time restrictions.

1.9 Requirements to Attend the Site Visit

REGISTRATION: Only registered persons will be permitted to attend the site visit. In addition to the information below, please also provide your firm’s name, firm’s CAGE and/or Unique Entity Identifier (known as DUNS) number, name and position title of primary point-of-contact and their telephone number and email address. Only two (2) individuals from each business entity will be permitted to attend.

U.S. CITIZENS: To register, U.S. citizens interested in attending the site visit shall submit a Nashville District Corps of Engineers (LRN) U.S. Citizen Security Access Form to the LRN Point of Contacts (POCs), Contract Specialist Jamie Lynn Barnes and Contracting Officer Alison Abernathy, no later than three (3) business days prior to the site visit. If submitting the document in less than three business (3) days prior, the person may not receive approval for participation. Notification of approval or denial will be provided prior to the date of the site visit. The form and guidance is available as a pdf attachment on http://sam.gov with this solicitation and is titled U.S. Citizen Security Access Form.

FOREIGN NATIONALS (FNs): All non-U.S. Citizens, including permanent residents wishing to attend the site visit must be approved in advance. FNs wishing to attend a site visit shall submit a completed Nashville District Corps of Engineers Foreign National Security Access Form and legible color copies of two (2) of the following documents:

Passport (unexpired or expired), Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (INS Form N-560 04 N- 561), Certificate of Naturalization (INS Form N-550 or N-570), unexpired foreign Passport with I-551 stamp or attached INS Form I-94 indicating unexpired employment authorization, an Alien Registration Receipt Card with photo (INS Form I-151 or I-551), unexpired Temporary Resident Card (INS Form I-688), unexpired Employment http://sam.gov/

Authorization Card (INS Form I- 688A), unexpired Reentry Permit (INS Form I-327), unexpired Refugee Travel Document (INS Form I-571), or unexpired Employment Authorization Documentation issued by the INS which contains a photograph (INS Form I-688B) to the LRN POCs. These documents must be submitted two (2) weeks prior to the site visit. FN requests require approval at the Headquarters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQ USACE) level. Exceptions will be considered on a case-by-case basis but will be limited. The form is available as a pdf attachment on www.sam.gov with this solicitation and is titled Foreign National Security Access Form.

LRN POCs for Registration: For questions and/or concerns regarding the Site Visit, please contact Jamie Lynn Barnes at Jamie.L.Barnes@usace.army.mil. Please submit all site visit request forms to Jamie Lynn Barnes at Jamie.L.Barnes @usace.army.mil and Alison Abernathy at Alison.T.Abernathy@usace.army.mil. When you send your site visit request form, please put “W912P526RA005- (Foreign National or U.S.

Citizen) Request Form-(Your Company Name)” in the subject line of the email.

Please edit the information in parenthesis to match the request form you submit and your company name.

1.10 POC for Communication: Any communications regarding this procurement must be made in writing to the Nashville Contracting Branch, Attn: Jamie Lynn Barnes at Jamie.L.Barnes@usace.army.mil. Inquiries must identify the solicitation number, the requestor’s company name, address, email address, telephone, and facsimile numbers to include area code.

Phone calls or requests to arrange meetings at the Nashville District during the solicitation period to discuss project requirements or company’s capabilities are highly discouraged and will not be scheduled.

1.11 Prospective Offerors’ Questions and Requests for Information

Prospective Offerors should submit questions concerning this Solicitation through the Bidder Inquiry function in ProjNet at http://www.ProjNet.org/ProjNet. This is USACE’s standard platform for receiving and responding to questions and requests for information. As noted below, Offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet.

Offerors shall submit their proposals in accordance with the provisions stated in the Solicitation.

The deadline to submit questions is 2:00 PM Central Time on 14 November 2025.

To submit and review inquiry items, Offerors will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system. Instructions to gain access are listed below.

Project: Center Hill O&M Services Contract Solicitation Number: W912P526RA005 The Bidder Inquiry Key: N5D62B-FFRMM9 http://www.sam.gov/ mailto:Jamie.L.Barnes@usace.army.mil mailto:Jori.L.Cox@usace.army.mil mailto:Alison.T.Abernathy@usace.army.mil mailto:%20Jamie.L.Barnes@usace.army.mil http://www.projnet.org/ProjNet

Instructions for ProjNet Bidder Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Select Continue. A page will then open stating a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Select Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Instructions for Future ProjNet Bidder Inquiry Access:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Select Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

From this page you may view all inquiries or add an inquiry. Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by LRN’s technical team.

Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety and to review the “Bidder Inquiry System” for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

NOTES:

1. Offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet, but in accordance with the provisions stated in the solicitation. Any questions regarding acceptable means of submitting offers shall be made directly to the Contract Specialist identified in the solicitation.

2. Government responses to questions from prospective Offerors concerning the Solicitation that are submitted to ProjNet in accordance with the procedures above are not binding on the Government unless an amendment is issued on Standard Form 30.

In the case of any conflicts, the Solicitation governs. Any changes or revisions to the Solicitation will be made by formal amendment. Government responses will be limited to: (a) Notice that an amendment will be issued; (b) Reference to an existing requirement contained in the Solicitation; or (c) Notice that a response is not necessary.

3. The ability for prospective Offerors to enter questions in reference to the Solicitation will be disabled ten (10) calendar days prior to the closing date stated in the Solicitation. No Government responses will be entered into the ProjNet system within five (5) calendar days prior to the closing date stated in the Solicitation.

1.12 Amendments Prior to Date Submission for Request for Proposals (RFP). The right is reserved as the interest of the Government may require, to revise or amend the specifications or drawings or both prior to the date set for submission of proposals.

Such revisions and amendments, if any, will be announced by an amendment or amendments to this RFP. If the revisions and amendments are of a nature which requires material changes in quantities or prices proposed or both, the date set for receipt of proposals may be postponed by such number of days as in the opinion of the issuing Contracting Officer will enable Offerors to revise their proposal. In such cases, the amendment will include an announcement of the new date for receipt of proposal.

1.13 Notice to Offeror: Use of Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances

a. In accordance with Section 326 of P.L. 102-484, the Government is prohibited from awarding any contract which includes a specification or standard that requires the use of a Class I ozone depleting substance (ODS) identified in Section 601(a) of the Clean Air Act, (42 U.S.C 767a(a)), or that can be met only through the use of such a substance unless such use has been approved, on an individual basis, by a senior acquisitions official who determines that there is no suitable substitute available.

b. To comply with this statute, the Government has conducted a best effort screening of the specifications and standards associated with this acquisition to determine whether they contain any ODS requirements. This requirement has no relationship to ODSs.

c. If the Offeror possesses any special knowledge about any other ODSs required directly or indirectly at any level of contract performance, the U.S. Army would appreciate if such information be brought to the Contracting Officer for appropriate action. To preclude delay to the procurement, the Offeror should provide any information as soon as possible after release of this RFP and prior to the submission of proposals to the extent practicable. It should be understood that there is no obligation on the Offeror to comply with the request and that no compensation can be provided for doing so.

2.0 BONDS AND INSURANCE

2.1 BID GUARANTEE. All Offerors shall furnish a bid guarantee. In accordance with FAR 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, the bidder (or Offeror for this solicitation) shall furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment, e.g., bid bond (use Standard Form 24) supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier’s check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States.

The bid guarantee amount shall be at least 20 percent of the bid price but shall not exceed $3,000,000.00. If using a Bid Bond, it must be submitted on SF 24. The SF 24 can be found at the GSA Forms Library at https://www.gsa.gov/forms.

2.2 INSURANCE. Contractor shall carry Liability and Insurance. See FAR 52.228-5, Insurance – Work on a Government Installation

2.3 The successful Offeror will, within the time established in the proposal, furnish performance and payment bonds in the amounts indicated in the RFP or the specifications.

a. PERFORMANCE BONDS (Standard Form (SF) 1418). Pursuant to FAR 52.228- 16, Performance and Payment Bonds—Other Than Construction, the penal amount of the performance bond shall equal one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price.

Bonds shall be received on a SF 1418 within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of contract award. The SF 1418 can be found at the GSA Forms Library at https://www.gsa.gov/forms.

b. PAYMENT BONDS (Standard Form (SF) 1416). Pursuant to FAR 52.228-16, Performance and Payment Bonds—Other Than Construction, the penal amount of the payment bond shall equal one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price. Bonds shall be received on a SF 1416 within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of contract award. The SF 1416 can be found at the GSA Forms Library at https://www.gsa.gov/forms.

3.0 SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (SAM)

In accordance with FAR 52.204-7, System for Award Management, registration is required in the System for Award Management (SAM) database located at www.sam.gov. More specifically, "An Offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation and shall continue to be registered until time of award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract, basic agreement, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchasing agreement resulting from this solicitation."

(See FAR 52.204-7(b)(1)).

https://www.gsa.gov/forms https://www.gsa.gov/forms https://www.gsa.gov/forms

For SAM Customer Service, contact:

Federal Service Desk URL: www.fsd.gov Hours: 8am – 8pm (Eastern Time) U.S. Calls: 866-606-8220 International Calls: 334-206-7828

DSN: 866-606-8220

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Effective June 29, 2018, vendors creating or updating their registration can have their registration activated prior to the approval of the required notarized letter. However, the signed copy of the notarized letter must be sent to the GSA Federal Service Desk (FSD) within 30 calendar days of activation, or the vendor risks no longer being active in SAM.

Vendors can check whether an account is active by performing a query by their CAGE or Unique Entity Identifier (transitioned from DUNS Number).

The registration process may now take several weeks, so vendors are highly encouraged to begin registering as soon as possible to avoid any possible delays in future contract awards. Remember, there is no cost to use SAM.

To find out additional information about the changes of the SAM registration process, contractors should visit the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) link located at the top of the SAM homepage (www.sam.gov).

4.0 WHERE TO SUBMIT & SUBMITTAL DEADLINE

Offerors shall submit their proposals no later than the time and date specified in Block 8 of SF 1449 of this solicitation as follows:

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically, via Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE), as described below. The RFP will provide proposal submission instructions and receipt date for proposal submittal. The Offeror’s proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the Government by the date/time specified in the Solicitation.

5.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION: REFERENCE SECTION M OF THE SOLICITATION

FOR EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, PARAGRAPH 1.0 FOR VOLUME

CONTENTS

ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS RFP SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY

THROUGH PIEE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submissions is required through the Army’s Electronic http://www.fsd.gov/

File Sharing Service in PIEE (https://piee.eb.mil/). The PIEE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. Information regarding how to set up a vendor registration is included in this link:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/portal/overview/vendorRegister.xhtml. On this page, click on the “Vendor User Registration” Doc and it will take you through the process of registering as a vendor.

If you plan on submitting a proposal, be sure to select “SOL-Solicitation” in the drop-down list and choose the “Proposal Manager” role to be given the proper permissions.

Further training is available at the following links:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml - This link shows information regarding the Solicitation application in PIEE and the different roles available.

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xhtml - This link is for Offerors regarding the Proposal Manager function and instruction on submitting a Proposal.

a. File Size Limitations: Offerors are advised to follow the PIEE instructions for uploading files. PIEE supports delivery of up to 1.9GB per file, with no limit on the number of files, as well as multiple file formats. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload them into the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

b. File Naming Convention: To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

- W912P526RA005 – (FIRM NAME) – VOLUME I

- W912P526RA005 – (FIRM NAME) – VOLUME II

Each file name shall begin with the Solicitation number followed by the firm’s name, and a brief file description. Please see the examples above.

c. File Organization: Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Font size shall be the size listed in the submission requirements for each factor. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 11x17 fold- outs, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section where the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in each section for each factor.

https://piee.eb.mil/ https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/portal/overview/vendorRegister.xhtml https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xhtml

d. Upload Completion & Deadline: Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the Solicitation document. The time and date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion/delivery time and date recorded within the PIEE site. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

e. Electronic Files: Files shall be in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. Text and graphics portfolios of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe applications. Data submitted in a spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel (all cells and formulas should be unlocked).

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of FAR Provision 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition (Alternate I), subparagraph (e), which is incorporated by reference in the RFP. The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 ORGANIZATION. Proposals shall be organized as follows:

a. Volume I:

Factor I – Past Performance Confidence Assessment Factor II – Technical Approach / Operations Plan

b. Volume II:

Factor III – Price Information

Tab A – Proposal Data Sheet

Tab B – SF1449 and acknowledged amendments (if any)

Tab C – Section B – Price Schedule

Tab D – Section K (unless available at SAM.GOV)

Tab E – Bid Guarantee

Tab F – Proof of Financial Capability

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

2.1 The evaluation process consists of three (3) parts: 1) proposal compliance review, 2) past performance, technical/operation plan, and price evaluations, 3) best value decision.

2.1.1 Proposal Compliance Review. Compliance review is an initial check to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and past performance proposal, technical proposal, and price proposal were received. Specifically, the initial review will verify that the Past Performance Proposal and Technical Proposal address Factors I-II at a minimum. Further, the initial review will verify the Price Proposal is submitted as a separate document. Pages in the Past Performance Proposal and Technical Proposal exceeding the total page limit will be removed prior to the evaluation and not evaluated.

2.1.2 Past Performance and Technical/Operations Plan Evaluations. The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements using an adjectival-based system. Past Performance will be rated based on recency/relevancy and confidence.

2.1.3 Price Evaluation. The Government will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical (Past Performance and Technical) evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to the price information until completion of the technical evaluation.

2.1.4 Best Value Decision. After all of the above evaluations are complete, the SSA performs this assessment by comparing the strengths, weaknesses, and the cost/price of the competing proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value to the Government.

2.2 Evaluation Documentation. The Government will support each rating with narrative statements, describing proposal strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties.

3.0 CONTENT

3.1 Content of Volume I, Factor I – Performance Confidence Assessment

3.1.1 Provide descriptions for up to five (5) of the company’s operations and maintenance projects that are 75% or more complete within the last ten (10) years for projects which are similar to this project in scope and magnitude. Provide a complete project detail sheet of contracting experience including Federal, State, and local government and private sector contracts that demonstrates your capability to perform the work specified in this solicitation. A Project Detail Sheet is included at the end of this section for your use. Use as many forms as necessary to meet the criteria. If you elect not to use the form, all information identified on the form is still required for evaluation of this item and should be ordered the same. Include the names and background of any predecessor companies. Similar in scope is defined as contracts with substantial efforts for tasks involving the following:

a. Grass Mowing and Maintenance of Landscaped Areas

b. Cleaning Services—Recreational Facilities and Areas

c. Janitorial Services

Similar in magnitude is defined as operation and maintenance contracts that have annual contract value in excess of $500,000.00

3.1.2 References should be provided for all past performance submitted on a Project Detail Sheet or its equivalent. The Offeror may identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and private) for recent and relevant work by submitting Past Performance Questionnaires on Form PPQ-0 (“PPQ”) included at the end of this section. Page 1 of the PPQ should be submitted with your proposal. USACE requests that the Offeror’s client completes this full questionnaire and submits directly to Jamie Lynn Barnes via email at Jamie.L.Barnes@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. In the event that a completed PPQ is not received from the Offeror’s client prior to the proposal closing date, USACE reserves the right to contact such client to obtain a completed PPQ; therefore, it is encouraged to include their contact information mailto:%20Jamie.L.Barnes@usace.army.mil on that first page.

The PPQ included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror and its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor I. The client should ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for their point of contact. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the PPQs are provided in a timely matter. Offerors are encouraged to follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Performance recognition documents received within the last ten (10) years (from the date of solicitation issuance) such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition should be included.

NOTE: The SSEB will not review PPQs for projects completed more than ten (10) years prior to the date of solicitation issuance.

3.1.3 In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. The Government may not contact all the identified client references/points of contact. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertains to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements. If the firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work. The Government will not review past performance for projects completed more than ten (10) years prior to the date of solicitation issuance.

NOTE: Volume I, Factor I, Past Performance Proposal, shall be limited to no more than twenty-five (25) pages, 8-1/2” by 11”. Charts, tables, drawings and illustrations should be limited to the electronic PDF equivalent of 11” by 17”. Pages should have a one-inch margin on all sides. Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman. (Captions for drawings and tables may be 10-point) Any PPQs or Evaluations will not be counted toward the overall page limit. Pages exceeding the page limits will be removed and not evaluated.

3.2 Evaluation of Volume I, Factor I – Performance Confidence Assessment

3.2.1 The SSEB will evaluate both the extent and quality of the Offeror’s experience described in the proposal.

3.2.2 Well-documented self-performance of projects (75% or more complete) within the past ten (10) years (from the date of solicitation issuance) that are similar in scope and magnitude to this project will be rated more relevant than work where the Offeror performed as a subcontractor, or work that is less than 75% complete.

3.2.3 Projects performed by contractors other than the Offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated as prime contractor experience, unless those other contractors are part of a Joint Venture (JV) Offeror, as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies (JV) for the purpose of this RFP, the JV will be evaluated as a single Offeror. The experience of each joint venture partner will be evaluated based on each partner’s role in cited past work and in the proposed JV role for this project.

3.2.4 The SSEB will evaluate recent and relevant past performance to assess the degree of performance risk involved in accepting each Offeror’s proposal. If the firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work.

3.2.5 For the purposes of evaluation, recent is defined as current work or work completed within the past ten (10) years (from the date of solicitation issuance). The SSEB will first evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection, as defined above. The SSEB will then review past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment, considering quality of service (record of compliance with previous contract requirements, accuracy of reports, technical excellence, and quality awards/certificates) and timeliness of performance (record of meeting milestones and delivery schedules, reliability, and responsiveness to technical direction). The Government reserves the right to check any and all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess Offeror’s past performance. The Government may also use other tools such as CPARS, PPIRS, contacting references, etc., to gather information regarding an Offeror’s qualifications and past performance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Therefore, the Offeror shall be rated as unknown confidence (neutral), having no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation.

3.3 Content of Volume I, Factor II – Technical Approach / Operations Plan

3.3.1 The Offeror should only submit Operations Plans for Sections C-2 Grass Mowing and Maintenance of Landscaped Areas, C-3 Cleaning Services – Recreational Facilities and Areas, and C-4 Janitorial Services of the scope of work. The Offeror’s Operations Plans should indicate a realistic approach for staffing, transportation, and equipment to perform the scope and magnitude of the work. Each plan should include, but is not limited to, the following information:

a. Number of crew(s)

b. Number of personnel assigned to each crew

c. Crew schedules and area assignments

d. Amount and type of equipment assigned (for Grass Mowing Operations Plan only)

e. Identification of vehicle/transportation needs for personnel and equipment

f. Identification of managerial/supervisory personnel responsible for insuring compliance with all contract requirements (include each person’s job title, job duties, and a description of the employee’s experience that demonstrates the employees have skills, abilities, and experience in managing/supervising contracts with similar scope and magnitude with the solicited work). (Note: if the proposed personnel are not currently employees of the offeror, a letter of commitment should be included with their resume.

g. Identification of all proposed subcontractors (include each subcontractor’s contractual responsibilities; a description of the subcontractor’s experience that demonstrates they have skills, abilities, and experience in contracts with similar scope and magnitude as the solicited work; qualifications, including licenses and/or certifications, if any; and letters of commitment; and

h. Account for:

i. the geographic diversity of the work area

ii. backup plans for equipment breakdowns (for Grass Mowing Operations Plan only) and replacing personnel; and

iii. the impact of weather (for Grass Mowing Operations Plan only).

Note: An Offeror’s Operations Plans for Sections C-2 Grass Mowing and Maintenance of Landscaped Areas, C-3 Cleaning Services – Recreational Facilities and Areas, and C-4 Janitorial Services of the scope of work at a minimum, shall address items (a) – (h) above.

If the Offeror is awarded the contract, the Operations Plans, including the personnel and subcontractors identified therein, set forth in the Technical Proposal, will be incorporated into the contract requirements. Personnel, equipment, and methods stated in the proposal shall be used in completing the work in the contract, unless superseded by the contract specifications, or the Contracting Officer gives prior approval for a variation. The Government will include adherence to the proposal in its evaluation of the contractor’s performance.

NOTE: Volume I, Factor II, Technical Approach / Operations Plans Proposal, shall be limited to no more than twenty-five (25) pages, 8-1/2” by 11”. Charts, tables, drawings and illustrations should be limited to the electronic PDF equivalent of 11” by 17”.

Pages should have a one-inch margin on all sides. Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman. (Captions for drawings and tables may be 10-point) Any PPQs or Evaluations will not be counted toward the overall page limit. Pages exceeding the page limits will be removed and not evaluated.

3.4 Evaluation of Volume I, Factor II – Technical Approach / Operations Plan

3.4.1 The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the adequacy and realism of their Operations Plans for Sections C-2 Grass Mowing and Maintenance of Landscaped Areas, C-3 Cleaning Services – Recreational Facilities and Areas, and C-4 Janitorial Services to accomplish the work, whether performed by the Offeror’s employees or by subcontractors. More specifically, the Operations Plans will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror has both a complete understanding of the contract requirements and the ability to successfully perform the contract requirements for Sections C-2 Grass Mowing and Maintenance of Landscaped Areas, C-3 Cleaning Services – Recreational Facilities and Areas, and C-4 Janitorial Services.

3.4.2 The overall rating for the Operations Plan will consider Sections C-2 Grass Mowing and Maintenance of Landscaped Areas, C-3 Cleaning Services – Recreational Facilities and Areas, and C-4 Janitorial Services approximately equal.

3.4.3 Operations Plans proposing personnel (current employees or proposed employees supported by letters of commitment) with more than two (2) years of recent experience (within the last 10 years from the date of solicitation issuance) with similar work or contracts will be rated more favorably than Operations Plans proposing less experienced employees (current or proposed).

3.4.4 Operations Plans proposing subcontractors supported by letters of commitment will be rated more favorably than Operations Plans proposing subcontractors not supported by letters of commitment.

3.4.5 Operations Plans proposing use of qualified and or licensed individuals, when qualifications and/or licenses are supported by documentary evidence of such licenses (i.e., copies of licenses or certificates, etc.), will be rated more favorably than Operations Plans proposing use of qualified and or licensed individuals not similarly supported by documentary evidence of such certificates or licenses.

3.5 Content of Volume II, Factor III - Price Proposal (separate package)

The Offeror shall submit a completed Proposal Data Sheet. The format is provided at the end of this section. The Offeror shall also submit SF 33 and Section B, Proposal Price Schedule and Section K Representations and Certifications, in original only.

Unless available at SAM.GOV, Offerors shall submit all representations and certifications at Section K, including those incorporated by reference. See FAR Solicitation Provision 52.252-1 for instructions on how to obtain the full-text provisions.

The Offeror shall submit proof of financial capability consisting of the most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities. The firm’s banking institution name, address, point of contact (POC) name, POC email and telephone number shall also be provided.

NOTE: Volume II, Factor III, Price Proposal, shall be limited to no more than twenty-five

(25) pages, 8-1/2” by 11”. Charts, tables, drawings and illustrations should be limited to the electronic PDF equivalent of 11” by 17”. Pages should have a one-inch margin on all sides. Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman. (Captions for drawings and tables may be 10-point) Any PPQs or Evaluations will not be counted toward the overall page limit. Pages exceeding the page limits will be removed and not evaluated.

3.6 Evaluation of Volume II, Factor III – Price Proposal

The total proposed contract price, including options, will be used for evaluation. Price proposals will be evaluated by the cost engineer and the SSEB for fairness, reasonableness, price realism and for material unbalancing through the use of price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Should certified cost and pricing data be required, then cost analysis may be performed to determine realism and reasonableness. This review will be first conducted by the cost engineer, who will not have knowledge of the technical and past performance ratings. The SSEB will not have knowledge of the proposed prices or the price evaluation until after the technical and past performance evaluation is completed.

3.6.1 Price will not be scored in the same way or with the same narrative terminology as the Technical Proposal nor will price be numerically scored. Instead, the SSEB will evaluate the price and prepare a brief narrative on the Evaluation Summary.

3.6.2 The price proposal will be reviewed for completeness and compatibility with the technical proposal. The reasonableness of each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the Government’s cost estimates and the Offeror’s technical approach to the scope of work. Even though the total contract price for the Base and all Option Years will be evaluated, the primary emphasis will not be placed only on the lowest price.

3.6.3 The price proposal will also be evaluated for proportionality to ensure that it is not materially unbalanced. The offer is unbalanced when the price of one or more items in the price schedule is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost/price analysis. The Government may reject an offer as unacceptable if it is materially unbalanced as to the prices for the basic requirement and the option quantities.

4.0 Ratings

Evaluators will apply adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

4.1 Past Performance Ratings: In performing the Past Performance factor evaluation, evaluators shall apply the following relevance levels to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of Offerors.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival 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.

4.1.1 After determining the recency and relevancy of the prior contracts submitted, evaluators will assess the Offeror’s quality of performance on those contracts to determine a single performance confidence assessment of Past Performance, utilizing the following definitions:

Performance Confidence Assessments

Adjectival 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 successfully perform the required effort.

4.2 Technical Ratings: Evaluators shall apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation:

Technical Approach, Drawings and Descriptive Data, Efficiency, Manufacturer Experience Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

4.2.1 The following Definition of Risk chart defines the level of risk listed in the above chart: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings:

Definition of Risk Applied to Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Risk Level Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

5.0 Findings Definitions

a. Adverse Past Performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

b. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

c. Communications are exchanges between the Government and Offerors after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(b).

d. Competitive Range is all the mostly highly rated proposals (based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria), unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. See FAR 15.306(c).

e. Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

f. Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(d).

g. Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO’s written notification to the Offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions.

h. Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

i. Quality is the composite of materiel attributes including performance features and characteristics of a production or service to satisfy a customer's given need

j. Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

k. Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and…