PWS Section M Grounds CERL.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 OVERVIEW

The Government will evaluate the proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors stated in this solicitation. The evaluation factors in this solicitation are described herein using the evaluation rating systems outlined for selection procedures.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

In accordance with the Class Deviation - Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul Part 12, Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Part 212 (2026-O0028) this requirement will follow the simplified procedures associated with the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services. Award will be made to the offeror the Government determines will be able to accomplish the necessary work in the manner most advantageous to the Government and whose offer represents the best value to the Government, after considering all factors, including evaluated cost. Best value tradeoff means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's evaluation, provides the greatest overall best value in response to the requirement and to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. Award will be made based on the overall best value proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. Award will not be made to any contractor unless the contractor's combined technical rating is acceptable or higher. Proposals will be evaluated utilizing the following evaluation procedures and factors:

EVALUATION PROCUEDURES:

Factor I – Technical and Factor II – Past Performance are of equal importance and when combined are significantly more important to Factor III - Price.

The Government intends to select ONE contractor for award of this effort. For the purpose of award, the government shall evaluate offers based on the evaluation factors described below:

3.0 Evaluation Factors

Factor Location Description FACTOR 1 VOLUME 1 Technical – Offerors shall describe their

Corporate Capacity, Key Personnel, and Quality Control Plan.

FACTOR 2 VOLUME 1 Past Performance – Offeror shall demonstrate past performance.

FACTOR 3 VOLUME 2 Standard Form 1449 and pricing.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

I. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The Offeror must submit evidence of its capability as specified in this solicitation.

Contractors will be evaluated on the following.

Factor 1 – Subfactor 1: Corporate Capacity:

The Offeror’s Corporate capacity will be evaluated on the offeror’s demonstrated ability to execute Contract requirements. Corporate capacity shall be proven through demonstrating the Personnel, Equipment, Materials, and Facilities available to the Contractor to successfully execute this requirement. The contractor shall provide a least of subcontractors and describe what work they will be performing under this contract. The Contractor should also describe relevant experience performing similar work required by this contract. Contractors that can demonstrate relevant experience and capacity to provide multi-seasonal grounds maintenance for facilities of size similar or larger than CERL will be judged more favorably.

Factor 1 – Subfactor 2: Key Personnel

a. Chief Executive Officer/President: Experience providing personnel and equipment for large scale Landscaping and Grounds requirements similar in size and scope to this requirement.

b. Project Superintendent: Experience meeting scheduling requirements and planning projects. Have ability to perform other tasks including, but are not limited to, ensuring contractor compliance with execution, quality, safety, and security. Possesses required state and federal herbicide treatment certifications and training.

c. Lead Grounds Technician: Has experience performing similar work as this contract and possess experience performing quality control and managing personnel.

Contractors who can demonstrate that they can provide personnel experienced with multi-seasonal grounds maintenance will be evaluated more favorably.

Factor 1 – Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan

The Contractor shall prepare and submit a Quality Control Plan (QCP) with their proposal. The plan shall address contract requirements for (1) a Quality inspection plan, how work will be tracked and recorded; (2) Work Schedule: The contractor shall provide a detailed schedule for that the Contractor will use to meet the quality, quantity, timeliness, and responsiveness required by this contract.

Contractors who can demonstrate a plan that demonstrates an understanding of multi-seasonal grounds maintenance to include both periodic ground maintenance and proactive plans for proactively monitoring and clearing snow in a timely manner will be evaluated more favorably.

FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY RATING SYSTEM AND DEFINITIONS

Technical Factors Rating. The rating for Technical will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. The adjectival ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

II. FACTOR II - PAST PERFORMANCE

To demonstrate past performance, the Offeror shall provide performance on past or current contracts of a similar type, size, scope and complexity, have been completed within five (5) years from the date of this solicitation, including references, with names and contact information of the references who can verify such past performance.

New Corporate Entities -- New corporate entities may submit data on prior relevant and recent contracts (within the last 3 calendar years) involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Past performance information on work for

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

state and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontractors that are similar to the Government requirement will be evaluated equally with similar federal contracts. Offeror may submit information on key personnel, major subcontractors, and work performed as part of a team or joint venture and other previous reincarnation of its current organization.

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/DUNS 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.

a. Past Performance Evaluation. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current requirement.

b. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed on those past contracts.

The Government’s assessment will focus on contracts that meet the following conditions:

Recency. Only contracts completed within five (5) years from the date of this solicitation will be considered.

Relevancy. Only contracts which were/are relevant in size and scope of work will be considered.

The Government will examine the Offeror’s record of satisfying customer requirements, including consideration of the Offeror’s:

1. Technical performance, including technical performance, staffing, subcontractor management, quality control, safety, and commitment to customer satisfaction as evidenced by reasonable and cooperative behavior.

2. Cost Controls. Record of containing and forecasting costs on previously performed contracts.

3. Schedule. Record of adherence to contractual schedules.

The Government will use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources. The Offeror is cautioned that while the Government will consider data from other sources, the burden of demonstrating satisfactory past performance rests with the Offeror. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent and/or relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, providing the Offeror supplies a certified statement with their offer that no past performance information is available.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. Relevancy is not a separate factor but a component of the overall Past Performance assessment.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

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.

Performance Confidence Factor Rating Definitions. A rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence or Unknown Confidence (as defined below) will be assigned to the Past Performance Evaluation. The Past Performance Confidence ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

Performance Confidence Assessments:

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.

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 effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

III. FACTOR III - PRICE

The contractor shall submit a completed Standard Form 1449 and pricing. The contract line items will be totaled including all Optional Line items and all optional option years. This total will be used to determine price.

It is incumbent upon the offeror to submit sufficient information for the Government to determine technical capability and price. Failure to submit sufficient information will cause rejection of the entire proposal.

By submission of an offer pursuant to this solicitation, the Offeror agrees that the capability presented in the proposal becomes a contract requirement upon award of a contract. No changes, substitutions, or deviations from the accepted proposal may be made without the approval of the Contracting Officer. You, as the Offeror, agree that the explicit capability presented in your proposal shall be provided under this contract at the stated price.