RFQ_Addendum_Submission Instructions_ Evaluation.docx

ADDENDUM TO SOLICITATION:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION, INSTRUCTIONS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND BASIS FOR AWARD

Introduction This addendum supplements Sections 52.212‑1 and 52.212‑2 of the solicitation by providing additional instructions for proposal submission and a detailed evaluation framework.

The purpose of this addendum is to:

1. Clarify the Government’s proposal submission expectations for price, technical, and past performance factors.

1. Establish a comparative analysis methodology for evaluating proposals.

1. Provide guidance on the basis for award consistent with FAR Part 12 (Commercial Item Acquisitions) and the FAR Overhaul principles.

This structured evaluation approach ensures that proposals are assessed consistently, transparently, and in a manner that identifies the offer that is most advantageous to the Government, based on price, technical compliance, and past performance.

Addendum to Section 52.212‑1 – Instructions to Offerors Offerors shall follow these additional instructions:

· Price Submission: Complete the provided CLIN-based price schedule. Provide all unit pricing and total prices for each CLIN. Ensure all pricing reflects the stated period of performance.

· Technical Submission: Submit a detailed response addressing:

· Turfgrass Management Plan (annual operations and rationale)

· Work Plan (process for completing the PWS, staffing, schedule, subcontractor list, equipment)

· Site-Specific Safety Plan (including Safety Officer roles)

· Contractor Quality Control Plan (CQC System Manager, inspection schedule)

· Draft Comprehensive Grounds Management Plan (fertilization, pesticides, SDS sheets)

· Past Performance Submission: Submit 3–5 references (prime, subcontract, or task order) within the last 3 years. Include: project title, agency, contract number, type, value, period, description, scope, size, complexity, offeror’s role, and point of contact info.

Addendum to Section 52.212‑2 – Evaluation Proposals will be evaluated based on three factors:

1. Technical Requirements – Pass/Fail assessment of minimum requirements.

1. Past Performance – Assessed for relevance and recency.

1. Price – Evaluated for reasonableness and cost-effectiveness.

Basis for Award Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government, considering:

· Compliance with technical requirements

· Quality and relevance of past performance

· Competitive pricing

EXPANDED PROPOSAL SUBMISION INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Comparative Analysis The Government will use comparative analysis procedures to evaluate proposals. Among proposals that meet all minimum technical requirements (Pass), the Government will compare the value of each offer based on price and the recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. This approach allows the Government to determine which proposal provides the best overall value, considering the combination of acceptable technical compliance, demonstrated performance history, and competitive pricing.

Evaluation Criteria Proposals will be evaluated based on the following three factors: price, technical requirements, and past performance. Each factor will be assessed independently according to the criteria outlined below.

Price Proposed pricing will be evaluated to determine overall cost-effectiveness. Lower prices will be viewed more favorably, provided all other requirements are met. While price will not be the sole factor in the award decision, competitive pricing will be a significant consideration.

Technical Requirements (Pass/Fail) Proposals must meet all stated minimum technical requirements to be considered for further evaluation. Each submission will be reviewed on a pass/fail basis. Only proposals that clearly demonstrate compliance with all minimum technical specifications will receive a “pass” rating and continue to the next stage of evaluation.

Past Performance Past performance will be assessed based on recency, relevance, and the quality of performance. More recent and highly relevant past performance examples will generally be rated more favorably. In addition, the demonstrated quality of past performance – positive outcomes, timeliness, adherence to requirements, and resolution of any performance issues will influence the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform this requirement.

Government Proposal Evaluation Process Initial Compliance Review

0. The agency will first conduct a preliminary review to ensure each proposal was submitted on time and includes all required documentation.

0. Proposals that are incomplete or noncompliant with submission instructions may be disqualified without further evaluation.

Technical Requirements Evaluation (Pass/Fail)

0. Each proposal will be reviewed to determine whether it meets the minimum technical requirements specified in the solicitation.

0. This review will be performed on a pass/fail basis.

3. Pass: Proposal fully meets all minimum technical criteria.

3. Fail: Proposal does not meet one or more of the minimum technical criteria and will not proceed to further evaluation.

Past Performance Evaluation

0. For proposals that pass the technical review, evaluators will assess past performance based on:

4. Recency: Preference will be given to contracts completed within the last 3–5 years.

4. Relevancy: Preference will be given to projects similar in scope, size, and complexity to the current requirement. Below are recency/relevancy definitions applicable to this requirement.

•Scope: Included all major services required by this PWS Headstone Services, turf and grass maintenance, tree, shrub, planting, and bed maintenance, irrigation system services, drainage system maintenance, trash & debris removal, pavement sweeping and cleaning, portable latrine services, flag raising/lowering, structure cleaning and light maintenance, and ceremonies assistance.

•Size: Maintained grounds of approximately 1.33 acres total site area •Complexity: Performed at a National Cemetery, military cemetery, or other high-visibility federal or institutional site with strict appearance standards equivalent to “national shrine” conditions.

•Demonstrated the ability to manage multiple concurrent service elements, frequent inspections, and compliance with federal safety and environmental regulations.

•Scope: Included most major services in this PWS (e.g., headstone services, turf and grasses maintenance, tree, shrub, planting, and bed maintenance, irrigation system service, drainage system maintenance).

•Size: Maintained grounds less than 1.33 acres.

•Complexity: Demonstrated ability to meet appearance and scheduling standards of similar size.

•Scope: Provided partial services such as turf and grasses maintenance, tree, shrub, planting, and bed maintenance.

•Size: Performed smaller-scale commercial, residential, or institutional landscaping.

•Complexity: Limited quality control or inspection standards; minimal coordination with government representatives.

•Services unrelated to ground maintenance (e.g., janitorial, construction, snow removal, or small-lot landscaping).

0. Ratings will reflect how closely the offeror’s past work aligns with the current need and how recently it was performed.

0. Performance Quality Adjustment: While recency and relevance define applicability, the Government will also consider how well the work was performed. Offerors with demonstrated high-quality performance will receive more favorable consideration, whereas documented deficiencies, recurring problems, or unresolved performance issues may reduce confidence, even if work is highly relevant.

Price Evaluation

0. Price proposals of technically acceptable (i.e., “pass” on technical requirements) submissions will be evaluated next.

0. Price will be reviewed for reasonableness and cost-effectiveness.

0. Lower prices will be viewed more favorably, assuming all other evaluation factors are met.

Final Evaluation and Award Recommendation

0. The evaluation team will compile and compare the results of all acceptable proposals.

0. The proposal offering the best value—based on technical compliance, relevant and recent past performance, and competitive pricing—will be recommended for award.

0. Final award decisions are subject to approval by the designated contracting officer or source selection authority Proposal Submission Requirements Submission Format Offerors shall organize their proposals in the following format to ensure clarity and completeness:

· Volume I – Price Proposal

· Volume II – Technical Proposal

· Volume III – Past Performance

· General Formatting Requirements

Number all pages Price Submission Instructions

· Please complete the price schedule in the solicitation document. Only provide offered prices on CLINS with quantities listed. Stated period of performance stated on spreadsheet will vary based on date of award.

Technical Submission Instructions

· Technical Subfactor #1

• Provide Turfgrass Management Plan showing all turf maintenance operations and application over the course of one year to maintain the turf health and appearance to National Shrine standards.

• Provide a detailed description how the operations are to be performed and rationale for each procedure in the plan

· Technical Subfactor #2

• Provide Work Plan including a clear definitive process on how the Contractor intends to complete the work involved in the Performance Work Statement.

• Work Plan must include plans for setting and re-setting upright marble headstones.

• Provide a list of subcontractors and work they will perform. Also include Schedule of Work, staffing plan, and list of equipment/vehicles, methodology /proposed man hours and mitigation of environment issues.

• Identify mandatory Site Manager to be present whenever work/services are being rendered. Include a 1-page resume with experience, qualification, certifications, training, roles, and responsibilities for all key personnel.

· Technical Subfactor #3

• Provide Site Specific Safety Plan including daily safety awareness/enforcement per OSHA, and identity mandatory on-site Safety Officer to be present whenever construction is ongoing.

• Include 1-page resume with experience, qualifications, certifications, and training for this specific duty.

· Technical Subfactor #4

• Provide Contractor Quality Control (CQC) and identify CQC System Manger and schedule for inspections.

• Include 1-page resume with experience, qualifications, certifications, and training for this specific duty.

· Technical Subfactor #5

• Provide a draft Comprehensive Grounds Management Plan (GMP).

• Must include Fertilizing application schedule, Pesticides and herbicides with product Safety Data Sheets (SDS) Past Performance Submission Instructions

· Offerors shall submit past performance information to demonstrate the relevancy and recency of previous work similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use this information to evaluate the offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the work

· Offerors shall submit past performance information to demonstrate the relevancy and recency of previous work similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use this information to evaluate the offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the work.

· Offerors are encouraged to provide metrics, customer ratings, commendations, or documentation of corrective actions to support the evaluation of past performance quality.

· Offerors shall provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) past performance references. These may include prime contracts, subcontracts, or task orders performed within the last three (3) years from the date of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to contact references to verify performance and to use other sources of information for evaluation purposes.

· Do not submit general corporate experience or marketing material.

· For each past performance reference, provide the following details:

· (1) Project Title,

· (2) Customer/Client Name (include agency or commercial entity),

· (3) Contract Number,

· (4) Contract Type (e.g., FFP, T&M, CPFF),

· (5) Contract Value (initial and final, if different),

· (6) Period of Performance (start and end dates),

· (7) Description of Work Performed,

· (8) Describe the work and its relevance to this solicitation’s requirements,

· (9) Size and Complexity,

· (10) Include number of FTEs, locations, or other relevant scale factors,

· (11) Offeror’s Role (Prime, Subcontractor, JV Partner, etc.),

· (12) Point of Contact,

· (13) Include name, title, phone, and email address.

(End of Addendum)