Forestry L and M with RFI Corrections.docx

31 December 2025

SECTION L

General Instructions & Compliance:

L.A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS & COMPLIANCE

L.A.1. If you choose to submit a proposal, it shall be submitted as follows:

A vendor portal for solicitations was introduced as an enterprise-level service for the Department of Defense (DoD) within the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) platform. This capability allows DoD to have more automated and secure process for capturing solicitations and their attachments and responses from industry.

There are two vendor roles (Proposal Manager, Proposal View Only) for the PIEE Solicitation Module. The Proposal Manager role is required to submit an offer to a solicitation posted in the PIEE Solicitation Module.

In the attachment 0005 guide, you will find step-by-step instructions for new users to self-register for a PIEE user account and existing users to add additional roles. Refer to the Roles and Actions/Functions Matrix, in the help section, to assist with determining which PIEE Solicitation Module role you will need to add. NO proposal will be accepted outside PIEE.

Government points of contact for this solicitation are:

Contract Specialist:

Samantha Hayes E-Mail: samantha.c.hayes.civ@army.mil Contracting Officer:

Amy Bowen Amy.m.bowen.civ@army.mil Proposal submission shall be no later than 034:00 PM EST on 162 January 2025. The size per e-mail shall not exceed 9MB. If a complete proposal is not submitted by this closing time, the Offeror’s proposal will not be considered for award. If the Offeror does not receive confirmation of receipt, it is the responsibility of the Offeror to contact the POCs identified above to confirm their proposal has been received. Confirmation of receipt does not equate to confirmation of contents of the proposal.

L.A.2 All inquiries/questions shall be submitted via email to both POCs identified above NLT 10:00 AM EST on 2912 December 2025. It is preferred that only one (1) set of questions be submitted by each offeror. Questions received after the date and time may not be answered prior to the closing date/time for receipt of submissions. A list of frequently asked questions have been provided in with solicitation and duplicate questions will not be answered. Comment by Wright, Ian D CIV USARMY CECOM (USA): Please amend L.A.3 All communications regarding this competition must be submitted in writing and directed solely to the Government points of contact (POCs) listed above. Offerors are strictly prohibited from contacting any Government personnel other than those identified. Unauthorized communication may result in an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and may lead to the Offeror’s exclusion from the competition and award consideration. Phone inquiries will not be accepted; all correspondence shall be conducted via email.

L.A.4 Offerors shall not submit any assumptions, terms, conditions, caveats, or exceptions with proposals. All concerns shall be addressed and resolved by submitting questions by the date specified in this request for proposal (RFP). No assumptions, terms, conditions, caveats, or exceptions submitted with proposals in response to RFPs will be accepted or incorporated into the awarded contract. This shall result in Offerors exclusion from the competition and award consideration.

L.A.5 The proposal submitted shall consist of separate files as set forth and named in the table below. Microsoft Office 2007 software or higher, and Adobe software, if applicable, shall be used to create the required files. Proposals shall not contain any classified data or information. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. If the Government is unable to access the documents, the proposal will not be further evaluated and not considered for award.

L.A.6 Shall provide company name, address, cage code, UEI, email and point of contact only on the coversheet or cover letter. Company logos and watermarks are prohibited. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by RFP number in the header and/or footer. The file submission shall use Microsoft Word 2013 or Adobe PDF as file types. Each volume shall be properly identified, numbered, clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Each volume shall also contain clearly identified sections, and all pages shall be numbered and identified by the complete company name, date, and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters and sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or indicate the ability to perform any task in the PWS and will be rated as “Unacceptable”.

L.A.7 The entire proposal shall remain valid for a minimum of 120 calendar days from receipt by the Government. Proposals offering a shorter period will not be considered for award.

L.A.8 In order to reduce proposal size, proposals shall be limited to the number of pages as directed in Section B below for volume. All proposal information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The page limit (identified in the table below) is viewed as total pages within a file, excluding a table of contents, cover page, and glossary page(s). Page containing text shall be typewritten using the standard letter size (8.5 x 11”) in Microsoft Word or Adobe, as applicable. Text shall be in a minimum of 12 – point Times New Roman or Arial black font single spaced. Zip files are not permitted. All price breakdown information submitted to aide in the price evaluation shall be submitted in unlocked Microsoft Office Excel read/write format.

L.A.9 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without any discussions, questions, or clarifications to offerors. Each offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint. Unclear or inconsistent proposals may not result in discussions, questions, or clarifications to the offerors. In addition, proposals with an omission/failure to follow the instructions of the RFP or proposals that are unclear/inconsistent, regardless of its proposed costs, may be rated “Unacceptable” and therefore be ineligible for award.

L.B. PROPOSAL VOLUMES

(or .pdf) 60 Page Maximum

Certification/Representations

No Limit

L.C. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

L.C.1. VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTOR:

Cost/Price information must not be included in the Technical Proposal. Any proposal that includes cost or pricing details within the Technical Proposal may be deemed noncompliant and may not be considered for award.

The Technical volume shall be organized into the following sections: Sample Task Order, Management Plan and Key Personnel, Health and Safety Plan, and Tree Survivability Maintenance Plan.

L.C.1.1. FACTOR I TECHNICAL: SUBFACTOR 1 – Sample Task Order Offerors shall address their methodology and approach to meeting the requirements of a sample task order Performance Work Statement (PWS). All requirements of the sample task order must be fully addressed with a planned sequence of steps to be taken, critical path milestones as well as interface and integration. The offeror shall identify potential risks with the proposed approach as well as the means to mitigate them.

L.C.1.2. FACTOR I TECHNICAL: SUBFACTOR II – Management Plan and Key Personnel Offerors shall provide resumes reflecting the qualifications of Key Personnel that can be found in Section 6 of the Performance Work Statement including a Forester and Program/Project Manager. The offeror shall provide a Management Plan with a technical approach and contingency plan(s) for hiring, training, and retaining qualified personnel. The offeror shall provide information that substantiates its ability to start work on day one of the contract, to recruit and retain staff and ensure satisfactory contract completion, to provide for and show completion and maintenance of applicable required training(s).

L.C.1.3. FACTOR I TECHNICAL: SUBFACTOR III – Health and Safety Plan. Per Section 5 as well as Section 4, subsection 4.2 of the Performance Work Statement, offeror shall submit a draft Safety Program to include at a minimum an accident prevention program, employee training, and implementation of federal, state, and local safety requirements. The offeror shall provide its methodology, approach, and contingency plan(s) to maintaining a healthy and safe workplace for its employees.

L.C.1.4. FACTOR I TECHNICAL: SUBFACTOR IV– Tree Survivability Maintenance Plan. Offerors shall provide their methodology, approach and contingency plan(s) for meeting the requirements of the tree planting survivability maintenance plan outlined in Section 6 – Environmental Compliance, of the PWS. At a minimum, the offeror shall provide a plan that specifies the actions to be taken in preparation of, during, and following, the actual tree planting that will ensure the contractually required tree survivability of 90% survival after five (5) years of planting. in a healthy manner five years after the actual planting date.

L.C.2 VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE:

L.C.2.1.1. Content Requirements - This volume shall contain past performance information for contracts that are comparable in scope and complexity to the requirements specified in this solicitation. Offerors must include relevant and recent Government contracts for both the prime contractor. and any major subcontractors. Recent past performance is considered as efforts awarded or substantially performed in the past five (5) years preceding the issuance of this Request for Proposal (RFP). Each submission must clearly identify the applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 115310: Support Activities for Forestry and the corresponding Product Service Code F999: Other Environmental Services under which the work was performed.

L.C.2.2. Recency - Recent past performance is considered as efforts awarded or substantially performed in the past five (5) years preceding the issuance of this Request for Proposal (RFP).

L.C.2.32. Relevance Criteria – To be deemed relevant, each offeror must submit a minimum maximum of fivetwo (52) contracts with a combine total award value of at least $1Million with an award value of at least $1 Million . These contracts must That reflect services that which align with those described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Submissions should fall under same as or similar services as compared to the NAICS code 115310 and associated PSC codes within the F series, such as F999. Eligible contracts may include commercial, local, state, or federal efforts.

L.C.2.43. Contract Descriptions – Each contract example shall include the information listed below in the following format.

L.C.2.43.1. – Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE code and Unique Entity ID (UEI) number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor, and point of contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, current address, email address, and telephone number) L.C.2.43.2. – Government contracting activity, current address, Procuring Contracting Officers (PCO) name, email address, telephone number.

L.C.2.43.3. - Government’s technical representative/contracting officer’s representative (COR) name, current email address, telephone numbers.

L.C.2.43.4. – Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officers name, current e-mail address, telephone numbers.

L.C.2.43.5. – Contract number and, in the case of indefinite delivery type contracts, General Services Administration contracts, and blanket purchase agreements, include delivery/task order numbers.

L.C.2.3.6. – Contract Type (specific type such as fixed price or cost reimbursement), in the case of indefinite delivery contracts, indicate specific type (requirements, definite quantity, and indefinite quantity) and secondary contract type.

L.C.2.43.7. – Awarded price/cost.

L.C.2.43.8. – Final or projected final price/cost.

L.C.2.43.9. – Original delivery schedule including dates of start and completion of work and final dates.

L.C.2.43.10. – One (1) contract/DO/TO counts as a contract example. Do not combine multiple contracts/DO/Tos into one reference.

L.C.2.43.11. – The offeror must provide the most up to date PWS/SOW with each reference. The Offeror must cross reference the relevancy of the work they accomplished under the provided PWS/SOW to this RFP PWS.

L.C.2.54. – Performance: Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1 describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this RFP. For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid reoccurrence.

L.C.2.5. - Performance: Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation for each of the contracts provided by the offeror per the request in Section L.C.2.1. The narrative shall describe the objectives achieved and detail how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this RFP. For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid reoccurrence L.C.2.65. – Past Performance Questionnaire: For all contracts identified in Section 1 – Contract Descriptions, offerors must make a reasonable attempt to have a Past Performance Questionnaire completed and submitted by the client. The offeror shall complete Part 1 of the Past Performance Questionnaire and email the questionnaire to both the Army Contracting Activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POC’s shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and directly email the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to both Samantha Hayes; samantha.c.hayes.civ@army.mil and Amy Bowen; amy.m.bowen.civ@army.mil. The offeror shall also include a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire in the proposal. The POC List shall include the following information: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Army Agency; POC Last Name; First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-Mail address; Date Emailed to the POC (month/day).

L.C.2.76. – Submissions: Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractor’s facility, i.e., in case an Offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POC in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

L.C.3 Volume III – Price L.C.3.1. – The offeror shall submit all the pricing information necessary on the Pricing Excel Sheet provided in Attachment 6 to support a firm fixed price arrangement described in the solicitation and the performance work statement. The offeror shall then transfer the total pricing information to Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices of the 1449. Pricing shall be completed, accurate, and reflect the offeror’s best terms. The Government proposal evaluation will be limited to the information provided by the Offeror, and nothing will be assumed. Offeror’s are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete, thorough, and accurate evaluation of the submitted proposal.

L.C.L3.2. - A cost volume proposal is complete if the offeror provides Cost/Price data for as required data for each Contract Line – Item Number (CLIN) in accordance with the solicitation including pricing for clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services (6-month extension). All proposed prices shall be inclusive of all costs necessary to perform the requirement, including labor, overhead, profit, and any other direct and indirect cost. Prices shall remain fixed for the duration of the performance period proposed. There are no implied minimums, and any missing price information will render the proposal invalid and will not be considered for award.

L.C.3.3. – The offeror shall provide pricing, both unit price and total price, in Section B, Supplies and Services and Prices, of the SF 1449. If pricing is not provided on the SF 1449, the proposal will be rendered invalid and Offeror will not be eligible for award.invalid.

L.C.3.3. - The offeror shall provide pricing, both unit price and total price on the provided spreadsheet of pricing. Each tab shall be filled out in full. If pricing is not provided on the spreadsheet, the proposal will be rendered invalid and Offeror will not be eligible for award. The Government makes no assumptions. Offerors shall give their best and final pricing that is inclusive all overhead cost. Offeror does not need to fill in pricing table on the SF 1449.

L.C.4. VOLUME IV – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS Each Offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the solicitation. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1449 and all certifications requiring original signature. Offerors are required to acknowledge all amendments (SF 30) in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.215-1. Offerors also must complete Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) registration IAW FAR 52.212-3. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.A. BASIS FOR AWARD

M.A.1- A single contract will be awarded to a responsible offeror – as defined by FAR Subpart 9.1 – who meets the eligibility criteria in Section A.3 and provides the Government with the best overall value.

M.A.2 - The Government objective is to seek the highest quality technical at a fair and reasonable price. Award will be made to the offeror representing the best value, considering Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The proposal determined to be most beneficial to the Government will be selected.

M.A.3. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED:

M.A.3.1 – FACTOR I: TECHNICAL

M.A.3.1.4 – Subfactor 4: Tree Planting Survivability Maintenance Plan

M.A.3.2 – FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE

M.A.3.3 – FACTOR III: COST/PRICE

M.A.4. RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE:

M.A.4.1: The award will be made based on the best overall proposal with appropriate consideration given to the following three evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. Technical factors are significantly more important than past performance and price.

M.A.4.1.1: TECHNICAL - Within the technical factors, Management and Key Personnel and the Sample Task Order will serve as the primary trade off subfactors with the technical evaluation. Management and Key Personnel and Sample Task Order, when combined, are more important than Health and Safety and the Tree Survivability Maintenance Plan. Heath and Safety and Tree Survivability Maintenance Plan are equally weighted subfactors and will be evaluated for acceptability.

M.A.4.1.2: Past Performance -– Past Performance will be evaluated for recency, relevance and quality of previous work. It will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable, and will be considered more important than Price, but less important than Technical Factors.

M.A.4.1.3: PRICE - The total evaluated Price will be used for trade-off to determine the best overall value. Price is less important than technical and past performance.

M.A.5. - Offerors that are rated “Unacceptable” for the overall Technical Factor, which is comprised of a roll-up of four (4) sub-factors; (1) Sample Task Order, (2) Management Plan and Key Personnel, (3) Health and Safety Plan, and (4) Tree Planting Survivability Maintenance Plan will not be considered for award. Management and Key Personnel and Sample Task Order are significantly more important than the Health and Safety Plan and Tree Survivability Maintenance Plan.

M.A.6. – To be considered for award, an offeror shall follow all instructions in this RFP; shall provide all required submissions for the Technical Factor/Sub-Factors, Past Performance Factor, Price Factor, Solicitation, Offer, and Award Documents and Certification/Representations; and the proposed Price shall be determined fair and reasonable. Again, Offerors that are rated “Unacceptable” in any of the non-cost factors or sub-factors will not be considered for award. Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

M.A.7. – The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the low priced Offeror if the superior technical solution, or the solution indicating a reduced performance risk, warrants paying a premium.

M.A.8. – Upon receipt of proposals, the Government will first evaluate Volume I – Technical in accordance with the evaluation criteria explained below. This review will also check for material compliance with the instructions of this RFP. If an Offeror’s Technical Volume is rated “Unacceptable” or the Offeror’s proposal fails to materially comply with the RFP, the Offeror’s Price proposal may not be evaluated, and the Offeror may be removed from consideration for award.

M.A.9. – In order to be considered for the Government’s comparative/trade-off analysis, an Offeror must first be determined eligible for award. To be determined eligible for award, an Offeror’s proposal at a minimum shall be evaluated at a minimum of Acceptable at all proposed documents.

M.A.10 – To be considered for award, Offerors must strictly adhere to all instructions outlined in this Request for Proposal (RFP):

M.A.10.4 – Any Offeror with active exclusion records in SAM will not be further evaluated and will be ineligible for award.

NOTE: In order to be considered for award, offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) under NAICS 115310 (Size Standard $11.5 Million).

M.A.11 The Government reserves the right to ask questions of offerors if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. If negotiations are considered necessary, they will be conducted with those offerors in the competitive range. The determination of the competitive range will be the responsibility of the Contracting Officer (KO) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Factors and sub-factors are not numerically weighted. The Government will award one (1) single award FFP requirement contract as a result of this solicitation.

M.A.12 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without any discussions, questions, or clarifications to offerors. Each offeror's initial proposal shall contain the offeror's best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint.

Unclear or inconsistent proposals may not result in discussions, questions, or clarifications to the offerors. In addition, proposals with an omission/failure to follow the instructions of the RFP or proposals that are unclear/inconsistent, regardless of its proposed costs, may be rated “Unacceptable” and therefore be ineligible for award.

M.B. OVERALL EVALUATION APPROACH

M.B.1 As authorized by FAR 15, the evaluation will not comprise of a formal evaluation plan or scoring methodology. The evaluators will collect and document facts and findings about each Offeror’s proposal, which will allow the evaluators to determine the proposal that represents the best value. These facts and findings will be in accordance with the requirements outlined in the RFP, the RFP attachments, and the factor descriptions below. Evaluations may not be in narrative format and may be represented using charts and/or bulleted notations.

M.B.2 Upon receipt of proposals, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for compliance with RFP submission requirements. Offerors are cautioned that failure to comply with RFP submission requirements, including formatting, may result in the Offeror’s proposal being eliminated from consideration. The Offeror’s proposal may be eliminated prior to interchanges (if interchanges are opened) and prior to evaluation of any or all proposal volumes. If any aspect of the proposal fails to comply with the RFP submission requirements, the Government reserves the right to remove the proposal from consideration for award without further evaluation.

M.C. COMPARATIVE/TRADE-OFF ANALYIS

The Government will complete a comparative/trade-off analysis of those Offerors who are eligible for award (IAW Section A.3 above) to determine which proposal represents the best value. During the comparative/trade-off analysis, the Government will consider the merits of findings and other considerations identified in the Offeror’s proposal, along with the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Cost/Price (as defined in Volume III – Cost/Price) and the risks associated with any adjustments made to develop the Total Evaluated Cost/Price, to determine the best value offeror.

The Government has the sole discretion to select the awardee that represents the best value to the Government to fulfill the requirements. The awardee will be selected based on a comparative analysis between each offeror using the offerors’ proposals. The comparative analysis may include consideration of other available data (which may include historical data). The Government may also employ any other evaluation technique that it deems necessary to choose the best value offeror.

The Government instead plans to provide summary narratives where aspects of an Offeror’s proposal is comparatively better or worse than the proposal submitted by other Offeror(s). Bullets and charts may be used in combination with narrative format in documenting the comparative/trade-off analysis and best value decision.

M.D EVALUATION OF VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTORS

The Government will consider the Offeror’s proposed approach and the associated risks to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements and its ability to staff the requirement in a feasible and realistic way. The Sample Task Order and Management Plan and Key Personnel under the Technical Factor will be adjectively rated as: Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable. The Tree Planting Survivability Maintenance Plan and Health and Safety Plan will be rated as Unacceptable or Acceptable. There will be an overall Technical Factor rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable to allow for the value cost/price trade off.

The Government intends to conduct streamlined evaluations under and therefore will not document evaluations of every component in the Offeror’s Volume I: Technicalevaluations in accordance with FAR Part 15. The Government will notate facts and/or findings from the Offeror’s proposal that may raise or lower the expectation of success (if any) and/or other observations that may be of importance in determining the appropriate rating. Bullets and/or charts may be used in combination with or instead of narrative format in identifying discrete identifiable findings regarding the Offeror’s proposal that reasonably relate to the factor.

Offerors are strongly cautioned that merely repeating language from the Performance Work Statement (PWS) with generalized statements of intent does not demonstrate a meaningful understanding of the requirements or the ability to perform specific tasks. Such submissions will be assessed as “Unacceptable.”

Additionally, any proprietary information included in the proposal must be clearly labeled as such to ensure proper handling and protection.

M.D.1 EVALUATION OF VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

Proposals will be evaluated to determine the degree to which offerors have demonstrated the technical approach and addressed the following sub-factors:

The Sample Task Order and Management Plan and Key Personnel willwith be evaluated and adjectivally rated.

M.D.1.1. Subfactor 1: Sample Task Order – The Government will evaluate the offeror’s methodology and technical approach to meeting the requirements of the sample task order based on how well the offeror addresses the necessary sequence of events and specifically addresses all requirements as outlined in Section 4 of the PWS (Contractor Furnished Deliverables), Section 6 (Environmental Compliance), Forest Resource Compliance, Critical Area Management Plan (CAMP), Mitigation Implementation, Forest Tree Planting and Forest Resource Management.

The offeror shall address its methodology and approach to meeting the requirements of the sample task order Performance Work Statement (PWS). All requirements of the PWS must be fully addressed with a planned sequence of steps taken, critical path milestones, and interface and integration. The offeror shall identify potential risks with the proposed approach as well as the means to mitigate them. Please see Attachment 1 – Sample Task Order for PWS.

M.D.1.2. Subfactor 2: Management Plan and Key Personnel – This subfactor will be evaluated for the contractor’s ability to provide resumes that substantiate the descriptions found in Section 6 of the Performance Work Statement which specifies the following:

M.D.1.2.1.Key Personnel - Forester: Contractor shall have on staff a Maryland Licensed Forester with a four (4) year forest management degree from Society of American Foresters (SAF) accredited university/college and a Maryland valid licensed forester with 10 years field experience. They shall also possess a 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Certification and 8-hour Site HAZWOPER certification.

M.D.1.2.2. Key Personnel – Program Manager: Contractor shall have on staff a Program/Project Manager that possess a four (4) year degree in natural resources with five (5) years of experience and HAZWOPER certification.

The Government will evaluate the Management plan portion of the subfactor to determine that the offeror has adequately and logically addressed the technical approach and contingency plan(s) for hiring, training, and retaining qualified personnel. The offeror shall provide information that substantiates its ability to start work on day one of the contract, to recruit and retain staff and ensure satisfactory contract completion, to provide for and show completion and maintenance of applicable required training(s).

Referred to in Section 6 of the Performance Work Statement, Offerors shall provide resumes reflecting the qualifications of Key Personnel including Maryland licensed Forester and Program/Project Manager. The offeror shall provide a Management Plan with a technical approach and contingency plan(s) for hiring, training, and retaining qualified personnel. The offeror shall provide information that substantiates its ability to start work on day one of the contract, to recruit and retain staff and ensure satisfactory contract completion, to provide for and show completion and maintenance of applicable required training(s).

Rating

Description

DEFINITIONS:

Significant Strength – Proposal has substantial merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the government during contract performance.

Strength – Proposal has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements, enhancing likelihood of successful contract performance.

Uncertainties – Inherent unknowns and inaccuracies related to costs and schedule estimates.

Weakness – Proposal contains a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness – Proposal contains a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of an unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency – Proposal contains a material failure to meet the government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

The Tree Planting Survivability Plan and Health and Safety Plan will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable.

M.D.1.3. Subfactor 3: Health and Safety Plan – Per section 4.2 and section 5 in the Performance Work Statement,The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Safety Program’s Offeror shall submit a draft Safety Program to include at a minimum an accident prevention program, employee training, and implementation of federal, state, and local safety requirements. The offeror shall provide its methodology, approach, and contingency plan(s) to maintaining a healthy and safe workplace for its employees.

M.D.1.4. Subfactor 4: Tree Survivability Maintenance Plan - The Government will evaluate the Offerors shall provide their methodology, approach and contingency plan(s) for meeting the requirements of the tree planting survivability maintenance plan outlined in section 6 of the Performance Work Statement under the headings Forest Tree Planting and Urban Tree Planting. At a minimum, the offeror shall provide a plan that specifies the actions to be taken in preparation of, during, and following, the actual tree planting that will ensure the contractually required tree survivability in a healthy manner five years after the actual planting date.

Per FAR Part 15.001 Definitions, a 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”.

M.F. EVALUATION OF VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the recency and relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance. Past Performance will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

M.F.1. RECENCY: The Government will evaluate past performance and current performance to ensure it occurred in whole or in part within the last five (5) years from the date of release of this RFP. If the example is not recent, the example will not be evaluated further. Recency is defined as performance within five (5) years from date of release of this RFP.

M.F.2. Offerors must demonstrate a proven track record of successful performance relevant to the requirements outlined in this RFP. Evaluations will prioritize projects completed within the last five (5) years from the date of RFP release. Offerors shall submit at least two (2) past performance examples specifically related to work performed at Army Installation Directorate of Public Works (DPW) facilities. Each example must include:

· Customer Name

· Project Description

· Contract Value

· Period of Performance

· Point of Contact/Reference

M.F.432. RELEVANCY: Submitted projects must demonstrate experience in Forestry Services as defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government reserves the right to conduct interviews with personnel familiar with the Offeror’s past and current performance to validate submitted information.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent past performance examples to determine how relevant the experience is to the current requirement. Relevant present/past performance is defined as being similar in magnitude, scope (PWS requirements), complexity, and fall under the NAICS code 115310 and the corresponding Product Service Code F999: Other Environmental Services. and complexity. The Government is requesting all submitted projects reflect a dollar value of at leastlarger than $1 Million The Government will give greater consideration to experience that is more similar in scope and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation. Each recent past performance example will be evaluated by Acceptable/Neutral/Unacceptable.

M.F.54. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in attached Attachment 2– Past Performance Questionnaire to determine quality of past performance. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all the information available.

Note: 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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 [a][2][iv]). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating becomes acceptable.

G. EVALUATION OF VOLUME III – COST/PRICE FACTOR

M.G.1 - The Government will evaluate to ensure that all proposed costs are fair and reasonable. Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated IAW the criteria in FAR 15.404-1; the analytical techniques and procedures prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 may be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the costs are fair and reasonable.

M.G.2 - Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), and any other pricing tools necessary. Offerors that are unbalanced between years may be found unacceptable.

M.G.3 - The Government’s Total Evaluated Cost/Price will be used in determining the best value Offeror. The Government’s Total Evaluated Cost/Price will include the Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217.8. Comment by Wright, Ian D CIV USARMY CECOM (USA): Do you concur with the change here? Comment by Hayes, Samantha C CIV USARMY ACC (USA): Yes, I concur.

M.G.3.1. - The Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8. The FAR 52.217-8 option will be evaluated by adding one half of the Offerors’ final option period probable cost/price to the Offerors’ Total Evaluated Price.

M.G.3.2. - All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The SST will establish the factors to be evaluated.

H. USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR EVALUATION:

M.H. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in Proposal Evaluation

M.H.1. Use of AI tools in Support of Evaluations: The Government may employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of offeror proposals. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with request for task order proposal / solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk.

M.H.2. Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgements, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, best value determinations, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed Government personnel. The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any AI tool.

M.H.3. Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: The AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. The AI tool will be an output only system. Any generated report data is not saved. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.