Attachment_2_-_W912DW19R0015_YTC_Noxious_Weed_Evaluation_Factors_For_Award_2-20-2019.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS OF AWARD

Award of this Contract will be made to the technically acceptable responsible Offeror submitting the lowest priced offer (based on the total of all line items on the Price Schedule, base line items and optional line items for base period and all option periods) – Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable Offer (LPTA). This acquisition will result in the award of a firm-fixed price, service contract.

The technical evaluation of each proposal will be solely on the basis of Technical Evaluation Factors found in this section. The Government will evaluate each proposal on a technically acceptable/unacceptable basis only with respect to the technical evaluation factors (criteria) described herein. Award will be to the Offeror who presents the technically acceptable proposal with the overall total lowest price. It is the intent of the Government to award off initial offers without discussions.

2.1 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

2.2 Technical Evaluation:

Acceptability will be based on all factors receiving an acceptable rating. The proposal will be evaluated according to the CRITERIA for Non-Price Evaluation Factors of this section.

Proposals will receive either an ACCEPTABLE or an UNACCEPTABLE rating for each of the evaluation factors. Find the description of these ratings in Table 1.

TABLE 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating: Description:

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.3 Pricing Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all line items identified on the Contract Line Item Schedule (Price-Schedule) of this Solicitation.

3.1 EVALUATION PROCESS:

The evaluation process consists of three parts:

1) Proposal Compliance Review. This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that a complete proposal is received. An initial review of each of the proposals will be conducted to check for apparent errors, omissions and areas that require clarification. The purpose of this preliminary review session is to eliminate minor irregularities or apparent clerical mistakes. This preliminary evaluation will ensure that each proposal contains the Price Volume II and the correct number of copies.

2) WSDA Pesticide License, Relevant Experience, and Past Performance. Washington State Department of Agriculture Pesticide License, Relevant Experience, and Past Performance will be evaluated according to the CRITERIA for Non-Price Evaluation Factors found in this section.

3) Price Evaluation. The Government will evaluate price for fairness and reasonableness through the use of price analysis. Price will also be verified for unbalancing of line items.

3.2 Definitions:

a) Clarification is a limited exchange with an Offeror for the sole purpose of eliminating minor irregularities, informalities, or apparent clerical mistakes in the proposal or to address adverse past performance not previously addressed with the Offeror. Clarifications do not give an Offeror the opportunity to revise or modify its proposal and are used, as necessary, when not opening discussions.

b) Communications are a limited exchange with an Offeror used to assist in determinations of the competitive range. Communications are limited to enhancing Government understanding of proposals and addressing adverse past performance information not previously addressed if said information is the determining factor preventing an Offeror from being included in the competitive range. Such communications shall not be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, or otherwise revise the proposal.

c) Discussions offer the opportunity to resolve deficiencies or weaknesses in the proposals, based on the requirement and the evaluations factors set forth in the solicitation. If the Contracting Officer determines it is necessary to open discussions, they must discuss with all Offerors in the competitive range. Offerors have the opportunity to revise their proposals at the conclusion of discussions.

d) Relevant: is defined as having a logical connection with the requirements in this request for technical proposals; that is, featuring work that is similar in nature, magnitude, and complexity to the current requirement. To be acceptable, there must be an explanation of how the provided project information is relevant to the proposed work.

e) Year: A “year” is 365 consecutive days.

3.3 Submission Format: (Please refer to solicitation for number of required copies)

All proposal materials shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified below. In Volume I, Technical Proposal, there shall be a tabbed section for each Non-Price Evaluation factor.

Volume II, Price Proposal, shall be submitted in a clearly marked envelope.

3.3.1 Volume I - Offeror’s Technical Proposal shall include the following sections, in the general format specified below:

• Table of Contents for Volume I - (Listing of all sections of the technical proposal)

• Tab A/Factor A – Washington State Department of Agriculture Pesticide License

• Tab B/Factor B - Relevant Experience Attachment 1

• Tab C/Factor C - Past Performance, Attachment 2

3.3.2 Volume II – Offeror’s Price Proposal shall include the following, in the general format specified below:

• Price Proposal Format; Volume II

• Cover Letter and Price Schedule (filled out entirely)

• Company Information (filled out entirely)

NOTE: Offeror’s Price Proposal is due AT THE SAME TIME as Technical Proposal.

4.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.2 CRITERIA for Non-Price Evaluation Factors:

Proposals shall concisely, accurately, and completely provide the information required for each of the following non-price evaluation factors. NOTE: Absence of complete information will be deemed as if no support information was provided for that factor. Proposals that do not meet the minimum requirements of all of the non-price evaluation factors shall be determined to be UNACCEPTABLE and are not eligible for award consideration. NO assumptions may be made by the Government. Your proposal must CLEARLY demonstrate the requisite technical experience and qualifications to receive an ACCEPTABLE rating for each of the following criteria:

TABLE 2: EVALUATION

FACTORS:

LOCATION: DESCRIPTION:

FACTOR A VOLUME I, TAB A WSDA PESTICIDE LICENSE

FACTOR B VOLUME I, TAB B RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

FACTOR C VOLUME I, TAB C PAST PERFORMANCE.

5.1 FACTOR A – Washington State Department of Agriculture Pesticide License:

All contractor personnel mixing, handling or applying pesticides must have a valid Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) Commercial Applicator or Commercial Operator Pesticide Applicators License as defined by WSDA.

5.2 Submission Requirements for Factor A:

The Offeror shall complete Attachment 1 and furnish a copy of at least 1 individual's Commercial Applicator or Commercial Operator pesticide license as printed from the WSDA Pesticide License Search page (https://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/LicensingEd/Search/) that will demonstrate the license type, status, expiration date, and recertification cycle. Once the contract is awarded, the contractor will be required to provide valid pesticide licenses for all personnel to mix, handle, or apply pesticide in accordance with the Performance Work Statement.

Submission for this factor only requires a copy of at least 1 individual's pesticide license as identified above.

5.3 Evaluation Method for Factor A: The method of rating for Factor A shall be as follows:

Factor A will be evaluated to determine whether it meets the requirements of this factor. If any of the required information is not provided in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be evaluated as “Unacceptable.”

TABLE 3: FACTOR A – WSDA Pesticide License Rating: Description:

Acceptable The proposal clearly demonstrates valid WSDA Pesticide License Unacceptable The proposal does not clearly demonstrate valid WSDA Pesticide License

6.1 FACTOR B – Relevant Experience

6.2 Submission Requirements for Factor B

All contractor personnel who apply pesticides on JBLM YTC shall have a minimum of one (1) reference of work experience demonstrating noxious control of Columbia Basin weeds. For the scope of this requirement the Columbia Basin shall be defined as within the U.S. states; areas located east of the Cascade Mountains and west of the Rocky Mountains in the states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, the western part of Montana. The Offeror shall submit a brief summary of work history such as a resume, which specifies:

a) locations to demonstrate noxious control of Columbia Basin weeds,

b) start and stop dates,

c) treatment of 500 acres or more per season, The Offeror shall submit the above information for each individual who will apply pesticides under this scope of work.

6.3 Evaluation Method for Factor B: The method of rating for Factor B will be as follows:

Factor B will be evaluated to determine whether it meets the requirements of this factor. If any of the required information is not provided in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be evaluated as “Unacceptable.”

TABLE 4: FACTOR B – Relevant Experience Rating: Description:

Acceptable The proposal clearly demonstrates the relevant experience specified in paragraph

6.2 Unacceptable The proposal does not clearly demonstrates the relevant experience specified in paragraph 6.2

7.1 FACTOR C – Past Performance

7.2 Submission Requirements for Factor C:

Submit at least one (1) and up to four (4) projects total for evaluation under this factor. The project example submitted for Paragraph 6.2, Submission Requirements for Factor B, Relevant Experience, MUST be submitted for evaluation of Past Performance at a minimum. If the Offeror submits more than four (4) project examples, the Government shall only evaluate the first four submitted projects.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 2) included in the back of this Section is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client of projects the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor B in paragraph 6.2. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client’s point of contact (POC). Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Curt.Stepp@usace.army.mil, via email prior to proposal closing date and time.

We will accept previously submitted PPQs on Form PPQ-0. Please ensure all information is up to date and meets the requirements of the evaluation factor.

Offeror may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the Offeror.

NOTE: You may submit PPIRS ratings in lieu of the PPQ forms included in Attachment 5 if you completely fill in blocks 1 - 5 of the Contract Information portion of the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) and submit with the Final PPIRS report. Be sure to include the POC’s information of the Client and the Contract Number of the project.

7.3 Evaluation Method for Factor C: The method of rating for Factor C shall be as follows:

The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s past performance based on a demonstrated record of performance. Past performance information is an indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully.

The Government will evaluate the successful completion of all project examples submitted in the proposal for Factor C. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction.

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).

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.

TABLE 4: FACTOR C – Past Performance Rating: Description:

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror’s past performance may not be evaluated as favorable or unfavorable. [Ref: FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)]. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

8.0 PRICE:

Total pricing for each discipline will be evaluated for reasonableness, and the overall grand total (to include optional periods) for all disciplines will be evaluated and the technically acceptable, lowest price will be selected. It is the intent of the Government to award without discussions.

Attachment 1: Factor A, WSDA Applicator License

Instructions: Complete the form for each person who will mix, handle, or apply pesticides under this requirement and furnish a copy of the person’s WSDA Commercial Applicator or Commercial Operator pesticide license.

Offeror Company Name: _________________________________________________

Individual Name: _______________________________________________________

License Type: __________________________________________________________

Status: _______________________________________________________________

Expires: ______________________________________________________________

Recertification Cycle: ____________________________________________________

Furnish Copy of WSDA License

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information:

Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yyyy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.):

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information:

Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

ATTACHMENT 2: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information:

Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact’s Phone Number:

1 NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND

SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY

DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE

SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES

DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED

DIRECTLY TO USACE. [PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC

INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL

INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT EVALUATION

(E) Exceptional:

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good:

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory:

Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal:

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory:

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable: No information or did not apply to your contract. Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT EVALUATION

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance.

1 NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ...