ATC Turf Field Maintenance

ventive maintenance, minor repair services, and unscheduled/emergency maintenance. Scheduled maintenance shall be performed bi-annually to ensure proper turf condition, safety, and performance. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE: Fort Jackson, South Carolina 29207 BASIS FOR AWARD: The Government will utilize a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation method for this requirement. The Government will award one (1) Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) C-Type contract to the offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, has the lowest evaluated price, and is deemed responsible. The Government will evaluate the contractor's Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price Proposal to ensure that it reflects a sound understanding of this requirement and complies with the requirements in the solicitation. A determination of a fair and reasonable price will be conducted. See attached ADDENDUM TO RFO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 Evaluations. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: Offerors shall submit a signed and dated proposal electronically in accordance with the attached ADDENDUM TO RFO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-1 Instructions. Failure to provide all required documents or information may exclude the offeror from further consideration. Proposal Preparation Instructions. The solicitation instructions identify the following proposal volumes: a. Volume 1 � General b. Volume 2 � Technical Approach (to include Capabilities Statement) c. Volume 3 � Past Performance Information d. Volume 4 � Cost/Price EVALUATION: The proposal will be evaluated under three (3) evaluation factors: Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price The Technical factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. An �Unacceptable� rating in any single Technical element will result in an overall rating of �Unacceptable� for Factor 1. Past Performance will be evaluated as described below. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness. See attached ADDENDUM TO RFO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 Evaluations. Factor 1 � Technical: The Technical factor evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror's capability to satisfy the Government's minimum requirements. The Technical factor has three elements. The Government will evaluate the technical approach, quality controls, and key personnel qualifications related to providing preventive and unscheduled maintenance for fifteen (15) artificial turf fields located throughout Fort Jackson, SC. Element 1: Technical Approach and Understanding The proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of and a sound approach to performing all services outlined in the PWS, including the specific basic services and tasks described in PWS Part 5. To be rated Acceptable, the proposal must prove: 1. PWS Compliance: A compliant, clear operational methodology to perform multi-leveling field vacuuming, extensive fiber brush grooming, use of magnetic metal sweepers, and specialized synthetic turf cleaning/sanitization across the fifteen (15) synthetic fields. 2. Operational Responsiveness: A solid approach to executing scheduled semi-annual services and mobilizing personnel/equipment for unscheduled emergency repairs/maintenance in accordance with the response timelines set forth in the PWS. Element 2: Deliverables and Quality Control The proposal must address the deliverables listed in Technical Exhibit B and include the development of a Quality Control Plan (QCP) in accordance with PWS Paragraph 1.5.1. To be rated Acceptable, the proposal must prove: 3. Reporting & Deliverables Compliance: A compliant administrative framework to compile, track, and electronically deliver all semi-annual reporting, worksheets, and documentation specified in PWS Technical Exhibit B. 4. QCP Framework: A draft Quality Control Plan (QCP) that completely addresses all requirements and criteria outlined in PWS Paragraph 1.5.1, such as lines of authority, deficiency prevention, inspection logging, key controls, and records preservation. Element 3: Key Personnel The proposal must confirm that all Key Personnel meet the minimum qualifications specified in the PWS. To be rated Acceptable, the proposal must confirm: 5. PWS Qualifications & Experience: All proposed key personnel meet the minimum standards specified in PWS Paragraph 1.10. This includes confirming that the Contract Manager/Alternate has full authority to act on daily operations, and the Quality Control Manager and Systems Administrator each possess a minimum of five (5) years of direct experience. 6. Special Qualifications: Proof that proposed staff possess and maintain active Information Assurance Technician (IAT) Level I professional certifications as required by PWS Paragraph 1.10.d. Technical Factor Ratings: ACCEPTABLE � Technical Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. UNACCEPTABLE � Technical Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Note: An "Unacceptable" rating in any single element will result in an overall rating of "Unacceptable" for Factor 1. Factor 2 � Past Performance: The past performance evaluation will assess the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror's recent (within the last 3 years) and relevant past performance, focusing on services similar to the Turf Field Maintenance requirements. The Government will evaluate past performance based on information submitted per the solicitation instructions and other available sources. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: 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. NEUTRAL � In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a "Neutral" rating shall be considered "Acceptable." Factor 3 � Cost/Price: The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total proposed price for all performance periods (Base Period plus Option Years 1 through 4). The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the base period and option period prices are significantly unbalanced. As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services under RFO FAR Clause 52.217-8 by adding one-half (1/2) of the Offeror's final option year price (Option Year 4) to the Offeror's total evaluated price. Base Period Price (CLIN 0001) Option Year 1 Price (CLIN 1001) Option Year 2 Price (CLIN 2001) Option Year 3 Price (CLIN 3001) Option Year 4 Price (CLIN 4001) Evaluation of 52.217-8 Option Price (equivalent to 1/2 of Option Year 4 price) Offerors are not required to enter a separate price for the six-month extension period. Award will be made to the responsible offeror found to be technically acceptable with the lowest total evaluated price. The purpose of this amendment (1) is to revise the solicitation schedule,