HI-PMNM-MIDWAY SEABIRD RESTORATION PROJE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Contracting and General Services (CGS) Region 1 has been tasked to solicit for and procure a firm-fixed-price to acquire professional technical expertise to plan and implement services to carry out its Midway Seabird Protection Project. Project is unrestricted and is open to any size business. Applicable NAICS code is 813312. Small business size is defined as $15.0 million or less annually when averaged over a three year period. The period of performance for the project 18 months from date of award. The cut off date for questions is COB on August 7, 2019 and questions can be email to karl_lautzenheiser@fws.gov
The following is an overview of the required tasks.
The work to be completed occurs at the two locations part of the request can be handled from any location, but other components must be performed on Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (refuge). A remote refuge more than 1,000 miles from the main Hawaiian Islands. Access to the island is only by private charter or aircraft or boat and any transportation options must be approved by the refuge and will not be covered as part of this contract. Period of Performance is 18 months from date of award.
SCOPE OF WORK:
3.1 The contractor shall develop an operational plan for the Midway Seabird Restoration Project. The operational plan must contain the following components across one or multiple documents.
o Aerial baiting strategy
o Hand broadcast strategy
o Strategy for addressing water resources
o Infrastructure baiting strategy
o Project communications plan
o Project safety plan
o Efficacy monitoring plan (bait availability and mouse monitoring in keys areas to inform project baiting decisions)
o Confirmation plan (rapid assessment of success)
3.2 The contractor shall develop databases to support the operational plan for the Midway Seabird Restoration Project including:
o Database of built infrastructure
o Database to manage baiting strategy implementation
3.3 The contractor shall develop and environmental monitoring plan to support the operational plan for the Midway Seabird Restoration Project. This monitoring plan should include techniques and timing to measure bait residue and toxicity monitoring in the environment. This should be measured across a variety of environmental parameters including insects, soil, water, etcB? to assess brodifucum levels over time.
3.4 Option 1: The contractor shall implement the operational plan for the Midway Seabird Restoration Project. Implementation of Operational Plan includes providing the following:
o On the ground technical staff (aerial operations chief, infrastructure baiting, efficacy monitoring staff, etcB?)
o Coordination of aerial operations
o Oversight of human-based food source strategy implementation
3.5 Option 2: The contractor shall monitor the efficacy of the Midway Seabird Restoration Project. This would include the following:
o On the ground technical staff for implementation of confirmation plan
o On the ground technical staff for implementation of environmental monitoring plan
o
Basis for award will be "Lowest-Priced, Technically-Acceptable (LPTA)" Source Selection Process.
Offerors shall be evaluated to determine whether they have performed similar contracts, in terms of scope and price, to the work required within the solicitation. Offerors shall provide the minimum requested project information on at least two (2) recent, relevant rodent eradication operational plans, rodent eradication environmental monitoring plans and rodent eradication support databases. The offeror shall have been the lead in developing the plan. Projects do not have to have been with a Federal Agency to be considered.
A project is considered `recent' if it has been completed within the past five (5) years or is currently ongoing (but at least 25% complete).
A project is considered `relevant' if it is similar in terms of scope and price to the work required within the solicitation. To be considered similar in scope, one project shall demonstrate work experience is developing operational and support plans for rodent eradication in remote island environments with limited ability to access additional resources.
Please note that FACTOR 1 (Recent Relevant Experience) differs from FACTOR 2 (Recent Relevant Past Performance). FACTOR 1 determines whether or not an offeror has performed similar work whereas FACTOR 2 evaluates how well the offeror performed.
FACTOR 1
RECENT RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Rating Description
Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation for this factor.
Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation for this factor.
FACTOR 2 - RECENT RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE
Offeror's past performance shall be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment. Offerors shall provide at least two (2) recent, relevant rodent eradication operational plans, rodent eradication environmental monitoring plans and rodent eradication support databases Projects shall include current points of contact and phone numbers. The contractor is solely responsible for the accuracy of this information as the Government will not pursue incorrect contact data.
For a project to be considered, the offeror shall have been the prime contractor on it. In addition to scope, each project shall have a current or final contract value greater than $50,000.00 and have been completed within the past five past five (5) years or be currently ongoing (but at least 25% complete). Furthermore, for each project to be considered, the offeror shall have been the Prime Contractor on it. Projects do not have to have been with a Federal Agency to be considered. Offerors may submit the same projects as those proposed for FACTOR 1 (Recent Relevant Experience).
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 Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE / Unique Entity Identifiers (i.e. DUNS) of team members (i.e. partnerships, joint ventures, teaming arrangements or parent companies / subsidiaries / affiliates) identified in the offerorB?s proposals, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontracting 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.
FACTOR 2
RECENT RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS DEFINITION
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 offerorB?s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)
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 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 IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv); therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of `AcceptableB? / `Unacceptable,B? unknown past performance shall be considered `Acceptable.B?
FACTOR 3 - PRICE
Price - The basis for determining lowest price will be the combined total value of all tasks (all base and option bid items). The combined total of all tasks will also be assessed to determine the overall Price Fair and Reasonable. If any of the tasks appear to be unbalanced, a review of the breakdown of each task will be conducted.
Offeror's prices for each item within the bid schedule shall represent the best price in response to the solicitation. Prices will be evaluated using price analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1(a)(2) and 15.404-1(b). Prices shall be evaluated to determine fairness, reasonableness and if unbalanced pricing exists.
Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. If price analysis techniques indicate that a proposal is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (no page limit).
Solicitation Number 140F0119Q0153 with attachments is being posted on or about July 25, 2019 with quotes due by 2 PM PT on August 21, 2019. Quotes submitted by mail channels must be received by no later than this due date or quotes can be emailed to karl_lautzenheiser@fws.gov no later than the date/time for receipt of quotes.
No further notice will be posted on FedBizOpps. To be considered for award, interested contractors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database when submitting a quote at (https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/) and Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) must be completed at this same website. For technical or contract questions, please contact Karl Lautzenheiser by email to Karl_Lautzenheiser@fws.gov.
Lautzenheiser, Karl
