Government Contract | Oregon

Bid Information

Bid Alert No: 719212574-003


Agency Bid No. Title: 140F0119Q0174

Received Date: 08/23/2019

Close Date: 08/30/2019

Delivery Point: FWS, DIVISION OF CONTRACTING AND GE<br />EASTSIDE FEDERAL COMPLEX<br />911 NE 11TH AVENUE<br />PORTLAND<br />OR<br />97232-4181<br />US<br />


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Contracting and General Services (CGS) Region 1 has a requirement to procure a firm fixed price order for facilitation and planning services for protection of Threatened and Endangered species on the islands of ?つ?Maui Nui?つ? (Maui, Moloka?つ?i, and L?つ?na?つ?i). Qualified and specialized contract services are required by the Service to convene and facilitate stakeholder meetings, and develop a consensus conservation plan. Project is set-aside for small businesses. Applicable NAICS code is 813312. Small business size is defined as $15.0 million or less annually when averaged over a three year period. Performance period is the date of award through September 30, 2021. No site visit is offered. The cut-off date for receipt of questions is COB on August 19, 2019. Background: The USFWS (Service) supports the State of Hawaii in conserving threatened and endangered (listed) Hawaiian species through technical assistance and management support. The State?つ?s Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) has jurisdiction over these listed species, and partners with non-governmental organizations, Federal agencies, and private landowners to manage populations toward recovery. Recovery tasks include surveys and monitoring, habitat and population management, threat abatement, ex situ propagation, translocation, reintroduction, and research. The Service, through various programs, funds or facilitates much of this recovery work. For example, the Service is developing population models for listed species showing where on the landscape the species may be recovered. However, to date recovery efforts have not been efficient or highly effective due to the lack of an actionable plan that can be implemented by all partners. Effective planning is essential to identify recovery goals, guide activities using limited Federal and State funds, prioritize land management within a multiple-use framework, and communicate key messages to decision makers, stakeholders, and other interested persons that can enhance resources and lands available for recovery. Neither the Service nor DOFAW currently have the capacity to facilitate a planning process that would accomplish these goals. The purpose of this contract is to provide facilitation and planning expertise to convene partners and develop a plan for the islands of Maui, Moloka?つ?i and L?つ?na?つ?i (collectively Maui Nui) that meets Federal and State needs. Objectives: The basic service objective is to design, facilitate, and manage the process to develop a landscape conservation and recovery plan through a series of meetings with State and Federal staff and contractors, plan writers, managers, subject matter experts, partners, and stakeholders who possess the knowledge, expertise, data, and information needed to draft the plan. Services to be performed by the contractor require experience in facilitating the development of large-scale endangered species conservation plans, experience in implementing one or more integrated conservation planning approaches, and knowledge and expertise in landscape conservation planning, written and verbal communication, and meeting facilitation. Familiarity with the conservation issues and organizations in Hawai?つ?i is highly desirable. Scope of Work; The contractor shall: - Identify and convene consultations with selected partners and stakeholders to engage participation in plan development. - Develop/adapt an effective planning process and schedule for development of a comprehensive landscape-based recovery plan for Maui Nui?つ?s listed species. - Identify and convene a steering committee of partners to guide the development of the plan. - Convene and facilitate meetings of the steering committee and larger partner groups, as needed. - Identify the information available to inform the plan, and the documents and sources containing that information. - Identify unmet information needs (e.g., surveys, models, analyses) needed to inform the plan. - Identify and convene working groups as appropriate to assist the plan development. - Assist the writing team in plan development. Basis for award will be "Lowest-Priced, Technically-Acceptable (LPTA)" Source Selection Process. The lowest priced proposal will be based upon the combined total cost for all bid items. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of an offer meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. There will be two (2) non-cost evaluation factors: Recent Relevant Experience and Recent Relevant Past Performance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than `Acceptable?つ? must be achieved for Recent Relevant Experience and Recent Relevant Past Performance. The Government will first conduct a price analysis to determine fairness, reasonableness and if unbalanced pricing exists. Offerors proposals will then be ranked from the lowest to the highest-priced. The Government will then evaluate the technical proposal of the apparent, lowest-priced offeror. If the apparent, lowest-priced offeror's technical proposal is "Unacceptable" the Government will then evaluate the technical proposal of the apparent, second lowest-priced offeror. This process will continue until a lowest-priced offeror's technical proposal is "Acceptable." Once the Government identifies the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable offeror, an award will be made and no other proposals will be evaluated from offerors who proposed higher pricing. B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED The following evaluation factors and will be used to evaluate each proposal: FACTOR 1 - RECENT RELEVANT EXPERIENCE FACTOR 2 - RECENT RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR 3 - PRICE Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. Evaluation of the offeror's proposal shall address each factor as it applies to the statement of work. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in paragraph c below (Evaluation Approach) below. An offer will receive an `Acceptable?つ? rating if it meets the minimum requirements of all evaluation factors described below. C. EVALUATION APPROACH FACTOR 1 - RECENT RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Offerors shall be evaluated to determine whether they have performed similar contracts, in terms of scope and complexity, to the work required within the solicitation. Offerors shall provide the minimum requested project information on at least two (2) recent, relevant projects. Projects do not have to have been with a Federal Agency to be considered. A project is considered relevant if it involved performance of the following activities: - Developing a landscape conservation plan for rare species involving multiple landowners and stakeholders. - Using a defined, published planning process or methodology designed for conservation projects. - Consultation and interaction with multi-sector (e.g. private, NGO, government) stakeholders in a collaborative conservation planning exercise. - Leading and facilitating workshops of diverse stakeholders. - Addressing stakeholder concerns and maintaining their engagement over the project period. - Maintaining a project management tracking system, monitoring progress, and reporting progress toward goals. - Identifying unmet information needs and managing the process of information development and dissemination to stakeholders. - Assisting in conservation plan development, writing plan or at minimum reviewing plan for content and structure. 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). 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 projects. For a project to be considered, the offeror shall have been the prime contractor on it. In addition to relevant scope, each project shall have a current or final contract value greater than $20,000.00 and have been completed within the past five (5) years or be currently ongoing (but at least 25% complete). 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). Project descriptions shall include current points of contact, phone numbers and email addresses. The contractor is solely responsible for the accuracy of this information as the Government will not pursue incorrect contact data. 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 offeror?つ?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 offeror?つ?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 `Acceptable?つ? / `Unacceptable,?つ? unknown past performance shall be considered `Acceptable.?つ? FACTOR 3 - PRICE Price - the total value of all tasks combined will 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 140F0119Q0174 with attachments is being posted on or about August 7, 2019 with quotes due by 2 PM PT on August 30, 2019. If submitted by mail channels, the quote must be received by no later that date/time or it can be emailed directly to 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 ( 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

View numbered notes for details if one is referred to in the specifications

Download Documents

/>Download Documents

Product Code: F

Agency Information

Note to Vendors Vendors must register in the System for Award Management in order to do business with the Federal Government. Please go to to complete on-line registration.

Issuing Agency: Department of the Interior

State: Oregon

Agency Type: Federal

Contact: Lautzenheiser, Karl



FREE Market Analysis

Get a FREE 90-Day Market Analysis and see the bids you’ve been missing