191BWC20R0002 0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE RATING

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

05/12/2020

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

IBWC_CODE

International Boundary and Water Commission

(IBWC)

USIBWC - ACQUISITIONS DIV

4191 NORTH MESA ST

EL PASO, TX 79902-1441

Philip Johnson

NAME

TEL.

johnsonpk@state.gov

EMAIL

6. ISSUED BY IBWC_CODE

International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)

USIBWC - ACQUISITIONS DIV

4191 NORTH MESA ST

EL PASO, TX 79902-1441

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

191BWC20R0002

CONTACT DUNS

CODE FACILITY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, country, state and ZIP Code) (X)

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04/28/2020

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X XThe above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended, Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning __1__copies of the amendment;(b)By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.__1__X

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this Amendment 0002 is as follows.

a. Attached sign-in sheet from the Pre-Proposal Conference on 05/07/2020

b. Attached Questions & Answers received by date and time specified in Section L.01(e) of the solicitation.

c. Provided the updated Section L.01(c) reflecting the answer to question #2b on the second page in item b above.

d. Provided the updated Section M reflecting the answer to question #1 on the first page in item b above.

e. Offer due date is changed to 11 June 2020 3:00 PM MDT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Philip Johnson

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED

By (Signature of Contracting Officer)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

191BWC20R0002

Table of Contents

Section Description Page Number

J List of Attachments L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors and Respondents

L.01 Pre-Proposal Conference L.01 Pre-Proposal Conference

M Evaluation Factors for Award M.01 Evaluation Factors for Award M.01 Evaluation Factors for Award

Section J- List of Attachments

Identifier Title Date Number of Pages

21 Sign In Sheets - ADDED 05/12/2020

22 Q&A - ADDED 05/12/2020 3

Section L- Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors and Respondents

Clause L.01 Pre-Proposal Conference was deleted or updated.

L.01 Pre-Proposal Conference

(a) All potential Offerors are invited to attend a Pre-Proposal Conference to be held at the USIBWC, 2225 Dairy Mart Road, San Ysidro, CA 92173 at 09:00 AM PST (10:00 AM MST) on May 7, 2020.

(b) Names of individuals who plan to attend must be furnished on or before 09:00 AM PST (10:00 AM MST), on May 6, 2020 by email to the CO, Philip Johnson at Philip.Johnson@ibwc.gov .

(c) Due to time, distance, and cost associated with the Pre-Proposal Conference, prospective Offerors who fail to attend on the sched-uled date will not be given a further opportunity to do so. Those that attended the first Pre-Proposal Confrence will be able to attend a second site visit by appointment. Schedule by contacting Nicolas Chapa at NICOLAS.CHAPA@ibwc.gov cc Philip.johnson@ibwc.gov .

While attending the site visit all vendors must adhere to COVID-19 requirements for social distancing and the use of personal protect-ive equipment (PPE) (i.e. mask and gloves). Vendors will not be permitted access to IBWC facilities without proper PPE. Virtual site visits (video/photographs) are not permitted.

(d) The purpose of the conference is to provide prospective Offerors, subcontractors and suppliers an opportunity to observe and eval-uate project conditions; to present questions arising during preparation of offers; to discuss procedures and other matters anticipated to arise during operation and maintenance of the SBIWTP; and to obtain other information.

(e) Offerors are urged to submit questions in writing, in advance to the email listed above, referencing the solicitation number RFP 191BWC20R0002. Answers will be prepared and discussed during a question and answer period at the conference. Questions shall be submitted to arrive at the aforementioned not later than 09:00 AM PST (10:00 AM MST) on May 6, 2020.

(f) While every effort will be made to provide meaningful responses or clarifications to all inquiries, no answer shall be binding by the Government unless submitted in writing and subsequently answered by means of a formal amendment to this solicitation.

Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award

Clause M.01 Evaluation Factors for Award was deleted or updated.

M.01 Evaluation Factors for Award

M.01 Evaluation Factors for Award

General Instructions for Evaluation Plan

Proposal received in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP) will be evaluated in accordance with the process as established below and applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).

Initial Review of Proposals

An adjectival rating system has been established prior to the issuance of this Solicitation. Before this system will be applied, however, all proposals received will be subjected to an initial review to determine if any proposals are nonresponsive. A nonresponsive proposal is defined as a proposal that neglects to contain mandatory information or documents requested in the Solicitation. A nonresponsive proposal is also one that does not follow the requested format as stated in the Evaluation Approach section below. Firms submitting nonresponsive proposals will be so notified upon the determination of such non-responsiveness.

Proposal Evaluation

Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received prior to the closing date/time of this Solicitation.

Evaluation Approach

Proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. Proposal must demonstrate:

a. Understanding of the Government's requirements and the means required to fulfill these requirements.

b. Completeness of the Offeror's analysis of each Evaluation Factor and Subfactor.

c. Feasibility of performing to all the terms and conditions of the offer within the Government's requirements.

All submittals shall have a separate section for responding to each Evaluation Factor.

A complete set of proposals, excluding Volume II, Price Proposal, will be provided to each member of the evaluation team.

The evaluation team will evaluate each proposal in terms of the Evaluation Factors listed in this Section. Each proposal will be evalu-ated strictly in accordance with its written content. The evaluation team will not assume that Offeror's performance will include areas of investigation or development not specified in the Offeror’s written proposal. Each member of the evaluation team will make an in-dependent evaluation of each proposal. The evaluation will proceed as follows:

a. The evaluation team will evaluate each proposal in terms of the Evaluation Factors listed in the Section.

b. Each team member will independently review the proposal as it relates to each individual evaluation factor noting strengths, weak-nesses, and deficiencies.

c. The team members will keep careful notes on the evaluation sheet, indicating the supporting reasons for the evaluation given. The net results of the individual determinations will be reported on the consensus evaluation sheet by the Chairperson of the evaluation board.

d. Upon completion of evaluation of all proposals, each member will sign and date their evaluation sheets. Each member's exhibits will be attached as backup to the consensus evaluation sheet prepared by the Chairperson.

Any proposal having an overall rating of "Unacceptable" (see below) will not be considered further.

The evaluations will be accompanied by the following five (5) basic proposal ratings and narrative guidelines:

Exceptional: An exceptional proposal significantly exceeds specified performance or capability in a beneficial way to the Government and has no weaknesses. The proposal exceeds the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the PWS. The evalu-ator has no doubt that the Offeror will successfully achieve the requirements in the PWS based on the proposed technical approach.

The Offeror acknowledges risks and develops an approach that proactively identifies and mitigates risks, and looks to reduce or elim-inate future risks. Past Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective

Good: A good proposal exceeds specific performance or capability in a beneficial way to the Government and has few weaknesses.

The Offeror’s proposal meets the performance and technical capability requirements as defined in the SOW/PWS/SOO. The evaluator has a high degree of confidence that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements based on the proposed technical approach.

The Offeror acknowledges technical or schedule risk and develops an approach capable of mitigating all apparent risks effectively.

Past Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable: An acceptable proposal contains strengths that outweigh any existing weaknesses. The Offeror’s proposal meets the per-formance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW/PWS/SOO. The evaluator is confident that the Offeror can suc-cessfully achieve the requirements in the SOW based on the proposed technical approach. Past Performance met contractual require-ments. The contractual performance contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal: The proposal meets the minimal performance and technical capability requirements as defined in the SOW/PWS/SOO and has significant weaknesses. The evaluator is not confident that the Offeror can successfully complete the required tasking without sig-nificant Government oversight or participation. The proposal fails to address risks or the proposed risk mitigation approach will not sufficiently manage the risk. Past Performance did not meet some of the contractual requirements. The contractual performance re-flects serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions were marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unacceptable: An unacceptable proposal does not meet one or more of the solicitation requirements. The approach contains signific-ant weaknesses and deficiencies. The evaluator is confident that the Offeror will be unable to successfully complete the required task-ing. The proposal does not adequately acknowledge or address risk, mitigate risk, or may actually introduce risk. Past Performance did not meet many contractual requirements and recovery was not timely. The contractual performance contained serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

Each evaluation factor will be assigned an adjectival rating as listed above. In regards to past performance, Offerors with no relevant past performance information shall receive a “Neutral” rating. ALL FACTORS ARE WEIGHTED EQUALLY.

The following definitions are applicable to determining the above ratings:

Strength: A significant strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that considerably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance. A strength is an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance. Note: Simple adherence to the requirements or ability to meet a requirement is compliance but shall not be listed as a strength.

Weakness: A significant weakness is defined as an aspect of the proposal that considerably increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. A weakness is an aspect of omission or a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a pro-posal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Any proposal that is deemed so deficient or unacceptable that it could not reasonably be made acceptable by reasonable clarification or revision will be judged "Unacceptable." The justification for assigning this rating will be provided in a narrative format by the evaluation team.

Only after the evaluation team has completed the evaluation on the non-price factors, will the Price Proposal be reviewed. Price is not a scored factor.

Evaluation Factors

The responses to the Evaluation Factors shall be submitted in one three ring binder and shall be in the same sequential order as provided. All submittals shall have a separate section for responding to each merit factor in the order listed below.

Each response shall address the specific requests for each Evaluation Factor in the order that is written in each particular Evaluation

Factor.

The technical volume shall contain sufficient quantitative and qualitative details (without reference to cost or price) to permit a com-plete and accurate evaluation of the proposal from strictly a technical viewpoint. Offerors are cautioned to keep in mind the criteria set forth in the solicitation against which the proposals will be evaluated. The technical/management volume shall contain:

a) Factor 1: Past performance of secondary wastewater treatment plant operations and maintenance service contract (s). Submit a maximum ten (10) page response for Item 1.

1) Provide a list of all current and past contracts for the same or substantially similar (same size and larger and complexity) work for the last three (3) years. Contracts listed may include Federal, State, and local government and private. The evaluation shall take into account past performance information (current and relevant in- formation) regarding plant operations, personnel administration/labor management and subcontractors. Offerors that are newly formed entities without prior contracts shall provide information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. Include the following information:

Name of Contracting Activity Contract Number Contract Type Total Contract Value Contact Name and Telephone Number

Assessment of the Offeror's past performance will be one means of evaluating the credibility of the Offeror's proposal, and relative capability to meet performance requirements.

Information utilized will be obtained from the references listed in the proposal, other customers known to the Government, consumer protection organizations, and others who may have useful and relevant information. Information will also be considered regarding any significant subcontractors and key personnel records. The Government will utilize the information in the Past Performance Informa-tion Retrieval System (PPIRS).

Evaluation of past performance will often be quite subjective based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will in-clude a determination of the Offerors commitment to customer satisfaction and will include conclusions of informed judgment.

However, the basis for conclusions of judgment will be documented.

Award may be made from the initial offers without discussions. However, if discussions are held, Offerors will be given an opportun-ity to address unfavorable reports of past performance, if the Offeror has not had a previous opportunity to review the rating. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

If an Offeror, or the proposed employees for the Offeror, does not have a past performance history relating to this solicitation, the Of-feror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this factor.

b) Factor 2: Specialized experience and technical competence in secondary activated sludge with aeration tanks wastewater treatment plants operations and maintenance.

1) Offeror shall provide a detailed description of corporate structure to include engineering, management, operations and maintenance, administrative, and scientific. Provide information relative to the firm's past experience in the operation and maintenance of second-ary activated sludge with aeration tanks wastewater treatment plants. Relevant corporate experience shall be limited to the last five years. The Offeror shall describe the corporate experience that demonstrates their ability to efficiently perform the tasks required under the contract. Demonstrate how each previous contract relates to the proposed requirement. Discuss the number of years of spe-cialized experience with the same or similar (size and complexity) work. Address the education, experience, and capabilities of your support team. Provide defined lines of authority, responsibility, and communication. Discuss upper management's commitment to the success of this requirement and level of corporate assistance in the event of any problems. Each request in Item 1) must be addressed in the answer. Submit a maximum of ten (10) pages response for Item 1).

2) Offeror shall provide evidence of experience in process instrumentation control used in secondary activated sludge with aeration tanks wastewater treatment plants. Submit a maximum of two (2) pages response for Item 2).

3) Offeror shall discuss their firms capability of developing and implementing a computerized maintenance management system to track and control all maintenance activities, issue work orders, track equipment status, usage and maintenance history, and for invent-ory of spare parts; a data management system to maintain complete operational records to include provisions for networked word pro-cessing, spreadsheet, and database functions; and a plant monitoring program for process control, optimization, and regulatory report-ing. Each request in Item 4) must be addressed in the answer. Submit a maximum of two (2) pages response for Item 3).

4) Offeror shall provide evidence of successful experience in process efficiency of secondary activated sludge with aeration tanks wastewater treatment plant system. Submit a maximum of two (2) pages response for Item 4).

5) Offeror shall provide evidence of WWTP regulatory compliance knowledge at State and Federal level. Provide EPA and State audit reports for past three (3) years for plants included in Factor 1 and include response letters. Submit a maximum of (2) pages response for Item 5) with audit reports and response letters as attachments to the response.

c) Factor 3: Staffing and key personnel experience and qualifications for the operation and maintenance of the SBIWTP.

1) Offeror shall provide a staffing plan, including number and type of positions. Include brief position description for each classifica-tion. (Offerors shall explain how their proposed staffing will ensure that all requirements of the contract are met). Offerors must show exactly how they plan to manage their proposed staffing under both normal and peak workload situations, overlapping or simultaneous task assignments, and how sick and vacation leaves will be covered. Offerors shall address personnel turnover and its effect on con-tract performance. Offerors shall explain their recruitment, compensation, and training plans. Each request in Item 1) must be ad-dressed in the answer. Submit a maximum of four (4) pages response for Item 1).

2) Offeror shall provide a statement of qualifications of key team members, which are identified as the Plant Superintendent, Opera-tions Supervisor, Maintenance Supervisor, SCADA System Analyst, and Shift Supervisor. Include education, registration/certification, directly related work experience, special credentials, professional development, and demonstrated performance record. The Offeror shall provide resumes that demonstrates the appropriate education and experience of the key team members. Indicate availability, cur-rent employer, work location, and assignment of key team members. Each request in Item 2) must be addressed in the answer. Submit a maximum of three (3) pages response per key team member.

d) Factor 4: Safety and other regulatory requirements.

1) Offeror shall provide a safety plan normally used in wastewater treatment plants. Describe the qualifications and experience of the individual responsible for your safety program. Each Offeror shall discuss their firm's safety program regarding their capability of en-suring the safety of personnel, equipment, and the public. Address the firm's safety record. Discuss any accidents that have occurred within the last three years and corrective measures taken to ensure a safe work environment. The safety program will be evaluated for completeness of detail and validity of approach, and for general conformance in accordance with the OSHA Standards. Each request in Item 1) must be addressed in the answer. Submit a maximum of two (2) pages response for Item 1) and a copy of the safety plan.

e) Factor 5: Financial stability and professional reputation of the firm.

1) Offeror shall provide audited financial statements for the past three (3) years to include, as a minimum: net worth, income (profit and loss) statements, balance sheet, statement of cash flows (charges and financial position), or if publicly held, all annual reports.

2) Offeror shall provide information describing any circumstances in which Offeror has failed to complete work awarded under any contract with name of contact person and telephone number.

3) Offeror shall provide information, court case number, style and a description of any situation where the Offeror has been named as a defendant in any litigation brought about under an operations and management contract, including name of company and contract person/phone number.

4) Offeror shall provide information and explain circumstances of fines or enforcement actions against the Offeror by any agency hav-ing jurisdiction over labor laws.

5) Offeror shall provide information and explain circumstances of fines or enforcement actions against the Offeror by any agency hav-ing jurisdiction over health, safety, loss of life and welfare issues.

6) Offeror shall provide information relative to fines or other enforcement action taken against the Offeror by any agency having juris-diction over effluent discharge requirements.

Response for each item 1 to 6 shall be a maximum of one (1) page per item.

f) Factor 6: Phase-In.

Offeror shall provide a detailed Phase-In Plan. The proposed Phase-In Plan to provide for (1) a complete and orderly phase-in, (2) a timetable for orderly assumptions of each responsibility, as required, (3) performance of all functions, (4) adequate resources, and (5) plans covering key functional areas during the phase-in period. It is estimated that a transition period of thirty (30) days will be suffi-cient for the successful Offeror to be up to full strength and fully operational.

1. Phase-In Plan Evaluation Criteria:

a) Does the plan convey the understanding and commitment to achieve total capability in thirty (30) days after the contract effective date?

b) Does the Plan describe the approach to achieve total capability to operate and maintain the SBIWTP in thirty (30) days after the contract effective date?

c) Does the Plan describe the approach to achieve transfer, property accountability, and assumption of resources in a timely manner?

d) Is the staffing plan consistent with the phase-in schedule and required capability?

e) Is the staffing plan adequate to meet total capability to operate and maintain the SBIWTP within thirty (30) days after the contract effective date. Each request must be addressed in the answer. Submit a response with a maximum of five (5) pages.

Discussions/Negotiations

The Government anticipates that discussions will not be conducted during this procurement (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the CO later determines them to be necessary. The determination of the competitive range shall be the responsibility of the CO and be comprised of the most highly rated proposals. The Government may also reduce the number of highly rated proposals within the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. Negoti-ations will be conducted with all vendors within the competitive range. Discussions/negotiations will likely be in the form of written questions requiring written responses from each Offeror, and may include face-to-face meetings or telephonic discussions. The loca-tion of face-to-face meetings will be at the sole discretion of the CO. Discussions/negotiations will culminate with a request for final proposal revision from those Offerors who remain in the competitive range. Offerors may be eliminated from the competitive range at any time if they are found unacceptable in one or more evaluation factors in accordance with FAR 15.306(d)(5). In the event discus-sions are held with Offerors determined by the CO to be within the competitive range, the chairperson of the evaluation team shall: (1) assist the Contracting Officer in the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of cost proposals and (2) perform final evaluation, includ-ing scoring of "Final Revised Proposal" offers. Initial scores may be adjusted as a result of the submission of "Final Revised Proposal" offers.

Final Revised Proposals

Negotiations may be conducted on the content of the proposal to the extent deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer with all Of-ferors determined to be in the competitive range in accordance with the preceding paragraph. Following negotiations, all Offerors still within the competitive range may be requested to submit a written Final Revised Proposal.

Final Evaluation of Proposal

The adjectival ratings for the non-priced factors assigned to proposals within the competitive range may be revised by any additional information or data provided during negotiations or furnished with the "Final Revised Proposals." Ultimately, all adjectival ratings will be combined into an overall rating which will be given consideration, along with the proposed price and profit, for award.

Best Value Decision

The ultimate source selection decision will not be made by the application of a mathematical formula, but by the exercise of sound business judgment on the part of the Contracting Officer. This decision will be based on the price to the Government as compared with the evaluations of the proposal. Significant differences in measured proposal merit may or may not be deemed affordable or worth an additional amount of money, depending upon the best interest of the Government.

Basis for Award

Award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose non-priced factors and priced factors, when considered together, are determined to rep-resent the best value to the Government. The price of the respective proposals will be compared to the offered merits under each eval-uation factor. Price is of secondary importance to the evaluation factors; however, price may determine the Government’s ability or in-clination to purchase the merit offered by the non-priced factors. Significant differences in measured merit may or may not be deemed affordable depending upon the best interests of the Government. Ultimately the source selection decision will be based on an accept-able offer, the price of which may not be the lowest, but which is sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest price so as to justify the payment of additional amounts.