Amended 70Z08725RJUNE28424423_Alaska_EnvRem_IDIQ_L and M 10.21.pdf

AMENDMENT 0002 to 70Z08725RJUNE28424423 Alaska Environmental Remediation IDIQ.

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.1 FAR 52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998).

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es): http://www.acquisition.gov

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

52.204-6 Unique Entity Identifier (OCT 2016) 52.204-7 System for Award Management (NOV 2024) 52.204-16 Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting (AUG 2020) 52.211-14 Notice of Priority Rating for National Defense, Emergency

Preparedness and Energy Program Use (APR 2008) 52.211-6 Brand Name of Equal (AUG 1999) 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition (NOV 2021) 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data

Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (NOV 2021) 52.216-27 Single or Multiple Awards (OCT 1995) 52.225-10 Notification of Buy American Requirement – Construction Materials (MAY 2014) 52.225-12 Notification of Buy American Requirement – Construction Materials

Under Trade Agreements (MAY 2014) 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee (SEP 1996) 52.236-27 Site Visit (Construction) (FEB 1995) 52.237-1 Site Visit [Services] (APR 1984)

L.2 FAR 52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984)

The Government contemplates award of a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) with Firm- Fix Price (FFP) task order under this contract resulting from this solicitation.

L.3 FAR 52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST. (SEP 2006)

(a) Protests, as defined in section 33.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from: Email the contracting officer at Cheryl.A.Berry@uscg.mil and the protest mailbox at protests@uscg.mil .”

(b) The copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one day of filing a protest with the GAO.

(End of Provision) http://www.acquisition.gov/ mailto:Cheryl.A.Berry@uscg.mil mailto:protests@uscg.mil

L.4 General Information:

The U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Commandant for Systems (DCS), Program Executive Office (PEO) - SHORE Contracting in support of the, Civil Engineering Unit Juneau, intends to issue an 8(a) Set- Aside solicitation and award an Environmental Remediation Services (ERS) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for capacity estimated at $45M to a target of five (5) contactors. The geographic coverage of this MATOC is primarily with the Arctic District Area of Responsibility (AOR).

Individual Task Orders will be solicited and competed with the MATOC pool as Firm-Fixed Price Task Orders.

Note: The Government targets of five (5) awards, however, if the Contracting Officer determines during the source selection process that fewer or more that than number of contracts should be awarded, the Contracting officer has the discretion of adjusting that number (higher or lower) or awarding none at all. In any case, the Government may not award any contract if the resulting contract would not represent a “best value” to the Government using trade-off selection procedures as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and other supplementary guidance.

The U.S. Coast Guard, Civil Engineering Unit – Juneau intends to use Competitive Source Selection Procedures in accordance with the provisions set forth in this RFP, FAR Part 15.3, Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) and Coast Guard Acquisition Procedures.

L4.1. Copies of the RFP and any amendments will be made available via the System for Award Management (SAM) website (SAM.gov).

L4.2. To ensure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all RFP requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. The Offeror shall submit a proposal which includes all requested information specified in this section of the RFP no later than the exact date and time specified.

Failure to submit all required information or failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

L4.3. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate cost/price competition for negotiation and award of the base contract(s). Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, Offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the proposed cost/price is considered fair and reasonable including those requirements of 52.212-2 Audit and Records-Negotiation (JUN 2020).

L4.4. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): The NAICS code for this acquisition is 562910. The small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, but which proposed to furnish an item which it did not itself manufacture, is 1000 employees. (13 CFR Part 121, effective 2 May 2022).

L4.5. Offeror Inquiry: Submit Technical Inquiries and questions to the Contracting Officer copying the Contract Specialist no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date set for receiving proposals, in order that they may be given adequate consideration prior to receipt of offers.

L4.6. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omissions, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer with a copy to the Contract Specialist Identified below in writing (email is the preferred method) with supporting rationale.

L5 Proposal Instructions:

Offerors are to submit proposals entitled AK Environmental Proposal to include the SF 1442, Section K Completed Representations and Certifications, Seed Project Price Schedule, and documentation addressing Evaluation Factors listed below. Offers must adhere to the Evaluation Factor page limits and requirements.

Formatting Requirements:

Pages must have standard 1” margins, 12 point font. The Government allows a cover page only, this excludes table of contents, glossary, nor section tabs. Insert the Title of the Proposal Submission Requirement, i.e. “Resumes of Key Personnel” in the header only.

Submit the following via email to Cheryl.a.berry@uscg.mil and John.Wright@uscg.mil . If the file exceeds 25MB send an email requesting a DoD Safe Link to upload your proposal. Technical shall be in pdf format and Price shall be an excel file with backup data provided in pdf format.

L5.1. Resumes of Key Management Personnel – Page Limit: 4 pages (two pages per position, excluding documents referenced under “a.” Merit Opportunity below). The following positions are considered Key Management Personnel for the IDIQ. The offeror shall provide the resumes of the key management personnel:

a. Program Manager

b. Environmental Scientist/Engineer/Specialist

Resumes shall address the requirements listed in Page 7 of Attach1_Statement of Services ENV IDIQ.pdf

The resumes should clearly display proposed job title, education and training, special qualifications and experience record (including role, duties and dates), responsibilities and assignments. The resume(s) shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the key management person meets the minimum qualifications identified in the attached Statement of Services.

mailto:Cheryl.a.berry@uscg.mil mailto:John.Wright@uscg.mil

Merit Opportunity: The Government may assign higher rating to offerors who provide personnel with one or more of the following in response to this Non-Price Evaluation Factor. Note: Submission of professional licenses, certifications, and completion certificates of specialized training do not count towards the page limits.

a. Professional licenses, certifications, or specialized training in the Environmental field, applicable to the position.

b. Resumes which reflect that the candidate has years of applicable experience more than the minimum requirements.

c. Resumes which reflect that the candidate has substantial experience on projects in Alaska.

Note: After contract award, the Contracting Officer shall approve replacement of any key personnel after verifying that they meet or exceed the requirements of the RFP.

Note: Resumes of other personnel (for example, superintendent, quality control manager, engineers, field and technical staff, etc.) may be required as part of task order proposals but are not needed now and will not be evaluated if submitted with the resumes for the key management personnel.

L5.2 Prior Experience – Page Limit 9 pages (three pages per project): The Offeror shall submit information regarding three (3) projects completed within the State of Alaska which were completed within the last ten (10) years or are more than 75% complete at the time of proposal submission, and, which demonstrate relevant experience as described in Section C of this RFP and the attached Statement of Services.

At least two of the three projects submitted shall be for the Federal government.

a. Submit two (2) projects, for work within Alaska, primarily for Remedial Action or Remedial

Action in support of a Construction Project. The Remedial Action project(s) shall each have a minimum contract value equal to or greater than $1,000,000 executed by the offeror. The projects shall demonstrate performance of a remedial action construction project executed under, 18 Alaska Administrative Code, CERCLA or RCRA authorities.

b. Submit one (1) project, for work within Alaska, primarily for Environmental Remedial Investigation. The selected project shall demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to perform a complex Remedial Investigation project of the type described in Section C of this RFP.

The projects selected shall show diversity in the types of work accomplished by the firm to accomplish the work identified in Section C of this RFP. The Offeror must have been the Prime Contractor or Joint Venture partner on the project. The Offeror shall describe its primary role/duties in execution of the work (for example, the major components of the project which were completed by the prime’s staff/personnel and major components which were subcontracted out).

Information on Prior Experience. The following information shall be included as a minimum in the presentation of prior experience for all projects:

1. Project Number: Name of the project and location (City and State)

i. Contract / Task Order title and award date,

ii. Notice to Proceed date (if applicable),

iii. Contact/ Task order price at award

iv. Final Contract/ Task Order cost to Government/Customer (if contract is 100% complete)

v. Location of Work

vi. Affirmatively state that your firm was the Prime Contractor (either single or as part of a

Joint Venture) for the project

vii. Role of Proposed Key Personnel in the project

2. Description of work performed should address :

i. Issues related to time, scope, or cost encountered and how they were resolved along with any major accomplishments should be described.

ii. Effective resolution of regulatory issues, expediting regulatory closure, or other information demonstrating ability to work constructively with the regulatory community.

iii. Environmental consulting services regarding environmental restoration and liabilities.

iv. Consulting services for environmental regulatory compliance.

v. Environmental consulting support for design and construction projects.

vi. Consulting services which support environmental planning and risk mitigation.

vii. Coordinated efforts across various stakeholders including federal and state regulatory agencies.

viii. Any distinctive and/or unique features of the project.

ix. International transportation of hazardous materials or hazardous waste, if applicable.

Merit Opportunity:

Offerors who present projects that demonstrate the key personnel proposed for this contract acted in the same roles with the offeror on prior projects may result in a higher rating. Offerors whose projects reflect greater degrees of complexity may result in a higher rating. Offerors who submit projects which reflect a greater diversity in the types of work performed may receive a higher rating. Offerors whose submitted projects demonstrate experience in all issues in L5.2.2, listed under “Description of work performed should address” above, may be given a higher rating.

L5.3 Past Performance. Page Limit: None

Provide CPARS evaluations (interim or final) for the three projects submitted in Prior Experience. If no CPARS evaluation exists, then provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), utilizing Attachment 3 to this RFQ. Forms like the PPQ form attached used for other agencies may also be used.

Each CPARS evaluation and questionnaire submitted must include all the following information:

a. Period of performance

b. Name of agency/company for whom work was performed.

c. Contract / Task Order title and award date,

d. Name, address, and current telephone number of engineer/contract administrator/ contracting officer

e. Identifies currently proposed personnel which were involved.

Merit Opportunity: Offerors whose past performance records consistently demonstrate ratings of Very Good or Exceptional for past performance may result in a higher factor rating.

Interim evaluations are acceptable if a final evaluation is not available.

Note: The Government prefers CPARS and requests that PPQs only be submitted if a non- Government project is submitted.

Note: Failure to provide either a CPARS or completed PPQ for all projects may result in a lower rating.

Note: PPQs shall be submitted with proposal, not directly from project owner.

L5.4 Seed Project Technical Approach: Page limit 3 pages.

Provide a technical approach to the Seed Project that demonstrates a thorough understanding of The path to achieve site closure under 18 AAC 75, Article 3 (Discharge, Reporting, Cleanup, and And Disposal of Oil and Other Hazardous Substances) . Proposals should also address remote logistical execution, such as helicopter access, temporary camp establishment, excavation, barge of transport equipment, materials, and waste; and coordination with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and other stakeholders.

Merit Opportunity: Offerors who presents innovative and adaptive remediation methodologies applicable to complex contamination scenarios, including petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL), heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and landfill materials.

L5.5 Business/Price Proposal Instructions: No Page limit. The following information is required.

a. Signed Standard Form 33, Solicitation/Offer/Award, with blocks 14 – 18 completed by the offeror.

b. Complete the Seed Project Price Schedule. All Items must be priced.

i. The offeror shall apply the FFP fully burdened labor (including profit) rates for personnel as proposed on Seed Project. The contractor shall propose any subcontracting, supplies, materials, equipment, travel costs, that may be needed to carry out the work under the FFP Seed Task Order requirement. The offeror’s Seed FFP Task Order Proposal shall include all necessary price elements. Other than cost and pricing data may be requested, in addition to the elements below to include, if additional information is necessary to determine fair and reasonableness of offeror’s price proposal. Additional instructions:

• General Administration (G&A): Offerors shall propose a cost for other direct costs (ODCs) such as materials, supplies, and equipment. Backup documentation to support the proposed materials/supplies/equipment cost shall be provided in the offeror’s price proposal.

• Travel. Offerors shall propose a cost for travel. Travel costs shall be proposed in accordance with Joint Travel Regulations. Backup documentation to support the proposed travel cost shall be provided in the offeror’s price proposal. No profit shall be applied to travel costs.

c. Complete the second Excel Sheet Titled “IDIQ Rates”.

i. The offeror shall completely fill out all tables in “IDIQ Rates” Excel tab. The rates that the offeror proposes shall show the fully burdened labor rates (including profit) for firm-fixed price (FFP) rate(s) for each year of the contract. The offeror shall complete the “IDIQ Rates” for submission. The rates proposed in “IDIQ Rates” will be binding and will become the maximum allowable rates for the Seed Task Order proposal and any subsequent task orders issued during the ordering period of the contract awarded as a result of this solicitation. Thus, the rates proposed on a task order may be less than those proposed in “IDIQ Rates” but may not exceed the maximum rates included unless the applicable wage determination is higher than the offeror’s base rate in the contract.

Required supporting documentation (if any) shall be provided with the offeror’s proposal. Information for completing the tables and identification of required supporting documentation is provided below:

• General and Administration (G&A) - G&A overhead percentage proposed must be fully supported. If a recent audit or financial statement of corporate overhead expenses, performed by a government or private auditor or certified public accountant exists that supports the rate proposed, submit it as part of the offer. The G&A rate will be a binding element that will become the maximum allowable rate for task orders issued during the respective contract ordering period.

• Escalation Factors - The offeror shall provide the escalation factors applied to the labor categories for each calendar year within each calendar year. The offeror shall also provide the basis for any proposed/projected price escalation and the assumptions used, if any. The offeror shall provide copies of the escalation forecasts as support documentation in the proposal.

ii. Provide Statement of Certified Cost and Pricing Data per FAR 15.403-4.

iii. Provide a current, within the last three years, third-party audit supporting proposed Overhead in accordance with FAR Part 31.2. The USCG prefers a U.S. Government audit (e.g. DCAA).

iv. All rates are firm fixed price for the duration of the Contract. Should the contract be extended by 52.217-8 Extend the Terms of the Contract, the last ordering period will be escalated at the rate agreed upon at the time of contract execution for up to six (6) months.

d. Section K - Offeror Representations and Certifications – Complete the requested information in each applicable provision in Section K (52.204-8, 52.209-13, 52.204-24, 52.209-7, 52.219-4). Only return the applicable provisions, not the entire solicitation.

e. Acknowledgement of solicitation amendments (if any). This can be accomplished by completing section 19 on the SF-1442 or by submitting the signed SF-30(s) from sam.gov with your price proposal.

f. All documents shall be submitted as specified in block 9 of theSF-33. It is the vendor’s responsibility to ensure delivery of all required documents by the date and time set for receipt of offers.

g. Contact the Contracting Officer by e-mail if you do not understand any part of these instructions.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1 Basis of Award.

The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with source selection procedures as found in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and this RFP. The Government intends to use a best value tradeoff selection process as described in the paragraphs below. The offeror must be responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, and the proposal must conform to the RFP requirements, meet all technical requirements, and present the best value to the government. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the RFP may result in the offer being considered ineligible for award.

Selection will be based on the proposals determined to be the best value to the Government in responses to the stated criteria.

The offeror determined to provide the overall best value to the government will also receive award of the seed project as the first task order. The other contract awardees will receive a minimum guarantee of $5,000 at time of contract award and will be deducted from the issuance of the first respective task order.

M2. Award without Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, however, the Government reserves the right to open and conduct discussions if it deems them to be necessary.

Therefore, offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

M3. Competitive Range/Discussions

If discussions are deemed necessary, they will be held only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. The Contracting Officer may establish, with SSA approval, a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals. The competitive range may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). Offerors whose proposals are not included in the competitive range will be notified as soon as practicable.

Discussions will include issuance of evaluation notices. An offeror initially included in the competitive range may be eliminated from consideration for award during discussions. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit Final Proposal Revisions (FPR).

M4. Award

To arrive at a source selection decision for the overall IDIQ, the Government will evaluate the four non-price factors, the Proposed IDIQ Rates, and the proposed Seed Project Price. The Government intends to award to the firms providing the proposals which are considered by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) to represent the best value to the Government using best value trade-off methods.

The proposed “IDIQ Rates” will become contractually binding. Offerors must demonstrate that proposed labor rates are applied to those hours for the Offeror to complete the Seed Task Order.

The total evaluated cost of the seed project will be utilized as the Price component in the Government’s best value trade off analysis. The Seed Project award may not be awarded to the offeror who provides the lowest price, but to the offeror who provides the best value to the Government.

M5. Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate proposals based on the factors listed below. There is no precedence among the non-price factors (Key Personnel, Past Performance, Prior Experience, Seed Project Technical Approach) and all are weighted equally. A tradeoff analysis will be conducted between non-price factors and price with non-price factors and price being approximately equal. However, within the price evaluation, the IDIQ Rates are significantly more important than the Seed Project Price because they represent the potential cost for the majority of future task orders under this contract. As proposals approach equality in the assessment of quality, price will become more important in the tradeoff process. Award of a Seed Project will be made to the Offeror representing the best value. It is anticipated that award will be based on the initial proposals.

M5.1 Resumes of Key Management Personnel for this Contract

The resumes for the proposed key management personnel identified in Section L will be evaluated to determine whether the Key Management Personnel possess the minimum requirements specified in Section 6, Statement of Services, page 7. Proposals that demonstrate that one or more of the key management personnel exceed one or more of the minimum qualifications may receive a higher rating.

Additionally, the Government may assign higher rating to offerors who provide personnel with one or more of the following. Note: Submission of professional licenses, certifications, and completion certificates of specialized training do not count towards the page limits.

a. Professional licenses, certifications, or specialized training in the Environmental field, applicable to the position.

b. Resumes which reflect that the candidate has years of applicable experience more than the minimum requirements.

c. Resumes which reflect that the candidate has substantial experience on projects in Alaska

M5.2 Prior Experience:

5.3.1 The contractor's prior experience will be evaluated for relevancy in terms of scope and complexity to the scope of work (See Section C of this RFP and the Statement of Services).

The Government will only consider projects that are complete within 10 years of the proposal due date or are at a minimum 75% substantially complete.

The Government will consider the prior experience provided in the submitted projects to determine how similar those projects are to the scope of work for this contract to include complexity, nature of work, work elements, schedule duration, and scope. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the submitted project(s) meet the parameters set forth in Section L for past projects to include:

- prime contractor involvement

- timeframe when the project was completed

- type of the project

- and cost control.

In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s prior experience based on the following:

Whether at least two of the three projects submitted are for the Federal government.

- **Whether two (2) projects submitted are for work within Alaska, primarily for Remedial Action or Remedial Action in support of a Construction Project. The Remedial Action project(s) shall each have a minimum contract value equal to or greater than $1,000,000 executed by the offeror. The projects shall demonstrate performance of a remedial action construction project executed under, 18 Alaska Administrative Code, CERCLA or RCRA authorities. **

- **Whether one (1) project submitted is for work within Alaska, primarily for Environmental Remedial Investigation. The selected project shall demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to perform a complex Remedial Investigation project of the type described in Section C of this

RFP. **

- **Whether the projects selected show diversity in the types of work accomplished by the firm to accomplish the work identified in Section C of this RFP. The Offeror must have been the Prime Contractor or Joint Venture partner on the project. The Offeror shall describe its primary role/duties in execution of the work (for example, the major components of the project which were completed by the prime’s staff/personnel and major components which were subcontracted out). **

Offerors whose projects demonstrate the key personnel proposed for this contract acted in the same roles with the offeror on prior projects may result in a higher rating. Offerors whose projects reflect greater degrees of complexity may result in a higher rating. Offerors who submit projects which reflect a greater diversity in the types of work performed may receive a higher rating. Offerors whose submitted projects demonstrate experience in all issues listed under "Description of work performed should address" may be given a higher rating.

The Government will also assess the description of work performed to determine how the Offeror addressed the following:

- Issues related to time, scope, or cost encountered and how they were resolved along with any major accomplishments.

- Effective resolution of regulatory issues, expediting regulatory closure, or other information demonstrating ability to work constructively with the regulatory community.

- Environmental consulting services regarding environmental restoration and liabilities.

- Consulting services for environmental regulatory compliance.

- Environmental consulting support for design and construction projects.

- Consulting services which support environmental planning and risk mitigation.

- Coordinated efforts across various stakeholders including federal and state regulatory agencies.

- Any distinctive and/or unique features of the project.

- International transportation of hazardous materials or hazardous waste, if applicable.

M5.3 Past Performance. CPARS and/or PPQs submitted for the Prior Experience projects will be used for the Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the solicitation requirements. The Government’s evaluation of past performance will examine how well Offerors have performed on similar past projects. Past Performance evaluation will focus on quality for each submitted project, which, when considered together, will be used to determine an overall factor rating. This is an assessment of the quality of the contractor’s performance, to include: comparison of past quality ratings to requirements contemplated under this scope; performance evaluation ratings;

responsiveness to customer concerns; cost growth and adherence to budget; time growth, timeliness and adherence to schedule; quality and quality control measures; management of personnel and subcontractors; compliance with safety standards/safety plan; regulatory compliance; overall customer satisfaction

In addition to the CPARS and/or PPQs submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other Government databases.

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may contact the individual identified in the Offeror’s proposal to request specific information or to clarify concerns of the SSEB related to the submitted projects..

M5.3.1. The Government may, at its discretion, contact individuals other than those identified by the Offeror as references to verify the information contained therein. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror's performance history but may attribute more importance to work that was similar to the scope and types of projects as stated in Section C and Statement of Services.

M.5.3.2. Failure to provide either a CPARS or completed PPQ for all Prior Experience projects may result in a lower rating for this factor.

Offerors whose past performance records demonstrate consistently higher ratings for past performance may result in a higher factor rating.

M5.4 Seed Project Technical Approach The Government will evaluate proposals based on the degree to which the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates a technically superior and innovative solution for achieving site closure in accordance with 18 AAC 75, Article 3. The Government will further evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach addresses remote logistical execution, including helicopter access, temporary camp establishment, excavation, barge transport equipment, materials, and waste; and proactive coordination with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and other stakeholders to ensure timely, compliant, and cost-effective site closure.

Offers who present approaches that effectively integrate regulatory compliance, risk-based decision-making, and adaptive remediation methodologies for complex contamination scenarios involving POL, heavy metals, PCBs, and landfill materials may result in a higher factor rating.

M5.5 Price The total price of the Seed Project will be utilized in the Government’s best value price analysis. The Government will evaluate the Seed Project Rates applied to the Seed Project Task Order to determine the ability of offeror to realistically price the subject Task Order, as well as determine ability of offeror to realistically price similar work as might be required under the contract. The information provided by the offeror for the base period of IDIQ Rates will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness and will become contractually binding for the seed task order and/or for future task orders. Proposed labor rates, indirect rates, escalation factors will be evaluated overall for fairness and reasonableness. Price and/or cost analysis may be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 to determine whether the price is considered reasonable.

The Government reserves the right to request a detailed price breakdown or other information as necessary. The total evaluated price is the total of all CLINS as listed on the Seed Project Price Schedule. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the Task Announcement.

• Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates (IGCE).

• Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

• Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the Offeror if requested by the Government.

Because the evaluation of the price proposal will represent a portion of the total evaluation for the IDIQ contracts, it is possible that an Offeror may not be selected for award because of an unreasonably high price proposal or a proposal that is not considered “fair and reasonable”.

Award of a Seed Project will be made to the Offeror representing the best value. It is anticipated that award will be based on the initial proposals. The USCG reserves the right to engage in exchanges with offerors, if necessary.

M6 Rating Systems:

Rating System for Key Management Personnel, Prior Experience, Seed Project Technical Approach and Overall Non-Price Proposal Rating Description Superior Proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards.

Proposal strengths will significantly benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low

Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements and an approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. Proposal has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory Proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets performance or capability standards. Proposal presents an acceptable solution with few, or no strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Marginal Proposal demonstrates a shallow or minimal understanding of the requirements and approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. Significant weaknesses or deficiency exists that may be correctable without major proposal revisions. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unsatisfactory Proposal fails to meet requirements, and one or more deficiencies exist for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the proposal.

A contract cannot be awarded with this proposal

Rating System for Past Performance Evaluation Rating Definition Neutral No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance rating. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the offeror, key personnel, or subcontractors.

This is neither a negative nor positive assessment.

Superior Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the risk of unsuccessful performance of the required effort is exceptionally low

Good Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the risk of unsuccessful performance of the required effort is very low.

Satisfactory Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the risk of unsuccessful performance of the required effort is low.

Marginal Based on the offeror's past performance record, the risk of unsuccessful performance of the required effort is moderate.

Unsatisfactory Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the risk of unsuccessful performance of the required effort is high.

M7. Selection Process.

All non-price factors of all proposals will be individually evaluated by each voting member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) before attempting to reach consensus. After all proposals have been individually evaluated, the voting members shall discuss their individual evaluations and reach a consensus rating for each factor for each proposal and an overall non-price rating for the non-price proposal. When the non-price evaluation has been completed, the price/cost information will be analyzed in accordance with FAR 15.404. A tradeoff analysis will be conducted in accordance with Section M5 Evaluation Factors.

The Government will award a task order only after a determination that the award can be made within the funds available and after a Contracting Officer determination that the price is fair and reasonable.

The SSEB Chairperson shall provide to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) a Source Selection Evaluation Report. The SSA will select the MATOC pool of contractors whose proposals offer the best value to the Government in accordance with the RFP’s evaluation criteria and the basis for award.

M8. Debriefings.

The offeror must request a debriefing in writing within 3 days after receipt of notice in accordance with FAR 15.505 and 15.506. Offerors shall be permitted only one (1) debriefing. All offerors will receive a letter identifying its strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies along with the rating for each factor.

M9. IDIQ Award.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. The Government intends to award an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) 8(a) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC). The MATOC pool has an estimated shared contract capacity of $45M to a target of five (5) contractors. The MATOC from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible Offerors whose proposals, conforming to the RFP, represent the overall best value to the Government, technical ratings and pricing considered. The intent is to award one (1) MATOC from this solicitation; however, if the Contracting Officer determines during the source selection process that no MATOC should be awarded, the Contracting Officer has the discretion of canceling the solicitation.

(End of Section M)