ACI-RCDMS_Section M_DRAFT.pdf

SECTION M – BASIS FOR AWARD

2 NOV 2025

SECTION M – BASIS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

Definition: Large-Scale Debris Removal Project: For the purposes of Section M, a large-scale debris removal project is defined as a project with a value of at least $250 million or a debris volume of at least five (5) million cubic yards.

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous and represents the best overall value to the Government. This determination will be made through a Best Value Tradeoff (BVT) process, considering the following four (4) evaluation factors:

I. Management/Technical Approach

• Proposals must receive a rating of at least “Acceptable” on this factor to be considered for award.

II. Past Performance

• Proposals must receive a confidence assessment of at least “Neutral Confidence.” Assessments of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” are unacceptable.

• The Government reserves the right to consider past performance information from sources other than those submitted by the offeror.

III. Small Business Participation

• Proposals must receive a rating of at least “Acceptable” to be considered for award.

• Offerors that are not small businesses must submit an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.702(a).

IV. Price

• Proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness but will not be scored or otherwise combined with the non-price factors.

• Price contributes to the overall best value determination but is not the sole determining factor.

• The Government may select a higher-priced proposal if it offers superior technical capabilities, past performance, or small business participation that, in the Government’s judgment, represents the best overall value.

• A significantly higher price without corresponding technical benefits may lower the overall assessment and could preclude award. Therefore, the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced offeror. If proposals are substantially equal on the non-price factors, the award may be based on price.

3 NOV 2025

The Government reserves the right to reject all proposals received if doing so is in the best interest of the Government, as per FAR 15.305.

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factor Relative Importance I. Management/Technical

Approach Equal to Past Performance and more important than Small Business Participation.

II. Past Performance Equal to Management/Technical Approach and more important than Small Business Participation.

III. Small Business Participation Least important non-price factor.

IV. Price Approximately equal in importance to the combined weight of all non-price factors.

NOTE: All non-priced factors, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

4 NOV 2025

AWARD PRIORITY & REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

IMPORTANT: Offerors should carefully review the following provisions regarding evaluation priority and the specific requirements for the South Atlantic Division.

Regional selections will be determined in accordance with the priority framework shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5: ACI Debris SATOC Regional Award Priorities

Name of Region Region Code States and Outlying Areas

South Atlantic Division-A SAD-A AL, FL South Atlantic Division-B SAD-B NC, SC, GA South Atlantic Division-C SAD-C Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands

South Pacific Division SPD CA, NV, NM, AZ, UT

North Atlantic Division NAD ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, NY, DE, MD, DC, PA, NJ, VA, RI

Mississippi Valley Division MVD IL, IA, MN, WI, LA, MS

Pacific Ocean Division POD AK, HI, The Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Other U.S. Outlying Areas within POD

Great Lakes and Ohio River Division LRD MI, IN, TN, KY, OH, WV

Southwestern Division SWD TX, AR, OK Northwestern Division NWD WA, OR, ID, MT, WY, CO, ND, SD, NE, KS, MO

South Atlantic Division. To ensure dedicated and responsive support during major events, the Government will make only one (1) award per offeror for a single subregion within the South Atlantic Division (SAD), consisting of subregions SAD-A, SAD-B, and SAD-C. This provision applies to all offeror types, including individual firms, joint ventures, mentor-protégé arrangements, and prime contractors utilizing teaming arrangements. An award to any offeror in a South Atlantic Division (SAD) subregion will make that offeror ineligible for award in the remaining SAD subregions. This ineligibility also extends to any proposal in another SAD subregion in which that same offeror participates as a joint venture partner, mentor or protégé entity, or prime contractor in a teaming arrangement. An offeror awarded a contract for one (1) SAD subregion will be ineligible for further award within SAD. For example, if an offeror is awarded a contract for subregion SAD-A, they will not be considered for awards in SAD-B or SAD-C. SAD subregions will be awarded in the following order: SAD-A, SAD-B, and SAD-C, as specified in Table 5 above.

5 NOV 2025

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Factor I: Management/Technical Approach:

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal will assess the Offeror’s proposed management and technical approach for performing the work outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The evaluation will consider the offeror’s understanding of the PWS requirements, their proposed project management plan, and the qualifications and experience of key personnel.

Factor II: Past Performance:

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal will assess their recent and relevant past performance history. This evaluation assesses the offeror’s probability of successful performance of the required effort. The evaluation will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance as detailed in Section D. EVALUATION APPROACH.

Factor III: Small Business Participation:

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal will assess their commitment to maximizing small businesses participation through the use of subcontractors. The evaluation will consider the extent to which the offeror demonstrates a good faith effort to include small businesses in their proposed solution and the realism and enforceability of proposed commitments, consistent with applicable regulations.

Factor IV: Price:

Proposals will be evaluated to determine price reasonableness, completeness, and accuracy. The resulting awards will be ten (10) Firm-Fixed-Price, Indefinite- Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) SATOCs. The Price Factor will not be scored or otherwise combined with the non-price factors. The Government will also assess for materially unbalanced pricing. The Schedule of Prices will form the basis of the total evaluated price and best value tradeoff determination for each region.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST). Prior to receipt of proposals, SST members will complete all required source selection and evaluation training. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall ensure that evaluation team members are trained before the evaluation begins.

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP. The SST will assess whether the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the PWS and provides a comprehensive plan for execution.

6 NOV 2025

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule. The SST will assess the realism and practicality of the proposed approach, considering potential challenges and risks.

Evaluation of Offerors Participating in Multiple Business Arrangements:

Joint Ventures (JVs) and SBA Mentor-Protégé arrangements will be evaluated only if they are formally established and compliant with all requirements of the FAR, SBA regulations, and the Solicitation, including documentation demonstrating the legal structure, control relationships, and workshare allocations required under FAR 9.601– 9.604.

When a firm submits proposals both as an individual prime contractor and as a participant in a JV or Mentor-Protégé arrangement, each proposal will be evaluated solely based on the role and responsibilities the firm is proposed to perform under that specific offering.

• In the individual prime proposal, the Government will evaluate only those management, technical, personnel, and resource capabilities that belong to the prime itself. The offeror may not attribute or rely upon the past performance, management systems, or resources of any joint venture or teaming arrangement unless the prime performed that work in its own name as a documented JV member and can demonstrate the portion of work it performed. The Government will not infer or assume capability based on participation in unrelated business arrangements.

• In the JV/Mentor-Protégé proposal, the Government will evaluate the JV as the offeror, and past performance or experience of JV members may be considered only for the portions of work each member is proposed to perform.

The Government will not transfer or credit capabilities, personnel, or resources from one proposal (e.g., a prime submission) to another proposal (e.g., a JV submission) unless the offeror explicitly assigns those resources to that specific arrangement. The JV must demonstrate its own operational capability as an entity. Submissions that rely solely or primarily on mentor past performance or mentor corporate experience, without showing how the JV has functioned, or will function, as an integrated team with defined responsibilities, management processes, and shared execution, may be evaluated as presenting higher performance risk.

Evaluators will also assess overcommitment and duplication risk when a firm or key individual appears across multiple submissions. A strength may be assigned when the offeror clearly demonstrates non-conflicting resource assignments, scalable management capacity, and distinct organizational structures for each proposal. A

7 NOV 2025

weakness or risk may be assigned when resource assignments are unclear, overlapping, unrealistic, or suggest overextension across regions or business arrangements.

Independent Capability Demonstration. A JV proposal must demonstrate that the JV’s assigned personnel, management systems, and resources are sufficient to perform the work. JV submissions that rely predominantly on mentor resources without clearly showing how those resources will be embedded into the JV’s execution structure may be evaluated as higher risk.

8 NOV 2025

Factor I: Management/Technical Approach.

This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed management and technical approach for performing the work outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). This factor demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements, their ability to effectively manage the project, and their commitment to delivering high-quality results.

Factor I: Management/Technical Approach is further divided into the following sections:

• Section I.1: Management/Technical Approach (Common)

• Sub-Section 1: Management Structure and Key Personnel

• Sub-Section 2: Deployment/Mobilization Plan

• Sub-Section 3: Management/Operations Plan

• Section I.2: Management/Technical Approach (Region-Specific) - Offerors submitting proposals for multiple regions must tailor their proposal for each region, providing distinct, region-specific content

• Sub-Section 1: Management Structure and Key Personnel

• Sub-Section 2: Deployment/Mobilization Plan

• Sub-Section 3: Management/Operations Plan

Section I.1: Management/Technical Approach (Common):

Sub-Section 1: Management Structure and Key Personnel. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed management structure and the qualifications of key personnel for the basic contract period and all option years. Deficiencies in overall Management Structure and Key Personnel could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on the Offerors’:

• KEY POINT #1: Organization: Provide an organization chart illustrating key personnel (onsite and offsite), their titles, and lines of authority, including major subcontractors. The chart must be clearly labeled to facilitate understanding of the proposed project team. Evaluation Criteria: The organization chart will be assessed for clarity, completeness, and the demonstrated alignment of personnel with key tasks outlined in the PWS. A strength will be demonstrated by a well-defined structure with clear reporting lines, appropriate levels of experience, and emphasis on personnel that have regionally specific experience. A weakness will be identified if the chart is unclear, incomplete, or does not adequately reflect the proposed workload.

• KEY POINT #2: Key Personnel: Provide resumes (not to exceed three (3) pages per resume) for the following key personnel. Resumes must demonstrate a minimum of seven (7) years of professional experience in a related field:

9 NOV 2025

o Operations Manager (OM) o Operations Planner (OP) o Environmental Compliance (EC) Manager o Safety & Health Manager (SHM) o Quality Control (QC) Manager

• Evaluation Criteria: Resumes will be assessed for relevance of experience, qualifications, and demonstrated expertise in debris removal operations.

Strengths will be identified based on the presence of relevant certifications (e.g., USACE Contractor Quality Management (CQM) for Contractors) and a proven track record of successful project management. A deficiency will be noted if key personnel lack the required experience or qualifications.

• KEY POINT #3: Core Resources and Capabilities: Describe the core resources and capabilities enabling efficient fulfillment of immediate Government requirements following Notice to Proceed (NTP) of a Task order, including projected mobilization timelines. Evaluation Criteria: The proposed resources and capabilities will be assessed for adequacy and realism. A strength will be demonstrated by a detailed plan with specific timelines and identified resources.

A weakness will be identified if the proposed resources are insufficient or the mobilization timelines are unrealistic.

• KEY POINT #4: Workforce Management Plan: Describe the staffing approach for a large-scale debris removal project, including surge capacity planning, communication protocols with Government and other stakeholders, resource prioritization strategies, and a plan to address concurrent events (e.g., multiple disaster declarations, overlapping task orders). Evaluation Criteria: The plan will be assessed for feasibility and effectiveness. A strength will be demonstrated by a proactive approach to workforce management, including strategies for recruitment, training, and retention.

• KEY POINT #5: Workforce Qualifications: Describe the plan to ensure the workforce is qualified and capable of meeting all requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), including specific training programs, required certifications and quality control processes. Evaluation Criteria: The plan will be assessed for comprehensiveness and effectiveness. A strength will be demonstrated by a robust training program and a commitment to maintaining a qualified workforce.

Sub-Section 2: Deployment/Mobilization Plan. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to rapidly deploy and mobilize resources. The Offeror shall provide information to substantiate the following:

• KEY POINT #1: Mobilization/Demobilization Approach: Describe the approach to mobilize/demobilize personnel and resources immediately after task order NTP and at task order completion. Evaluation Criteria: The approach will be assessed for speed, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. A strength will be

10 NOV 2025

demonstrated by a detailed plan with realistic timelines and resource allocation.

A weakness will be identified if the plan is vague or lacks sufficient detail.

• KEY POINT #2: Rapid Deployment Plan: Describe the plan for rapid deployment, formation of a contingent workforce, and appropriate in-processing activities (e.g., permits, immunizations, training, badging, etc.). Evaluation Criteria: The plan will be assessed for completeness and feasibility. A strength will be demonstrated by a comprehensive plan that addresses all necessary in-processing requirements. A weakness will be identified if the plan lacks critical in-processing steps.

• KEY POINT #3: Real-Time Monitoring: Describe means and methods to provide real-time mission execution monitoring that complements the offeror’s quality control plan and mission schedules. Evaluation Criteria: The monitoring system will be assessed for its ability to provide accurate and timely information.

A strength will be demonstrated by a robust system with clear reporting mechanisms. A weakness will be identified if the system is inadequate or lacks sufficient detail.

• KEY POINT #4: Large-Scale Deployment Approach: Describe the approach to deploying and mobilizing resources for a large-scale debris removal project. Evaluation Criteria: The approach will be assessed for scalability and adaptability. A strength will be demonstrated by a plan that can effectively handle a large-scale deployment.

Sub-Section 3: Management/Operations Plan. This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s operational approach, quality control, and risk management. The Offeror shall provide information to substantiate the following:

• KEY POINT #1: Quality Control Processes: Describe quality control processes and procedures (include certifications and/or quality management systems). Evaluation Criteria: The processes will be assessed for comprehensiveness and effectiveness. A strength will be demonstrated by a robust quality control system with clear procedures and documentation.

• KEY POINT #2: Safety Plan: Describe the safety plan for a large-scale debris removal project, including hazard mitigation procedures for surge operations, extended work hours, and geographically dispersed worksites. Evaluation Criteria: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror presents a comprehensive, regionally appropriate, and executable safety plan that demonstrates a clear understanding of the hazards associated with large-scale debris operations. A strength will be demonstrated by a plan that identifies and mitigates risks related to surge operations, extended work hours, geographically dispersed worksites, heavy equipment operations, traffic control, environmental hazards, and subcontractor safety management.

• KEY POINT #3: Quantitative Metrics: Describe quantitative metrics intended to execute and monitor compliance with contractual requirements. Evaluation Criteria: The metrics will be assessed for relevance and measurability. A strength

11 NOV 2025

will be demonstrated by a set of metrics that accurately reflect performance and compliance.

• KEY POINT #4: Risk Mitigation Plan: Describe the plan to mitigate impacts due to lack of available labor, lack of available equipment, lack of disposal sites, surges in debris removal requirements, and poor performance of Subcontractors. Evaluation Criteria: The plan will be assessed for realism and effectiveness. A strength will be demonstrated by a proactive approach to risk management with well-defined mitigation strategies.

• KEY POINT #5: Geographic Sectoring: Describe how to manage geographic areas relating to sectoring, to include sector managers, number of crews in each sector, and haul destinations from each sector. Evaluation Criteria: The sectoring plan will be assessed for efficiency and effectiveness. A strength will be demonstrated by a well-defined plan that optimizes resource allocation .

• KEY POINT #6: Cultural & Environmental Resource Management: Describe the plan for environmental and cultural resource management, including procedures to identify, protect, and manage sensitive environmental areas, cultural sites, and artifacts encountered during debris removal operations.

Evaluation Criteria: The plan will be assessed for realism and effectiveness. A strength will be demonstrated by clear, practical procedures for identifying, protecting, and coordinating the management of environmental and cultural resources.

2. Section I.2: Management/Technical Approach (Region-Specific):

This section shall address all region-specific requirements identified in the solicitation.

The Offeror must demonstrate the ability to effectively manage and execute debris management operations within the proposed region, including staffing, resources, logistics, and coordination with Federal, state, and local partners. Proposals must identify unique hazards, operational challenges, and risks of the region, and describe strategies for risk mitigation, readiness, and response. Each submission must be tailored to the region’s operational environment, geographic and climate conditions, regulatory factors, and execution risks. Offerors shall explain how these factors influence their management approach, resource allocation, and coordination strategies.

This section will be evaluated in accordance with the procedures outlined in this Source Selection Plan. Greater consideration will be given to proposals demonstrating superior region-specific understanding, tailoring, and execution capability.

Sub-Section 1: Management Structure and Key Personnel. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s management structure and the qualifications of key personnel. The Offeror shall provide information to substantiate the following:

• KEY POINT #1 – Regional Organization: Provide a clear organization chart tailored to the proposed region, identifying all regional key personnel (onsite and offsite), their roles, and lines of authority, including major regional subcontractors and partners. The chart shall illustrate how the regional team integrates with the

12 NOV 2025

offeror’s overall program structure and demonstrates clear command and communication pathways within the region. Evaluation Criteria: The chart will be assessed for clarity, completeness, and the demonstrated alignment of personnel with key tasks outlined in the PWS. A strength will be demonstrated by a well-defined regional structure with clear roles, authorities, and communication pathways.

• KEY POINT #2 – Key Regional Personnel: Provide resumes (not to exceed three (3) pages each) for key regional personnel proposed for the region, such as the Regional Operations Manager, Operations Planner, Environmental Compliance Manager, Health & Safety Manager, and Quality Control Manager.

Each resume shall demonstrate relevant experience within or directly applicable to the proposed region (e.g., familiarity with local debris management operations, climate-specific hazards, and regional coordination frameworks). Describe how the offeror will ensure the regional workforce is fully qualified, trained, and capable of meeting all Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, including region-specific training and certification programs (e.g., HAZWOPER, CQM, OSHA 30 ). Address safety compliance measures and quality control processes tailored to local conditions and hazards. Include resumes that demonstrate capability to meet surge or concurrent event requirements.

Evaluation Criteria: Resumes will be assessed for relevance of regional experience, qualifications, and demonstrated expertise in debris removal operations. Strengths will be identified based on the presence of relevant certifications and a proven track record of successful project management.

Note: Resumes (not to exceed 3 pages) will not be counted toward the maximum page count.

• KEY POINT #3 – Regional Resources, Assets, and Agreements: Describe the core resources, equipment, and logistical assets under the offeror’s control or otherwise contractually or operationally available within or proximate to the proposed region that can be mobilized immediately following an NTP. Describe any existing regional agreements or partnerships (e.g., memoranda of understanding with subcontractors, landfill operators, equipment suppliers, or transportation providers) that facilitate immediate mobilization. The proposal should also address regional permitting considerations, including existing permits, licensing, established access to permitted disposal or staging sites, or demonstrated ability to obtain required permits and authorizations quickly under emergency conditions. Evaluation Criteria: The proposed resources, assets, and agreements will be assessed for adequacy and realism. A strength will be demonstrated by clearly identified, readily accessible assets and binding agreements that support rapid mobilization and sustained operations.

• KEY POINT #4 – Regional Surge Capacity Strategy: Describe the staffing and surge capacity strategy specific to the proposed region, building upon the qualifications and organizational structure described above. Include the regional labor sourcing plan, subcontractor utilization, communication protocols with Federal, state, and local stakeholders, and methods for prioritizing and allocating resources during concurrent or overlapping events. Evaluation Criteria: Surge

13 NOV 2025

strategies will be assessed for feasibility and responsiveness. A strength will be demonstrated by a well-structured approach that enables rapid regional scaling and effective coordination during concurrent events.

• KEY POINT #5 – Regional Risk Awareness & Mission Continuity: Describe the offeror’s understanding of region-specific operational risks and the strategies in place to maintain mission continuity under adverse conditions. Risks may include, but are not limited to, severe weather events, geographic isolation, infrastructure disruption, or concurrent mission activations. Identify how regional assets, staffing plans, and communication protocols will be adapted to ensure sustained operations and timely recovery under such conditions. Evaluation Criteria: Regional risk understanding will be assessed for depth and applicability.

A strength will be demonstrated by clear region-specific risk identification and practical continuity strategies that ensure sustained operations under adverse conditions.

Sub-Section 2: Deployment/Mobilization Plan. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to rapidly deploy and mobilize resources. The Offeror shall provide information to substantiate the following:

• KEY POINT #1 – Task Order Mobilization/Demobilization: Describe the detailed approach for mobilizing and demobilizing personnel, equipment, and materials at the start and completion of a task order. The description shall identify how regional logistics, transportation networks, and staging locations will be leveraged to ensure rapid activation following Notice to Proceed (NTP) and efficient demobilization at mission completion. The proposal should demonstrate a clear understanding of regional factors that influence deployment timing, sequencing, and resource coordination for single-event activations. Evaluation Criteria: The approach will be assessed for speed, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. A strength will be demonstrated by a detailed plan with realistic timelines, regional awareness and resource allocation.

• KEY POINT #2 – Scaling & Surging Mobilization: Describe the approach for mobilizing personnel and resources to support concurrent contractual obligations and/or multi-regional debris missions. Include strategies for staging, logistics coordination, transportation, and deconfliction of resources when multiple task orders or disaster declarations occur simultaneously across regions. The description should demonstrate flexibility to scale operations quickly while maintaining command and control integrity. The description should demonstrate a scalable and disciplined approach to sustaining operational readiness under competing, activated contractual requirements. Evaluation Criteria: Surge mobilization approaches will be assessed for flexibility and control. A strength will be demonstrated by a scalable, disciplined method for meeting concurrent or multi-regional activation requirements while maintaining command integrity.

• KEY POINT #3 – Regional Workforce: Describe the process for rapid deployment of resources and establishment of a contingent workforce. Include region-specific recruitment, onboarding, and in-processing activities (e.g., 14 NOV 2025 background checks, badging, permits, immunizations, and training). The proposal shall identify how these processes will be expedited to meet the Government’s response timelines. Evaluation Criteria: Workforce deployment processes will be assessed for speed and practicality. A strength will be demonstrated by clear, region-specific procedures for rapid recruitment, onboarding, in-processing, and field readiness.

Sub-Section 3: Management/Operations Plan. This sub-section evaluates the offeror’s operational approach, quality control, and risk management. The Offeror shall provide information to substantiate the following:

• KEY POINT #1 – Regional Hazard Adaptations: Describe how the offeror’s operational and safety plans adapts to the region’s specific hazards and operating environment (e.g., terrain, weather, infrastructure, and regulatory constraints). Identify any adjustments to corporate processes needed to meet regional performance or safety expectations. Evaluation Criteria: Adaptations will be assessed for relevance and effectiveness. A strength will be demonstrated by practical, region-tailored adjustments to operational and safety plans that reflect local conditions and regulatory constraints.

• KEY POINT #2 – Regional Resources: Describe the plan to sustain and manage regional labor resources, equipment, and staging facilities throughout performance. The description shall address how the offeror will maintain workforce stability, equipment readiness, and operational throughput over the duration of debris operations, including oversight of regional subcontractor performance and continuity of existing agreements. Evaluation Criteria: Resource sustainment approaches will be assessed for reliability. A strength will be demonstrated by robust plans that maintain workforce stability, equipment readiness, and subcontractor performance across prolonged operations.

• KEY POINT #3 – Regional Sector Management & Operational Phasing:

Describe the offeror’s approach to planning, sectoring, phasing, and managing response operations from initial activation through mission completion for the scenario(s) provided in the solicitation. The proposal shall include a logical sequence of activities that reflects how operations will be organized, initiated, ramped up, and transitioned over time. Offerors shall explain how sector establishment, crew deployment, and operational activities (e.g., debris clearance, segregation, hauling, TDSR operations, monitoring, and final closeout) will be phased and adjusted as mission conditions evolve. The description shall identify key decision points, resource triggers, and coordination mechanisms used to scale operations efficiently while maintaining safety, quality, and regulatory compliance. Evaluation Criteria: Sectoring and phasing will be assessed for logic and efficiency. A strength will be demonstrated by a clear, phased operational sequence that aligns with the region’s operating conditions— including terrain, weather, infrastructure, and debris characteristics—supported by defined decision points, efficient sector management, and scalable resource deployment.

15 NOV 2025

• KEY POINT #4 – Regional Environmental & Cultural Management: Describe the plan for environmental and cultural resource management, including procedures to identify, protect, and manage sensitive environmental areas, cultural sites, and artifacts encountered during debris removal operations.

Include the plan for coordination with any regional agencies, state regulatory requirements, local cultural resource coordination protocols, and anticipated permit timelines. Evaluation Criteria: The plan will be assessed for realism and effectiveness. A strength will be demonstrated by clear, actionable procedures for identifying and protecting sensitive resources, supported by demonstrated knowledge of region-specific environmental and cultural conditions, applicable regulatory requirements, and coordination expectations with regional and local agencies.

• KEY POINT #5 – Regional Surge Adaptability: Describe how the offeror’s management approach will scale to support multiple, concurrent activations. The description shall identify decision-making authorities, resource allocation processes, and surge staffing or subcontracting mechanisms that ensure continuity of operations and adherence to quality and safety standards when simultaneous task orders or overlapping debris events occur. The proposal should demonstrate that the offeror’s plan is both regionally realistic and aligned with their overall management framework. Evaluation Criteria: Management adaptability will be assessed for realism and responsiveness. A strength will be demonstrated by a structured, regionally informed approach that maintains continuity and standards during simultaneous or overlapping activations.

16 NOV 2025

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 6 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 6 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is not awardable.

17 NOV 2025

The following risk descriptions are used to evaluate the combined technical/risk ratings:

TABLE 7 - Technical Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

18 NOV 2025

1. Factor II: Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance to assess their probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS. This evaluation will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance, as detailed below.

The Government will assess past performance information obtained from multiple sources, including, but not limited to:

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

• Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs)

• Agency-specific performance databases

• Information provided by the offeror

Definition: Large-Scale Debris Removal Project: For the purposes of this evaluation, a large-scale debris removal project is defined as a project with a value of at least $250 million or a debris volume of at least five (5) million cubic yards.

Minimum Requirements:

To be considered acceptable, an offeror must submit at least three (3), but no more than five (5), past performance references that meet the recency and relevancy requirements outlined below. Additional past performance references beyond five (5) as they appear in the proposal will not be evaluated. Failure to provide sufficient and relevant past performance references may result in the proposal being considered unacceptable.

Important Note: Offerors submitting proposals for multiple regions must tailor their proposal for each region for which they seek consideration, accounting for the unique geographical, logistical, and regulatory challenges of each area. Offerors must clearly explain how each submitted past performance project demonstrates their ability to successfully perform the work in the specific region(s) proposed for.

a. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with this plan, using the forms and questionnaires in Appendix D.

b. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s (and major subcontractors’) past performance record as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, subcontractor management, and compliance with FAR 52.219-8 (Utilization of Small Business Concerns) and FAR 52.219-9 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan). Major subcontractors are defined as those expected to perform 10% or more of the proposed effort. Significant achievements, problems, or a lack of relevant data will be considered.

Offerors should include their most recent and relevant projects (within the past three years). A “neutral confidence” rating will be assigned if sufficient information is unavailable. The Government may use data from various

19 NOV 2025

sources, including the offeror’s proposal, Government files, and interviews, referencing NAICS Code 562119 – Other Waste Collection.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor awarded within the past twelve

(12) years that are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

i. RECENCY: Past performance references must cover work performed within the past twelve (12) years from the RFP issue date. Greater consideration will be given to more recent performance.

ii. RELEVANCY: Past performance references must demonstrate experience performing debris removal operations of similar scope, complexity, and magnitude to the requirements outlined in this solicitation.

Greater consideration will be given to experiences such as these:

• Large-scale debris removal projects including:

o Experience performing debris removal within public rights-of-way.

o Experience performing private property debris removal operations.

o Experience with waterway debris removal.

• Emergency response/disaster recovery operations.

• Experience with USACE or other federal emergency debris removal missions.

• Location of the past performance relevant to the region being evaluated. Successful, demonstrated performance within the specific region will be considered more favorably.

• Successful relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

20 NOV 2025

The following criteria will be used to establish relevancy:

Table 8 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

iii. QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. Quality assessment will focus on the offeror’s demonstrated ability to the following:

• Adherence to Schedule: Demonstrated ability to complete projects on time and within budget.

• Technical Quality: Demonstrated ability to deliver high-quality work that meets or exceeds requirements.

• Customer Satisfaction: Demonstrated ability to maintain positive relationships with customers and stakeholders.

• Problem Solving: Demonstrated ability to effectively address and resolve challenges during project execution.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence

Assessment (see Table 9 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

21 NOV 2025

TABLE 9 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

22 NOV 2025

2. Factor III: Small Business Participation.

IAW DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the Government will evaluate the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small business participation in the performance of this contract.

All offerors, regardless of size, must submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) as outlined in Section L. The SBPCD details the offeror’s plan for maximizing small business participation.

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate offerors based on the following criteria, with greater weight given to demonstrable commitments and quantifiable participation:

a. Identification of Small Businesses: The extent to which specific small businesses are identified and committed to participate in the contract.

b. Commitment Level: The strength and enforceability of commitments to small businesses (e.g., letters of commitment, joint ventures, mentor-protégé agreements). Enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones.

c. Scope of Work: The complexity and variety of work to be performed by small businesses.

d. Past Performance: The offeror’s record of compliance with FAR 52.219-8 (Utilization of Small Business Concerns) and, for large businesses, FAR 52.219-9 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan). This will be evaluated based on past performance data and submitted Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs).

e. Participation Value: The extent of small business participation in terms of the total contract value.

f. Realism & Achievability: The realism and feasibility of the proposed small business participation plan.

g. Local/Regional Participation: The degree to which the offeror includes small businesses located within or proximate to the proposed region.

Commitments to local or regional small businesses will be evaluated more favorably.

23 NOV 2025

Minimum Quantitative Requirements:

All offerors are required to meet or exceed the following Minimum Quantitative Requirements (MQRs) relative to the total contract value:

SMALL BUSINESS CATEGORY MINIMUM

PERCENTAGE

MANDATORY (M) / BEST

EFFORT (BE)

Small Business (SB) (Includes all sub-categories and self-performance by SB prime offeror) 45.0% M

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) NO MINIMUM BE Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) NO MINIMUM BE Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) NO MINIMUM BE

HUBZone Small Business NO MINIMUM BE Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) NO MINIMUM BE

Total contract value is defined as the cumulative value of task order awards received that have opportunities to utilize small business concerns throughout the life of the contract.

Evaluation Scale:

Additional Considerations:

• Greater consideration may be given to offerors utilizing small businesses headquartered or primarily doing business in the region.

• The Small Business Participation Plan will be a material part of any resulting contract.

• The Government reserves the right to review and approve the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (for other than small businesses) prior to award.

3. Factor IV: Price.

TABLE 10 – Small Business Ratings Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

24 NOV 2025

The Government will evaluate offerors’ proposed prices to determine fairness and reasonableness. Adjectival ratings will not be used for price evaluation. The total proposed price for all Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs) will be summed to determine the total evaluated price. Evaluation of 6-month option will not obligate the Government to exercise any option or exceed the minimum order guarantee.

Evaluation Methodology:

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for:

a. Compliance: The proposal will be evaluated for compliance with the submission requirements outlined in Section L of the solicitation.

b. Fairness and Reasonableness: The Government will determine if the proposed prices are fair and reasonable, representing a price a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business (FAR 15.404-1).

c. Materially Unbalanced Pricing: The overall price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

d. Errors & Clarification: The Offeror’s price proposal will be reviewed for errors. Offerors are responsible for ensuring their proposed prices are current, accurate, and complete. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer. Offerors are expected to make a best-effort to submit an error-free proposal.

e. Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price will be the sum of the offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLIN prices. The Schedule of Prices submitted will form the basis of the Total Evaluated Price and best value tradeoff determination. The prices are binding throughout the contract period.

Special Considerations:

• FAR 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services) is included. One-half of the proposed price for the last year of the performance period under the option CLINs will be added to the Total Evaluated Price.

Offeror Requirements:

Offerors must affirmatively state in their price proposal that:

• Their proposed prices comply with all applicable Service Contract Act (SCA) wage requirements.

• They agree to be bound by their proposed prices throughout the contract period.

• They certify that the proposed prices are based on a good-faith estimate of costs and reflect a clear understanding of the work requirements.

25 NOV 2025

• They acknowledge that the Schedule of Prices will be incorporated into the resulting contract and used for payment purposes.

Evaluation Scale:

While not adjectivally rated, the price evaluation will contribute to the overall best value determination. A significantly higher price, without commensurate technical benefits, may result in a lower overall assessment.

D. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. Discussions may be conducted…