B.08_RFP Letter_ULC Course 281 Riparian Zone Ecology.pdf

CEHNC-CT 25 January 2024

SUBJECT: Request for Proposal (RFP) PANHES-24-P-0000-000843, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Learning Center (ULC) Course #281 Riparian Zone Ecology/Restoration/Management

The Government intends to award a stand-alone contract for training courses that are managed through the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Learning Center (ULC) in Huntsville, Alabama. These courses require technical or specialized information taught by experienced and or certified instructors at Government or Military facilities or educational institutions to help fulfill the mission.

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial products or commercial services prepared in accordance with the format in subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

This solicitation is set aside for small businesses.

NAICS 611430. Small Business Size Standard: $15,000,000.00.

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Submit a Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) proposal for the effort described in the attached Performance Work Statement (PWS). Failure to comply with ALL the directions provided herein shall result in an unacceptable rating of the proposal.

2. The proposal shall be in accordance with the following:

1. All proposal documents shall be formatted to be legible when printed on 8 1/2 X 11.5 inch paper to include spreadsheets (with appropriate page breaks, headers and footers).

All documents and spreadsheets shall include the Contractor Name, PWS Title, and Date.

The Technical proposal shall be submitted in Adobe PDF.

2. Spreadsheets (if used) shall be submitted as unlocked Microsoft Excel documents and include all formulas, function, macros, computations, or equations used to compute the proposed amounts. For each workbook, all Rows, Columns, Cells, and Worksheets must be visible. Zero height and zero width rows and columns in Worksheets are not acceptable. Worksheet cells formatted with the font color equal to the fill color are not acceptable. Print image files or pictures or files containing only values are not acceptable. Failure to provide fully functional excel spreadsheets in the proposal may result in your proposal being rejected.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

HUNTSVILLE CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

P.O. BOX 1600

HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA 35807-4301

3. Identify the primary and alternate project point of contacts (POCs) for this effort. Include the following POC information: Name, office telephone numbers, mobile telephone numbers, and e-mail address.

4. Exclusions – ALL assumptions and clarifications shall be listed in the cover letter. In addition the assumptions shall be listed with the TECHNICAL PROPOSAL in the same format as the cover letter.

5. No hard copy documents are being requested. All submittals shall be electronic.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

Element 1: Teaching Methodology – The quoter shall provide a narrative to describe its technical approach for the execution of the tasks identified in the PWS and the methodology used for teaching the course.

Element 2: Management Approach – The quoter shall provide a narrative to address the organizational structure for planning, resourcing, location/ place of performance and directing/controlling performance of the Government’s requirements as identified in the PWS.

Element 3: Instructor/Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience – Instructors must meet all educational and experience as stated in the PWS para 5.4. The Offeror must provide resumes for all key personnel/instructor(s). Instructor experience should be of similar scope and complexity to the effort described in the PWS.

Technical Experience Rating Method:

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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.

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

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

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 un- awardable.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements and delivering high quality products and services as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance. In this context, “offeror” refers to the proposed prime offeror.

Recency is expressed as a time period during which established the relevancy of past performance information. Past performance of prime offerors whose firms are divided into severable segments (i.e., division, group, unit, etc.) will only be evaluated as it relates to those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the bullets below. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and will therefore have more influence on the overall performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Rating Method:

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/Past performance effort is recent and involved essentially the same scope and complexity this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past performance effort is recent and involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexity this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past performance effort involved some of the scope and complexity this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past performance effort is not recent and/or involved little or none of the scope and complexity this solicitation requires.

An overall confidence rating of an Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the contract will be determined by the Government based on the Offeror’s past performance information described above. There are five levels of confidence as shown in the bullets below.

Adjectival Rating Description 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 factor 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 recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE: A “Neutral” confidence rating is considered acceptable for award.

FACTOR 3 - PRICE

The proposed price shall reflect a clear understanding of the requirements outlined in the performance work statement (PWS). The Government will evaluate all aspects of the price proposal for fairness, reasonableness and unbalanced pricing using the techniques in FAR 15.404, and negotiate, if necessary. Proposals found to be unreasonable may be rejected on that basis. The Government will only award the required contract if a fair and reasonable price is obtained. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. The Government also reserves the right to make no award if a reasonable price cannot be obtained. Pricing will be evaluated as the total quoted amount of all priced items, including all options. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Note: This is a firm fixed price contract, there is no separate CLIN for travel costs. Course presentation CLINs shall be priced to include any required travel.

Pricing Format:

Year CLIN Description Unit Price Base Year 0001 Course 281- Develop Course Materials Each $

Base Year 0002 Course 281- Course Presentation Session 1 Each $ Base Year 0003 Course 281- Course Presentation Session 2 Each $

OPTION YEAR ONE

Option Year 1 1001 Course 281- Update Course Materials Each $ Option Year 1 1002 Course 281- Course Presentation Session 1 Each $

Option Year 1 1003 Course 281- Course Presentation Session 2 Each $

OPTION YEAR TWO

Option Year 2 2001 Course 281- Update Course Materials Each $ Option Year 2 2002 Course 281- Course Presentation Session 1 Each $

Option Year 2 2003 Course 281- Course Presentation Session 2 Each $

OPTION YEAR THREE

Option Year 3 3001 Course 281- Update Course Materials Each $ Option Year 3 3002 Course 281- Course Presentation Session 1 Each $

Option Year 3 3003 Course 281- Course Presentation Session 2 Each $

OPTION YEAR FOUR

Option Year 4 4001 Course 281- Update Course Materials Each $ Option Year 4 4002 Course 281- Course Presentation Session 1 Each $

Option Year 4 4003 Course 281- Course Presentation Session 2 Each $

OPTIONS:

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Evaluation of Options will be conducted in accordance with FAR 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options, and FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise any options. The total evaluated price will be based on the price for the base period and four (4) option years.

WAGE DETERMINATION:

The Service Contract Act (SCA) is applicable. The appropriate wage determinations are available at https://sam.gov/content/home

BASIS FOR AWARD:

The contract will be awarded on a “Best Value” basis. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost or price evaluation factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to obtain objective (versus threshold) performance, lower risk, or innovative and technologically superior solutions. In a best value selection, a tradeoff may occur. The Government may award a task order to a higher-priced offeror, if the Contracting Officer determines the higher-priced proposal offers more value to the Government than a lower-priced proposal. If all offerors are rated equal, the Government may award to the lower-priced proposal and a trade-off will not be conducted. The best value tradeoff process https://sam.gov/content/home will include a comparison of proposals based on the ratings, and how the strengths, weaknesses, and risks will affect the specific objectives of the acquisition. The following Factors and order of importance are:

Factor 1, Technical (most important) Factor 2, Past Performance (less important than Factor 1 but more important than Factor 3) Factor 3, Price (less important than non-priced factors).

All non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

PRE-BIDDERS CONFERENCE/ SITE VISIT: A pre-bid site visit is NOT planned for this task order.

CONTACTS:

The contractor shall NOT engage into any form of contact with installation or other government personnel regarding this requirement prior to submission of proposal and contract award. Contact regarding the requirements set forth in this RFP must only occur with the Contracting Officer.

Discussions or information obtained via other sources could make you ineligible for award if deemed a conflict of interest or a violation of the Procurement Integrity Act.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

Contractor questions are due no later than 9:00 A.M. (Central Time), Monday, 05 February 2024 and shall be submitted to Contract Specialist, Anna Gaffin, at anna.m.gaffin@usace.army.mil and CEHNC-CT-SpecialProjectsBranch@usace.army.mil. Questions received after that date will be considered but no guarantee exists that an answer will be made. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; however, this request for proposal may result in discussions if necessary prior to award.

Provide your proposal in a digital format (Adobe PDF or Microsoft Office) by 12:00 P.M. (Central Time), Wednesday, 21 February 2024 via email to the Contract Specialist, Anna Gaffin, at anna.m.gaffin@usace.army.mil and CEHNC-CT-SpecialProjectsBranch@usace.army.mil. All information will be protected as procurement sensitive.

Offerors shall follow the procedures found in FAR 15.208 for the submission of proposals.

Offerors are cautioned that due to file size limitations (20mb per email) and email security protocols, there is a risk that not all correspondence will be received by this office. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure receipt of all email correspondence on time. If receipt has not been acknowledged prior to the due date/time please contact the Contracting Officer by phone at

(256) 895-9476 for confirmation.

Sincerely, William G. Seelmann Jr.

Contracting Officer mailto:anna.m.gaffin@usace.army.mil mailto:CEHNC-CT-SpecialProjectsBranch@usace.army.mil mailto:anna.m.gaffin@usace.army.mil mailto:%20CEHNC-CT-SpecialProjectsBranch@usace.army.mil mailto:%20CEHNC-CT-SpecialProjectsBranch@usace.army.mil

Attachments:

(1) Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 23 January 2024

(2) Applicable Provisions and Clauses