B08.02 SF33 RFP W912HQ26RA002 Section L and Section M.docx

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

L 1.0 Instructions to Offerors

L 1.1 General Instructions:

a. This section provides a general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The Offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested in this section and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any Offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered ineligible for award. The proposal must be compliant with the requirements as stated in the BPA Master Agreement Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Appendices thereto. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this section may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

b. Proposal Submission. Offerors shall submit proposals via email to the points of contact in the notice listed on SAM.gov All documents and, or files submitted should contain the solicitation number W912HQ26RA002. Electronic submissions are required.

c. Failure to submit proposals by the closing time and date designated in Block 9 of the SF33 may result in the proposal being determined “late” and not considered for evaluation. See RFO 52.215-1 for rules concerning submission of offers and late proposals. Proposals will not be returned (except for timely withdrawals) but will be retained by the Government for official record purposes. Offerors should submit proof of timely submission to the Contract Specialist. i.e. a screenshot.

All proposals must be received no later than 1630 (430pm) US Eastern Time on 31 JULY 2026.

d. Inquiries. Offerors may submit inquiries, questions or comments relating to this solicitation via email to the points of contact listed in the notice on SAM.gov on or before 1630 (430pm) US Eastern Time on 09 JULY 2026. The email subject line must read: “Solicitation No. W912HQ26RA002 Questions”. The Government will consider all correspondence, but will not issue individual responses; instead, if appropriate, a solicitation amendment will be issued. No questions will be accepted via phone. Individual meetings with firms will not be scheduled. Voicemails with questions and/or requests for meetings will not receive a response. Questions received after the due date and time for questions may or may not be answered.

L 1.2 Negotiations:

Offerors should submit their best proposal initially as the Government intends to make awards without negotiations (however clarifications may occur, as described in RFO 15.202. The Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations, if deemed necessary.

a. General. In accordance with RFO 15.105-2, negotiations may be held with offerors after the establishment of the competitive range. Should negotiations take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 5 calendar days to submit Proposal Revisions.

b. Scheduling. If negotiations are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the negotiations and each offeror in the competitive range will be notified in writing of the time and place prior to negotiations.

L 1.3 Proposal Submission Requirements:

Offeror’s proposal documents shall be submitted to the Contract Specialist and to the Contracting Officer as PDF files in electronic format with the required Excel files to support the PDF. Hard copies are not required. The Price Proposal (for the example BPA call) must be included as part of the electronic submission in PDF and an Excel spreadsheet file must also be included.

a. Files must not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details that demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the requirement in order to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

b. Each volume must be clearly marked. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages must be dated.

c. Format. The submission must be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume must be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume must be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word (or similar).

d. Documents should be singled spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 11-point minimum font size applies. A serif font is required for body text. Times New Roman is preferred. A non-serif font may be used for headers and tables. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape. Margins must be no less than 1 inch. (e) File Packaging. All of the proposal files should be in PDF, MS Word or MS Excel file formats. All price breakout information to aid in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format. Each file shall be externally labeled with the solicitation number, date, and the Offeror’s name. Please note – Self extracting .exe files are not acceptable.

L 1.4 Proposal Content:

The proposal shall be prepared clearly and concisely to demonstrate that the Offeror has a complete understanding of the requirements. Offerors shall prepare proposals on the presumption that the Government has no previous knowledge of the Offeror’s capabilities. Proposals will be evaluated only on the information specifically presented in respective submittals, with the exception of the Past Performance evaluations. When applicable, the Offeror shall cross reference to the solicitation by annotating solicitation reference in parenthesis, (i.e. Sec C, para 4.0). Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation (including attachments). The penalty for making false statement in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. §1001.

L 1.5 Volume 1 – Factors 1 – 4. The Offeror shall demonstrate its capabilities and understanding of the technical requirements described in the PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall provide the following information in the order as presented below:

Factor 1 – Management Approach This factor focuses on the Offeror's ability to appropriately manage and deliver IEPRs in general, and to simultaneously manage multiple Calls under the BPA. Offerors shall submit a management plan which demonstrates:

1. The Offeror’s ability to manage requirements of this size and complexity. Proposals must include:

a. an organizational chart for delivering IEPR requirements;

b. a two-page resume for a principal-in-charge with the authority to make financial and resource commitments to ensure successful delivery of all requirements under the BPA;

c. two-page resume(s) for one or more project managers with overall responsibility for executing the requirements of individual Calls under the BPA; and

d. single points of contact for both programmatic execution and contractual matters.

2. The Offeror’s ability to recruit and manage IEPR panels in accordance with the PWS and Applicable Directives. Proposals must demonstrate the Offeror’s:

a. experience establishing and administering independent peer review panels for federal studies and projects;

b. ability to locate and subcontract with review panel members from a variety of organizations in accordance with the requirements of the PWS and the NAS Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest; and

c. ability to maintain programmatic balance among review panel members across multiple Calls over time in accordance with the requirements of the PWS and the NAS Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest.

3. The Offeror’s ability to deliver quality deliverables on schedule. Proposals must provide a quality assurance and management plan and demonstrate:

a. the effectiveness of the Offeror’s quality assurance and quality control plan for all requirements under the PWS for the BPA; and

b. the Offeror’s ability to respond to changing schedule requirements.

Factor 2 – Technical Capability This factor focuses on the Offeror’s understanding of the USACE IEPR requirements in general. Proposals must demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to:

1. Prepare and deliver technical briefings to senior government agency officials (officials in positions equivalent to the GS-15 and Senior Executive Service levels in federal agencies); and

2. Understand diverse technical issues and requirements associated with USACE water resources studies, models and other scientific assessments.

Factor 3 – Response to Example Order The Offeror shall demonstrate its understanding of, and ability to deliver the requirements under a typical order. The Offeror shall provide a proposed level of effort per each labor category per each task in the PWS and proposed prices to deliver the Example Order requirements. The Offeror’s proposal shall provide the following information in the order as presented below:

1. Offerors shall submit a proposal response to the Example Request for Order Proposal (RFOP) (Attachment 2). The Example Order proposal response shall include evidence of the Offeror’s understanding of the sample IEPR requirements, the Offeror’s approach to fulfilling the requirements, their understanding and ability to utilize NAS’ policy for selecting committee members, and their understanding and ability to adhere to the Order schedule.

2. Offerors shall provide a one-page example resume (or actual resume with identifying information removed) for each review panel review discipline listed in the PWS for Example Order. See Attachment 3 for Example Order PWS. Example resumes will not include names, organizations or contact information, but will indicate whether the individual works in government, private sector, academia, or other.

Factor 4 – Past Performance

a. Offerors shall submit past performance information (PPI) for a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) contracts or subcontracts completed or on-going within the last three (3) years from the release date of this solicitation. On-going contracts must be at least 50% complete as of the release date of this solicitation. Offerors shall provide a project narrative and reference information in narrative form to address each of the bullets below. All points of contact, addresses, telephone numbers, data, fax numbers, etc. should be verified by the Offeror prior to submission to the Government as part of the Offeror’s proposal. Points of contact should be knowledgeable of past performance from a contractual, managerial, and technical perspective.

· Project Title

· Project Description

· Project Start & Ending Dates

· Offeror’s role in the Project

· Contract Value/Actual Awarded Amount

· POCs, Phone, Fax, Address, Email

· Statement of the relevancy of the project to this PWS

· Performance recognition documents received within the last five years on projects relevant to this PWS such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

b. The USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment 1) is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 4 – Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and e-mail addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with the offeror’s proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a contract(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 1), which will provide contract and client information for the respective contract(s). The offeror should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s points of contact listed in the SAM notice prior to the due date for proposal submission. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other Requests for Proposals (RFP). However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

c. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE codes/SAM UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

d. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

L 1.7 Volume 2 – Factor 5 Small Business Participation. An acceptable subcontracting plan must be submitted prior to award of a BPA which shall set forth an agreement that Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women Owned Small Business (WOSB), HUBZone Small Business, Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB), and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in the performance of the contract. The small business subcontracting plan submitted must include all required elements identified in RFO 52.219-9. All Offerors must achieve a minimum of 10.0% of the total contract value for small business subcontracting.

L 1.7 Volume 3 – Factor 6 Offerors must submit price proposals with their response to the Example Order in the format styled within Attachment 4 – Example Order Price Sheet. The price proposal must include a proposed level of effort for each labor category per each task in the Example Order PWS and must include proposed hourly rates for each labor category that are matched to the labor categories proposed. Attachment 4 may be edited as necessary by offerors to detail appropriate labor categories and proposed level of effort per tasks.

L 1.8 Volume 4 – General Business Info/Contract Info Volume 4 must contain the following Contractual/Business Information Elements:

TAB A – Standard Form 33 (SF 33). The offeror shall complete Blocks 12 through 18, as appropriate, of the SF 33. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

TAB B - Acknowledgement of Amendments. The offeror shall acknowledge all amendments either by signing and returning the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract (1st page only), or by acknowledging the amendments in Block 14 of the SF33.

TAB C - Representations, Certifications and Other Statements. The offeror shall complete the Representations and Certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM) electronically and provide a copy in this volume of the proposal. Joint Ventures shall register in SAM under the legal corporate name of the Joint Venture. The offeror shall also provide proof of 501(c)(3) status.

TAB D – Financial Statement. In accordance with RFO 9.103(a) “…contracts shall be awarded to responsible prospective contractors only.” To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the standards at RFO 9.104. Prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. As an aid in assessing responsibility, the offeror must submit a current statement of financial condition, certified by a third party, for the past three years or a copy of their IRS Form 990. This will help the Government assess a firm’s ability to pay its obligations.

TAB E – Authorized Offeror Personnel. Provide the name, title, telephone number, and email address of personnel authorized to negotiate and sign contract documents with respect to your proposal.

For proposal preparation purposes, the expected or approximate date for initiation of the BPA ordering period is 01 AUG 2026.

W912HQ26RA002

(End of Section L)

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M 1.0 Basis for Award One or more Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA)s will be awarded on the basis of Best-Value Trade-off analysis of proposals which meet or exceed the acceptability factors for non-price factors in accordance with RFO 15.103-1. The price factor will be evaluated using any of the techniques found in RFO 15.404-1. The Government intends to make BPA award(s) on the basis of initial proposals without conducting negotiations with offerors, therefore each offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best technical and price terms. The Government reserves the right to award a BPA to other than the highest rated proposal. The Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations if the Contracting Officer determines it is necessary.

M 2.0 Evaluation Factors Offerors will be required to submit proposals so the Government can evaluate each proposal against the proposed factors specified below:

Factor 1 - Management Approach Offerors must demonstrate their ability to appropriately manage and deliver IEPRs in general, and to manage multiple orders.

Factor 2 - Technical Approach.

Offerors must demonstrate their understanding of the USACE IEPR process, maintain IEPR schedule requirements and demonstrate the ability to successfully deliver on a Sample Order.

Factor 3 - Response to Example Order.

Offerors shall submit a proposal response to the example Request for Order Proposal (RFOP). Offeror’s will be rated on their understanding of the sample IEPR requirements, the Offeror’s approach to fulfilling the requirements, their understanding and ability to utilize NAS’ policy for selecting committee members, and their understanding and ability to adhere to the order schedule.

Factor 4 - Past Performance.

Relevant past performance for the previous three years will be evaluated. Consideration will be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to predict whether the offeror will satisfy the current requirement from a contractual, managerial, and technical perspective.

Factor 5 - Small Business.

The extent of Small Business concerns considered in the offeror’s subcontracting plan will be evaluated. The plan will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis.

Factor 6 - Price The Offeror’s pricing for the example order will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s pricing is fair and reasonable for the purposes of establishing the BPA. Price evaluation will include the total price for the basic requirement and all options. Because this is for an example order, the purpose of this factor will be to determine if the offeror is capable of services at a reasonable price under this BPA.

M 2.1 Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors Factors 1 – 4 are of equal importance. Factors 1 – 4 are individually more important than Factor 5. The non-price factors when combined are significantly more important than price.

M 2.2 Minimum Ratings Offerors must achieve a rating of “Acceptable” or better on Factors 1 – 3 and Factor 5 and a rating of “Neutral Confidence” or better on Factor 4 and achieve a fair and reasonable price on Factor 6 to be considered for award of a BPA.

M2.3 Rating Scheme Factor 1 - Management Approach, Factor 2- Technical Approach, and Factor 3 – Response to Example Order will be evaluated using the following separated technical factors and technical factors risk adjectival ratings in the tables immediately below. The Management and Technical ratings evaluate the quality of the offeror’s management and technical capabilities for meeting the Government’s requirements. The Management and Technical risk rating considers the risk associated with the management and technical approaches the contractor proposes to use in meeting the requirement. Management Technical ratings will be applied to each proposal for each factor (1, 2 and 3) using the table below:

TECHNICAL FACTORS RATING SCHEME – FACTORS 1 – 3

understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Technical Factors Risk Rating Assessment of Management and Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Management and Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in the table immediately below:

TECHNICAL FACTORS RISK RATING SCHEME – FACTORS 1 – 3

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort 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.

Factor 4 - Past Performance Evaluation Past performance will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

Past Performance Information on Past Contracts:

Information on past performance shall be obtained as follows and reviewed to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment:

· From the offeror, as solicited;

· From questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition; and/or

· From any other sources available to the Government, including, but not limited to:

· Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS);

· Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS);

· Other databases;

· Interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and/or

· Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)

Recency For the purposes of this source selection, recent past performance is defined as contracts performed within three (3) years of the date of the issuance of the solicitation.

Relevancy A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present and past performance, including joint venture partners and/or major subcontractors will be made. In determining relevancy for individual citations, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort being proposed by the offeror, joint venture partner, or subcontractor whose citation is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The relevancy table and data obtained from other sources will be considered in establishing the relevance of present and past efforts. Relevancy contemplates contracts of a similar magnitude, nature and complexity to include dollar value and contract type. All performance data obtained will be reviewed and evaluated to determine how closely the work performed under those relates to the proposed efforts. Past and present performance data identified by offerors in their proposals will be confirmed, as deemed necessary. The Government may consider as relevant efforts performed for other agencies of the federal, state or local governments and commercial customers.

The following relevancy criteria will be applied to each effort provided. The relevancy of the work performed on past performance and present efforts will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and the Cost/Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Performance Confidence Assessment Each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the table below. Pursuant to DFARS 215.202-70 “Evaluating competitive proposals”, the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with RFO 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business Concerns”, and RFO 52.219-9 “Small Business Subcontracting Plan”. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” rating for the Past Performance factor.

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

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.

Factor 5 – Small Business The Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SubK Plan) will be evaluated. The offeror’s SubK Plan will be evaluated in accordance with RFO 52.219-9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan”. The plan will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. Offerors must receive an “Acceptable” rating to be considered for award. The plan will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s proposal achieves the mandatory total small business subcontracting goal of 10.0% of the total contract value for total small business subcontracting. The Government will evaluate the extent to which they identify and commit to small business subcontractors in the performance of the contract.

Factor 6 – Price The Offeror’s proposed price for the Example Order will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s pricing is fair and reasonable for the purposes of establishing the BPA. Price evaluation will include the total price for the basic requirement and all options. Because this is for a “Example” Order, the purpose of this factor will be to determine if the offeror can provide services at a fair and reasonable price.

In accordance with RFO 52.217-5 “Evaluation of Options”, when evaluating offers on individual orders, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices are unreasonably high, unrealistically low, or significantly unbalanced.

(End of Section M)