Groundwater Solicitation - W911QY26RGROUNDWATER.pdf

7.1.Volume I - Mission Capability.

7.1.1 General. Volume I submission shall be clearly marked “Volume I, Mission Capability (Factor 1), RFP # W911QY-26-R-GROUNDWATER” and shall include the Offeror’s Mission Capability. The Mission Capability volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims in the Offeror’s proposal. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. The Mission Capability volume will be evaluated against the evaluation factors defined in “Evaluation Criteria/Basis for Award.” The Mission Capability volume shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements; the volume shall provide convincing rationale to address how the responder intends to meet the Government’s requirements. Statements such as “the responder understands, can, or will comply with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) referenced publications, technical data, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable and may negatively impact the responders rating. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s Request For Proposal (RFP) Response. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. Volume I shall not include pricing information. If pricing information is included in Volume I, the offeror may be removed from competition.

7.1.2. Format. The Mission Capability Volume I shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to enable the Government to make a thorough evaluation of the Contractor’s technical competence and ability to comply with the requirements specified in the PWS. The Mission Capability Volume shall include a table of contents and be partitioned into separate sections.

- Exceptions/Assumptions (Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations.

Additionally, identify any assumptions used in preparing the response.) Note: Any assumptions made may cause a proposal to be found unacceptable.

- List of attachments, exhibits, tables, and figures (if applicable)

VOLUME 1 Mission Capability:

The following shall be addressed in Volume 1, Mission Capability:

• Technical Approach and Understanding of the Work & Risk Mitigation

• Scheduling

• Management, Organization & Staffing Approach, Key Personnel & Qualifications

7.1.3. Content. The Mission Capability Volume I response shall demonstrate an understanding of the tasks required through a comprehensive discussion of the Offeror’s Technical Approach (include discussion of each aspect listed below):

Technical Approach and Understanding of Work & Risk Mitigation.

• Offeror shall provide details of their approach that successfully demonstrates their ability to effectively address the requirements in Section 5 of the PWS.

• The Offeror shall provide its technical approach for achieving the requirements in the PWS while ensuring protection of human and ecological health, and maintaining regulatory compliance. Reference all additional documents provided by the Government with this RFP.

• The Offeror shall describe how a baseline for future measurement will be accomplished to ensure containment and measurement of mass reduction. Reference all additional documents provided by the Government for historical background information.

• The Offeror shall describe its approach to improve the current Conceptual Site Model (CSM), existing systems, and contamination sources to support optimization of Army life cycle cost.

• The Offeror shall identify the significant risk factors associated with achieving the performance objectives using the proposed technical approaches for all sites.

• The Offeror shall provide its risk mitigation strategies associated with the proposed technical approach, inclusive of potential system failures to ensure achievement of the PWS Table 1 Performance Requirements Summary. The mitigation strategies must provide a thorough explanation of the Contractor’s alternate approach. The Offeror shall clearly state applicable assumptions.

• The Offeror shall provide its proposed technical approach for establishing a baseline of measurement that will allow confirmation of containment and mass reduction for this RFP as set out in the PWS.

• The Offeror shall provide its design and implementation for the pilot study, to include the percent mass reduction goal to demonstrate success for this RFP as set out in the PWS.

Scheduling

• The Offeror shall include an activity-based schedule that outlines activities and milestones defined at the appropriate detail level and logically sequenced to support and manage completion of the performance objectives in the PWS.

• The Offeror’s schedule shall demonstrate the achievement of performance objectives within the POP defined in the Solicitation.

• The Offeror’s schedule shall incorporate the Government and regulatory review periods for deliverables. Regulatory review timeframes are described in the Federal Facilities Agreement.

Management, Organization & Staffing Approach, Key Personnel & Qualifications

• The Offeror shall include relevant technical expertise to the requirement that will enable performance of all requirements of the PWS.

• The Offeror shall provide an organizational chart that clearly delineates the proposed team members and processes to include the lines of command, control, communications between team members and the Government that will successfully execute the proposed approach.

• Offeror shall demonstrate their management approach for compliance with key personnel requirements and provide evidence of successful implementation in similar site conditions with proposed personnel.

• The Offeror shall identify their key personnel.

• The Offeror shall provide a complete staffing matrix for all personnel that depicts sufficient labor hours by position by year for the contract for the technical approach proposed.

Additionally, the Offeror shall identify the required expertise, experience, certifications, licenses, occupational titles, disciplines, and labor categories along with whether the labor categories shall be filled by the Prime Contractor or the Subcontractor.

VOLUME II – Past Performance (Factor 2)

Optimization Study/Technology

• Offeror shall provide up to 3 examples of Projects (Government or non-Government), worked within the last 5 years (as of proposal due date) consisting of an optimization study for an existing remedy, CERCLA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) or equivalent under a state of Federal regulatory program other than CERCLA.

Include:

Contract/Project Number (as applicable) Contract/Project Value Point of Contact, Title, Phone and Email Specify if Offeror was the Prime or Subcontractor; include percentage of work performed

• Project must be at least 90% complete (as of proposal due date) and demonstrate the

Offeror’s technology with specific emphasis on the following:

o The Offeror shall provide an explanation of how the design for technology had been successfully applied in order to achieve remedy in-place or similar conditions, an explanation of any variances of such, and the impact of such variances on the potential to achieve response complete or site closure.

o The Offeror shall provide how a baseline of measurement was established for the example Project in order to achieve successful containment and mass reduction.

o The Offeror’s contribution to the example Project must have been directly related to the design approach as the Prime or Subcontractor.

o The Offeror shall provide a completion report or similar documentation demonstrating the successful implementation of technology under similar site conditions. The report/similar documentation must be limited to 100 pages and will not be included against the proposal page limit.

NOTE: To qualify as a project, work must be at least 90% complete by the proposal due date.

For projects that are not 100% complete, the Offeror shall: 1) explain the metric used to demonstrate 90% complete (e.g., based on cost, schedule, objectives achieved); 2) provide the estimated completion date; and 3) briefly summarize the remaining activities.

7.2. Volume III – Price (Factor 3). The price submission shall be clearly marked “Volume III, Price, RFP # W911QY-26-R-GROUNDWATER.” Failure to follow the preparation instructions may cause your proposal to be deemed unacceptable by the Government. The contract volume shall be organized as follows and contain the following information.

CLIN Structure – The Offeror shall complete the Pricing Schedule (CLIN Structure, Attachment #2) of the RFP. All amounts shall be in whole dollars only.

Section 8: Evaluation Criteria/Basis for Award

1. Basis for Award

a. Proposal evaluation procedures will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Section 12 and supplements thereto. Using the tradeoff method in the best value continuum the Government will select the most highly rated proposal based upon an integrated assessment of the Mission Capability and Price. The contract will be awarded to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the RFP requirements and is judged, based on the evaluation Factors and Subfactors to represent the best value to the Government.

b. As a basis for award, tradeoffs between price and non-price factors are permitted.

THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD TO

OTHER THAN THE LOWEST PROPOSED PRICE.

c. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without exchanges with offerors. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal shall contain its best terms from a technical and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to make clarifications, request revised proposals, or hold exchanges, if later determined by the Contacting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers and/or waive informalities and minor irregularities in the submitted offers if such actions are in the public interest.

d. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the technical requirements of 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 to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

2. Evaluation Criteria.

a. Evaluation criteria consist of three (3) Factors. The proposals will be evaluated under three (3) evaluation factors: Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Price.

Relative Importance of Factors. The relative importance of each Factor is as follows: Factor I (Mission Capability) is significantly more important than Factor II (Past Performance), which is more important than Factor III (Price). All evaluation Factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. However, if the Mission Capability evaluations of the RFPs are equal, then Price may be the deciding factor.

b. Factor 1: Mission Capability. The Offeror’s Mission Capability will be evaluated to assess demonstrated understanding and explanation of offeror’s approach for completion of the work required by the PWS (e.g., objectives, performance standards, deliverables, etc.) with sufficient detail to allow Government evaluation. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof; and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well-known techniques will be used,” etc. will be considered unacceptable.

The Subfactors under this factor will be evaluated as follows:

Technical Approach and Understanding of the Work & Risk Mitigation.

• A narrative of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach and how it will achieve the requirements of the PWS while ensuring protection of human and ecological health and maintaining regulatory compliance. Narrative shall include a discussion of the requirement, applicable regulations, regulatory response process, and all documents provided by the Government, including its content, required to complete the contract.

• Demonstrated how the baseline for future measurement will be accomplished to ensure containment and measurement of mass reduction.

• A narrative of the Offeror’s proposed approach to improve the current CSM, existing systems, and contamination sources to support optimization of Army life cycle costs.

• Demonstrated the significant risk factors associated with achieving the performance objectives using the proposed technical approaches for all sites.

• Demonstrated the risk mitigation strategies associated with the proposed technical approach, inclusive of potential system failures to ensure achievement of the PWS Table 1 Performance Requirements Summary.

• Demonstrated that the mitigation strategies provided a thorough explanation of the Contractor’s alternate approach, to include applicable assumptions.

Scheduling.

The Government is seeking for the Offeror to have:

• Demonstrated that the proposed schedule is activity-based that outlines activities and milestones, is defined at the appropriate detail level and logically sequenced, to support and manage completion of the PWS requirements via the proposed technical approach.

• Demonstrated that the schedule achieves performance objectives within the POP.

• Demonstrated that the schedule incorporated the Government and regulatory review periods for deliverables.

Management, Organization and Staffing Approach, Key Personnel & Qualifications

The Government is seeking for the Offeror to have:

• Demonstrated the Offeror’s relevant technical expertise and experience that will enable performance of all requirements of the PWS.

• Provided an organizational chart that clearly delineated the proposed team members and processes including the lines of command, control, communications between team members and the Government that demonstrated successful execution of the proposed approach.

• Demonstrated that the Offeror’s management approach complies with key personnel requirements and provides evidence of successful implementation in similar site conditions with proposed personnel.

• Completed a staffing matrix for all personnel (including key and non-key personnel) that depicts sufficient labor hours by position by year for the contract for the technical approach proposed.

• Identified the required expertise, experience, certifications, licenses, occupational titles, disciplines, and labor categories to achieve the contract requirements.

• Identified which labor categories shall be filled by the Prime Contractor or the Subcontractor employees.

3. Factor 1 will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined in TABLE A below. Proposal risk is used to portray the evaluation of weaknesses in the offerors’ proposals. The ratings will be used to determine an overall rating. An evaluation that receives an unacceptable rating will result in an overall unacceptable rating for the proposal and will result in the Offeror not being eligible for award. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the TABLE A below:

TABLE A:

Adjectival Rating/Color

Description

Outstanding (Blue)

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good (Purple)

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

Acceptabl e (Green)

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

Marginal (Yellow)

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

3.1 Definitions:

RISK DESCRIPTION INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY:

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Unacceptable (Red)

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is anwardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high..

c. Factor 2 - Past Performance:

The Government is seeking the Offeror to have:

• Provided an example of one Project (Government or non-Government), completed within the last 5 years (as of proposal due date).

Included:

Contract/Project Number (if applicable) Contract/Project Value Point of Contact, Title, Phone and Email Specify if Offeror was the Prime or Subcontractor; include percentage of work performed

• Provided at least 90% completed Project (as of proposal due date).

• Demonstrated technical expertise through a narrative explanation of the Offeror’s technology with specific emphasis on the following:

o How the technology had been successfully applied to achieve response complete or site closure with similar site conditions, with an explanation of any variances of such, and the impact of such variances on the potential to achieve response complete or site closure.

o How a baseline of measurement was established, for the example Project to achieve successful containment and mass reduction.

o Demonstrated that the Offeror’s contribution to the example Project was directly related to the design approach as the Prime or Subcontractor.

o Provided a completion report or similar documentation (limited to 100 pages) demonstrating the successful implementation of technology under similar site conditions.

Past Performance Confidence Rating Definitions

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral): 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’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: For best value determination purposes, a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is considered more favorably than “Neutral Confidence”.

NOTE: To qualify as a project, work must be at least 90% complete by the proposal due date.

For projects that are not 100% complete, the Offeror shall: 1) explain the metric used to demonstrate 90% complete (e.g., based on cost, schedule, objectives achieved); 2) provide the estimated completion date; and 3) briefly summarize the remaining activities.

The Government will place higher value on a technical approach that provides a combination of technologies and/or alternative approaches to the current remedies in one, or multiple, source or groundwater remediation areas to more effectively reduce contaminant mass.

d. Factor 3: Price: Price will not be scored or rated. The Offeror’s CLIN prices will be evaluated for reasonableness.

i. Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Other price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.402(a) may be required from the Offeror to support the proposed price.

ii. Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

iii. Total Evaluated Price – The total evaluated price to be used for the determination of reasonableness will be calculated as follows:

(i) The evaluated price for each CLIN is the aggregate price proposed for the CLIN multiplied by the quantity specified in the CLIN Structure, Attachment #2 (as referenced in Section 1, Pricing Schedule).

(ii) The sum of ALL the CLINs’ evaluated price, represents the total evaluated price.