Amendment_0002.docx

Amendment 0002 Solicitation HSCG50-14-R-PXA701– IDIQ Contract for Environmental Regulatory Services to the USCG – FDCC DET Seattle in the State of Alaska

Date: 23 May 2014

A. CHANGES TO THE SOLICITATION:

1. Revise the following paragraphs (changes indicated in red):

L.7 VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION

The technical proposal shall address the evaluation factors listed in Section M.3, Evaluation Factors for Award, and consist of sufficient documentation to show evidence that the Offeror meets the requirements as specified below:

The Government will evaluate each proposal on the following criteria:

Team Experience Project Organization and Key Personnel Capacity Past Performance

TECHNICAL FACTORS

Factor 1: Team Experience

Submittal Requirements

Provide project summaries for no more than six (6) individual projects, at least three (3) of which have been performed by the prime contractor, that have been completed in the last ten (10) years that demonstrates the overall experience of the offeror’s team (Contractor and/or Subcontractor(s)) in the areas described below. In the case of a Joint-Venture (JV) relationship, the at least three (3) projects performed by the prime contractor can be performed by either of the JV partners. The project summary should include a description of the work performed by the offeror, the agency/client the work was performed for, the period of performance, the awarded contract price, the number of modifications awarded, the final contract price and any unique challenges that were presented and how they were overcome. Please detail the projects that have been completed in a remote location. Remote is hereby defined as a location where shipping and mobilization are logistically challenging, i.e. not located on a road system, regular air service is not available, and limited availability of local labor and/or supplies exists.

· Environmental Remediation.

- Provide documentation illustrating that the team has experience with contaminated soil excavation involving various contaminants (e.g. petroleum compounds, PCBs, metals, chlorinated solvents).

- Provide documentation illustrating that the team has experience with closure of regulated underground storage tanks.

- Provide documentation that the team has experience with implementation of various remedial technologies to include, but not limited to, air sparging/soil vapor extraction, in situ chemical oxidation, natural attenuation).

- Provide documentation that the team has experience with asbestos and hazardous building material abatement.

- Provide documentation that the team has experience with constructability reviews and remediation cost reviews.

· Environmental Regulatory Programs.

- Provide documentation that the Contractor and/or subcontractor(s) has experience preparing remediation work plans.

- Provide documentation that the Contractor and/or subcontractor(s) has experience preparing site-specific health and safety plans.

- Provide documentation that the Contractor and/or subcontractor(s) has experience preparing stormwater pollution prevention plans for remediation projects.

- Provide documentation that the Contractor and/or subcontractor(s) has experience conducting exposure assessments of workers performing remediation and abatement work.

- Provide documentation that the Contractor and/or subcontractor(s) has experience performing remedial activities under various environmental programs, including such programs as: CERCLA (i.e. Superfund), RCRA, TSCA, and State of Alaska programs.

Factor 2: Project Organization and Key Personnel

Submittal Requirements

Provide an updated organizational chart that depicts the functions, responsibilities, authorities and physical location of the project management staff and workforce, showing all key personnel as described in Section 3.0 of the Statement of Work and their relationships to one another. Highlight all proposed teams previous experience working together holding similar roles. Upon award of the resultant contract, the Contractor shall provide documentation illustrating how the proposed Key Personnel meet the minimum requirements as stated in Section 3.0 of the Statement of Work. Demonstrate each individual’s specific knowledge, experience and capability to perform the role assigned, including experience in relevant past projects, not to exceed three (3) projects.

Factor 3: Capacity

Submittal requirements:

Narrative: Provide a detailed written narrative describing the Contractor’s proposed methods to address the following:

· Provide a detailed explanation of the Contractor’s ability to handle multiple task orders involving multi-discipline specialties and trades, i.e. describe the level and extent of support available, including technical and engineering services incidental to the work. Provide a description of the procedures to mobilize on-site operations and to execute multiple, multi-discipline task orders in a compressed time frame after contract award; describe how on-site staffing and resources will be acquired to meet seasonal, peak or emergency workloads, including off-site technical support, and on-site staff;. Include any preferred or exclusive subcontracting arrangements.

Factor 4: Past Performance

If past performance, or experience is supplied for a firm that does not match the proposer’s CAGE CODE or DUNS NUMBER, the proposer must provide a detailed written explanation of how the past performance/experience is relevant. If experience is cited that was gained through another firm with a different CAGE CODE or DUNS NUMBER, the proposal must clearly show how this experience is relevant to the Offeror’s ability to perform the requirements of this contract. Failure to provide this information could result in a lower rating. Failure to provide an adequate connection or link, as described above, between the Offeror and the submitted past performance or experience could result in a lower rating.

You must provide past performance information for all projects provided under Factor 1 - Team Experience above. Past performance information is not included in the 30 page limit. The offeror shall provide Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) (to include CCASS/ACASS) evaluations, when available. If no evaluation is available in CPARS, the offeror shall submit completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) utilizing the forms attached in the RFP. Each PPQ shall be for work completed within the past ten (10) years. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc. Ensure that the contact information including name, email address and phone number corresponding to each past performance document is completed in the PPQ.

Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide, along with the proposal, a letter from all subcontractors that will perform critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor. This consent is only necessary if you are using their experience to meet experience requirements.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Proposed contract will be awarded to the responsible Offeror offering the best value to the Government. It is in the best interest of the Government to consider tradeoffs between price and non-price related factors. Offerors are cautioned that the government intends to elect to award the contract without discussions; therefore, initial proposals should represent the best possible effort. To make a determination, the Government shall evaluate each offeror on the following criteria:

Factor 1, Team Experience is more important than Factor 2, Project Organization and Key Personnel which is more important than Factor 3, Capacity which is more important than Factor 4, Past Performance. All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

1. Technical

Factor 1: Team Experience

Evaluation Method:

Overall, this factor shall be evaluated based on a subjective assessment of the ability of the Offeror to thoroughly demonstrate their proposed team’s overall experience with the items described under Factor 1 – Team Experience.

In order to receive a rating of at least satisfactory all items shall be addressed.

Higher ratings may be assigned if the offeror clearly demonstrates experience with similar work relevant to the stated requirements in remote locations such as Alaska. Higher ratings may be assigned if the offeror clearly demonstrates that said experience was completed in the last three – five years. Higher ratings may be assigned to offerors who acted as prime contractors on more than the required three projects as defined in Factor 1 – Team Experience.

Each Offeror’s proposed Team Experience Factor will be given an adjective rating of Outstanding, Above Average, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory based on the subjective assessment of the evaluators using the evaluation criteria.

Factor 2: Project Organization and Key Personnel

Evaluation Method:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal related to the quality and depth of education and experience of the proposed personnel relative to their assigned duties. The organizational chart will be evaluated for lines of authority and span of control. The physical location of the project management staff and workforce will be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the team’s ability to effectively respond to emergent requirements.

Higher ratings may be assigned to offerors who demonstrate that their proposed team has successfully worked together in similar roles.

Higher ratings may be assigned for experience working together on projects involving the logistics of work in remote locations such as Alaska.

Each Offeror’s proposed Project Organization and Key Personnel Factor will be given an adjective rating of Outstanding, Above Average, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory based on the subjective assessment of the evaluators using the evaluation criteria.

Factor 3: Capacity

Overall, this factor shall be evaluated based on a subjective assessment of the ability of the Offeror to demonstrate adequate staffing resources to respond to multiple, emergent, multi-discipline task orders through either inhouse and/or subcontractor arrangements.

Each Offeror’s proposed Capacity Factor will be given an adjective rating of Outstanding, Above Average, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory based on the subjective assessments of the evaluators using the evaluation criteria.

Factor 4: Past Performance

Evaluation Method:

The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of the Offeror’s past performance. The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess past performance.

Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2). In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, shall receive a rating of satisfactory.

Only the Past Performance Questionnaires submitted for projects under Factor 1 by the Offeror will be evaluated; additional questionnaires submitted by the Offeror will not be considered.

Each Offeror’s proposed past performance will be given an adjective rating of Outstanding, Above Average, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory based on the subjective assessment of the evaluators using the evaluation criteria.

Note: For the purposes of evaluation in order to align the adjectival ratings with those used in the Government system, Outstanding will be equivalent to Exceptional, Above Average will be equivalent to Very Good, Satisfactory will be equivalent to Satisfactory, Marginal will be equivalent to Marginal, and Unsatisfactory will be equivalent to Unsatisfactory.

2. Price

Price Evaluation:

The total evaluated price shall consist of the Base Bid plus Option Items as shown in Section B, Supplies or Services and Price/Costs.

The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to evaluate the overall price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

2. Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

3. Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

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

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

B. ANSWERS TO PROPOSER QUESTIONS:

1. Section L.6, Proposal Submission Instructions,(c) Proposal Format, Page 55 of 99. A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information. Are we to assume that an 11” x 17” foldout used for charts, tables, and diagrams counts as one page since it is a single sheet of paper?

Answer: Yes, one face of an 11” x 17” piece of paper is considered one page.

1. Section L.6, Proposal Submission Instructions, (c) Proposal Format, Page 55 of 99. Typing shall not be less than 12-font Arial. Using 12-font Arial in charts and diagrams causes significant wrapping of text within graphic cells resulting in a lot of empty space where wrapping occurs, a significant reduction of space available to discuss and submit data, and hard to read text. We respectfully request that the US Coast Guard consider modifying the font size in charts and other graphics only to the industry average of 9 to 10 point Arial to eliminate these issues and allow the maximum amount of space for presentation.

Answer: For charts and diagrams only, Arial 9 or 10 font shall be accepted.

1. Section L.7, Factor 2 Project Organization and Key Personnel, page 57 of 59. Are multiple resumes for Project Manager allowed?

Answer: See the revisions to Section L.7 above.

1. Section L.7, Factor 4 Past Performance, page 57 of 99. Will recent PPQs (completed within the last 12 months), similar in content to the prescribed PPQ such as the NAVFAC/USACE Form PPQ-0 (see attached), and submitted for other RFPs be allowed in lieu of the prescribed PPQ in Attachment C, pages 92 to 96 of 99?

Answer: We will accept PPQs provided on the NAVFAC/USACE Form PPQ-0.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. Offerors are reminded to acknowledge receipt of amendments along with proposal submission.

END OF AMENDMENT