DES_DRAFT_REQUEST_FOR_SF_330.pdf

SOL-HQ-14-00022

DRAFT Request for Standard Form 330 – Design Engineering Services (DES)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires professional architect and engineering (A&E) services to support Superfund remedial investigation, design, and oversight activities for Regions 1 through 10. This constitutes EPA’s DRAFT announcement requesting

Standard Form 330 (SF 330) for the Design Engineering Services (DES) portion of the

Superfund Remedial Acquisition Framework (RAF). The official Request for Standard Form 330 will be issued at a later date.

I. BACKGROUND

This DES procurement is for professional A&E services and is subject to the Brooks Act, 40

U.S.C. §1101 et. seq., and its implementing regulations at FAR Subpart 36.6. The DES requirement was previously advertised as part of the Sources Sought/Request for Information

(SS/RFI) – Superfund Remedial Acquisition Framework posted on FedBizOpps on February 27, 2014 under previous solicitation number SOL-R3-13-00006.

Historically, regional full service Remedial Action Contracts (RACs) were used to deliver EPA’s remedial program requirements. The new RAF approach will alter the manner in which the

Agency procures these services. To implement design, construction and remedy operation activities under the RAF, the full service RACs will be divided into three suites of national multiple award contracts based on the type of work required:

1) Design Engineering Services (DES)

2) Remediation Environmental Services (RES)

3) Environmental Services and Operations (ESO)

The DES contracts will provide A&E services required under the Superfund remedial program to perform remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and remedial designs. Once a remedy is selected and designed, the RES contracts will implement the design. The ESO contracts will supply professional services to operate the remedy, as needed, and perform oversight work of responsible party Superfund response activities.

To be considered for an award under the DES suite of contracts, offerors must submit SF 330s according to the instructions contained within this announcement. Offerors should present the information within their SF 330s so as to ensure that all technical evaluation criteria are addressed. This will facilitate Agency review of the information submitted.

Description of the Design and Engineering Services Suite of Contracts

The primary purpose of the DES contracts is to provide national support to the EPA Superfund remedial program under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA); the Superfund Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); and the Robert T. Stafford Natural

Disaster Act pursuant to the Federal Response Plan (FRP) and other laws to help address and/or mitigate endangerment to public health, welfare or the environment during emergencies and natural disasters; and to support States, tribal governments, local governments, and communities in preparing for and responding to releases of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants.

The DES contracts will perform professional services of a scientific, A&E nature to provide support to the EPA Superfund remedial program including remedial investigations, feasibility studies, treatability studies, remedial designs, and general technical assistance. The DES contracts will also provide complex technical oversight of the Superfund response work being financed or performed by State, Tribe, or potentially responsible parties. In rare instances, the contractor may be required to perform oversight activities on federal facilities response actions.

This national support to the EPA Superfund remedial program will be accomplished through the award of DES multiple award contracts (MACs) in order to meet EPA’s requirements for A&E services in support of response actions at sites where the release, or threatened release, of hazardous substances pose a risk to human health and the environment.

The Statement of Work (SOW) for the DES contracts include:

General Requirements

Systematic Project Planning

Site-Specific Plan(s) Development

Project Management, Monitoring and Reporting

Greener Cleanups and Sustainability Considerations

Optimization Considerations

Community Involvement

Task Order Close Out

Field Work and Analytical Support

Field Investigation

Analytical Support and Data Validation

Data Compilation and Evaluation

Develop or Update the Site Conceptual Site Model

Treatability Studies

Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS)

Remedial Investigation (including risk assessment)

Feasibility Study

Post RI/FS Support

Environmental Engineering/CA (EE/CA)

Streamlined Risk Evaluation

Identification and Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives

EE/CA Report

Post EE/CA Support

Remedial Design

RD/RA Project Delivery Planning

Value Engineering

Preliminary Design

Intermediate Design

Pre-final/Final Design

Remedial Design Implementation Support

Oversight or Oversight Support

Field Oversight

Site Assessment Support

Treatability Study Support

RI/FS of Site Investigation Support

Removal Support

RD Support

Remedial Action and Operation and Maintenance Support

Other Work Areas/General Technical Assistance

Technical Assistance Meeting and Support

Targeted Brownfields Assessment

EPA-lead Remedial Action (RA) or EPA-lead Removal Action (RV) Support

Five-Year Review

Optimization Reviews

Radiation Support

Negotiation, Litigation, and Expert Witness Support

Records Management and Administrative Support

Equipment/Services/Utilities, Site Maintenance and Site Security/Guard Services

EPA Initiatives

The scope of DES contracts is for activities which typically require professionally licensed and accredited architect and engineer staff. The attached SOW will provide an explanation of the required DES capabilities in further detail (Attachment 1).

II. PROPOSED CONTRACT AWARD AND ADMINISTRATION

The DES contracts are being procured through a single national request for Architect-Engineer

Qualifications using the Standard Form 330 under FAR Part 36.6 and the Brooks Act.

NAICS Code

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the DES procurement is

562910, Environmental Remediation Services, and the U.S. Small Business Administration’s

(SBA) size standard for the DES procurement is 500 employees.

Contract Type

DES contracts will be awarded as Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts and will also meet the requirements of FAR Part 16 which establishes a preference for multiple award contracts (MACs). While the statutory multiple award preference does not apply to A&E services, agencies are not precluded from using MACs with A&E contracts to promote competition and to ensure fair opportunity is provided to each contract holder. Therefore, resultant work under the DES contracts will be issued through the use of competitive task orders.

These task orders will be issued predominantly on a cost reimbursement basis, and when possible, work may be ordered on a firm-fixed-price basis.

Method of Procurement

DES contracts will be awarded utilizing an unrestricted, full and open request for SF 330s with reserves for small businesses, per FAR 19.502-4(a). Multiple award contracts will be awarded to both large and small business concerns based on technical superiority, subject to the Brooks Act and its implementing regulations at FAR Part 36.6. All offerors will be considered for award based on their ability to provide all requirements outlined in the SOW. Upon award of a contract, contractors will compete for task orders pursuant to the fair opportunity process of FAR

16.505(b) and according to the guidelines in FAR 36.602.

Geographic Areas and Number of CLINs

EPA will establish geographic coverage areas for the DES contracts by contract line item number

(CLIN). CLIN 0001 will include Regions 1, 2, and 3, CLIN 0002 will include Regions 4, 5, 6, and 7, and CLIN 0003 will include Regions 8, 9, and 10.

A separate SF 330 shall be submitted for each CLIN for which the offeror wishes to be considered. If a firm is interested in holding a contract for CLIN 0001, then it will submit a SF

330 for CLIN 0001. If a firm is interested in holding a contract for CLINs 0001 and 0002, it will submit a SF 330 for CLIN 0001 and a separate SF 330 for CLIN 0002, etc. Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to provide technical expertise and coverage for the CLIN(s) for which they competed. Offerors will not be given extra credit or penalized based on the number of CLINs for which they compete. Award of CLINs will not be made until all evaluations and selection of firms have been completed for all CLINs.

Contracts will be awarded by CLIN, and it is anticipated that multiple CLINs may be awarded under a single contract. For example, if an offeror is awarded a contract for work to be performed in CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0003, then one contract will be awarded to that offeror to include both

CLINs. A selected firm will receive one contract regardless of the number of CLINs the firm may have been awarded. A contract may include as few as 1 CLIN or as many as 3 CLINs.

Figure 1: Map showing EPA Regions

Number of Contracts

The DES contract award process will follow FAR 36.602-1(a) using a three CLIN structure.

Approximately seven (7) awards will be made under each CLIN to the most highly qualified large and small businesses concerns based on the technical evaluation of SF 330s.

At a minimum, three of the contract awards in each CLIN will be reserved for small businesses, subject to the technical evaluation resulting in three capable small businesses.

The Agency’s target socio-economic contracting goal is 30% of all DES contract dollars to be awarded to small businesses at the task order level.

The precise number of contracts awarded in each CLIN will be determined after the technical evaluation of the SF 330s is completed, with consideration to the most technically superior firms, projected work, EPA resources, and a desire to promote competition. Based on the technical evaluation results, it is possible that more than 7 contracts may be awarded within a particular

CLIN. Similarly, it is possible that more than 3 contracts will be awarded to small business concerns within a CLIN.

For illustrative purposes, see the DES structure picture below.

Period of Performance

The period of performance for the DES contracts will be a five year base with one five year option period. This will result in a total potential period of performance of ten (10) years.

Contract Capacity and Minimum Guarantees

The nationwide estimate for all of the DES requirements for all 10 years is anticipated to be

$900,000,000, which equates to approximately $90 million per year.

Below is a table for the total estimated capacity for each DES contract within each CLIN:

CLIN Capacity/10 years

0001 (Regions 1, 2, and 3) $210 million

0002 (Region 4, 5, 6, and 7) $315 million

0003 (Regions 8, 9, and 10) $375 million

Total $900 million

The total capacity of each contract will be determined based on the number of CLINs awarded to that particular offeror. Contracts awarded under the DES suite are anticipated to have a total capacity to reflect the total estimate pertaining to the needs of the EPA CLIN for the entire period of performance. For example, if the estimate for CLIN 0001 requirements for 10 years is

$210,000,000, then each DES contract awarded under that CLIN will have a total potential capacity of $210,000,000. If a contract is awarded for CLINs 0001 and 0002, then the total

National Request for SF 330s

(Design & Engineering Services Suite)

Full and Open with Small Business Reserves

(Geographic CLINs)

Approximately 7 Awards/CLIN

CLIN 1

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

CLIN 2

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 7

CLIN 3

Region 8

Region 9

Region 10 capacity of that contract for 10 years will be $525,000,000. Contracts awarded for all three

CLINs will reflect the total capacity for 10 years of $900,000,000.

Each contract awarded within a CLIN will reflect the same 10-year capacity. This capacity represents the cumulative body of work to be awarded throughout the 10 years within a particular CLIN for ALL contracts combined. For example, seven (7) contracts are anticipated to be awarded in CLIN 0001; offerors should not assume that the total amount of work to be awarded in CLIN 0001 equals 7 x $210,000.00, or $1,470,000.00. Rather, the total amount of work to be awarded in CLIN 0001 over 10 years is still $210,000.00 for all contracts combined.

Note that awarding each DES contract with a capacity to reflect the 10-year estimated value for the applicable CLIN(s) does not guarantee the exercise of the option period. The five-year base period will contain the full 10-year estimated value of the requirement (i.e. contract ceiling) for each contract. If exercised, the 5-year option period will extend the period of performance without including a separate ceiling for the option period.

Contractors will only be guaranteed the contract minimum. The minimum guarantee for the DES contracts is $25,000.00, regardless of the number of CLINs awarded to an offeror. The amount of work available and competed will be influenced by EPA’s future needs and budgets.

Small Businesses Reserves

The Agency is committed to utilizing small businesses to the fullest extent possible. Based on market research, the Agency is procuring DES multiple award contracts pursuant to full and open competition with reserves for small businesses. In accordance with the Small Business Jobs

Act of 2010 (Jobs Act), 15 U.S.C. § 644, and its implementing regulations, FAR Subpart 19.502-

4(a) and SBA regulation, 13 U.S.C. § 125.2, the DES solicitation will reserve three (3) of the approximately seven contract-level awards anticipated per CLIN for small businesses, subject to the technical evaluation resulting in three capable small businesses. The solicitation and contract will also preserve the right to consider setting aside task orders for competition amongst the small businesses after contract award.

As mentioned earlier, Agency intends to award enough contracts to small business firms to meet the Agency’s national socio-economic contracting target goal of 30% of DES obligations at the task order level, as authorized by the Jobs Act and its implementing regulations. The Agency reserves the right to potentially award a contract to a small business that might not have ranked as high as a large business under the evaluation of that CLIN.

At the task order level, once the requirement is defined, the contracting officer can determine whether a task order should be competed among only the small businesses under that CLIN (13

C.F.R. §§ 125.2(e)(4)(iii)-(iv)). If a CO decides to compete the task orders only among small businesses, the small businesses must comply with the limitations on subcontracting requirements (50% rule) found at 13 C.F.R. § 125.6. If, however, the CO decides to compete the task orders on a full and open basis, then the small businesses do not need to comply with the limitations on subcontracting requirements found at 13 C.F.R. § 125.6.

Anticipated Contractor Competition Restrictions

Firms may compete for, and be awarded, a contract in each of the RAF suites of contracts (DES, RES, and ESO), as either a prime, joint venture or a subcontractor. No single offeror (to include parent company, subsidiary or affiliate) may receive more than one DES award per CLIN.

However, a single offeror may hold both a prime contract and be a subcontractor under another offeror’s prime contract within the same CLIN under the DES suite. Conflicts of interest will be determined at the task order level. Upon award, a firm that designs the remedy will be precluded from performing the remedial action (e.g., implementation of the design).

Please see the “Limitation of Future Contracting EPAAR 1552.209-74 DEV” clause (Attachment

2) for more information regarding restrictions on performing remedial work for other entities besides the EPA. In addition, please see the Conflict of Interest clauses (Attachment 2) for this procurement.

DES Selection Procedures

In accordance with FAR 36.602-3(a), an Architect and Engineering Evaluation Board (AEEB) will be established to review the qualifications of each offeror in terms of the data contained in their SF 330 submission against the technical evaluation criteria set forth in this request for SF

330s. The SF 330s will be reviewed and ranked on a CLIN by CLIN basis. Based upon the conclusions of the AEEB, consistent with FAR 36.602-3(c), the CO will invite the most highly qualified firms per CLIN to hold discussions. The Agency reserves the right to enter into discussions with a small business, and as mentioned earlier, potentially award a contract to a small business that might not have ranked as high as a large business under the technical evaluation of that CLIN.

Upon completion of the EPA’s evaluation of the SF 330s and the resulting discussions with the most highly qualified firms in each CLIN, the Agency will determine the final rankings of those firms in each CLIN. Since each CLIN will be evaluated separately, a firm that is found to be technically superior and amongst the highest qualified for one CLIN may not be found to be technically superior and amongst the highest qualified for another CLIN. The highest qualified firms within each CLIN will be issued a Request for Proposal, to include, but not limited to, a cost proposal, contract management plan, conflict of interest plan, procedures for handling confidential business information, quality management plan, and a health and safety plan.

Please note that this Request for SF 330s does not constitute a Request for Proposals (RFP).

A formal RFP will be issued to the highest qualified firms at a later date, and will be so identified.

Upon receipt of proposals from the highest qualified firms, the EPA may elect to commence negotiations with those firms. As part of those negotiations, agreements must be reached on fair and reasonable rates, as well as an acceptable contract management plan, conflict of interest plan, procedures for handling confidential business information, quality management plan, and a health and safety plan. Additionally, a conflict of interest screen of all Superfund sites within the

CLIN and the related PRPs may be conducted prior to the award of a CLIN, to identify possible future conflicts of interest within the CLIN on a task order basis. However, this potential conflict of interest screen will not preclude an offeror from receiving a contract award for a particular

CLIN if the Contracting Officer determines that an acceptable mitigation plan could be reached.

For large businesses, agreement must also be reached on a subcontracting plan prior to award that meets EPA’s established goals for small business and small disadvantaged business utilization. In addition, all contractors will be required to have an acceptable accounting system that allows for segregation of costs.

DES Task Order Fair Opportunity Procedures

After contract award, the DES task order award process will follow fair opportunity procedures that meet the requirements of FAR 16.505(b) – Orders Under Multiple Award Contracts and comply with FAR 36.602 – Selection of Firms for Architect-Engineering Contracts.

EPA will conduct the fair opportunity process with the pool of contractors in the CLIN where the work is located. In some circumstances, per FAR Part 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F) and pursuant to the new

SBA guidance under Section 1331 of Public Law 111-240, EPA may set aside task orders for competition exclusively amongst the small business contractor(s) within that CLIN. This determination will be made with consideration to the small business target of 30% for the overall contract, Agency small business goals, project specific requirements, and the limitation on subcontracting whereby “at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel” must be expended for employees of the prime firm, as required by FAR 19.508(e) and FAR 52.219-14.

Consistent with FAR 36.602-2, ad hoc AEEBs will be established for each task order within a particular CLIN. Members will be appointed from among highly qualified professional employees of the Agency, and if authorized by the Contracting Officer, from professional employees of other agencies and private practitioners of architecture, engineering, or related professions.

In accordance with FAR 36.602-3, each AEEB will follow a qualifications based selection process in order to determine the most highly qualified firm to perform the specific project.

Accordingly, the AEEB will review the current data files on eligible firms, such as SF 330s, capacity, potential conflicts of interest, and past performance information. Firms will be evaluated for the particular project/task order in accordance with the criteria in FAR 36.602-1, and discussions will be held with at least three of the most highly qualified firms regarding concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of furnishing the required project in accordance with FAR 36.602-3(c). Then, pursuant to FAR 36-602-5, the AEEB will submit for

Contracting Officer approval the final ranking of the most highly qualified firms. Subsequently, in accordance with FAR 36.606, negotiations will be held with the most highly qualifed firm in the final selection. An architect-engineer qualifications data file will be maintained in the

Superfund SF 330 database, and each firm that is awarded a DES contract will provide updated

SF 330s on an annual basis, as required by FAR 36.603.

Contractors will be notified of all upcoming projects under the CLINs for which they hold contracts. After discussions are held with three of the most highly qualified firms, the CO shall notify those CLIN holders who are no longer being considered for the project/task order award, and negotiations will commence with the highest qualified firm for that project. After final selection has taken place, the Contracting Officer may release information identifying the highest qualified firm, and all CLIN holders with whom discussions were held will be notified of the final selection. In accordance with FAR 36.607, debriefings of successful and unsuccessful firms will be held after final selection has taken place and will be conducted in accordance with Part

15 debriefing procedures to the extent practicable.

Exceptions to Fair Opportunity

Fair opportunity will be provided to all DES contract holders in the CLIN, unless one of the exceptions listed under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i) exists. These exceptions will be approved by the

Contracting Officer on a case by case basis. Per FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F), the Contracting Officer has the discretion to set aside task orders placed under multiple award contracts for competition exclusively amongst the small businesses within the CLIN.

Cross Overs

In rare circumstances, if project complexities, conflict of interest, capacity challenges, or other information indicate that the task order is better suited for competition under another CLIN, the

Agency may “cross over,” or compete the task order under another CLIN. An example of a potential cross over is when a Task Order SOW requires a skill set or expertise not fully represented by a contract holder within a particular CLIN. In these situations, competition for the work may be conducted in a different CLIN where the expertise is available. This allows the

Agency to select the firm that is best qualified to perform that project.

If the Agency must use a different CLIN due to a circumstance noted above, firms under both the original CLIN and the crossover CLIN will be notified. Fair opportunity procedures will be followed in the cross over CLIN. The intent of the RAF is to award sufficient contracts within each CLIN to address the estimated capacity and anticipated type of work to be performed. The use of cross overs is therefore expected to be de minimus and will require prior Contracting

Officer approval.

III. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

Offerors shall organize the information so as to highlight responses to the Technical Evaluation

Factors, which correlates to the evaluation factors in Section H of the SF 330. This will facilitate agency review of the information submitted.

Selection of the highest qualified firms will be based on the following evaluation factors and subfactors. The evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance.

1. Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required in the

DES Statement of Work.

As presented in sections E, F, G, H and Part II of the SF 330, offerors will be evaluated on the specialized experience and technical competence necessary to perform the services listed in the DES Statement of Work. Offerors will be evaluated on projects that demonstrate wide-ranging technical capabilities, include performance of complex and diverse work, and address differing contaminants in various media. Projects performed under CERCLA will be evaluated with greater importance.

Offerors will be evaluated according to the following list of subfactors, listed in descending order of importance:

Subfactor 1: Site investigation and characterization, multi-media modelling, risk assessment, treatability studies, design activities including the preparing of plans and specifications, and value engineering;

Subfactor 2: Oversight of studies, investigations, designs, remedial actions, and operation activities conducted by other parties which may include potentially responsible parties, States, Tribes, local governments and to a lesser extent federal agencies;

Subfactor 3: Knowledge of and compliance with regulations and practices pertaining to studies, investigations, designs and remedial actions including CERCLA, RCRA, TSCA, CWA, CAA, NEPA, and the Stafford Act;

Subfactor 4: Demonstrated ability to implement a quality system (i.e. management processes and procedures) that complies with the quality management plan elements outlined in Chapter 3 EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans (EPA QA/R-2);

and

Subfactor 5: Experience in the following areas: energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials. In particular, offerors will be evaluated on their firms’ experience with green remediation and sustainability and optimization during remedial investigation/feasibility studies and remedial designs.

2. Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of quality of work, compliance with performance schedules, cost control, business relations, management of key personnel, and health and safety record.

As presented in the past performance references in Section F of the SF 330, the offeror will be evaluated on past performance information as the prime contractor on contracts, orders, or agreements of similar size, scope, and complexity to this requirement. Offerors will have the opportunity to send Past Performance Questionnaires to respective clients to complete and submit directly to the Contracting Officer for the purpose of evaluating past performance (Attachment 3).

Vendors will be evaluated on previous customer satisfaction in the areas of quality of service, compliance with performance schedules, cost control, business relations, management of key personnel, and health and safety record.

When rating past performance, the EPA will consider the recency and relevancy of the information provided as it relates to the task areas of the DES SOW, as well as how the contractor performed under the contracts referenced. Within Section F, five past project examples may be submitted that demonstrate past performance. Current performance will have greater impact in the performance confidence assessment than less recent performance.

Aspects that will be considered when determining relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and the degree of subcontracting/ teaming.

EPA is not limited to the past performance references submitted by the offeror. EPA may reference other information provided in the offeror’s SF 330, such as Section H, to evaluate this factor and may also seek information for this factor from the offeror’s clients that it identifies through other means.

For example, if the offeror is proposing as a team (prime and a number of subcontractors) or a joint venture, the EPA has the discretion to evaluate the past performance of all individual companies on the proposed team or joint venture. If past performance information exists for the proposed team or joint venture, EPA may evaluate this information as well.

3. Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.

As presented in Sections E, G, H, and Part II of the SF 330, the offeror will be evaluated on the professional qualifications of management personnel and technical personnel expected to perform the services listed in the attached DES Statement of Work. Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to provide a balanced and qualified workforce in the disciplines required to deliver all DES Statement of Work tasks.

Offerors will be evaluated on the professional qualifications of their proposed workforce as a whole, including key personnel in the management and technical disciplines. Resumes for up to ten (10) key personnel may be submitted in Section E of the SF 330. Key management personnel includes a program manager, contracts manager, health and safety manager, and quality manager. Key technical personnel includes a senior technical consultant. All key management personnel and key technical personnel shall be permanent employees of the prime firm/team rather than temporary “contract” employee arrangements.

Failure to demonstrate an ability to provide a balanced and qualified workforce in the disciplines required to deliver all DES Statement of Work tasks, to include qualified key management personnel and key technical personnel, could result in the firm being considered less qualified. The following subfactors will be evaluated equally in terms of importance:

Subfactor 1: Management personnel, to include key personnel

• Education – level and focus of degrees or programs completed that affect the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the Statement of Work.

• Demonstrated experience managing an environmental remediation contract of a similar scope and geographic size of the particular CLIN.

• Qualifications and suitability of key management personnel

Subfactor 2: Technical personnel, to include key personnel

• Education – level and focus of degrees or program completed that affect the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the Statement of Work

• Certifications, licenses, or demonstrated experience in the proposed Statement of

Work areas that affect the firm’s ability to successfully perform the Statement of

Work, and in accordance with all regulations that apply.

• Qualifications and suitability of key technical personnel

4. Location in the general geographical area and knowledge of the locality of the project.

As presented in Section C, E, H and Part II of the firm’s SF 330, the offeror will be evaluated on its geographic location and familiarity with the localities within each CLIN and the ability to maintain appropriate office and staff presence. The offeror will be evaluated on its ability to staff the contract with the appropriate personnel in order to perform the stated volume of work at sites within each CLIN. Preference will be given to firms that can demonstrate the ability to appropriately staff the entire CLIN.

5. Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time.

As presented in Section C, E, H and Part II of the SF 330, the offeror will be evaluated on its ability and capacity to staff the contract in an effective and timely manner with the appropriate personnel. The offeror will be evaluated on current and projected workload commitments.

Additional Evaluation Criteria for Large Businesses:

The following additional evaluation factor will pertain to large businesses only:

6. Experience with small business subcontracting

As presented in Section H of the SF 330, offerors shall demonstrate previous success at meeting their small business subcontracting goals. Firms may submit five project examples to demonstrate small business subcontract experience in section H, under evaluation criteria

#6. If more than five project examples are submitted, only the first five listed will be considered. Note that offerors may present five project examples to demonstrate small business utilization that are different than the project examples requested in Section F in the

SF 330.

Evaluation Rating Definitions

The SF 330 responses will be evaluated according to the following adjectival ratings scales.

Overall technical capability for Factors 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 will be rated based on the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

Technical capability and past performance will be rated separately.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Rating Description

Outstanding SF 330 meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good SF 330 meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. SF 330 contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable SF 330 meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses do not outweigh one another or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal SF 330 does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The SF 330 has one or more weaknesses which are not outweighed by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable SF 330 does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

SF 330 is unacceptable for purposes of an award

Past Performance Rating Definitions

Based on the recency, relevancy and quality of past performance information in the SF 330 and past performance references, one overall assessment rating shall be assigned for each offeror for

Factor 2 based on the ratings in the following table:

Performance Confidence Assessment

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.

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.

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.

IV. SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Digital Microsoft Access SF 330 Form

For the DES procurement, EPA has opted to use a digital SF 330 form utilizing Microsoft

Access, a software component of the standard Microsoft Office suite for PCs. Prior drafts of the

SF 330 Form were posted to FedBizOpps and FedConnect for industry testing and comment.

Based on contractor feedback, modifications were made to the SF 330 form (Attachment 4).

Offerors shall submit SF 330s electronically utilizing the Microsoft Access SF 330 form

(Attachment 3) and the electronic submittal system, FedConnect. No other version of the

SF 330 form will be accepted. Please see the Technical Instructions (Attachment 5) for completing and electronically submitting the Microsoft Access SF 330 form and the GSA

Instructions for the SF 330 (Attachment 6).

Questions and answers related to the SF 330 digital form are attached to this Draft Request for

SF 330s (Attachment 7).

SF 330 Electronic Submission

In response to this Draft Request for SF 330s, vendors are encouraged to test the Microsoft

Access SF 330 form (Attachment 4) and may also elect to test the electronic submittal system via

FedConnect by uploading a test SF 330 to EPA. Note that this is just a test and any submittal through FedConnect will not be evaluated for award. A draft SF 330 submitted through

FedConnect can be blank or without substantive information.

Vendors wishing to submit a draft SF 330 via the FedConnect electronic submittal system must do so by 5pm EST on Monday, September 21, 2015. These submittals will not be evaluated for award. The purpose of the upload is to test the capacity of the FedConnect electronic submittal system for the Microsoft Access files and provide confirmation of uploads.

Vendors can expect a confirmation of receipt from EPA for test submissions by the following business day.

If vendors prefer not to submit a draft SF 330 through FedConnect, they are still encouraged to test the Microsoft Access SF 330 form. Vendors should submit any questions/concerns regarding the SF 330 form or the Technical Instructions for the form to the Contracting Officer prior to the upcoming final Request for SF 330s.

Questions

Industry questions and comments were submitted previously to the Contracting Officer and contributed to refining the DES acquisition strategy. Resultant changes have been incorporated, as applicable, into this Draft Request for SF 330s. In addition, Questions and

Answers were posted to FedBizOpps and FedConnect to address the May 13, 2015

Remedial Acquisition Framework (RAF) Updated Overview webinar. Duplicate questions received by the Contracting Officer were combined into one question and answer within that Q&A document, which was posted on July 22, 2015.

1. The EPA welcomes industry questions. Before submitting a question, however, please review this Draft Request for SF 330s, all associated attachments, and the July 22, 2015

Q&A document referenced above to see if your question was already addressed.

2. For additional clarifications regarding this Draft Request, the SF 330 digital form or associated technical instructions, or any other questions about the DES procurement, please email the Contract Specialist, Nadia Velasco, at velasco.nadia@epa.gov and the

Contracting Officer, Derek Davis, at davis.derek@epa.gov. Answers will be posted to include the entire vendor community, prior to the release of the Final Request for SF

330s. Sources of questions will remain anonymous.

3. Please include in the email subject title line “RAF DES SOL-HQ-14-00022”.

4. Please organize your questions according to the following structure, as applicable:

a) DES scope questions

b) Contract structure questions

c) Competition and socio-economic related questions

d) Fair opportunity questions

e) SF 330 form questions

f) Any other questions

V. ATTACHMENTS:

The following list of attachments are part of this Draft Request for SF 330s:

1) DES Statement of Work

2) LOFC clause and COI clauses/provisions

3) Past Performance Questionnaire

4) Microsoft Access SF 330 Digital Form

5) EPA Technical Instructions for SF 330 Digital Form

6) GSA Instructions for the SF 330

7) Q&As for EPA SF 330 Digital Form mailto:velasco.nadia@epa.gov mailto:davis.derek@epa.gov