OFFICIAL_DES_REQUEST_FOR_SF_330_-_1.20.16.pdf

SOL-HQ-14-00022 – Official Request for Standard Form 330

I. SUBJECT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires professional architect and engineering

(A&E) services, hereby referred to as Design and Engineering Services (DES), to support Superfund remedial investigation, design, and oversight activities for Regions 1 through 10 under the EPA

Superfund Remedial Acquisition Framework (RAF). This constitutes the EPA’s OFFICIAL announcement requesting Standard Form 330 (SF 330) for these services.

II. DESCRIPTION OF WORK

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 at sites where the release, or threatened release, of hazardous substances pose a risk to human health and the environment. 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. The DES Statement of Work (Attachment 1) provides an explanation of the required capabilities in further detail.

III. CONTRACT INFORMATION

Method of Procurement

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

Qualifications using the Standard Form 330. These contracts will be awarded as Indefinite-Delivery

Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Contracts (MAC) subject to the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C.

§1101 et. seq., FAR Subpart 36.6, and FAR Part 16.

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.

Geographic Areas and Number of CLINs

EPA has established geographic coverage areas for the DES contracts by contract line item number

(CLIN). CLIN 0001 includes Regions 1, 2, and 3, CLIN 0002 includes Regions 4, 5, 6, and 7, and CLIN

0003 includes Regions 8, 9, and 10.

A separate SF 330 shall be submitted for each CLIN for which the offeror wishes to be considered.

Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to provide technical expertise and coverage for the entire

CLIN(s) for which they submitted an SF 330. Offerors will not be given extra credit or penalized based on the number of CLINs for which they submit an SF 330. Award of CLINs will not be made until all evaluations and selection of firms have been completed for all CLINs.

Firms may receive more than one CLIN, and each contract may include as few as 1 CLIN or as many as 3

CLINs.

Figure 1: Map showing EPA Regions

Number of Contracts

Approximately seven 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. Provided that the technical evaluation of SF 330s results in three highly qualified small businesses, three of the contract awards in each CLIN will be reserved for small businesses. For illustrative purposes, see the DES structure picture below.

National Request for SF 330s

(Design & Engineering Services)

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

Small Business Reserves

The Agency is committed to utilizing small businesses to the fullest extent possible. Based on market research, the Agency is procuring DES MACs pursuant to full and open competition with reserves for small business. 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 of the approximately seven contract-level awards anticipated per

CLIN for small businesses, provided that the technical evaluation of SF 330s results in three highly qualified 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. The Agency’s socioeconomic contracting goal is to award 30% of all DES contract dollars during the total period of performance to small businesses at the task order level.

Ordering Period

The effective ordering period under the DES contracts will consist of a five-year base ordering period with one five-year optional ordering period for a total effective contract ordering period of ten years.

The actual period of performance for individual task orders will vary.

Minimum Guarantees and Contract Ceiling

The guaranteed minimum per contract over the life of the contract is $25,000.00, regardless of the number of CLINs awarded on the contract. The total capacity reflected for individual contracts will be based on the number of CLINs a contractor is awarded and will reflect the overall capacity for each

CLIN, which will be shared amongst all contract holders within that CLIN. The overall contract ceiling, shared amongst all contract holders, is reflected in the chart below.

CLIN Ceiling/10 years

0001 (Regions 1, 2, and 3) $410,000,000

0002 (Regions 4, 5, 6, and 7) $330,000,000

0003 (Regions 8, 9, and 10) $465,000,000

Total Ceiling $1,205,000,000

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 optional ordering period. The five-year base will contain the full 10-year estimated value of the requirement (i.e. contract ceiling) for each contract.

If exercised, the 5-year option will extend the effective contract ordering period without including a separate or additional cost ceiling.

Anticipated Contractor Competition Restrictions

Firms may compete for and be awarded a contract as either a prime or a joint venture. No single offeror

(to include parent company, subsidiary or affiliate) may receive more than one DES award per CLIN.

Conflicts of interest will be determined at the task order level. Please see the Limitation of Future

Contracting and Conflict of Interest clauses (Attachment 2) for this procurement.

Task Order Fair Opportunity Procedures

After contract award, the DES task order award process be in accordance with FAR Subpart 16.5 –

Indefinite-Delivery Contracts and with FAR 36.602 – Selection of Firms for Architect-Engineering

Contracts.

Fair opportunity will be provided to all DES contract holders in the CLIN where the work is located, unless one of the exceptions listed under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i) exists. Per FAR Subpart 16.5, the Jobs

Act and the SBA’s implementing regulations, as well as the Brooks Act procedures to be followed for

DES task orders, EPA may consider any of the following set aside options within each CLIN:

(a) If two or more contract holders within a CLIN represent any one type of small business concern

(as defined by FAR Part 19), the Agency may compete any orders within that CLIN solely amongst that specified type of small business (e.g. women-owned small businesses) if the “rule of two” has been met (i.e. two or more small business concerns are highly qualified to perform the work).

(b) If there are several contract holders within a CLIN that represent several different types of small businesses concerns (as defined by FAR Part 19), the Agency may compete any orders within that CLIN solely amongst all of the small business concerns (e.g. 8(a), HUBZone, women-owned small businesses, etc.) if the “rule of two” has been met (i.e. two or more small business concerns are highly qualified to perform the work).

(c) If there is only one contract holder within a CLIN that represents any one type of small business concern (as defined by FAR Part 19), the Agency may issue a task order directly to that one small business concern.

In determining whether or not to use one of the set aside options above, the Agency will take into consideration the following: 1) Whether the small business concerns are highly qualified to perform at least 50% of the work under the task order, as required by FAR 19.508(e) and FAR 52.219-14; and 2)

The Agency’s goal of awarding 30% of all DES contract dollars to small businesses at the task order level. Note: If a CO decides to use one of the set aside options above, 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.

Consistent with FAR 36.602, an ad hoc Architect Engineering Evaluation Board (AEEB) will be established for each task order. Each AEEB will follow a qualifications-based selection process consistent with FAR 36.602-3, including discussions, to determine the most highly qualified firm among the contract holders within the CLIN. During this process, the AEEB will review the current data files for the pool of contract holders within a CLIN, such as the SF 330 database (which will be updated annually after award), capacity, potential conflicts of interest, and past performance information. In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iii)(B), the CO will notify the firms of upcoming projects and, if necessary, request additional information. Subsequently, in accordance with FAR 36.606, negotiations will be held with the most highly qualified firm. 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.

IV. CONTRACT SELECTION CRITERIA

In accordance with FAR Subpart 36.6, an 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 factors 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, the CO will invite the most highly qualified firms per

CLIN to hold discussions.

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 amongst the highest qualified for one CLIN may not necessarily be found to be amongst the highest qualified for another

CLIN. The highest qualified firms within each CLIN will be issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) at a later date. Each offeror’s proposal in response to the RFP will include, but is not limited to: cost proposal, contract management plan, quality management plan, procedures for handling confidential business information, and conflict of interest plan.

Upon receipt of proposals from the highest qualified firms, the EPA may elect to commence negotiations with those firms. In order to proceed to award, agreement must be reached on cost, contract management plan, an acceptable quality management plan that adheres to EPA Requirements for Quality

Management Plans (EPA QA/R-2), and a plan to handle confidential business information.

Additionally, a conflict of interest screen of all Superfund sites within the CLIN and the related

Potentially Responsible Parties 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 can be reached.

For large businesses, agreement must also be reached on a subcontracting plan 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.

Technical Evaluation Factors

Offerors should present information within their SF 330s so as to ensure that all Technical Evaluation

Factors are addressed. Each factor references various sections of the SF 330 that the Agency will utilize when completing its technical evaluation of that particular factor. In addition, offerors should utilize

Section H of the SF 330 to address each evaluation factor and provide any additional narrative that the offeror believes is warranted. This will facilitate the Agency’s review of the information submitted within Section H and in other referenced sections of the SF 330 during evaluations.

Selection of the highest qualified firms will be based on the following evaluation factors. 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, and G of the SF 330, plus any narrative the offeror presents in

Section H, the offeror will be evaluated on the specialized experience and technical competence necessary to perform all the services listed in the DES Statement of Work (SOW). Preference will be given to projects performed under CERCLA. The predominance of the work to be performed under DES will be in the areas of site investigation and characterization, multi-media modeling, risk assessment, feasibility studies, treatability studies, design activities including the preparing of plans and specifications, and value engineering, with less work to be performed under DES in the area of oversight of environmental remediation work conducted by other parties. Offerors will be evaluated in these areas accordingly. Throughout the offeror’s technical discussion, the offeror will be evaluated on its experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials, such as green remediation, sustainability, and optimization practices during site investigations, feasibility studies, and design activities.

2. Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

As presented in Section F of the SF 330, offerors will be evaluated on past performance information as highlighted in up to ten example projects to be submitted for the proposed team. Some or all of the ten example projects may be currently active or ongoing projects, and projects for the proposed team may include examples from both prime(s) and/or subcontractor(s). The ten example projects may encompass entire contracts, orders, agreements, etc. and/or highlight individual projects that were completed. Please note that any projects submitted in addition to the requested ten example projects will not be evaluated.

Past performance may also be evaluated by referencing the following: completed past performance questionnaires submitted for the ten example projects, any narrative provided in Section H, additional information presented elsewhere in the offeror’s SF 330, and data from other sources available to the government, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System.

Offerors may provide the Past Performance Questionnaire and Client Authorization Letter

(Attachments 3 and 4) to their respective clients for their ten example projects, for clients to complete and submit directly to the Contracting Officer for the purpose of evaluating past performance. Offerors will be rated on the questionnaires in the specific areas of quality, schedule, cost control, management, utilization of small business (if applicable), regulatory compliance, and customer satisfaction.

When assigning a past performance confidence rating, the EPA will consider both the recency and relevancy of the information provided as it relates to the task areas of the DES SOW. In terms of recency, past performance information will be evaluated for completed or on-going projects within the past five years. Aspects that will be considered when determining relevancy to the DES SOW include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and the degree of subcontracting/ teaming.

If an offeror is proposing as a team (prime and a number of subcontractors) or as a joint venture, the

EPA may evaluate the past performance of the 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 and G of the SF 330, plus any narrative the offeror presents in Section

H, the offeror will be evaluated according to the professional qualifications of key personnel that will perform the services listed in the attached DES Statement of Work. Offerors have the discretion to submit the number of key personnel that they deem appropriate to perform the DES

SOW, and a failure to demonstrate key personnel in the array of technical and management disciplines required to perform the DES SOW tasks could result in the offeror being considered less qualified.

When evaluating the professional qualifications of key personnel, the EPA will consider the following areas: education, such as the level and focus of degrees or programs; demonstrated experience on an environmental remediation contract of a similar scope, complexity, and/or geographic size as the particular CLIN; certifications, licenses, or demonstrated experience in the proposed DES SOW task areas; and overall knowledge and adherence to applicable regulations.

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

As presented in Sections C, D, E, F, and Part II of the firm’s SF 330, plus any narrative the offeror presents in Section H, the offeror will be evaluated on its ability to perform the DES requirement in all regions within the CLIN. This may include both current capability and/or planned strategies that demonstrate the offeror’s ability to perform the work in each region. The offeror will also be evaluated on its knowledge of the locality of the DES requirement, such as knowledge of the types of sites that are present in each region as well as the regulations that are particular to the states within each region.

5. Capacity to staff the contract and accomplish the work in the required time.

As presented in Sections C, D, E, and Part II of the SF 330, plus any narrative the offeror presents in Section H, the offeror will be evaluated on its ability to implement a quality system, i.e.

management processes and procedures, and capacity to staff the contract in a manner that ensures effective and timely completion. Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to attract, hire, manage, and retain a balanced and qualified workforce in the disciplines required to perform all DES SOW tasks. Offerors will be evaluated on the breadth and depth of technical disciplines and areas of expertise contained within the proposed team, as well as the strength of their succession planning.

Technical Evaluation Rating Definitions

The SF 330 responses will be evaluated according to the following adjectival ratings scales. Technical capability and past performance will be rated separately.

Overall technical capability for Factors 1, 3, 4, and 5 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, according to the following table:

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:

Past Performance Rating

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.

V. SUBMISSION INFORMATION

SF 330 Form

The completed SF 330 shall not exceed 75 pages and shall use a minimum of 12-point, Times New

Roman, Arial, or Calibri font, using 8.5” X 11”size paper only and minimum margin sizes that are consistent with the GSA Standard Form 330. The text for graphics and tables may be reduced to 8-point font. Part II may also utilize 8-point font. The stated page limit does not include tab pages that contain no text narrative, the cover letter, the front and back cover of the SF 330, table of contents, any provided acronym list, any provided disclosure statement, Sections A-D, or Part II of the SF 330. Besides these items, all other information submitted as part of an offeror’s SF 330 will be evaluated as part of the 75-page limit. Graphics may be integrated into the body of the SF 330 and/or submitted as separate attachments. There is no page limitation for any individual section or portion of the SF 330 or attachment(s), as long as the total number of pages for Part I, Sections E through I, including associated attachments for Sections E through I, does not exceed 75 pages. Any pages or associated attachments submitted in excess of 75 pages for Part I, Sections E through I, will not be evaluated.

There is no limit to the proposed team members that may be submitted in Section C; however, please note that Section C is intended for the firms that will play a key role on the contract, to include the members of the proposed team and any branch offices that will play a key role. Other branch offices

(non-key role) may be submitted as part of Part II.

Please reference the GSA Standard Form 330 Instructions for further guidance on completing the SF 330 (Attachment 5).

Note: Based on the feedback received on the previous two drafts of the Request for SF 330s, EPA has elected not to use the Microsoft Access digital form during the contract award stage. Instead, the

Microsoft Access digital form and resulting SF 330 database will be utilized during the task order award stage. Contract awardees will be required to re-submit their SF 330(s) in Microsoft Access format using the EPA Microsoft Access SF 330 digital form after contract award to facilitate Agency review of contractor information during the task order fair opportunity process.

Electronic Submission and Due Date

Offerors shall submit a separate SF 330 for each CLIN for which they would like to be considered.

Only electronic submissions of the SF 330(s) in Adobe .pdf file format will be accepted.

Attachments associated with the SF 330(s) shall also be submitted in Adobe .pdf file format.

Offerors shall upload the completed SF 330(s) to the Contracting Officer through FedConnect

(www.fedconnect.net) by Friday, January 29, 2016 by 5 p.m. ET.

http://www.fedconnect.net/

Questions

The due date for questions has already passed. Please refer to the Questions and Answers posted on

December 21, 2015 and January 20, 2016.

Past Performance Questionnaires / Reports

Completed questionnaires are due to the Contracting Officer by Friday, January 29, 2016 by 5 p.m. ET.

Questionnaires should be emailed to Nadia Velasco at velasco.nadia@epa.gov directly from clients.

Clients providing input and/or submitting questionnaires should hold a Contracting Officer, Contracting

Officer’s Representative, or Program/Project Manager role on the contract (or similar active position).

Offerors may submit performance evaluation reports such as CPARS/ACASS or NAVFAC/USACE in lieu of asking clients to submit completed questionnaires to the Contracting Officer. However, offerors are not precluded from submitting both types of past performance information. Performance evaluation reports may either be submitted through FedConnect as an attachment to accompany the offeror’s SF

330, or the offeror may email the performance evaluation reports to the Contracting Officer separately.

For more information on the Past Performance Questionnaire, please refer to the Questions and Answers posted on December 21, 2015 and January 20, 2016.

VI. ATTACHMENTS:

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

1) DES Statement of Work (revised January 20, 2016)

2) LOFC clause and COI clauses/provisions (revised January 20, 2016)

3) Past Performance Questionnaire

4) Client Authorization Letter

5) GSA Standard Form 330 Instructions mailto:velasco.nadia@epa.gov