W911S620R0002 Amendment 0002.docx

W911S620R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 06-Jul-2021 10:00 AM to 07-Jul-2021 03:00 PM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

1. Evaluation Factors for Award

a. Basis for Contract Award

(1) This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Award will be made to a single offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable offer.

(2) Trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors is not permitted. Unreasonably high/unrealistically low, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals, may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

(3) The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

b. Award for All of the Work. The Government will award One (1) contract as a result of this solicitation. Offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in the Bid Schedule will be considered ineligible for award. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award one (1) contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. The Government will only conduct discussions of those proposals determined within the competitive range. All other proposal will be determined unsuccessful and the offerors notified accordingly If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

c. Evaluation Criteria

(1) Evaluation criteria consist of factors. The proposals will be evaluated under 3 evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Mission Capability Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

(2) Factor 1 - Mission Capability Factor. The Mission Capability Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements.

In their description, offerors shall identify their approach in meeting the service requirements as stated in the PWS. In their approach, the offeror shall demonstrate their ablilty to comply with the Mission Capability Elements as stated in Paragraph C.3.(b)(3)i. located in Section L of this document.

1) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed waste management process. To receive an acceptable rating the offeror’s process shall address the below in compliance with the Performance Work Statement, paragraphs 5.1.3 and 5.3 and DPG’s Utah Permit B, Appendixes 1-01 and 3-01.

a) The offeror’s process shall state how waste will be identified; both by type (non-hazardous, non-chemical agent-related hazardous, and chemical agent-related hazardous waste) and kind (e.g. used oil, solvents) as that identified in the PWS and DPG’s Utah Permit B.

b) The offeror’s process shall state when sample testing is required and the process and documentation to be used to conduct and record sampling of both non-chemical agent-related hazardous, and chemical agent-related hazardous waste.

c) Offeror’s certification of a minimum of three years of hazardous waste experience of the same or similar scope and nature as that identified in the PWS and DPG’s Utah Permit B with no violations, fines, citations or other adverse performance record by it and those subcontractors who directly support waste handling.

2) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed transportation and disposal process. To receive an acceptable rating the offeror’s process shall address the below in compliance with the performance Work Statement, DPG’s Utah Permit B, and applicable federal and state laws and regulations.

a) The offeror shall certify that it possess, or its subcontractor, possess all required transportation permits, certifications (both for the company/subcontractor and the individual (e.g. drives and those who do sampling)) and equipment to perform the contract.

b) The offeror shall identify all waste disposal sites site to be used, the type of waste that will be disposed at each site (non-hazardous, non-chemical agent-related hazardous, and chemical agent-related hazardous) and certify that each site is properly licensed/certified to handle that type of waste in accordance with the DPG Utah Permit B and all applicable federal and state laws and regulations.

c) Offeror’s certification of a minimum of three years of waste transportation and disposal experience with no violations, fines, citations or other adverse performance record by the offeror, its teaming or joint venture partners and its subcontractors.

3) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed chemical agent-related hazardous waste handling, analysis and disposal process. To receive an acceptable rating the offeror’s process shall address the below in compliance with the Performance Work Statement paragraph 5.2.3, DPG’s Utah Permit B, Appendix 1-01, and all applicable federal and state laws and regulations.

a) The offeror’s proposal shall identify how the appropriate waste analysis parameters will be determined.

b) The offeror’s proposal shall identify the methodology to be used to prepare and transport solids and liquids.

c) The offeror’s proposal shall identify the offeror’s process to identify the type of chemical agent-related hazardous waste (e.g. mask filters), how and by what personnel the appropriate waste analysis parameter will be determined, and the unique health and safety protocols applicable to the receipt, storage, transportation and disposal of chemical agent-related hazardous waste

4) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the RCRA and Clean Air Act. To receive an acceptable rating the offeror’s process shall address the below in compliance with the Performance Work Statement paragraphs 5.9, 5.15, and 5.16 in addition to DPG’s Utah Permit B, Appendix 1-01, and all applicable federal and state laws and regulations.

a) The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate that the offeror has successfully performed contacts subject to both the RCRA and Clean Air Act.

b) The offeror shall demonstrate how it will ensure that the offeror’s performance under the resultant contract will be managed to ensure full compliance with the RCRA, Clean Air Act, and Utah Permit B.

c) The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate experience in the applications of the requirement of federal and state laws/regulations, RCRA, Clean Air Act and the Utah Permit B to the PWS. Specifically, advising the Government on the impact of these document to a specific action or development and conduct of training on related to once or more of these laws and regulations.

5) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed organization, manpower, and skills. To receive an acceptable rating the offeror shall how the proposed organization and labor mix will perform the work described in the PWS. This will include work by subcontractors, consultants, suppliers, and others under the Contractor's employ as they relate to the PWS and the contract.

a) The offeror’s proposed organization’s management and manning demonstrates the offeror’s understanding the performance requirements.

b) The proposed manning, both number of personnel and labor categories used, is justified in the proposal.

6) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed key personnel, both Government and offeror identified. To receive an acceptable rating the offeror’s process shall address the below in compliance with the PWS, paragraph 1.6.10.

a) Primary and Alternate Project/Site Manager (Contract Manager)

b) RCRA Specialist or equivalent position must have either #1 or #2 below:

1. Shall possess BS degree (or equivalent), Shall possess a Certified Hazardous Material Manager (CHMM), Shall have a minimum of five years of demonstrated professional experience in the area of RCRA regulatory enforcement or compliance program work.

2. ALTERNATELY, The RCRA Specialist may be a Registered Environmental Manager (REM) AND have a minimum of five years of demonstrated experience in the area of RCRA regulatory enforcement or compliance program work.

Shall have signed a letter of intent to work for the offeror if awarded a contract.

c) Clean Air Act Specialist or equivalent

Shall possess BS degree (or equivalent) Shall possess a minimum of five (5) years of demonstrated environmental compliance experience including specific experience with the CAA and applicable State regulations.

Shall have signed a letter of intent to work for the offeror if awarded a contract.

d) Contractor Identified Key Personnel.

For each individual identified to fill an offeror’s identified Key Position the individual shall possess the minimum experience and education and experience identified by the offeror for the position.

Shall have for each individual a signed a letter of intent to work the offeror if awarded a contract.

The Mission Capability Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below. The element ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

(3) Factor 2 - Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

- Quality of Service

- Schedule

- Customer Satisfaction

(a) Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Contract requirements.

(b) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(c) Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature of work, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. Recent past performance is defined as not more than 3 years from the RFP release date; relevant in terms of similar nature of work, size and complexity.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

(d) The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality(satisfactory performance on previous contracts) and applicability (was the work performed on previous contracts similar to the requirements established in this solicitation) as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

(e) Assigning Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the ratings defined below.

Table 4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

(f) Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(4) Factor 3 – Price. Price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b). Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete and balanced.

Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). As part of price evaluation, the government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding one-half of the offeror's final option period price to the offeror's total price. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option, and 1/2 of the 4th option. Offerors are not required to enter a price for the six-month period.

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

Definitions:

Reasonableness. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

Completeness/Accuracy. The offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the Price Volume instructions in the solicitation.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf