Solicitation Amendment W911SG22R0018 0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The reason for this amendment is to correct FAR 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 addendums.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Jun-2022

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W911SG22R0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-May-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

03-Jun-2022

CODE

MICC - FORT BLISS

111 PERSHING RD

FT BLISS TX 79916

W911SG 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911SG22R0018

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

FAR Provision 52.212-1 is tailored as follows:

PROPOSAL FORMAT AND PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 PROPOSAL FORMAT

In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the time for proposal evaluation, the paper proposal (and electronic proposal if printed) shall meet format requirements. The proposal shall be limited to the submission of the volumes specified in Table 3.1.1 below. Each volume shall be separately bound in three-ring loose-leaf binders, within the required page limits, and with the specified number of copies.

1.1.1 TEXT

Text type shall be Times New Roman. Except for the reproduced sections of the RFP document, the text size (font) shall be no less than 12-point with normal proportional spacing. Text lines shall have 1.5 line spacing. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software.

1.1.2 PAGE LIMITATIONS

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and (for paper copies) will not be returned to the Offeror. For electronic CD-ROM submission, no hidden fields, macros, comments, will be read. All information shall be written clearly and be easily accessible. Page limitations may also be placed on ENs, if required. The page limitations for ENs, if any, will be identified in the correspondence forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. When both sides of a sheet of paper display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate what is in the respective volume, which will not be counted in the page limits. In addition, the following will also not be counted in the maximum page limits: cover pages, tabs, cross-reference matrix, and glossaries. The page limitations specified in Table 3.1.1 shall be treated as maximum limits to assist in the evaluation of each proposal.

1.1.3 PAGE SIZE

A page is defined as each face of a 8 ½ x 11-inch sheet of paper containing information (excludes such things as blank pages, title pages, table of contents, tabs, dividers, glossaries, and indices). Page margins shall be a minimum of 1-inch each for the top, bottom and sides. All material must be contained within the page limits identified for each volume or appendix. The background color of each page of the proposal submission shall be white or ivory paper only. If Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) are required, the same initial proposal page limitations apply for each volume or appendix. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs, and to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

1.1.4 TABLES, CHARTS, GRAPHS, AND FIGURES

Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and/or task layout, schedules, plans. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size when printed. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume and count as two (2) pages. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 10 point. Text lines in all tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall have single (1) line spacing. All tables, charts, graphs and figures will be included in the page count. Any tables, charts, graphs and/or figures containing smaller than Times New Roman 10 point font will be disregarded. This restriction applies to both electronic and hard copy proposals. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

1.1.5 TAB INDEXING

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. Tabs/indexes will not count against the page limitations for the respective volume.

1.1.6 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations, acronyms, and/or terms used, with explanation corresponding definition for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

1.1.7 BINDING AND LABELING

Each volume shall be separately bound and labeled in standard three-ring, loose leaf binders, and clearly identified on the front and side. The binders should permit the volume to lie flat when open, and allow for easy removal and replacement of pages. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, RFP number and the Offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Offeror Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

1.1.8 ELECTRONIC MEDIA OFFERS AND SUBMISSION

1.1.8.1 To enable the Government to successfully view the proposals electronically, the Offerors shall submit their proposals in Microsoft Office, i.e., Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel format. These file formats shall be exact duplicates of the paper copies. The Government will use the electronic copies in the evaluation process. The Government may use the electronic/CD proposal for all purposes; however, there is no requirement for the Government to compare or verify the consistency of the electronic proposal to the paper proposal. In the case of an identified dispute or variation in content, the electronic submitted proposal shall be deemed and treated as the official version for all purposes. Each CD-ROM case and the CD-ROM itself must be labeled as to the Offeror and numbered sequentially in the required number of copies.

1.1.8.2 File Preparation. All text, including table and figure identifiers, shall be indexed and 100% searchable text using Microsoft Word. All text shall be displayed as a font and not displayed as a bitmap in any proposal volume or appendix to facilitate the ability to copy and paste to another document.

1.1.8.3 Font and Page Setup. Text font and layout shall be as stated for paper copies.

1.1.8.4 Other Requirements. The Offeror shall not embed sound or video files into the proposal files. Minimize the use of scanned images and keep embedded graphics as simple as possible.

1.1.8.5 Proposal Format and Structure. Each volume of the electronic proposal shall be in its own subdirectory on the CD-ROM, sequentially labeled Volume I through Volume IV. Volume IV, Price, shall be submitted on a separate CD-ROM.

1.1.8.6 Proposal Table of Contents file. This file serves as a table of contents for the proposal information. Also include the list of key terms used in the proposal with their definitions, and a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in the proposal.

1.1.8.7 Cost/Price Data File. Submit an electronically encoded cost/price model in support of the proposed cost/price. Any cost/price model submitted must be consistent with the Offeror’s approved estimating system and must duplicate the logic and mathematical formulas reflected in the paper copy of your proposal. Formulas and tabs shall not be hidden and all links must link successfully to its intended target. Cost/price models submitted must comply with the following format requirements:

Data file shall be submitted on a CD. Data file shall be .XLS file format (MS-Excel 2016 or earlier) compatible format.

1.1.8.8 Viewing Environment. The Government anticipates viewing the electronic submittals with the following computer software and hardware: 1) IBM-compatible systems, 4.0 GB of RAM, nominal 19-inch color monitors, and standard CD ROM readers, 2) Windows 10 operating system, 3) Microsoft Office 2016.

1.1.9 ELECTRONIC REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

All referenced documents for this RFP are available at the Army Publishing Directorate at http://www.apd.army.mil/.

1.1.10 PRICING INFORMATION

1.1.11 CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Proposals shall not contain classified information.

2.0 PROPOSAL VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS AND OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION

2.1 VOLUMES

Offers will consist of four (4) separate proposal volumes: General & Contract Documentation, Technical Proposal, Past Performance, and Price.

2.1.1 PROPOSAL VOLUMES ORGRANIZATION, NUMBER OF COPIES, AND PAGE LIMITS

The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in Table 2.1.1 and these instructions. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be in accordance with Table 2.1.1. “Original” designates paper/printed submission.

Table 2.1.1 - Proposal Organization

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE COPIES PAGE LIMIT

I General & Contract

Documentation Original + 1

+ 1 CD-ROM

No Limit

II Technical Proposal

- Equipment and Staffing Plan

- Quality Control Plan

- Record Keeping, Data Collection and Reports

Original + 1 +1

CDROM

Total 60

III Past Performance Original + 1

See Para 8.0

IV Price Original + 1

No Limit

3.0 MAILING REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL MARKING OF PROPOSAL

3.1 Envelopes or other cover for material submitted in response to this RFP shall be opaque, and must be so presented that they may easily be identified. Offerors shall ensure that the sealed envelope or package used to submit the proposal shows the postmark time and date of receipt by the postal service, the RFP number, and the name and address of the Offeror.

3.2 Offerors shall ensure that mailed proposals (USPS, FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) are sent to the following address:

Mission & Installation Contracting Command-Fort Bliss Attn: Elsa Gomez W911SG22R0018

111 Pershing Road Fort Bliss, Texas 79916

3.3 Hand-delivered proposals will conform to all of the requirements in the above section 3.0. The Offeror shall deliver the proposal to the contracting office identified in paragraph 3.2 above. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the sealed proposal package is marked with the date and time the proposal was accepted.

3.4 Electronic submissions via email or facsimile will not be accepted. Offers shall be mailed through a commercial/Government carrier or hand carried.

4.0 BIDDER’S LIBRARY

There will not be a physical Bidder’s Library. All unclassified RFP documents including PWS attachments are available on the SAM.gov website. All referenced publications for this RFP are available at the Army Publishing Directorate at http://www.apd.army.mil/.

5.0 VOLUME I – GENERAL & CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

5.1 Volume I must be clearly marked “VOLUME I - GENERAL & CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION, RFP W911SG-22-R-0018.” Offerors are required to submit a completed SF 1449 (Solicitation, Offer and Award) (including acknowledgment of all Amendments), Pricing offered in ITEM NO 0001 through ITEM NO 2015 of Section SF 1449 Continuation Sheet, and the offers Reps and Certs.. All final monetary extensions shall be in whole dollars only (to include unit prices). The General Volume shall be organized as follows and contain the identified information.

5.1.1 SF 1449 Solicitation, Offer and Award. The SF 1449 shall be submitted fully completed. The Offeror is cautioned that the SF 1449 must contain an original signature in block 30a of the form. Ensure the following blocks are completed:

17a – Name and Address of Offeror (include DUNS number, CAGE Code, Tax-ID number, and address) 17a – Telephone No. (Include area code) Acknowledgment of Amendments 30a – Signature of Offeror/Contractor (must contain an original signature) 30b – Printed name and title of signer 30c – Offer Date

5.1.2 Amendment of Solicitation. The Contractor shall acknowledge any amendments to the RFP in accordance with the instructions on the amendment of the solicitation, FAR 52.215-1(b), Instruction to Offerors—Commercial Items.

Ensure the following blocks are completed:

Name and Address of Contractor Printed Name and Title of Signer Signature of Contractor/Offeror (original signature required) Date signed

5.1.3 Authorized Representatives. The Offeror shall provide a letter signed by an officer of the company, on company letterhead, which identifies the name, title and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

5.1.4 Representation, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors. The Offeror shall ensure that Reps and Certs is submitted thoroughly completed with all blocks in each certification/representation completed truthfully and completely. System for Award Management (SAM) is an e-Government initiative that consolidates the capabilities previously found in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA).

5.1.5 When proposing as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture shall sign the SF 1449 and Corporate Certificate unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. In addition, the Offeror shall submit a copy of the joint venture agreement with the proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration. Note: JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENTS - Joint Ventures are allowable, however, the SBA must receive the joint venture agreement prior to proposal due date and approved before award of any resulting contract. If an Offeror is contemplating a joint venture on this project, it must advise its assigned SBA Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS) as soon as possible. It is also recommended that the agreement be submitted as soon as practicable to ensure compliance with established regulations. Any corrections and/or changes needed can be made only when its BOS has adequate time for a thorough review before the proposal due date. NO

CORRECTIONS AND/OR CHANGES ARE ALLOWED AFTER TIME OF SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL.

5.1.6 Exceptions or Assumptions to Terms and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Since the Government intends to award without discussions Offerors are advised that taking exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation may result in the proposal being found unacceptable without clarification. Clarification of any requirements or notice of any contractor exceptions or assumptions shall be handled by submitting a question/recommended change prior to question submittal due date and proposal submittal. All assumptions/clarifications must be finalized prior to Final Proposal Revisions, if discussions conducted. If the Offeror still finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, clearly indicate each exception in the appropriate volume along with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and what benefit accrues to the Government. All exceptions to the solicitation requirements and supporting rationale shall be identified as such and consolidated into an overview section of the subject volume using the format and content of Table 5.1. An overview section is only required if the Offeror takes exception to any requirement in the solicitation.

Table 5.1 - Solicitation Exceptions

SOLICITATION

Document

Page/ Paragraph

Requirement/ Portion

Rationale

PWS, Model Contract, ITO

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met

6.0 VOLUME II – FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

6.1 GENERAL

The Technical Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims in the Offeror’s proposal. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. The Government will evaluate offers against the Technical factors defined in Evaluation Factors for Award. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (including referenced publications, technical data); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” will be considered unacceptable.

Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

6.2 FORMAT AND SPECIFIC CONTENT

At a minimum, the Technical Capability Volume shall be prepared in a form consistent with the PWS and the evaluation criteria for award as set forth in this solicitation. The section shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to enable the Government to make a thorough evaluation of the Offeror’s technical competence and ability to comply with the contract task requirements specified in the PWS.

6.3 VOLUME ORGANIZATION

The volume shall address the technical capability sub factors and be organized according to the following general outline:

Table of Contents List of Table and Drawings Cross Reference Matrix Glossary Subfactor 1: Equipment and Staffing Plan Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan Subfactor 3: Record Keeping, Data Collection, and Reports

6.3.1 SUBFACTOR 1: Equipment and Staffing Plan. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s specific resources that will be used to perform the work in the solicitation in accordance with the following functions of the Performance Work Statement (PWS):

• CLS 403, 2.2 Schedules

• CLS 403, 2.4 Collection Containers

• CLS 403, 2.5 Collection Vehicles

• CLS 403, 2.5.3 Scales

• CLS 403, 2.5.4 Fleet Management System

EQUIPMENT: The offeror’s proposed equipment listing will be evaluated to determine whether it is realistic and adequate to satisfy PWS requirements. The evaluation will include an assessment of –

• The proposed number of vehicles and types that will be used in the contract, to include age, and condition.

• Contractor’s approach/plan to repairs/modify/fabricate refuse containers that will and can be performed on-site. Manpower and or material requirements specified for repairs to containers.

• Offeror’s plan for replacing aging and damaged refuse containers beyond repair. Does the

Contractor plan to just buy new ones, or will there be any cannibalizing or salvaging of containers to maintain containers needing minor repair?

• Details or specifications of scales used by the Contractor for weighing refuse containers: In

Motion scales, Dynamic scales, static scales, scales on bolts, new forks on scales?

• Details regarding sensor technology to be used for refuse containers and equipment.

• Details for the integration method for scale communication with GPS and container number.

• Details explaining Fleet Management System used for collecting data from refuse containers and equipment.

• Details on sensor capabilities to meet or exceed minimum requirements and accuracy for container maintenance and collection.

• Details on Fleet Management System installed on trucks.

• Details on system notification and dispatch when containers have reached 80-95% fill capacity.

• Details on the approach/method for meeting installations cleaning and sanitizing of containers and equipment.

• Details on the adequacy of the Offeror’s approach to procurement and placement of contractor furnished property and receipt of government furnished property from Fort Bliss prior to performance start date.

STAFFING: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed staffing approach to ensure adequacy and soundness of the Offeror’s workforce, ensuring sufficient labor hours and skill mix for performing all functions stated in the PWS. The evaluation will include an assessment of--

• CLS 403, 2.0 Description of Services

• Overarching, 2.2.2 Transition (PhaseIn/Phase Out)

• Overarching, 2.4.3 Contractor Key Personnel

• Overarching, 2.4.4 Contractor Requirements

• Overarching, 2.17.1 Certifications

Staffing shall be evaluated to assess the following:

• Detail the Offeror’s staffing narrative which describes the mechanisms that will be employed to recruit, retain, and replenish (when necessary) sufficient number of qualified personnel to ensure successful accomplishment of contract performance.

• Detail the Offeror’s explanation of any and all deviation from the Government baseline, including how the deviation will be successful as well as supporting calculations of hours proposed.

• Detail the Offeror’s plan for obtaining all personnel resources prior to the performance start date, to include how the contractor’s hiring approach will minimize disruption to the Government’s normal operations.

• Detail Contractor’s work history for key personnel.

• Detail how will the Contractor obtain all personnel, resources, required prior to the performance start date.

• Detail how the Contractor has employees that are familiar with equipment specified in this PWS.

6.3.1 SUBFACTOR 2: Quatlity Control Plan. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s Quality Control Plan (QCP), according to Overarching PWS paragraph 3.1 and 3.2, to include the proposed inspection system, including frequency and methods of identifying and preventing deficiencies for contract functions listed below:

• Overarching, 3.2 Quality Control Plan

• CLS 403, 1.2 Deliverables

• CLS 403, 2.1 Scope

• CLS 403, 2.2.2 Specific Tasks Routes/Schedules Submittals

• CLS 403, 2.4 Collection Containers

• CLS 403, 2.5 Collection Vehicles

• CLS 403, 2.8 Reports

• CLS 402, 3.1 Collection Stations and Contractor Laydown Area

The QCP will be evaluated to assess the following:

• Detail QC staff structure

• Detail methods of identifying deficiencies in the quality of services, inspection techniques and process control methods to adequately ensure performance.

• Detail methods and processes to correct and prevent continuous deficiencies and defects in services.

• Detail proposed methods of developing and maintaining records of inspections and corrective actions, and their distribution to the Government.

• Detail execution of a customer complaint feedback system to include the proposed use of forms.

• Detail QC follow up on corrective actions.

• Detail backup system in case of equipment malfunction to minimize interruption or delays.

• Detail estimated timeframes for getting system back online when malfunction occurs.

• Detail method specified for providing and maintaining inventory of GFE.

6.3.1.2 SUBFACTOR 3: Record Keeping, Data Collection, and Reports. This subfactor will evaluate the data collection, record keeping, and report deliverables in accordance with the PWS for accomplishing the procedures for the contract functions listed below:

• Overarching, 6.0 Deliverables

The Data Collection Plan will be evaluated to determine:

• Details on report generation and tabulation methods to be used by contractor

• Details on how to establish what data will be reported at initial phase in to equipment being installed. Details on utilization of sensor data once installation and integration have started.

• How will the Contractor report when system malfunction occurs?

• Details on Contractor’s approach to phase in all sensors and how data from other equipment into a report.

• Details on method for Contractor obtaining 100% inventory of what is provided to him and history of issues with equipment problems.

• Details on how the contractor will maintain a 100% accurate inventory and be able to account for all containers at all times.

• Details on the offeror’s Phase-In Plan and how it sufficiently addresses how the

Contractor will initially start recording data on automated refuse program.

• Provided feedback in regards to years of experience and similar reports provided using like or similar equipment.

7.0 VOLUME III – FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

7.1 The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant Past Performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation and as defined in Evaluation FAR 52.212-2.

Past Performance information described herein is required on the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 15% of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. The Offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter, executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror's performance.

7.1.1 Early Proposal Information. The Offeror is requested, but not required, to submit the Past Performance Volume any time prior to the closing of the RFP to the Contracting Specialist at the address specified in Evaluation

FAR 52-212-2.

7.1.2 The Offeror shall include documentation regarding their relevant past performance as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. The Offeror shall not go back any farther than five years for the submitted data. The past performance data shall document a successful history of past contract performance.

7.1.3 In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate Offeror past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the Offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested by this paragraph risk rejection or a less than acceptable performance rating by the Government. All past performance comments received will be taken into account and could affect the overall rating. The overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received. In the case of an Offeror 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 (see FAR

15.305 (a) (2) (iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

7.1.4 Submission Requirements. The Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following:

Table of Contents

Summary Page describing the role of the Offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and /or joint venture partner that the Offeror is required to provide Past Performance Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets for the past performance experience in accordance with Attachment 1.

Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the Offeror can respond to such information. (A sample consent letter is attached as Attachment 2).

Client Authorization Letters for each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror’s performance.

Organization Structure Change History— Organizational Structure Change History. Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

Specific Relevant Contracts Format - Sheets in accordance with Attachment 1 and are limited to 3 pages per reference. The Offeror shall provide documentation outlining the Offeror’s past performance with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, which is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this Solicitation. The submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate.

7.1.5 Past Performance Questionnaire. - See Attachment 3, Past Performance Questionnaire. For the contracts identified on each Specific Relevant Contract Reference, the Offeror shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. The points of contact shall return the questionnaires directly to Elsa Gomez, Contract Specialist, via email elsa.gomez.civ@army.mil no later than 3:00 PM MST on 13 June 2022. Any questionnaires not returned directly to the CS will not be reviewed and evaluated. The information contained in the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance. New entities that have no past customers shall annotate on the Summary Page that they have had no previous clients and that the minimum number of questionnaires cannot be provided.

8.0 VOLUME IV – FACTOR 3: PRICE

8.1 Price is not assigned a rating or scored. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s total proposed price for ITEM NO 0001 through ITEM NO 2015 of Section SF 1449 Continuation Sheet to determine if the Offeror’s proposed prices are fair and reasonable, complete and balanced utilizing price analysis techniques in accordance with the guidelines in FAR 15.404-1. The Price Schedule shall be evaluated to ensure a fair and reasonable price according to this Section. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

8.2 A breakout of all labor (direct and indirect), material, automated systems, and vehicle costs to include profit shall be provided in an excel format on the CD. The Offeror’s proposal shall include all cost inputs including direct labor cost (number and classification of positions assumed), operating costs, field overhead, equipment, corporate overhead, profit; making it clear that cost inputs explain their respective impact on the proposed costs.

8.3 The Government reserves the right to require the submission of Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data if it is deems necessary to arrive at a fair and reasonable price.

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) 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). The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price Factors. Contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Evaluation FAR 52.212-2 and is judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors deemed to be technically acceptable to the Government.

1.1 NUMBER OF AWARDS

Award for All of the Work. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in the Pricing 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 a 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 determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. 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.

1.2 COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the RFP may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exception to the RFP’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.

1.3 REJECTION OF PROPOSALS

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated and determined to be unacceptable, fails to comply with the contract terms and conditions, or is excessively high or low in cost/price.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the Offeror with the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable proposal were technical evaluation and past performance when combined are approximately equally important to cost/price factors. The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Equipment and Staffing Plan Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan Subfactor 3: Record Keeping, Data Collection, and Reports

Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows:

All evaluation factors, when combined, are considered approximately equally important as cost/price. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are:

-Technical Capability combined with Past Performance is approximately equally important as cost or price.

2.0.1 FACTOR 1 - Technical

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine whether the Offeror’s technical methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements as specified in the RFP. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine whether the Offeror has sufficiently addressed each requirement in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

Equipment and Staffing Plan. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s specific resources that will be used to perform the work in the solicitation in accordance with the following functions of the Performance Work Statement (PWS):

• CLS 403, 2.5 Collection Vehicles

STAFFING: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed staffing approach to ensure adequacy and soundness of the Offeror’s workforce, ensuring sufficient labor hours and skill mix for performing all functions stated in the PWS. The evaluation will include an assessment of –

• Overarching, 2.4.3 Contractor Key Personnel

• Overarching, 2.17.1 Certifications

Quality Control Plan. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s Quality Control Plan (QCP), according to Overarching PWS paragraph 3.2, to include the proposed inspection system, including frequency and methods of identifying and preventing deficiencies for contract functions listed below:

• Overarching, 3.2 Quality Control Plan

• CLS 403, 1.2 Deliverables

• CLS 403, 2.1 Scope

• CLS 403, 2.2.2 Specific Tasks Routes/Schedules Submittals

• CLS 403, 2.4 Collection Containers

• CLS 403, 2.5 Collection Vehicles

Record Keeping, Data Collection, and Reports. This subfactor will evaluate the data collection, record keeping, and report deliverables in accordance with the PWS for accomplishing the procedures for the contract functions listed below:

2.0.2 RATING SCHEME FOR FACTOR 1-Technical

Separate Technical/Risk Rating. The offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each subfactor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below, and then there will be an overall roll-up adjectival rating at the factor level. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. Any sub-factor that receives unacceptable rating will result in an overall unacceptable rating for the factor and are not eligible for award. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Technical evaluations shall utilize the ratings listed in Table 1.

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

3.0 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

3.1 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:

- Business Relations

- Quality of Service

- Schedule

- Cost Control

- Customer Satisfaction

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

3.3 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 five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Additionally, the Government will not consider any contract where performance began within six (6) months prior to the release date of this RFP. Past performance information that fails these conditions will not be evaluated.

3.4 Relevancy Assessment. Each recent past performance reference shall undergo a relevancy determination.

Relevant performance includes performance of efforts that are similar in nature, size, scope and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation. Relevant contracts include any MSW with Federal, State, or residential experience.

For the purpose of this evaluation, the term “Offeror” includes the prime Offeror and/or teaming members and major subcontractors. Relevance of an effort in which the Offeror participated under a joint venture or subcontracting arrangement will be determined based on the work performed by the Offeror. If a third party or customer cannot discern what work the Offeror performed, this effort will not be considered relevant.

3.5 The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance assessment.

3.6 Relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical 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. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a "Unknown/Neutral" confidence rating.

Table 3 is the past performance relevancy ratings

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 4 is the past performance recency ratings

Table 4. Performance Recency Assessments

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.

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.

3.7 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.”

4.0 FACTOR 4 – PRICE

4.1 The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s total proposed price for proposed pricing to determine if the Offeror’s proposed prices are fair and reasonable utilizing price analysis techniques in accordance with the guidelines in FAR 15.404-1. ITEM NO 0001 through ITEM NO 2015 of Section SF 1449 Continuation Sheet. The price for FAR Clause 52.217-8 for the six month extension will be added to the prices in ITEM NO 2001 through ITEM NO 2014 of Section SF 1449 Continuation Sheet. The FAR Clause 52.217-8 price equals 6-month’s of Option Year 2 prices from Section SF 1449 Continuation Sheet of the RFP. No other factors will be used to determine pricing. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Cost/price realism may be used and considered in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations. A breakout of all labor (direct and indirect), material, automated systems, and vehicle costs to include profit shall be provided in an excel format on the CD. The Offeror’s proposal shall include all cost inputs including direct labor cost (number and classification of positions assumed), operating costs, field overhead, equipment, corporate overhead, profit; making it clear that cost inputs explain their respective impact on the proposed costs.

4.2 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.

4.3 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.

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

5.0 RFP REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all RFP requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the RFP may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the RFP terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(i) technical capability of the item offered to meet the Government requirement;

(ii) price;

(iii) past performance;

Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal when compared to price.

Competition is restricted to HUBZone firms nationwide.

Submit RFP to:

Mission & Installation…