A2.1_Solicitatiion_Released.pdf

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

W91238-16-Q-0052 09-Sep-2016

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

916-557-7929

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

12:00 AM 10 Oct 2016

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012)

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

ADDENDA ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

23.

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TELEPHONE NO.

W912389. ISSUED BY

18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a. UNLESS BLOCK

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

TILDEN L BROOKS

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

0 27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

20.

ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

(BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN

% FOR:SET ASIDE:UNRESTRICTED OR X

SMALL BUSINESSX

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL

BUSINESS (WOSB)

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO

CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J STREET

SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

13b. RATING

CODE15. DELIVER TO CODE 16. ADMINISTERED BY

SEE SCHEDULE

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFPX

FAX:

TEL: SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS

(EDWOSB)

SIZE STANDARD:

7,500,000.00

NAICS:

531320

X

OFFER DATED

29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF.

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

EMAIL:

TEL:

31c. DATE SIGNED

SEE SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICESITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

24.22.21.19.

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

PAGE 2 OF46

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f . TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINALPARTIALCOMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT

41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012) BACK

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

SEE SCHEDULE

20.

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

21.

QUANTITY UNIT

22. 23.

UNIT PRICE

24.

AMOUNT

19.

ITEM NO.

W91238-16-Q-0052

Section SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Each

Highest & Best Use

FFP

Contractor to provide a written report of findings and preliminary conclusions regarding the highest & best use of the property and the larger parcel analysis. The report will be delivered by 3 January 2017 to The Real Estate Division, Sacramento District Corps of Engineers, 1325 J Street, Sacramento , CA 95814.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

0002 1 Job

Oral Report, Highest & Best

FFP

Contractor to provide an oral report/presentation, augmenting the Highest & Best use report of Clin 1. The report is to be delivered in person by the lead appraiser at the Sacramento District Corps of Engineers Office, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Additional staff/experts may be included in the presentation as deemed necessary by the appraiser.

0003 1 Job

OPTION Appraisal Oral Report

FFP

Contractor to provide and oral presentation of the analysis and conclusions prior to the submission of the final draft appraisal report. This presentation will be in person at the Sacramento District Corps of Engineers Office, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

0004 1 Each

Final Appraisal

FFP

Contractor to provide a written appraisal report with final conclusions and all required documentation, that is compliant with USPAP and UASFLA requirements. Final Appraisal to be subbmitted to the Chief, Real Estate Division, Sacaramento District Corps of Emgineers, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

0005 1 Job

Final Appraisial Documents

FFP

Contractor to provide four (4) original final reports and a PDF format version of the final report are to be delivered by overnight delivery to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Attn: CESPK-RE-B (William Casale)

1325 J Street

Sacramento, CA 95814-2922

William.j.casale@usace.army.mil

Ph: (916) 557-7386

PROJECT: Borel Appraisal 2

INVOICING

INVOICING AND PAYMENT

a. Invoices for payment shall be submitted upon completion of tasks as outlines in the pricing/payment schedule. Invoices shall include all necessary information, including any necessary supporting documentation and shall be submitted to:

Original invoice WITHOUT additional information or supporting documentation:

Finance Center Attn: CEFC_-FP 5722 Integrity Dr.

Millington, TN 38054-5005 CEFC-Payments@usace.army.mil

One copy each of Invoice WITH all required information including any necessary supporting documentation:

(May be mailed or emailed to the following individuals):

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn: CESPK-RE-B (William Casale)

1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 william.j.casale@usace.army.mil

Attn: CESPK-CT-B (Services – Tilden Brooks Jr.)

1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 tilden.l.brooks@usace.army.mil Ph: (916) 557-7929 Fax: (916) 557-7854

NOTE: All invoices must reflect the Contract number, Task Order, or BPA Call number and the final invoice must be marked “FINAL”.

b. Contract Payments. The Government shall pay the Contractor upon submission of Proper invoices for the services delivered and accepted for the portion of the work actually performed under the contract. Payment shall be made as indicated in the contract’s Payment Schedule not on percentage of completion. Deliverables as defined in the Payment Schedule of the contract must be accepted by the Government before payment will be made.

STATEMENT OF WORK

SECTION 1 – SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION & GENERAL INFORMATION

Summary Identification: The property is located at Lake Isabella, Kern County, CA; +/-42 miles northeast of Bakersfield, CA, off of State Highway 178 and State Highway 155, on the Kern River. The general area surrounding the property location is primarily recreational, offering water sports, hiking, camping, hunting and other recreational activities in the vicinity of the community of Lake Isabella.

The appraisal assignment is required for the proposed acquisition of easement rights owned by Southern California Edison (SCE) that pass through the Lake Isabella Dam. The dam was constructed in 1953 by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The easement underlies a conduit to convey water through the dam, which is then transported by canal to the Borel Power house approximately seven miles downstream. The hydropower plant preceded the dam. It has been producing power since 1904 and was acquired by SCE in 1917. According to USACE GIS information, the Borel project involves approximately 190 acres of Federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in addition to approximately 151 acres of land owned in fee by SCE, plus the easement through the Dam.

Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Intended Users: Authorized Personnel of USACE

Intended Use: For use by USACE, on behalf of the United States of America, in connection with the acquisition of the identified property rights and related legal actions as required for acquisition. The appraisal report is not intended for any other use.

Property Description: The easement, irregular in shape and typically about 150 feet (a portion is

200 feet wide) by approximately 2,943 feet long, is required in connection with the modification of the Isabella Dam to meet flood control safety requirements for the project.

The power facility itself involve a canal/flume water supply system traversing roughly seven miles below the dam to the powerhouse, then releasing the water back into the Kern River. Additionally, approximately five miles of canals and a diversion dam are located above the USACE dam that are required to supply water from the Kern River during periods of low water.

The power plant operates by virtue of a Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission license. Other than the existing canal system, there are currently no other known means of water delivery to the powerhouse.

According to USACE GIS estimates, the portion of the Borel Canal system located upstream of and including the Borel Conduit consists of about 200 acres. This includes those areas within the boundaries of Isabella Lake from where the North Fork of the Kern River enters into Isabella Lake and running south to the Auxiliary Dam, plus access roads.

Approximately 107 acres of the land underlying the upstream portion of the

Borel Canal system are owned in fee by SCE; 93 acres are owned in fee by the United States. Under historically average lake levels, all upstream Borel Canal system lands are submerged.

The portion of the Borel Canal system located downstream of the Borel

Conduit, consists of approximately 141 acres. Approximately 44 acres of land underlying this downstream portion of the Borel Conduit are owned in fee by SCE and 97 acres are owned by the United States, including lands administered by the USFS and BLM. SCE operates the Borel Canal system over these lands under SCE’s FERC/ USFS licenses, USFS easement, and Grants of Right of Way from BLM. The Borel powerhouse is located roughly seven miles downstream of the Auxiliary Dam. It is situated on about three acres of land owned in fee by the United States and administered by the USFS.

Table 1 on the following page shows the distribution of acreage composing the Borel project.

SCE operates the Borel Project pursuant to a license issued to SCE by the

FERC. The Borel Project’s original license was issued 28 February 1925, with a term expiring 28 February 1975. The current license was issued on 17 May 2006 and expires 40 years after issuance, in May 2046. SCE’s FERC license requires that SCE maintain and operate the Borel Project substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications approved, representing existing conditions of the Borel Project. Although SCE has some rights under its FERC license to convey minor real property interests without the FERC’s prior approval, SCE cannot convey real property rights that would interfere with the ability to operate the Borel Project absent express permission from the FERC.

Ownership/Occupant: The property rights required consist of an easement through the Lake Isabella

Dam. The Dam and fee title underlying it are United States property, managed by USACE. The easement rights to be acquired belong to SCE and allow delivery of water through the dam and eventually to the Borel Canal Powerhouse, owned and operated under FERC license as FERC Project No.

382-026.

Legal Description: The easement document describing the rights in question is attached as

Exhibit 1.

Larger Parcel Issues: The easement rights to be acquired are a part of the Borel Hydropower

Project. The lands encompassing the FERC license and the SCE holdings are depicted on maps included in Exhibit 2. This information shall be verified by the contractor. The contractor’s conclusion from the larger parcel analysis shall be communicated to USACE during Phase I of the contract.

TABLE 1

Borel Canal Ownership

Ownership Est. Acres

Upstream USACE Easement 10.70

USFS 36.25

Easement Structure 0.32 Easement Access Road 45.66 Federal subtotal 92.93 SCE fee 107.03 Total Upstream 199.96

Downstream

BLM 11.71

USFS 65.40

Patented 19.54 Federal subtotal 96.65 SCE fee 44.04 Total Downstream 140.69

Grand total 340.65 Source: USACE

Personal Property: None

Property Access: Access to the property is provided by State Route 178.

Inspection Permission: Access arrangements are to be made through the USACE point of contact, to be provided at the time of award.

Controversies / Issues: Should any controversies or issues of potential concern be identified by the contractor during the course of the assignment, the Contracting Officer (KO) shall be immediately notified.

Outstanding Rights: The interest being appraised is not fee simple; the interest in question is the “as is” value of the easement through the Lake Isabella Dam.

Provided Subject Property Information:

The following documents are attached:

x Original easement document x Easement map and legal description x Other map exhibits

SECTION 2 – APPRAISAL REQUIREMENTS

Appraisal Standards: The appraisal report shall conform to standards established by the Uniform

Standards of Professional Appraisal Standards (USPAP) and the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA, aka Yellow Book); and the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4601 et seq. (the Uniform Act); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs, 49 C.F.R. Part 24.

Market Value: This contract involves estimations of Market Value. Market Value is defined as: “The amount in cash, or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all probability the property would have sold on the effective date of the appraisal, after a reasonable exposure time on the open competitive market, from a willing and reasonably knowledgeable seller to a willing and reasonably knowledgeable buyer, with neither acting under any compulsion to buy or sell, giving due consideration to all available economic uses of the property at the time of the appraisal.” [Interagency Land Acquisition Conference, Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, 5th

ed. (Appraisal Institute, 2000), 13.]

Property Interest: The rights to be appraised consist of the value of the easement rights owned by SCE for water delivery through the Lake Isabella Dam.

Date of Value: The same as the date of last property inspection; which shall be within 30 calendar days of the submission of the completed appraisal report, unless the contractor receives written approval from the KO prior to preparation of the appraisal report.

Extraordinary The contractor may not assume or invoke any extraordinary assumption Assumption(s): without documented written approval from the KO.

Hypothetical Condition(s): None allowed without documented written approval from the KO.

Jurisdictional If the contractor perceives that USPAP’s Jurisdictional Exception Rule Exception: should be invoked to meet certain other standards in UASFLA, the contractor shall contact the KO.

SECTION 3 – APPRAISAL SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

There will be a telephonic post award Conference with the contracting officer prior to commencement of work.

Assignment Phasing: This appraisal assignment shall be conducted in two phases, as follows—

Phase One: Scope of Work and Highest & Best Use/Larger Parcel Analysis.

Each of the three tests of larger parcel (unity of use, unity of title, and physical contiguity or proximity) shall be fully developed and analyzed with all necessary supporting market data. Each of the three tests of larger parcel (unity of use, unity of title, and physical contiguity or proximity) are key components of the appraisal and analyzed with all necessary supporting market data. A written report of these analyses shall be provided to the client at the end of this phase. The report will be delivered to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn: CESPK-RE-B (William Casale)

1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 William.j.casale@usace.army.mil

Ph: (916) 557-7386

This assignment will require a thorough and detailed analysis of the highest and best use, in full compliance with this Statement of Work, UASFLA and USPAP, in consideration of the rights required by the Lake Isabella Dam Safety Project; the real property components of the SCE holdings as they relate to the Borel hydropower plant, including the existence and impact of any water rights.

An equally detailed and thorough larger parcel analysis is required, both as if vacant and as improved. Each of the four elements of highest and best use (physical possibility, legal permissibility, financial feasibility, and maximum productivity resulting in the highest value) shall be fully developed and analyzed with all necessary supporting market data.

Phase Two: Appraisal Completion.

Upon client approval of Phase One, and any necessary legal instructions, the contractor shall complete the appraisal assignment within the performance period.

The submitted appraisal report will be reviewed for compliance with the terms of this Statement-of-Work, UASFLA, USPAP and the Uniform Act. Unless other arrangements have been made, the repor will be reviewed within thirty-(30) calendar days of receipt. Findings ofinadequacy, if any, will require clarification and /or correction.

At the option of the government, the contractor may also be required to present their analysis and conclusions in an oral report to the client, in person.

Other Critical Decision Points.

If the contractor encounters other critical junctures or major decision points in the appraisal process, this shall be brought to the KO attention for situational awareness.

Values Provided: The appraisal report will provide a single point value conclusion. If the Phase One determinations call for a partial acquisition, it shall be developed through before and after valuation analyses; i.e. the difference in the Market Value of the larger parcel in the before condition and the Market Value of the remainder in the after condition.

Use of SMEs: The appraisal shall be in full conformance with the USPAP Competency

Rule and be the product of research and analysis contributed by subject matter experts. This may include or necessitate, but not be limited to, the use of a lead who assembles a team of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). SME team may include professionals such as but not limited to: a hydropower plant business valuation expert; a machinery & equipment appraiser experienced with salvage values pertaining to hydropower plants; and an economist versed in issues related to the power industry or others.

Notwithstanding, the contractor shall adhere to section D-4 of the Yellow Book in that the contractor cannot merely accept a consultants’ reports as accurate, but rather shall review such reports and adopt them only if reasonable and adequately documented and supported. Further, as noted in section D-15 of the Yellow Book, “An appraiser may not adopt unauthorized, unreasonable, or unsupported assumptions in making an appraisal in lieu of obtaining specialized consultation assistance.”

SECTION 4 – GENERAL APPRAISAL REQUIREMENTS

1. The contracted appraiser shall hold a valid State Certificate as a Certified General Appraiser, issued by the state of California, or a Certified General Appraiser license issued by another state AND a Temporary Practice Permit issued by the State of California.

2. The appraiser’s proposal shall result in credible assignment results for the intended use. The final appraisal report shall be self-contained in a document that sets forth the data considered, the appraisal procedures followed, and the reasoning employed in the appraisal, addressing each item in the depth and detail required by its significance to the appraisal and providing sufficient information so that the client and the users of the report shall understand the appraisal and not be misled or confused.

3. The contract, which includes this Statement-of-Work, shall be included within the addenda of the appraisal report.

4. The presentation format of the report shall conform to the sequence and content in the UASFLA.

5. To the extent warranted in support of the analysis of financial feasibility and with respect to any potential valuation of the hydropower plant, the following shall be included if necessary: a discussion of the energy market and forecasts for energy demand and prices; growth rates for energy prices; production forecasts, along with expense estimates; and methods of determining “book value” including market-to-book value ratios (M/B ratio). If called for, the appraisal shall include a discussion of how the Renewable Energy Credit ( REC) market works, the implications of California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards and how REC’s contribute to the value of the property.

6. The results of secondary valuation reports, such as equipment salvage valuations, cannot simply be added to the value of the land to arrive at a value of the property as a whole without proper analysis by the appraiser. To do so is a violation of the unit rule and professional standards. The appraiser shall consider these components of the property in light of how they contribute to the market value of the property as a whole.

7. For appraisals with an intended use of acquisition or exchange, the Uniform Act § 4651(2) and the

Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Section A-4, pages 9 & 10), require the appraiser to offer the property owner and/or the owner’s representative an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during the property inspection. The appraiser shall certify in the report that such an offer was extended.

8. The appraiser shall make a personal inspection of the subject property and all of the comparable market properties used in the analyses unless specific arrangements to the contrary have been approved in writing by the KO prior to the commencement of the assignment.

9. The opinions of current market value may not be predicated upon potential highest and best uses that are speculative or conjectural. A proposed highest and best use requires showing reasonable probability that the land is both physically adaptable for such use and there is an economic need or demand for such use in the reasonably near future. The appraiser’s conclusion of highest and best use must be an economic use. A non-economic highest and best use, such as conservation, natural lands, preservation or any use that requires the property to be withheld from economic production in perpetuity, is not a valid use upon which to estimate market value.

10. Essential in the appraiser’s conclusion of highest and best use is the determination of larger parcel.

The appraiser shall make a larger parcel determination in every appraisal conducted for any acquisition. (See UASFLA Section A-14)

11. As an appraisal reflects the patterns of the marketplace, so to shall the appraiser have contact with market participants. The appraisal shall cite market sources interviewed in research of the market, both in local real estate and in the hydropower industry.

12. The preferred method of adjusting comparable sales is through supported quantitative adjustments

(percentage, $/acre, etc.); qualitative adjustments (similar, inferior, or superior) are to be used only when the market variables cannot be quantified. Adjustments without support are unacceptable. If the appraiser resorts to qualitative analyses, support that is more extensive and discussion of the appraiser’s reasoning why a comparable sale is similar, inferior, or superior to the subject property is required. All adjustments shall be supported by clear, appropriate, and credible analysis based on documented market research. Mere references to undisclosed “trends,” or reliance on the Appraiser’s “opinion” or “judgment” without market support is an unacceptable practice. Market support includes discussions with buyers/sellers, potential investors, brokers, and others knowledgeable about the market. The appraiser must also recognize that variances in sale prices may be caused by multiple factors and should not over adjust a comparable by double-counting overlapping items.

13. If cash flow models are employed, the following shall be included:

a) The appraisal report shall include narrative discussion of support for any and all cash flow assumptions. All cash flow assumptions require support that goes beyond noting sources considered.

b) Data and analysis shall support all significant assumptions.

c) A digital copy of spreadsheets with cash flow models shall be provided to the KO with the final draft appraisal report.

14. If a discounted cash flow analysis is employed, the following shall be included:

a) Discounted cash flow analyses shall include sensitivity analyses to test the impact of minor changes to critical variables.

b) Discussions of the robustness of cash flow models and the volatility of value conclusions and/or rates of return.

15. Regression analysis techniques are a complex statistical analysis used to extract adjustments for the sales comparison approach. If complex statistical analyses are employed, including the use of regression analysis, such analyses shall include a discussion of how each comparable sale property relates to the subject property and a statistical interpretation of the validity of the results, simply applying a regression analysis is not acceptable.

16. Documentation of the comparable sales and other market data utilized in the appraisal shall comply with reporting requirements of UASFLA and the Uniform Act. For instance, the latter requires “A description of the comparable sales, including a description of all relevant physical, legal and economic factors such as parties to the transaction, source and method of financing, and verification by a party involved in the transaction.”

17. If sales to governmental entities, including sales to non-profit entities with the intention of transferring the sale property to a governmental entity, are included in the appraisal report, they are subject to extraordinary verification and treatment. They shall be documented in accordance with the guidelines found in UASFLA Section D-9. Each of the items of Section D-9 shall be specifically addressed when communicating the confirmation of any government sales.

18. Color photographs and maps of comparable properties shall be included in the appraisal report addenda. Aerial photographs for comparable properties will be accepted unless the aerial photographs are so dated that they do not accurately represent the property as it physically existed on the date of inspection. Identified unusual property features must be photographed from ground level.

19. The appraisal report and all information furnished to the appraiser are USACE internal documents and are to be considered confidential by the appraiser. All requests for information concerning the appraisal shall be referred to the KO. The general public is not an intended user of the appraisal report; however, the appraiser must also be aware that USACE may release all or part of the appraisal report to others. Some instances where release may be required include but are not limited to, legal compliance, litigation, congressional inquiry, the Freedom of Information Act, and USACE policy.

20. When the appraiser has performed any services regarding the subject property within the three prior years, he or she shall appropriately disclose this information following the direction of the USPAP Ethics Rule, Conduct Section. This disclosure shall be made with the proposal and also in the completed report.

21. If the appraiser relies on information provided by outside sources—including estimates, projections, and schedules obtained from SCE—use of such supporting documentation shall be specified in the report and made available to the USACE KO upon their request. USACE will not normally accept custody of confidential information. Should the appraiser find it appropriate or necessary to rely on confidential information to support the appraiser’s analysis and/or conclusions, he or she shall contact the KO for instructions. The KO and will arrange to view the information and provide further instruction to the appraiser regarding handling and storage of the confidential information.

22. The appraisal report will be reviewed for compliance with the terms of this Statement-of-Work, UASFLA, and USPAP Standards 1 and 2. The contractor may need to clarify or correct any inadequacies.

SECTION 5 – Performance and Payment

Contract Officer

The contracting officer (KO) is the point of contact regarding the contract, any questions regarding the solicitation, bidding instructions and/or technical requirements for this solicitation should be addressed to the KO, who is:

Raymond Greenheck Contracting Division, SPK 1325 J Street

Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Telephone: 916-557-6933 Email: Raymond.R.Greencheck@usace.army.mil

In addition, contact/copy the contract specialist:

Tilden Brooks Jr.

Contracting Division, SPK-CT-B 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Telephone: 916-557-7929 Email: tilden.l.brooks@usace.army.mil

Performance

Unless otherwise agreed upon, 120 days (or less) from the date of awarding of the contract and authorization to proceed is the preferred date for submission of one copy of the appraisal reports for review by USACE. Notwithstanding, under “Best Value” trade off, all delivery date proposals will be considered.

Upon Government acceptance, four (4) original final reports and a PDF format version of the final report are to be delivered by overnight delivery to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn: CESPK-RE-B (William Casale)

1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922

Payments

a. Invoices for payment shall be submitted upon completion of tasks as outlines in the pricing/payment schedule. Invoices shall include all necessary information, including any necessary supporting documentation and shall be submitted to:

Original invoice WITHOUT additional information or supporting documentation:

Finance Center Attn: CEFC_-FP 5722 Integrity Dr.

Millington, TN 38054-5005 CEFC-Payments@usace.army.mil

One copy each of Invoice WITH all required information including any necessary supporting documentation:

(May be mailed or emailed to the following individuals):

Attn: CESPK-RE-B (William Casale)

1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922

Attn: CESPK-CT-B (Services – Tilden Brooks Jr.)

1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 tilden.l.brooks@usace.army.mil Ph: (916) 557-7929 Fax: (916) 557-7854

NOTE: All invoices must reflect the Contract number, Task Order, or BPA Call number and the final invoice must be marked “FINAL”.

b. Contract Payments. The Government shall pay the Contractor upon submission of Proper invoices for the services delivered and accepted for the portion of the work actually performed under the contract. Payment shall be made as indicated in the contract’s Payment Schedule not on percentage of completion. Deliverables as defined in the Payment Schedule of the contract must be accepted by the Government before payment will be made.

SCE EASEMENT

MAPS

MAPS PROVIDED AS SEPERATE ATTACHMENT

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52,212-1

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The proposed acquisition will be awarded using a best value analyses tradeoff process, similar to what is described in FAR 15.101-1. Proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the following six (6) evaluation factors: 1) Experience, 2) Key Personnel, 3) Technical Approach, 4) Past Performance, 5) Schedule, 6) Price. Non-priced factors are in descending order of importance, and when combined are significantly more important than price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the factors.

Factors 1-3&5 are technical factors, rated in accordance with the combined technical/risk rating method (table 1). Past Performance is rated in accordance with the Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method(table 2) and the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method (table 3). The price proposal will be analyzed for reasonableness and balanced pricing. The government intends to make award without discussions. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced proposal.

2. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offerors whose combined proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. All proposals will be evaluated on the completeness, conciseness, and page limitations. Evaluation of the Offeror's proposal shall address the factors as it applies to the solicitation requirements. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the "Evaluation Approach", Paragraph 3.0 of this section. If subcontractors will be utilized, then the factors evaluation will apply to them as applicable. Subcontractor roles/responsibilities shall be clearly defined for evaluation of technical capability, key personnel, and past performance.

Factor 1 -.Experience: The offeror shall provide a narrative description, not to exceed one page each, of the five most complicated assignments they have completed which demonstrate skills and knowledge that are applicable to successfully completing the assignment described in this SOW. Examples of a complex problem involve the following property types ranked in order of applicability. Experience in more categories is better.

i. Hydroelectric power plants

ii. Properties with complicated larger parcel evaluation problems

iii. Assignments involving complicated highest and best use analyses

iv. Properties with major liabilities that severely impact value

v. Properties with anticipated decommissioning requirements

vi. Properties dependent on special permits or licenses

vii. Canals, abandoned corridors or other parcels with unusual configurations that severely limit utility

viii. Power plants

ix. Limited market properties

x. Unusual easements estates

xi. Unique and complex partial acquisitions

xii. Public utilities

xiii. Experience with and knowledge of UASFLA

xiv. Special purpose properties

Factor 2 – Key Personnel: The lead appraiser who will sign the report, is the key personnel. The lead appraiser must have:

A minimum of 20 years as a real estate appraiser producing narrative appraisal reports.

Professional development and education related to appraisal as indicated by degrees, training and designations, shall be considered and rated more highly in addition to years of experience.

Factor 3 –Technical Approach: The proposals shall include a written narrative on how the offeror proposes to approach the valuation problem, what they see as the appropriate course of action and the resources, including personnel, to accomplish the appraisal. Proposed subcontractors or Subject matter experts and their roles shall be specifically identified and letters of commitment shall be provided.

Named individuals or organizations may not be replaced without prior approval of the contracting officer.

Factor 4 -Past Performance: The offeror’s performance record, and those of team members, as described by the offeror, as available from public information, and as reported by no more than six references to be supplied by the offeror shall be considered.The offeeror shall list the contacts/ recommendations from projects listed in the narritives evaluated in Factor 1. Past performance will include an evaluation of the offeror’s performance record in terms of relevance of past performance to the proposed assignment (table

2) and confidence assessment (table 3), for the following factors:

a. The magnitude of complexity and difficulty of past assignments.

b. Quality of deliverables as indicated by client satisfaction.

c. Completion of assignments on schedule.

Past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by references and other sources of information available to the Government will be used to evaluate whether the offerors’ overall past performance and quality of performance is acceptable. Past performance will be based on the Government's knowledge of performance under current and previous contracts, information provided by references directly to the Government. If past performance information is not available for the offeror, the offeror shall be assigned a neutral rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

Factor 5 – Schedule. The offeror shall propose a schedule of deliverables and performance. The offeror’s proposed schedule shall be evaluated most, importantly, for the ability and commitment to completing the contract within the time requirements of USACE, and secondly, the offeror’s capacity for early delivery.

An earlier schedule is better. An accelerated schedule is worth a higher rating.

Factor 6 – Price. Offerors price proposal will be reviewed for reasonableness for the work required for the solicitation.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Table 1

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Table 2

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method 3

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

Adjectival 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.

Neutral Confidence 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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

3. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror's methods and approach have satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is in compliance with the regulatory requirements for this type of appraisal.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the appraisal within the proposed approach.

2. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals utilizing the rating methodology described in this section. The term ''technical" as used in this solicitation refers to non-cost factors other than past performance. The technical rating reflects 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 of the proposal. The evaluation will consist of a comparison of the data presented in each proposal to the requirements stated in the solicitation.

Evaluators will independently identify and document the relative strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of each evaluation factor and assign corresponding merit or risk ratings.

3. Each of the technical evaluation factors will be rated as Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable.

4. Past performance will be rated on relevance (very relevant-not relevant) and confidence (substantial confidence –no confidence).

5. The price proposal will be reviewed for reasonableness for the work required for the solicitation.

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.

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

0001 N/A N/A N/A Government 0002 N/A N/A N/A Government 0003 N/A N/A N/A Government 0004 N/A N/A N/A Government 0005 Destination Government Destination Government

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS UIC

0001 N/A N/A N/A N/A

0002 N/A N/A N/A N/A

0003 N/A N/A N/A N/A

0004 N/A N/A N/A N/A

0005 N/A N/A N/A N/A

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.204-7 System for Award Management JUL 2013 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items OCT 2015 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certification--Commercial Items JUL 2016 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions--Commercial Items MAY 2015 52.215-5 Facsimile Proposals OCT 1997 52.219-6 Notice Of Total Small Business Set-Aside NOV 2011 52.223-6 Drug-Free Workplace MAY 2001 52.232-33 Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer--System for Award

Management

JUL 2013

52.252-2 Clauses Incorporated By Reference FEB 1998 252.204-7004 Alt A System for Award Management Alternate A FEB 2014

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(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, in decending order of importance, shall be used to evaluate offers:

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offerors whose combined proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. All proposals will be evaluated on the completeness, conciseness, and page limitations. Evaluation of the Offeror's proposal shall address the factors as it applies to the solicitation requirements. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the "Evaluation Approach", Paragraph 3.0 of this section. If subcontractors will be utilized, then the factors evaluation will apply to them as applicable. Subcontractor roles/responsibilities shall be clearly defined for evaluation of technical capability, key personnel, and past performance.

Factor 1 -.Experience: The offeror shall provide a narrative description, not to exceed one page each, of the five most complicated assignments they have completed which demonstrate skills and knowledge that are applicable to successfully completing the assignment described in this SOW. Examples of a complex problem involve the following property types ranked in order of applicability. Experience in more categories is better.

xv. Hydroelectric power plants

xvi. Properties with complicated larger parcel evaluation problems

xvii. Assignments involving complicated highest and best use analyses

xviii. Properties with major liabilities that severely impact value

xix. Properties with anticipated decommissioning requirements

xx. Properties dependent on special permits or licenses

xxi. Canals, abandoned corridors or other parcels with unusual configurations that severely limit utility

xxii. Power plants

xxiii. Limited market properties

xxiv. Unusual easements estates

xxv. Unique and complex partial acquisitions

xxvi. Public utilities

xxvii. Experience with and knowledge of UASFLA xxviii. Special purpose properties

Factor 2 – Key Personnel: The lead appraiser who will sign the report, is the key personnel. The lead appraiser must have:

A minimum of 20 years as a real estate appraiser producing narrative appraisal reports.

Professional development and education related to appraisal as indicated by degrees, training and designations, shall be considered and rated more highly in addition to years of experience.

Factor 3 –Technical Approach: The proposals shall include a written narrative on how the offeror proposes to approach the valuation problem, what they see as the appropriate course of action and the resources, including personnel, to accomplish the appraisal. Proposed subcontractors or Subject matter experts and their roles shall be specifically identified and letters of commitment shall be provided.

Named individuals or organizations may not be replaced without prior approval of the contracting officer.

Factor 4 -Past Performance: The offeror’s performance record, and those of team members, as described by the offeror, as available from public information, and as reported by no more than six references to be supplied by the offeror shall be considered.The offeeror shall list the contacts/ recommendations from projects listed in the narritives evaluated in Factor 1. Past performance will include an evaluation of the offeror’s performance record in terms of relevance of past performance to the proposed assignment (table

2) and confidence assessment (table 3), for the following factors:

d. The magnitude of complexity and difficulty of past assignments.

e. Quality of deliverables as indicated by client satisfaction.

f. Completion of assignments on schedule.

Past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by references and other sources of information available to the Government will be used to evaluate whether the offerors’ overall past performance and quality of performance is acceptable. Past performance will be based on the Government's knowledge of performance under current and previous contracts, information provided by references directly to the Government. If past performance information is not available for the offeror, the offeror shall be assigned a neutral rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

Factor 5 – Schedule. The offeror shall propose a schedule of deliverables and performance. The offeror’s proposed schedule shall be evaluated most, importantly, for the ability and commitment to completing the contract within the time requirements of USACE, and secondly, the offeror’s capacity for early delivery.

An earlier schedule is better. An accelerated schedule is worth a higher rating.

Factor 6 – Price. Offerors price proposal will be reviewed for reasonableness for the work required for the solicitation

Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

(b) 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).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

52.212-5 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES OR

EXECUTIVE ORDERS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JUN 2016)

(a) The Contractor shall comply with the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses, which are incorporated in this contract by reference, to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial items:

(1) 52.209-10, Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations (Nov 2015).

(2) 52.233-3, Protest After Award (AUG 1996) (31 U.S.C. 3553).

(3) 52.233-4, Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim (OCT…