Amend 3 Solicitation W9123821R0021 0003 FUDS MATOC SPK__23Aug2021.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

A. The purpose of this amendment is to revise paragraph 5. Volume II, Price Information; and Representations, Certif ications, and Other Statements of Offerors in Section M, EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS.

B. Except as noted in the follow ing pages (changes highlighted in yellow , struck-out text indicates a deletion), all other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Aug-2021

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 W9123821R0021

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Feb-2021

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 X is extended, 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

23-Aug-2021

CODE

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J STREET

SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

W91238 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9123821R0021

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 02-Apr-2021 10:00 AM to 23-Aug-2021 12:30 PM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

SECTION M – BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government contemplates award of a firm fixed price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ), multiple award task order contract (MATOCs) resulting from this solicitation.

The Government’s intent is to award up to five (5) IDIQ contracts for this MATOC; however, if the Contracting Officer determines during the source selection process that fewer than that number of contracts should be awarded, the Contracting Officer has the discretion of adjusting that number, or awarding none at all. The Government may not award any contract if the resulting contract would not represent a "best value" to the Government using trade-off selection procedures as required by the federal acquisition regulations and guidance.

The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.3, Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) 5225.3, Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3) to the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, and this solicitation. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, conforms to the solicitation requirements (such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications), meets all technical requirements, and presents the best value to the government, with a tradeoff between technical and cost/price. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being considered non-awardable. Any exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.

1.1. Award without Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1; however, the Government reserves the right to open and conduct discussions if it deems them to be necessary. Therefore, Offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may only be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Adverse past performance includes past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

1.2 Competitive Range/Discussions

The Government reserves the right to open and conduct discussions if it deems them to be necessary. Discussions will be held only with those Offeror’s determined to be in the competitive range. The Contracting Officer may l2ctbadm Highlight establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the rating of each evaluation factor against the evaluation criteria. The competitive range may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). Offerors whose proposals are not included in the competitive range will be notified as soon as practicable.

In the event discussions are conducted, evaluation notices will be issued. An Offeror initially included in the competitive range may be eliminated from consideration for award during discussions. At the conclusion of discussions, each Offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR).

1.3 Award

To arrive at a source selection decision, the Government will evaluate the factors and proposed cost/price. The Government intends to award to the firms providing the proposals which are considered by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) to be the deemed the best value to the Government, using best value trade-off methods. The award may not be to the Offeror that provides the lowest price but to the Offeror that provides the best value to the Government.

2. Evaluation Factors and Cost/Price Evaluation

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Government. 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 adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in this Request for Proposals (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; and

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices/equipment and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the proposed approach.

The evaluator(s) 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. 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.

Factors 1-5 (Volume I) are weighted in decreasing order (Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3, Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4, Factor 4 is more important than Factor 5). For the purposes of making the award decision, all proposals that are rated technically Unacceptable on any factor will be deemed unawardable. If an Offeror does not provide the submission requirements for Section L, Factor 1, a) a deficiency will be noted. A deficiency for Section L, Factor 1, part a) will lead to an evaluation of Factor 1 of unacceptable. If a factor is rated as unacceptable, the other factors will not be evaluated.

The cost and pricing information found in Volume II will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 4.6. The total value of Volume I is significantly greater than the total value of Volume II. Note: All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Technical Factors will be evaluated according to the criteria described in Section M, paragraph 4. The Firm Fixed Priced Task Order Project will be evaluated to determine if the price is fair and reasonable. For the Labor Rates provided in Section B, Supplies or Services, the Government will evaluate if the rates are fair and reasonable. Within the Past Performance factor only recent (contracts completed within the last five years or at least 75% completed) and relevant performance will be assessed in accordance with paragraph 3.2.

The Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between technical merit (“quality”) and cost to the Government (i.e., the price). The degree of importance of price could become greater depending upon the equality of the technical proposals. If competing technical proposals are determined to be essentially equal, price could become the controlling factor.

3. Evaluation Procedures for each Factor

3.1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating shall be assigned to each factor contained in Volume I, (except Volume I, Factor 5, Past Performance).

Technical/Risk Rating, which reflects the Government's confidence in each Offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP, shall be evaluated and assigned a rating based on the following:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is un-awardable.

3.2 Past Performance (Volume I, Factor 5). The projects submitted for Volume I, Factor 2, Relevant Experience, will be used for the Past Performance Evaluation. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The Government will first evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort (contracts completed within the last five years) as it relates to the requirements outlined in in RFP Attachment 1 – MATOC PWS. In establishing relevancy for this solicitation, consideration will be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Each project submitted for past performance purposes will receive a Past Performance Relevancy Rating as defined in Table 2 below.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

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.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

• Past performance information may be provided by the Offeror, as solicited.

• Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (ESRS), or other databases.

A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the current procurement. Past performance information in conjunction with the performance relevancy rating will be reviewed and evaluated to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessments Adjective Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a no expectation that the Offeror will 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.

Offerors for which no relevant past performance record is available will not have that factor considered, either positively or negatively, in the evaluation of the proposal package. An “unknown confidence/neutral” rating shall be assigned when an Offeror provides no past performance data and/or where none can be readily obtained. When arriving at a consensus rating for past performance, evaluators shall consider a “neutral” rating as one that neither helps nor harms an Offeror’s chances of being awarded a contract.

3.3 The cost/price portion of the proposal will be evaluated as follows: For Section B rates, the Government will evaluate for fair and reasonableness. For the Firm-Fixed Price Task Order, the Government will evaluate if the price is fair and reasonable. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

3.4 Other Definitions

Significant Strength: a significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Strength: an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness: a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

4. Technical Evaluation Factors

The information submitted by the Offeror in accordance with Section L of the RFP, will be evaluated by the Government in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section M of the RFP and the Source Selection Plan. The cost and pricing information found in Volume II will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 4.7.

4.1 Volume I, Factor 1 – Management/Organizational Capabilities:

The Government will evaluate this portion of the proposal based on the requirements set forth in Section L. The Government may give strengths for an organizational structure which demonstrates efficiency in day-to-day operations by exceeding contract milestone schedules, quicker resolution of problems, clear roles and responsibilities, and excellent communication networks. The Government may give strengths if the Offeror provides clearly defined relationships with the proposed Subcontractors. The Government may give strengths for organizational relationships which have been used on other projects such as those presented in Factor 2 with successful performance. The Government may give strengths for organizational relationships that demonstrate repeated successful team performance, i.e., over the course of multiple projects. The Government may give a strength for organizational structures that demonstrate depth and breadth in technical expertise and performing the full range/all of the tasks required. Breadth of experience is defined as the Offeror’s experience in performing the range of services and ability to work on multiple TO’s at the same time and over the entire region covered by this contract. Depth of experience is defined as the magnitude, complexity, and applicability/relevance of the Offeror’s experience in performing the range of services for this MATOC. A strength may be given for a good safety record and/or proven effective safety culture. Strengths may be given for a thorough risk mitigation plan.

A weakness may be given for organizational structures which fail to demonstrate the appropriate lines of authority especially as it relates to lines of reporting for safety and QC sub-organizations and the authority to shut down the project for safety related issues. A weakness may be given with only minimal risk mitigation strategies. Lack of clear and thorough discussion of how DAGCAP accreditation requirements will be fulfilled will be evaluated as a deficiency and would result in an unacceptable rating for Factor 1; and the remainder of the proposal would not be evaluated or considered for award.

Failure of an Offeror to provide information identified for this factor in Section L may be considered a weakness, significant weakness or a deficiency during evaluation.

4.2 Volume I, Factor 2 – Relevant Experience:

The Offeror's previous experience will be examined for complexity, magnitude of effort and direct relevancy to the scope of work (See Section C of this solicitation). The Government will review previous experience and place higher value on proposals which demonstrate successful outcomes in the following areas:

• Demonstrated remedial action field activities experience, engineering support services experience, and experience in developing studies, analyzing impacts, and conducting investigations.

• Demonstrated experience with local, state and Federal regulators, and the ability to manage regulatory interface and stakeholder interface.

• Demonstrated ability to execute federal work and projects in which the Offeror served as the prime contractor.

• Demonstrated ability to implement larger projects and projects with multiple sites.

• Demonstrated ability to implement complex projects successfully.

• Demonstrated ability to manage projects which were completed on time, within budget, and met the projects’ objectives.

• Demonstrated ability to employ innovative technology and/or processes to cut design or removal/remedial action response time and costs for the customer.

• Demonstrated ability of managing project that were accomplished using performance-based requirements and/or under FFP contracts.

• Demonstrated ability to work with Endangered and Threatened species on projects or projects with complex cultural resource concerns.

Failure of the Offeror to provide information identified in Section L may be considered a weakness, significant weakness or a deficiency during evaluation

4.3 Volume I, Factor 3 – Key Personnel:

The Government will evaluate this portion of the proposal based on the requirements set forth in Section L. In addition, the Government places a higher value on key personnel that have a diversity of project experience related to the types of services outlined in Section C, experience in the region identified in Section C, education, professional registration, and other professional qualifications. Strengths may be given for personnel that have experience working on Government projects, on MMRP projects, on complex projects, on firm fixed contracts, on FUDS projects, and with regulators and other stakeholders in the regions identified in Section C. Personnel with directly relatable experience will be deemed to be more qualified for this contract than personnel with only marginally relatable experience. Strengths may be given for personnel that have long term employment relationships with the Offeror. Key personnel who do not meet the minimum qualifications of Section L may receive a weakness, significant weakness or deficiency for this factor. Strengths may be given for key personnel who exceed the minimum qualifications of Section L. Only the five key personnel identified in Section L will be evaluated.

Failure of an Offeror to provide information identified for this factor in Section L may be considered a weakness, significant weakness or a deficiency during evaluation.

4.4 Volume I, Factor 4 – Technical Approach to Fort Douglas Impact Area MRS (Seed Task Order)

The Government will review the Offeror’s technical approach to the PWS provided in Section J for Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan, and Decision Document of Impact Area Military Munitions Response Site (MRS) at Fort Douglas Formerly Used Defense Site, Salt Lake City, Utah. The Government will evaluate the assumptions made for understanding, reasonableness and validity for the Offeror’s technical approach.

A satisfactory proposal will provide an approach that is anticipated to meet all technical factors listed in Section L.

Approaches that include innovative technology must be explained and may be evaluated as a benefit to the Government and result in potential strength or significant strength for this factor. In addition, project risk associated with technical approach which reduces risk to the Government may result in a strength or significant strength for this factor.

Failure of the Offeror to provide information identified in Section L may be considered a weakness, significant weakness or a deficiency during evaluation.

4.5 Volume I, Factor 5 – Past Performance:

Past Performance references will first be reviewed to determine the relevancy of the past performance information.

Past performance must have occurred within the five (5) years prior to the closing date of this solicitation and be similar in scope and complexity to be considered relevant. The evaluation will use four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 2 below. More relevant past performance will be treated as a stronger predictor of future success and will therefore have more influence on the overall performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Government will focus on areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to contract requirements, standards of workmanship, adherence to contract schedules, history of reasonable and cooperative behavior with regulators and other stakeholders, and commitment to customer satisfaction. The Government places a higher value on projects that demonstrate a high level of relevancy to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government also places a higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside sources. The Government also places a higher value on projects which provided particular difficulty or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to consider information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

The Offeror is cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror's proposal in addition to data obtained from other sources. Since the Government may not necessarily obtain information on all of the listed contract references and may not contact all of the identified POCs provided by the Offeror, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government may elect to consider data obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror.

If the Government does not receive past performance information for the project(s) identified by the Offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, or if the Offeror has no past performance record, the Offeror will be given an “Unknown Confidence” assessment rating.

Failure of an Offeror to provide information identified for this factor in Section L may be considered a weakness, or a significant weakness..

5. Volume II, Price Information; and Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors

The total evaluated price will be the firm, fixed price proposed by the Offeror for the Seed Task Order (refer to Section L).

The total evaluated price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price and analysis of the binding rates will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b). Cost analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(c) may also be used to evaluate data other than certified cost or pricing data to determine cost reasonableness when a fair and reasonable price cannot be determined through price analysis alone. Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether the price and rates proposed by the Offeror are reasonable.

Award will not be made to Offerors who do not provide reasonable fully burdened rates for each of the labor disciplines listed in Schedule 2, (NOTE: The unburdened labor rates are for informational purposes only and are only used to assess the overall reasonableness of the fully burdened labor rates), binding cap rates listed in Schedule 2, binding profit rate listed in Schedule 2, and/or a reasonable price for the Seed Task Order listed in Section L.

Because the evaluation of the price proposal will represent a portion of the total evaluation, it is possible that an Offeror may not be selected because of an unreasonable price proposal.

The Government reserves the right to perform price realism analysis on the burdened hourly labor rates (refer to Schedule 2), the proposed markup caps (refer to Schedule 2), and the Seed Task Order (refer to Section L) in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). If realism analysis is conducted, an Offeror may be excluded from award for proposing unrealistic hourly burdened labor rates or an unrealistic price for the Seed Task Order.

Note: All price proposals will be ROUNDED to the nearest dollar.

5.1 Volume II, Tab 1 – SF33, Solicitation Offer, and Award (Section A) Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, will not be evaluated, but must be completed in order to become eligible for award. The SF33 shall be filled out completely by the Offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. The Offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, if applicable.

5.2 Volume II, Tab 2 – Representations and Certifications (Section K) The representations and certifications in Section K will not be evaluated; however, must be completed in order to be eligible for award. Annual Representations and Certifications will be obtained through the Government On-line Representation and Certification Application (ORCA) site for contractors that have worked with the Government and are registered in CCR (Central Contractor Registration). All contractors that do not have previous Government experience or are not registered in CCR must submit the information in accordance with FAR clause 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications.

5.3 Volume II, Tab 3 – Firm Fixed Price Cost Proposal for Fort Douglas Impact Area Seed Task Order (Schedule 1)

The contract will be a Firm-Fixed Priced (FFP) task order for the Seed Task Order. The Offerors’ proposed price for the task order will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed prices of the labor categories and the proposed escalation rates in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Government will examine price proposals for unbalanced prices. The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis for the limited purpose of assessing whether an Offeror’s low price reflects a lack of technical understanding or risk. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unreasonably low, or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the cost for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to cost for others. In addition, an offer is materially unbalanced if it is mathematically unbalanced and there is a reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest evaluated offer. The evaluation of the Offeror’s proposed rates in conjunction with the proposed price for the Seed Task Order will be considered in determining the overall reasonableness of the Offeror’s cost/price proposal and the potential risk to the Government. Additionally, the Cost/Price Factor will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy to determine if the Offeror has understood the proposal instructions and properly completed the price schedule and for mathematical accuracy. The Cost/Price proposals of the qualified Offerors will be evaluated in order to determine whether they are reasonable in relation to the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and reflect a clear understanding of the technical proposal. Price analysis techniques shall also be used to corroborate the results of the reasonableness of prices. All price proposals will be ROUNDED to the nearest dollar.

Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed price and the methodology used to develop the proposed price for the Seed Task Order. The Labor rates, the number of hours, mix of labor categories, materials, other direct costs and any other costs that may be associated with this Seed Task Order may be evaluated to determine price reasonableness and distribution of costs. The evaluators will compare the labor rates for the same or similar labor categories on existing USACE contracts to determine if the labor rates are reasonable. By examining the contractors’ proposed indirect rates such as Overhead and G&A rates and verifying how they are applied by the contractor, the Government will determine if the contractors’ prices for labor, travel, and other direct costs would be reasonable compared to other contractors currently performing the same or similar work expected under the task order.

5.4 Volume II, Tab 4 – Contractor Team Arrangements

This tab will not be evaluated; however, it must be completed in order to be eligible for award for all Contractor Team Arrangements. No contract may be awarded to a Joint Venture that is not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. The joint venture must have its own Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code; and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and be registered as such. An 8(a) Mentor- Protégé joint venture agreement must be received by Small Business Administration (SBA) prior to the proposal due date and approved by SBA before award of any resulting contract. The 8(a) Mentor-Protégé joint venture is responsible for providing the SBA approved JV agreement in a timely manner so as not to delay contract award.

5.5 Volume II, Tab 5 – IDIQ 5-Year Labor Wage Rates (Schedule 2)

The Offerors’ proposed price for the contract will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The evaluators will conduct: (1) a cost analysis to evaluate the individual cost elements; and (2) a price analysis to verify that the overall price offered is fair and reasonable. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed hourly rates for the labor categories provided in the Five -Year IDIQ Price Schedule for reasonableness for each year of the ordering period.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’ proposed annual escalation rates as part of the basic contract price and these rates may be subject to renegotiation at the Government’s discretion annually.

The cost analysis will determine how well the Offeror’s proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency. In the cost analysis, the evaluators will verify the cost or pricing data for: (1) the necessity and reasonableness of proposed costs, including allowances for contingencies, and

(2) consistent application of labor rates and indirect cost rates proposed by the Offeror in Schedule 2. The evaluators will also determine reasonableness by comparing the proposed labor rates, materials, other direct costs, labor overhead, general and administrative overhead, and any other costs associated with this project to the Independent Government Estimate and to the costs proposed by the other Offerors. The evaluators will assess the Offerors’ technical understanding of the project based upon the disciplines used and the hours proposed. As a result of the cost analysis, the Government will assess the risk of whether an Offeror’s likely costs are likely to exceed its proposed price.

5.6 Volume II, Tab 6 – Small Business Participation Plan

Small Business Participation proposals will be evaluated for completeness and feasibility of approach. Small Business Subcontracting Plans will be evaluated in accordance with AFARS Appendix DD to ensure compliance with FAR 52.219-9 requirements. The Subcontracting Plan is not evaluated as part of the formal source selection, but shall be complete, accurate, and meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. An award will not be made to a Large Business if the subcontracting plan is unacceptable to the Government.

6. Debriefing

The debriefing of all Offerors, successful or unsuccessful, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.505 – Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors or FAR 15.506 – Post-award Debriefing Offerors. “Day” for the purposes of debriefing means calendar day, except that the period will run until a day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Legal Holiday. A summary of the debriefing shall be included in the official contract file. Offerors shall be permitted only one (1 debriefing)

(End of Summary of Changes)