W9124J-20-R-EE15-0002_RFP Amend 2_MODIFICATION COPY_ECCS_MAIDIQ__31Dec20.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 purpose of this Amendment is as follow s:

a. Provide answ ers to contractor RFP second round of questions.

b. Revise RFP and Attachments 3 & 4 in response to contractor questions.

c. Block 29 w as checked on page 1 of the RFP to notify the Offeror's that thier proposals w ill be incorporated into the aw ard.

d. Extend the RFP due date to close on 15 January 2021 at 1:00PM CST.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Jan-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 W9124J20REE15

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Oct-2020

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 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

31-Dec-2020

CODE

MICC - FSH

ATTN: MICC - FSH

2205 INFANTRY POST RD

210-466-2145

FORT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-1361

W9124J 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9124J20REE15

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 08-Jan-2021 05:00 PM to 15-Jan-2021 01:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0001

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

This CLIN is for Environmental Compliance & Conservation Services (ECCS). Specific related services shall be specified at the Task Order level. The Ordering Period is five (5) Years from date of award of this CLIN. The Period of Performance shall not exceed ten (10) Years from award.This Base IDIQ Contract CLIN is for informational purposes only and shall not be priced. Pricing schedules for this RFP are provided under Attachment 3 (Base IDIQ Cape Labor Rates) and Attachment 4 (Live Task Order Price).

To:

This CLIN is for Environmental Compliance & Conservation Services (ECCS). Specific related services shall be specified at the Task Order level. The Ordering Period is five (5) Years from date of award of this CLIN. The Period of Performance shall not exceed ten (10) Years from award.This Base IDIQ Contract CLIN is for informational purposes only and shall not be priced. Pricing schedules for this RFP are provided under Attachment 3 (Base IDIQ Labor Rates) and Attachment 4 (Live Task Order Price).

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

The following is incorporated into 52.212-1 as an addendum to this solicitation:

1. Proposal Submission Instructions. Proposals shall be submitted electronically via email to the Contract Specialist Ms. Elsa Aguon at elsa.aguon.civ@mail.mil, and are due no later than the date specified on Block 8 of the SF 1449. In accordance with FAR 15.208, if your proposal is not received by the exact date and time specified above, it will be determined late and may not be evaluated. Proposal, as the term is used here, means ALL volumes and/or parts of the RFP. Offerors are hereby notified that the Government will not reimburse costs incurred for proposal preparation.

2. Deadline for Questions. ALL questions in response to this RFP must be submitted no later than 29 December 2020 by 11:00 PM CST, via email to elsa.aguon.civ@mail.mil. The point of contact responsible for answering all inquiries and providing additional information is the Contracting Officer via the Contract Specialist. The Contracting Officer for this acquisition will be Ms. Cindy C. Hildner. Any questions submitted will need to identify the pertinent document in question (ie. Performance Work Statement (PWS), Solicitation Attachment, Solicitation Technical Exhibit, etc.) and include the applicable page number and paragraph number. When submitting questions, please reference (RFP Questions, W9124J-20-R-EE15, ECCS MAIDIQ) in the email’s subject line.

3. General Instructions.

a. Using the tradeoff method in the best value continuum the Government will select the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described in ADDENDUM to 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (Section M). Failure to follow the directions set forth in the RFP may eliminate the proposal from further consideration. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the offerors’ initial proposal should contain the offerors’ best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event 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 pursuant to FAR Subpart 15.306(c). The Contracting Officer will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

b. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

c. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, an ambiguity, omission, or are otherwise deemed unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale prior to the proposal due date. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received.

4. Exceptions. If the offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this RFP, the offeror shall clearly identify the applicable Volume and exceptions with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken, what benefit accrues to the Government (if any), and its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the RFP. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the RFP to which the exception is taken. This information shall be provided in the format below.

Table 1: RFP Exceptions

RFP

Document

Page/ Paragraph

Requirement/ Portion

Rationale & Impact

Identify the document or attachment to which exception is taken

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe the rationale and impact of the exception

5. Teaming Arrangements. Teaming with other Contractors is strongly encouraged in order to assure maximum resources are available to perform the necessary tasks of this requirement. Offerors shall describe any teaming arrangements (i.e., teaming agreements, joint venture, partnership, etc.) proposed for performance of the Contract. In addition, offerors shall include copies of all teaming agreements, and where applicable, the Small Business Administration approval of the teaming arrangement. For more information on teaming arrangements please refer to Title 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 125, Government Contracting Programs. The Government will consider the offeror and all subcontractors a “team” when evidence of a signed Teaming Arrangement (TA) or Letter of Intent (LOI) is provided. To be valid under this solicitation, all team members shall have a signed TAs or

LOI that commits the parties to performance under this contract. A subcontractor without a signed TAs or LOI is not considered as part of the “team” and will not be evaluated as such.

NOTE: This RFP will refer to the offeror and all identified teaming subcontractors as a “team.” This RFP will refer to all identified teaming subcontractors as “team members” or “teaming partners.”

6. Proposal Preparation Instructions.

a. These proposal instructions prescribe the format for the proposal and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal information. These instructions are designed to ensure the submission of necessary information to provide for the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of proposals. Noncompliance with the RFP requirements may hamper the Government's ability to properly evaluate the proposal and may result in elimination of the proposal from further consideration for contract award.

b. The offeror shall provide the following general information/documents with its proposal:

The offeror shall provide the company’s legal name and address, Cage Code, DUNS, and Tax Identification Number (TIN) as identified in the company’s current and active SAM Registration. Name, title, phone, and email of individual submitting the proposal and the individual(s) who are authorized to negotiate with the Government on behalf of the company.

An executive summary that introduces the contractor team which will include a list of team members (subcontractors) and the task areas they are designated to provide support, and a copy of the signed teaming arrangement or letter of intent.

A statement that the proposal is valid for 200 days from the RFP due date specified on Block 8 of the SF

1449.

A statement that the submitted proposal is in response to RFP W9124J-20-R-EE15.

A statement that the offeror acknowledges receipt of any amendments issued to this RFP (if applicable).

The offeror shall ensure that all Representations and Certifications under Section K of the RFP/SF 1449 are completed (checked) thoroughly and return a copy of the SF 1449 with the offeror’s name on block 17a and signature on block 30a. The offeror’s Representations and Certifications under FAR 52.212-3 will be verified in the System for Award Management (SAM).

Organizational Conflict of Interests (OCI) Mitigation Plan (If Applicable). In accordance with FAR 9.5, the PCO is currently examining whether or not potential OCI exists with performance of this contract which may impact prospective offerors. However, all prospective offerors are hereby advised to examine the Federal Acquisition Regulation § 9.505 and identify any potential OCI conflicts that may now exist to include Unequal Access to Information, Biased Ground Rules, and Impaired Objectivity; if any such concerns exist, the impacted offeror will submit an acceptable OCI Mitigation Plan to the PCO with its proposal. The PCO will determine based on the facts and circumstances of each individual case whether impacted offeror’s OCI Mitigation Plan is acceptable for this requirement prior to making an award. All offeror's who do not submit an OCI Mitigation Plan, must include a statement that they have determined no actual or potential OCI exists. If any offeror has questions with regards to your affirmative responsibility to identify OCI concerns and/or mitigate each issue, each potential offeror is encouraged to ask questions and seek clarifications before proposal due dates. The Government will be prevented from awarding a contract to any offeror who has an actual OCI issue that cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer.

c. The proposal will consist of three (3) separate volumes as described below in Table 2:

Table 2: Proposal Organization and Structure

Volume & Title

Evaluation Factors

Format

Page Limits

(I) Mission Capability

Factor 1: Key Personnel Experience and Management Approach

Factor 2: Technical Approach to Live Task Order

MS Word or Searchable Adobe

PDF

25 Pages: This excludes Subfactor 6: Sechdule, under Factor 2 & Subfactor 1: Key Personnel Project Experince under Factor 1 (Resumes shall not exceed 3 pages)

(II) Past Performance

Factor 3: Past Performance

MS Word or Searchable Adobe

PDF

No page limit

(III) Price Proposal

Factor 4: IDIQ Cap Labo Rates & Live Task Order Price Proposal

Attachment 3 & 4: Pricing

Matrix in MS Excel (unprotected/unlocked copy);

Pricing Narrative in MS Word or Searchable PDF

No page limit

d. Proposal Limitation: The proposal shall not exceed the page limits stated above. If the page limits are exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit shall be removed and will not be considered for evaluations. The Government will not accept any changes to the offeror’s proposal after the closing date of the solicitation (See FAR 15.208 for further information regarding late proposals). If discussions become necessary, page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors.

e. Page Count Excludes: Cover pages for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, cross reference indices, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. They will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted. General information/documents requested under 6b of this section (to include any Organizational Conflicts of Interest/Disclosure), Subfactor 1: Key Personnel Project Experience (under Factor 1) and Subfactor 6: Schedule (under Factor 2) will not count towards the page limitation.

f. All proposals shall be legible, single spaced, in a type size not smaller than 12-point proportional using Arial/Times New Roman Font, on paper not larger than 8 1/2" x 11" (except for foldout charts/diagrams described below). A “page” is defined as one side of 8 1/2 x 11” paper. Font size and spacing requirements for, illustrations, charts, graphs, figures and tables may be at the discretion of the offeror, however, must be easily readable. The page margins shall be no less than 1 inch. Some foldout charts or diagrams may be used within the aforementioned restrictions/page limitations. Any page larger than 8 ½” x 11” will be counted as two pages (i.e., one foldout with two pages will be counted as two 8 1/2" x 11" pages). When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two (2) pages. No material may be incorporated by reference to circumvent the page limitation. The Contractor shall number each page in order to eliminate any confusion. In the event Contractor creates an ambiguity in its numbering of pages, the Government may exercise its own discretion in counting pages.

7. Proposal Response Content:

a. General: Volume I - Mission Capability. This Volume’s file shall be clearly named and saved as “VOL I, W9124J-20-R-EE15, Company’s Name.” The Volume I shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims in the offerors’ proposal. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Volume I should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements;

the volume shall provide convincing rationale to address how the responder intends to meet the Government’s requirements. Statements such as “the responder understands, can, or will comply with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Performance Requirements Summary (PRS),” (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS/PRS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable and will negatively impact the responders rating. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offerors’ proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. Volume I shall not include pricing information.

b. Format. Volume I shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to enable the Government to make a thorough evaluation of the offerors’ technical competence and ability to comply with the task order requirements specified in the PWS, PRS and Deliverables Schedule. Volume I shall include a table of contents and be segregated and partitioned into separate sections, as described below:

Factor 1: Key Personnel Experience and Management Approach

Subfactor 1: Key Personnel Project Experience Subfactor 2: Management Approach and Training

Factor 2: Technical Approach to Live Task Order (LTO)

Subfactor 1: Discussion of Site, Assumptions, Regulatory Process and Required Deliverables Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan Subfactor 3: Operational Effort Subfactor 4: Hazards and Safety Identification Subfactor 5: Quality Management/Quality Control Subfactor 6: Schedule

Exceptions/Assumptions (Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, identify any assumptions used in preparing the response.) Note: Any assumptions made may cause a proposal to be found unacceptable.

List of attachments, exhibits, tables, and figures (if applicable)

8. Volume I Content:

Factor 1: Key Personnel Experience and Management Approach.

Subfactor 1: Key Personnel Project Experience: Key personnel resumes shall not exceed 3 pages and shall meet the qualifications required under the Basic Contract PWS section 1.6.10 and shall also demonstrate that key personnel have the project experience in the following areas:

Provide project experience in Environmental Compliance that show:

2 permits in each media: air, water, hazardous waste/material.

2 plans or program improvements in environmental compliance (ex. SPCC, HWMP, MS4, SWPPP).

1 Survey and/or sampling in environmental compliance (SPCC, NEPA, Radon/ Asbestos/PCB/PFOA, ODS Inventory)

(Demonstrated via: Permit type, location, title of permit, date, short summary of effort. Offerors should NOT provide an actual copy of the permit, plan or survey)

Provide project experience in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that show:

1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 3 Environmental Assessments (EA)

(Demonstrated via: Title of plan, location, date, short summary of effort. Offerors should NOT provide an actual copy of the statements or assessments)

Provide project experience in Conservation Compliance (Cultural Resources) that show:

2 Integrated Cultural and Resource Management Plan (ICRMP) 1 Historical property effort 1 Archeological data recovery 1 Artifact recovery and curation

(Demonstrated via: Title of plan, location, date, short summary of effort. Offerors should NOT provide an actual copy of any project documents)

Provide project experience in Conservation Compliance (Natural Resources) that show:

2 Integrated Natural Resource Plan (INRMP) 2 Survey and reports for natural resource (permits, fauna, flora, forest inventory) 2 Endangered Species efforts

(Demonstrated via: Title of plan, location, date, short summary of effort. Offerors should NOT provide an actual copy of plans, surveys or any other documents)

Subfactor 2: Management Approach and Training:

The offeror shall provide a management approach that clearly identifies roles and responsibilities of key personnel, to include an organizational structure and how this structure contributes to a synergistic environment. The proposal shall also show the offeror’s ability to conduct environmental training and show their program improvement capabilities based on knowledge of federal and state regulations.

The offeror shall include a narrative of the technical approach that will be implemented to achieve the requirements of the Live Task Order (LTO) for each site. This narrative shall include a discussion of the applicable regulations, regulatory response process, and all deliverables required to complete the LTO.

The offeror shall include a narrative of assumptions that are applicable to the proposed technical approach. The offeror shall demonstrate the limiting factors/risks and mitigation strategies associated with its technical approach.

The proposed mitigation strategies shall provide a thorough explanation of the offeror’s alternate approach.

Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan

The offeror shall provide a staffing matrix that proposes adequate management and staffing levels to successfully execute the proposed LTO technical approach. The offeror must identify all members of their team, including management, key personnel, non-key personnel and any utilization of subcontractors. The offeror must detail roles, responsibilities, and cross-utilization of personnel. The staffing matrix shall also identify exempt and non-exempt labor categories (SCA labor codes and titles), number of personnel and labor hours in each labor category by year.

Subfactor 3: Operational Effort

The offeror shall provide a discussion of the operational effort (fieldwork) to complete the requirements of the LTO.

This discussion shall include the field methods, the types of equipment, and relevant sampling techniques to be used.

The offeror shall also provide a discussion of its approach to anticipate and proactively address reasonable deviations in system operations, physical conditions and regulatory requirements while optimizing system performance and schedule. In addition, the discussion shall include how the offeror will plan to minimize external project impacts as well as implement proper response actions if planning fails.

Subfactor 4: Hazards and Safety Identification

The offeror shall provide a discussion of the hazards that may be encountered when performing work required for the LTO. This shall include the hazards that may be found at the site, the potential hazards of the contamination and hazard mitigation. The offeror shall also identify the necessary safety protective equipment required to complete hazardous work. The offeror shall provide a narrative describing its ongoing execution of its Accident Prevention/Safety and Health Program, including training, the number of current Safety and Health professionals and type, and the procedures used in the preparation and implementation of an Accident Prevention Plan (APP)/Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP).

Subfactor 5: Quality Management/Quality Control

The offeror shall provide a narrative of its corporate Quality Management/Quality Control (QM/QC) Program and its business practices that require adherence to the QM/QC Program. The offeror shall also describe its data management practices and procedures used to maintain quality and accuracy of data from generation to final report.

Included with the narrative, the offeror shall also discuss its ability to develop and manage a Program Management Plan (PMP) throughout the duration of the period of performance (POP).

Subfactor 6: Schedule

The offeror shall provide an activity-based schedule that outlines activities and milestones, defined at the appropriate detail level (deliverables, review times, meetings, etc.) and logically sequenced, to support and manage completion of the contract requirements for the Live Task Order corresponding to its proposed technical approach.

The schedule must identify the critical path for each of the Live Task Order requirements. The project schedule shall not count against the page count limitation.

9. VOLUME II: Factor 3 - Past Performance

a. This Volume’s file shall be clearly named and saved as “VOL II, W9124J-20-R-EE15, Company’s Name.”

Past Performance information is required for the offerors. Offerors shall demonstrate Recent and Relevant past performance in all functions included in the Basic PWS of this Solicitation. Recent performance is defined as projects completed within the past seven (7) years. Relevant performance is defined as work completed on projects of similar scope, complexity, and task/contract type as those described in the Base PWS. Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) projects valued at $250,000 or greater and a maximum of five (5) projects that are Recent and Relevant as defined above. The Government understands that single projects are not likely to demonstrate Relevant past performance in all functions; therefore, offerors are encouraged to submit projects with sufficient diversity that when combined together demonstrates the offeror’s performance capabilities.

Past Performance will include, at a minimum:

Contract/Project Title.

Contract Number, Customer, Contract Type, Contract Value, and Period of Performance.

Prime (or Subcontractor's) Cage and DUNS number Client, Firm or Government agency for which work was performed, including identification of the point of contact, telephone number, and e-mail address.

Description of work performed and relevance to this requirement, with a technical description sufficient to permit ready assessment.

Original award price, final or projected final price, original performance schedule, final or projected performance schedule, and brief discussion of contract modifications and extensions. For contracts which did not/do not meet original requirements with regard to schedule, or technical performance the offeror shall provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for nonoccurrence and any corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence.

A copy of the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR). If no CPAR has been completed then the offeror may provide a previous completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or utilize the PPQ provided in Attachment 6. PPQ shall be completed by previous customers to allow the Government’s assessment of the cited projects/contracts.

b. A project is defined as:

Work performed on one specific Task Order of an IDIQ type Contract at one site or multiple sites at a single or multiple Government installations/facilities or equivalent commercial locations; or

Work performed on a site-specific stand alone Contract (i.e. a non-IDIQ contract) for one site or multiple sites at a single or multiple Government installations/facilities or equivalent commercial locations.

Note: Do not list an IDIQ type contract as an example of a project. Instead, list relevant Task Orders that fit within the definition above. If the offeror provides a specific Task Order as its "project," it shall provide the Base IDIQ Contract number as well. To qualify as a project, work must be at least 70% complete by the proposal due date. For projects that are not 100% complete, the offeror shall: 1) explain the metric used to demonstrate 70% complete (e.g., based on schedule, objectives achieved); 2) provide the estimated completion date; and 3) briefly summarize the remaining activities.

10. VOLUME III: Factor 4 - Price Proposal. The price volume will consist of IDIQ cap labor rates and the Live Task Order price proposal.

a. IDIQ Cap Labor Rates Price Proposal:

The IDIQ Cap Labor rates shall include the information requested under the Pricing Schedule (Attachment 3). It shall contain the offeror’s fully burdened (i.e., fringe benefits, G&A and Profit) labor rates for exempt & SCA labor categories. The proposed IDIQ fully burdened contract labor rates shall be utilized as maximum allowable rates on subsequent task order proposals for the entire contract ordering period. The IDIQ Cap Labor Pricing Schedule shall be named and saved as “VOL III, IDIQ Cap Labor Price, W9124J- 20-R-EE15, Company’s Name.”

CAP labor rates will be used as the maximum allowable rates and may be discounted on subsequent TOs.

IAW FAR 15.403-3, the Government reserves the right to require the submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data, as defined in FAR 2.101, to arrive at a fair and reasonable price.

b. Live Task Order Price Proposal:

The Offeror shall provide a narrative to clearly explain the basis of the proposed price for the Live Task Order. The narrative must explain the utilization of the required Key Personnel, G&A and Profit utilizing either the fully burdened CAP rates proposed in the IDIQ Cap Labor Price Proposal or a DISCOUNTED rate. If discounted, Offerors must state they have discounted their CAP labor rates.

The Live Task Order Price Proposal shall include the information requested under the Live Task Order Pricing Schedule (Attachment 4). The Live Task Order Pricing Schedule shall also be named and saved as

“VOL III, LTO Price, W9124J-20-R-EE15, Company’s Name” and the Pricing Narrative shall be named and saved as “VOL III, LTO Narrative, W9124J-20-R-EE15, Company’s Name.”

IAW FAR 15.403-3, the Government reserves the right to require the submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data, as defined in FAR 2.101, to arrive at a fair and reasonable price.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS

The following is incorporated into 52.212-2 as an addendum to this solicitation:

1. Basis for Contract Award:

a. The policies and procedures under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, in conjunction with FAR Part 15, Contracting By Negotiation and FAR Part 19, Small Business Program, shall also be utilized for this procurement. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS, and the AFARS. Using the combination tradeoff method (rating Factor 3, Past Performance as either acceptable or unacceptable and tradeoff for the remaining factors) in the best value continuum, the Government will select multiple Offerors (maximum of ten) who represent the best value to the Government. The best value is defined as follows:

1) Offerors whose Factor 3 (Past Performance) is rated as acceptable (on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis), and

2) Offerors who provide the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Factor 1 (Key Personnel Experience and Management Approach), Factor 2 (Technical Approach to Live Task Order), and Factor 4 (Price). Therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. In this tradeoff assessment, Factor 1 (Key Personnel Experience and Management Approach) and Factor 2 (Technical Approach to Live Task Order), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4 (Price). However, the degree of importance of price as a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in non-price Factors 1 and 2. The greater the equality of proposals within the non-price Factors 1 and 2, the more important price, Factor 4, becomes in selecting the best value to the Government.

b. The Government intends to award a Multiple Award IDIQ as a 100% small business set aside. Multiple awards will be made to the offerors who are determined to be responsible in accordance with standards set for in FAR Part 9.104, and whose proposals conform to the RFP requirements and is judged, based on the evaluation Factors and Subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government anticipates that it may award up to ten

(10) contracts; however the Government reserves the right to make less than ten (10) awards if it is determined that there are not a sufficient number of qualified offerors.

c. The Government also intends to award the Live Task Order (LTO) on a best value basis to one (1) of the MAIDIQ contract awardees, whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government. In determining LTO award, the Government will conduct an integrated assessment of Factor 1 (Key Personnel Experience and Management Approach), Factor 2 (Technical Approach to Live Task Order), and Factor 4 (Price). Therefore, the

Government reserves the right to award the LTO to other than the lowest proposed price. In this tradeoff assessment, Factor 1 (Key Personnel Experience and Management Approach) and Factor 2 (Technical Approach to Live Task Order), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4 (Price). However, the degree of importance of price as a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in non-price Factors 1 and 2. The greater the equality of proposals within the non-price Factors 1 and 2, the more important price, Factor 4, becomes in selecting the best value to the Government.

2. Responsibility Determination. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1, no award will be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of contractor responsibility. As a result, offerors may be required to furnish additional information in order for the Government to make a determination regarding the offeror’s responsibility. If the contracting officer determines that an apparent successful offeror is non-responsible, the contracting officer shall comply with the requirements in FAR subpart 19.6 concerning certificates of competency and determinations of responsibility.

3. Evaluation Criteria Outline. The following Factors and Sub-Factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Key Personnel Experience and Management Approach

Subfactor 1: Key Personnel Project Experience Subfactor 2: Management Approach and Training

Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan Subfactor 3: Operational Effort Subfactor 4: Hazards and Safety Identification Subfactor 5: Quality Management/Quality Control Subfactor 6: Schedule

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Live Task Order Price Proposal

4. Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors.

Key Personnel Experience and Management Approach (Factor 1) is more important than Technical Approach to Live Task Order (Factor 2). In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), non-price Factors 1 and 2, when combined, are significantly more important than Price (Factor 4).

5. Factor 1 & 2 Content (Volume I – Mission Capability):

Factor 1: Key Personnel Experience and Management Approach.

Subfactor 1: Key Personnel Project Experience: Key personnel resumes did not exceed the 3 page limit and met the qualifications required under the Basic Contract PWS section 1.6.10 and also demonstrated that key personnel have the project experience in the following areas:

Provided project experience in Environmental Compliance that showed:

2 permits in each media: air, water, hazardous waste/material.

2 plans or program improvements in environmental compliance (ex. SPCC, HWMP, MS4, SWPPP).

1 Survey and/or sampling in environmental compliance (SPCC, NEPA, Radon/ Asbestos/PCB/PFOA, ODS Inventory)

(Demonstrated via: Permit type, location, title of permit, date, short summary of effort).

Provided project experience in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that showed:

1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 3 Environmental Assessments (EA)

(Demonstrated via: Title of plan, location, date, short summary of effort)

Provided project experience in Conservation Compliance (Cultural Resources) that showed:

2 Integrated Cultural and Resource Management Plan (ICRMP) 1 Historical property effort 1 Archeological data recovery 1 Artifact recovery and curation

Provided project experience in Conservation Compliance (Natural Resources) that showed:

2 Integrated Natural Resource Plan (INRMP) 2 Survey and reports for natural resource (permits, fauna, flora, forest inventory) 2 Endangered Species efforts

Subfactor 2: Management Approach and Training:

The offeror provided a management approach that clearly identified the roles and responsibilities of key personnel, to include an organizational structure and how this structure contributes to a synergistic environment. The offeror also showed the their ability to conduct environmental training and showed their program improvement capabilities based on knowledge of federal and state regulations.

Factor 2: Technical Approach to Live Task Order (LTO)

Subfactor 1: Discussion of Site, Assumptions, Regulatory Process and Required Deliverables: The offeror included a narrative of the technical approach that will be implemented to achieve the requirements of the Live Task Order (LTO) for each site. This narrative included a discussion of the applicable regulations, regulatory response process, and all deliverables required to complete the LTO.

The offeror included a narrative of assumptions that are applicable to the proposed technical approach. The offeror demonstrated the limiting factors/risks and mitigation strategies associated with its technical approach. The proposed mitigation strategies provided a thorough explanation of the offeror’s alternate approach.

Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan

The offeror provided a staffing matrix that proposed adequate management and staffing levels to successfully execute the proposed LTO technical approach. The offeror identified all members of their team, including management, key personnel, non-key personnel and any utilization of subcontractors. The offeror detailed the roles, responsibilities, and cross-utilization of personnel. The staffing matrix also identified the exempt and non-exempt labor categories (SCA labor codes and titles), number of personnel and labor hours in each labor category by year.

Subfactor 3: Operational Effort

The offeror provided a discussion of the operational effort (fieldwork) to complete the requirements of the LTO.

This discussion included the field methods, the types of equipment, and relevant sampling techniques to be used.

The offeror also provided a discussion of its approach to anticipate and proactively address reasonable deviations in system operations, physical conditions and regulatory requirements while optimizing system performance and schedule. In addition, the discussion included how the offeror plans to minimize external project impacts as well as implement proper response actions if planning fails.

Subfactor 4: Hazards and Safety Identification

The offeror provided a discussion of the hazards that may be encountered when performing work required for the LTO. This shall include the hazards that may be found at the site, the potential hazards of the contamination and hazard mitigation. The offeror also identified the necessary safety protective equipment required to complete hazardous work. The offeror also provided a narrative describing its ongoing execution of its Accident Prevention/Safety and Health Program, including training, the number of current Safety and Health professionals and type, and the procedures used in the preparation and implementation of an Accident Prevention Plan (APP)/Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP).

Subfactor 5: Quality Management/Quality Control

The offeror provided a narrative of its corporate Quality Management/Quality Control (QM/QC) Program and its business practices that require adherence to the QM/QC Program. The offeror also described its data management practices and procedures used to maintain quality and accuracy of data from generation to final report. Included with the narrative, the offeror also discussed its ability to develop and manage a Program Management Plan (PMP) throughout the duration of the period of performance (POP).

Subfactor 6: Schedule

The offeror provided an activity-based schedule that outlines activities and milestones, defined at the appropriate detail level (deliverables, review times, meetings, etc.) and logically sequenced, to support and manage completion of the contract requirements for the Live Task Order corresponding to its proposed technical approach. The schedule identified the critical path for each of the Live Task Order requirements. The project schedule shall not count against the page count limitation.

Mission Capability Rating Methodology: Each subfactor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined in TABLE A below, and then there will be an overall roll-up adjectival rating at the factor level. Proposal risk is used to portray the evaluation of weaknesses in the offeror’s proposals. The subfactor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. Any subfactor that receives a marginal/unacceptable rating will result in an overall marginal or unacceptable rating for the factor and will not be eligible for award. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1

Rating Description

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

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.

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

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

Note: A final rating of marginal is not eligible for award.

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.

Note: A final rating of marginal is not eligible for award.

DEFINITIONS:

RISK DESCRIPTION INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY

Risk Risk Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause d isruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Norma l contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combi nation of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

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

Strength is 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 means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency is 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. See FAR 15.001.

6. Factor 3: Past Performance (Volume II)

a. The offeror demonstrated Recent and Relevant past performance in all functions included in the Basic PWS of this Solicitation. These projects were completed within the past seven (7) years and the work was of similar scope, complexity, and task/contract type as those described in the Base PWS. The offeror submitted a minimum of three (3) projects that were at $250,000 or greater in value for each project. These projects were considered to be Recent and Relevant and included the following project information:

Contract/Project Title Contract Number, Customer, Contract Type, Contract Value, and Period of Performance.

Prime (or Subcontractor's) Cage and DUNS number Client, Firm or Government agency for which work was performed, including identification of the point of contact, telephone number, and e-mail address.

Description of work performed and relevance to this requirement, with a technical description sufficient to permit ready assessment.

Original award price, final or projected final price, original performance schedule, final or projected performance schedule, and brief discussion of contract modifications and extensions. For contracts which did not/do not meet original requirements with regard to schedule, or technical performance the offeror provided a brief explanation of the reason(s) for nonoccurrence and any corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence.

A copy of the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) or Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) completed by previous customers.

b. Past Performance Rating Methodology. The Past Performance Factor will assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance RFP requirements, and will receive one of the ratings outline in Table 3.

The past performance assessment is based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance related to the functions included in the Base PWS of this Solicitation. In the case of a offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or "neutral") past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered "acceptable." The offeror must receive an “Acceptable” past performance rating to be eligible for award.

TABLE 3

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the quoter’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort, or the quoter’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the quoter’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the quoter will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

7. Factor 4: Price Proposal (Volume III)

a. The Firm Fixed Price Submission will not be scored or rated. The techniques and procedures described under FAR Part 15.404-1(b) will be the primary means of assessing price analysis to determine price reasonableness. To be viable for award, an offeror’s price must be determined fair and reasonable, balanced, complete, and accurate.

i. Reasonableness. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Other price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR15.404-1(b) may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.402(a) may be required from the offeror to support the proposed price.

ii. 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.