W91278-13-R-0041_Solicitation-Amendment_0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

See Page 2.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

R 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Oct-2014

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 W91278-13-R-0041

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Sep-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

16-Oct-2014

CODE

ENDIST MOBILE CONTRACTING DIVISION

109 ST JOSEPH ST

MOBILE AL 36602

W91278 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91278-13-R-0041

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

AMENDMENT 0001

The purpose of this amendment is to revise the following:

1. Section C:

Technical Provision 1 - Scope of Work Technical Provision 14 - Nesting Structures and Sign Management

2. Section L:

Paragraph 2.1.1 (b) Quality of Past Performance

3. Section M:

Paragraph 3.0 Evaluation Criteria for Volume I

4. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is not extended.

5. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

CHANGES NOTED IN RED TEXT

SECTION C

TECHNICAL PROVISION 1

TP-1 GENERAL MANAGEMENT

SCOPE OF WORK: The purpose of this contract is for the Contractor to provide all the general management, supervision, and labor, to operate and maintain the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects sites along the Tennessee-Tombigbee (Tenn-Tom) Waterway. In addition, the contractor is to provide certain equipment, materials and parts. The project is a vital inland waterway that connects the north-flowing Tennessee River to the south-flowing Tombigbee River. The waterway extends from mile 217 on the BWT near Demopolis, Alabama, to mile 215 on the Tennessee River in the Pickwick Pool near the common boundary of Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama. The project is located in west central Alabama and northeastern Mississippi; Sumter, Greene, and Pickens Counties in Alabama, and Noxubee, Lowndes, Clay, Monroe, Itawamba, Prentiss, and Tishomingo Counties in Mississippi. Reference SECTIONS D and J for the comprehensive list of Government owned facilities, navigation channels, various recreational sites, lakes, locks, dams, spillways, systems and various types of vehicles and equipment used for this contract. With appropriate Government oversight, the Contractor will be responsible for planning and supervising the day-to-day activities of Section C.

TECHNICAL PROVISION 14

TP-14 WILDLIFE AND FORESTRY MANAGEMENT

NESTING STRUCTURES: Nesting structure management will consist of the construction, installation, relocation, maintenance, replacement, and collection of utilization data from each box. Each nesting structure includes the box, predator guard and post. The COR will provide locations, box designs, and specific installation instructions. The work must take place between 1 August and 31 December. All boxes will be installed and ready for use on or before 31 December annually. The Contractor will supply to the COR accurate records and other pertinent utilization data (installation, maintenance and equipment time and costs, box contents, maps, etc.). Three major types of nesting boxes will be included in this contract.

a. Wood Duck Boxes: The Contractor will annually maintain 1,525 wood duck boxes and collect utilization data. At the direction of the COR, up to 100 wood duck boxes will be relocated each of the first three years of the contract, and up to 40 boxes will be relocated annually during the remaining years of the contract.

b. Songbird Boxes: The Contractor will annually maintain up to 1,400 existing songbird boxes and collect utilization data. At the direction of the COR, approximately 50 boxes will be replaced and/or relocated annually.

c. Squirrel Boxes: The Contractor will annually install 50 squirrel-nesting boxes. Locations must be approved by the COR.

SIGN MANAGEMENT: The Contractor will install or replace up to 150 hunting regulation signs annually as directed by the COR.

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

2.1.1 (a) RELEVANT COMPANY EFFORT. The Offeror is to submit no more than five (5) examples of its most “recent” and “relevant” project efforts performed as a prime contractor to demonstrate its company’s accomplishments on contracts similar to the effort required in this solicitation. If the Offeror submits more than five projects, only the first five projects shall be evaluated. For each “recent” and “relevant” project example, the Offeror shall furnish the information specified below. If the Offeror is submitting “task order type projects”, each single task order project shall be submitted on a separate project data sheet. Do not combine tasks orders and present them as one entire project. As a minimum, provide the following information:

(1) Company Name

(2) Name of Project

(3) Location of Project

(4) Owner

(5) General Scope of Project/Contract as it relates to this solicitation (ref. Section C).

(6) Your Role on this Contract (Prime, Subcontractor, Joint Venture Partner) and the type of effort your company self-performed.

(7) Contract Type: (for example Firm Fixed-Price, Cost Plus Award Fee,)

(8) Contract Award Date (Provide Month and Year); Completion Date of the Base Year:

(Provide Month/Year);

(9) If this contract is being performed under an option year the completion date of the current option being preformed: (Provide Month/Year)

(10) Termination or Liquidated Damages Information; Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

(b) QUALITY OF PAST PERFORMANCE.

1) The Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of its past performance on projects submitted in paragraph 2.1.1 (a). The Offeror shall provide a completed contractor performance evaluation, whether annual or final, found in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (www.ppirs.gov). If a completed contractor performance evaluation does not exist in PPIRS (example, non-U.S. Government projects), the Offeror shall provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 1). If, at time of evaluation, a completed contractor performance evaluation exists in PPIRS that conflicts with a submitted PPQ, the completed contractor performance evaluation will govern.

2) Any past performance surveys/assessment/evaluation forms, other than PPIRS or the PPQ Form provided at the end of this section, are unacceptable submissions by the Offeror to evidence the quality of its past performance and will not be considered or evaluated.

3) Completed PPQs (Attachment 1) that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection. However, Offerors shall not incorporate any PPQs by reference to other proposals. This does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

4) If an Offeror has been required to take corrective action for any substandard performance, experienced other performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc., the Offeror should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken.

5) If a client will only provide completed PPQ’s and/or PPIRS directly to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, then ensure the client submits the PPQ and/or PPIRS before the proposal due date using the following electronic mailing address:

cesam.plansroom@sam.usace.army.mil

PPQ’s and/or PPIRS received after the proposal receipt date will not be considered timely and will not be included in the Offeror’s proposal.

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

3.0 Evaluation Criteria for Volume I

3.1 In general, there are five (5) factors evaluated in Volume I and they are listed below in order of relative importance.

Volume Location Factor Description Order of relative importance

Volume I TAB A Factor 1

Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor

1st in relative importance

Volume I TAB B

Factor 2

Technical Approach for Project Site Management

2nd in relative importance/less important than Factor 1

Volume I TAB C

Factor 3

Technical Approach for Maintenance of Lock, Dam, Spillway, Flow Structure and Channel

3rd in relative importance/less important than Factor 2

Volume I TAB D

Factor 4

Technical Approach for Grass Maintenance, Cleaning Services, Refuse Removal

4th in relative importance/less important than Factor 3

Volume I TAB E

Factor 5

Technical Approach for Pest and Invasive Plant Control

5th in relative importance/less important than Factor 4

Volume II Cost/Price Proposal Not rated but analyzed through cost analysis

Volume III Administrative Requirements Not rated; reviewed for compliance

3.2 Evaluation Criteria and Rating Schemes for Volume I.

3.2.1 Factor 1, Tab A- Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor.

In Factor 1, there are two aspects of past performance information:

(a) Relevant Company Effort

(b) Quality of Past Performance.

Only the past performance information of the Prime Contractor named on the signed Standard Form 33 submitted in Volume III, will be evaluated in combination with all the other required information submitted in Factor 1, TAB A. The Government will not evaluate the Prime Contractor or corporate experience of any corporate entity by reference to the experience of its principal officers, key employees, related companies such as a parent company, its affiliated subsidiaries, or its various divisions.

3.2.1.1 The Government will evaluate and rate Factor 1-Past Performance Information, using two rating schemes as described later in this Section.

3.2.1.2 Evaluation of Past Performance Information. This is a three-step evaluation process. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will first evaluate all past performance information submitted in the proposal for compliance with the RFP submission criteria found in Section L, paragraph 2.1.1 (a)”Relevant Company Effort” and (b) Quality of Performance. A compliant project is a recent project that has both the “Relevant Company Effort” and the (b) required PPIRS or PPQ record of quality. Only RFP compliant projects will be included in step two, Past Performance Relevancy Rating. The SSEB will compare each compliant effort to the effort to be acquired in this solicitation, reach a consensus and assign a relevancy rating. Effort that includes past accomplishments with lock maintenance, lock closures and cost plus type lake type projects will be given more consideration. The SSEB will also evaluate the quality of the effort accomplished. There is no overall relevancy rating. The Mobile District’s Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) determines relevancy and in making this determination, the following definitions for relevancy will apply.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings- Very Relevant- Present/Past effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude, effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant- Present/Past effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant- Present/Past effort involved some scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

3.2.1.3 When the recent/relevant performance record indicates performance (quality) problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective action taken (not just planned or promised). An Offeror will be given the opportunity to address any problems that they have not previously had an opportunity.

3.2.1.4 Based on the Past Performance Relevancy assessment phase of the evaluation, the SSEB will conduct the third step in the evaluation process which is the overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating is an overall rating which takes into consideration the level of relevancy of each recent, rated project, the quality ratings of those rated projects, and the general trend the recent, rated efforts have to the effort required by this RFP. The more relevant the recent projects are, the stronger predictor of successful performance. If the Offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture (JV), the SSEB will utilize the information submitted to conduct the relevancy rating and performance confidence assessment ratings of the JV as stated previously stated. Based on the information submitted by the JV Offeror, the SSEB will evaluate and assess:

(1) The JV’s “Past Performance Information” and/or

(2) Each JV partners’ “Past Performance Information” and any past performance information that is recent/relevant to the JV or relevant to each partner of the JV.

The overall rating Performance Confidence Assessment Rating reflects the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. One of the following ratings will be assigned.

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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 no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required .

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 reasonable assigned.

3.2.1.5 If the Offeror has little or no record of recent/relevant past performance information, or the record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably established, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the SSEB shall treat the Offeror neither favorably nor unfavorably. Such an Offeror shall be rated “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”.

3.3 Factor 2 Tab B-Technical Approach to Project Site Management. In Factor 2, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s organizational narrative discussing its technical approach to the management of the project site to determine whether or not the Offeror has a clear understanding of the contract requirements. The Offeror’s organization chart will be compared to its narrative to determine if the overall technical approach is consistent. The overall technical approach will be assessed for the logic and reasonableness of the organization structure to manage this project site that encompasses two states, multiple recreational sites and campgrounds and 234 miles of waterways with features than include lock and dam facilities, spillways, etc.

3.4 Factor 3 Tab C-Technical Approach for Maintenance of Lock, Dam, Spillway, Flow Structure and Channel. In Factor 3, TP-3 and TP-4 will be evaluated in combination as both factors involve both a ground crew and a floating plant responsible for maintaining the channel, lock and dam facilities, etc., along the 234 miles of waterway. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for its understanding of TP-3 and TP-4 in terms of its use of Government compounds and its allocation of staffing to manage, supervise and perform the various tasks and requirements. The number of direct labor hours and mix of labor classifications will also be evaluated for logic and reasonableness.

3.5 Factor 4 Tab D-Technical Approach for Grass Maintenance, Cleaning Services, Refuse Removal. In Factor 4, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror’s proposed approach for TP-7 and TP-8 adequately describes its procedures, methods, and delivery of services that meet or exceeds the Government’s minimum requirements. The number of direct labor hours and mix of labor classifications will also be evaluated for logic and reasonableness.

3.6 Factor 5 Tab E-Technical Approach for Pest and Invasive Plant Control. In Factor 5, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror’s proposed approach for TP-13 adequately describes its procedures, methods, and delivery of services that meet or exceeds the Government’s minimum requirements.

3.7 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Scheme. Factor 2 through Factor 5 will use a Combined Technical/Risk Rating to reflect the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum capabilities and performance requirements through an assessment of the strengths, significant strengths , weakness, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risk of a proposal.

Each factor will receive one of the following combined technical/risk ratings described below.

RATINGS COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS DEFINITIONS

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.

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

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.

MARGINAL Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not fully 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.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. The proposal is unawardable.

3.4 Additional Definitions used in Volume I and Volume II.

3.4.1 Deficiency - A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (see FAR 15.001). A deficiency will preclude award action to that Offeror.

3.4.2 Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A Significant Weakness is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Failure by an Offeror to rectify multiple significant weaknesses deemed essential will preclude award action to that Offeror (See FAR 15.001).

3.4.3 Strength - Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. A 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 appreciable advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

3.4.4 Clarification. Means limited exchanges, between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. Offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposals (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information/ adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Clarification does not give the Offeror an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal, except to the extent that corrections of apparent clerical mistakes results in a revision. Clarifications do not require discussions or submission of additional proposal information.