W9127818R00580001.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 to:

a. Section L paragraph 1.2 and Section M paragraph 1.1. The w rong form (SF1449) w as listed and it w as corrected to read SF33.

b. Section L paragraph 1.2.1 w as corrected.

c. Corrections above are show n in bold, italics, underlined, red text, w ith grey highlight.

d. Delete text in paragraph 1.1.5. Deleted text is noted w ith red text and strikethrough.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Jul-2018

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 W9127818R0058

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Jul-2018

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 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

20-Jul-2018

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:

W9127818R0058

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1. Submission Requirements for Volume I (Limited to 25 pages, 12 point font, and 1 inch margins). Submit Past Performance, Management Approach, and Key Personnel information in Volume I under the tabs indicated below and number all pages. Do NOT provide any price information in Volume I. The format for submission is as stated in this section. The contractor shall submit one (1) complete PDF file for each tab listed below by email to the Contract Specialist. Therefore Tab A past performance, Tab B experience of key personnel and Tab C management approach should each be sent in separate files.

1.1 THE ONLY AUTHORIZED TRANSMISSION METHOD FOR PROPOSALS IN RESPONSE TO THIS

SOLICITATION IS THROUGH THE U.S. ARMY MISSILE AND RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND

ENGINEERING COMMAND (AMRDEC) SAFE ACCESS FILE EXCHANGE (SAFE) WEBSITE AT:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/Welcome.aspx

1.1.1 File Title Format. Use the formats below for each file uploaded to AMRDEC SAFE.

W9127818R0058_Company Name_Volume I_Tab A W9127818R0058_Company Name_Volume I_Tab B W9127818R0058_Company Name_VolumeI_Tab C W9127818R0058_Company Name_VolumeII W9127818R0058_Company Name_VolumeIII

1.1.2 File Description. Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

1.1.3 File Deletion Date. You will be required to enter a “File Deletion Date.” The file(s) you upload will be available until the date you specify in the “File Deletion Date. After this date, the file(s) will be deleted from AMRDEC SAFE. Please select the maximum number of days for file deletion (14 days) from RFP submission date.

1.1.4 Instructions. Follow the instruction below to aid offeror submission using the AMRDEC SAFE website.

1.1.4.1 Once at the AMRDEC SAFE website select the “Click Here” link under the “Non-CAC Users” heading. This allows users without a CAC or users whose computer is not configured to read a CAC the option to access AMRDEC SAFE as a guest.

1.1.4.2 After selecting the “Click Here” link you will be prompted to add your personal information, file information, recipient (Government representative) information and email settings.

1.1.4.3 When completing your file information for transmittal via the AMRDEC SAFE website, you will be required to enter the email address for all recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients are the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. The Contract Specialist for this solicitation is Eric J. Hurtado (Eric.J.Hurtado@usace.army.mil). The Contracting Officer for this solicitation is Sonya D. Rodgers (Sonya.D.Rodgers@usace.army.mil). After entering the email address, click the ADD button to add the persons email to the “Recipients List” of your proposal. When your proposal is submitted, a notification will be sent to the recipients you added.

1.1.4.4 After uploading your documents, you will be required to verify your email address before AMRDEC will send notification to the government recipients. This is a very important step. Even if you successfully upload your proposal to AMRDEC SAFE, notification will not be sent to the government recipients until you verify your email address. Entering an incorrect email may result in the rejection of your proposal for lateness. Follow the instructions on the AMRDEC website and the confirmation emails you receive from AMRDEC.

1.1.5 Receipt of Proposal. For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal is considered late, the Government considers (the earlier of) the date and time of receipt of the email notification to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer by the AMRDEC SAFE website, NOT the date and time of uploading of the proposal into the AMRDEC SAFE website as the time of proposal submission. For proposals larger than the 2GB capacity of the AMRDEC SAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider (the earlier of) the date and time of receipt of the email notification to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer of the last proposal submission. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.208 is clear that in order for the Contracting Officer to consider an otherwise late proposal, the proposal must be received before award is made, must not unduly delay the acquisition, and in the case of proposals transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, must be received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals. The Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient of proposals. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

1.2 Tab A - Factor 1 Past Performance of the Prime Contractor. The contractor that is listed and signs the SF33 is considered the Prime Contractor and Offeror. The Offeror is to provide past performance information regarding recent and relevant efforts and the quality of those efforts to demonstrate accomplishments and capabilities to successfully perform the effort required by this RFP. The offeror will complete attachment 1 and attachment 2 Part 1 of 3 for all three (3) examples of past performance. The offeror will forward the completed copies of attachment 1 to the Contract Specialist with the rest of their proposal.

1.2.1 Instructions. Follow the instructions below to provide examples of past performance.

1.2.1.1 The offeror will forward the completed attachment 2 part 1 of 3 along with blank copies of parts 2 and 3 to the Government agency or commercial firm that the work was performed for (client/reference).

1.2.1.2 The client/reference will complete blocks 5-8 of the attachment 2 part 1 of 3 and the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) attachment 3 part 3 of 3.

1.2.1.3 The client/reference will send attachment 2 directly to the Government Contract Specialist, Eric J.

Hurtado (eric.j.hurtado@usace.army.mil) no later than the RFP due date. All documents must be sent using AMRDEC SAFE. Files will be uploaded and sent using email address above. Please have the reference/client include the solicitation number in the document title.

1.2.1.4 PPQs received after the proposal receipt date may not be considered timely and may not be evaluated as part of the offeror’s proposal unless it is determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the best interest of the Government.

1.2.2 There are three aspects to past performance information: (a) recent and (b) relevant company efforts and the

(c) quality of past performance.

(a) An effort that is “recent” is one that has been completed within three (3) years of the solicitation issue date, or one where the effort or project is at least 50% complete (measured by performance period days) as of the solicitation issue date. (Offerors are responsible for providing start and completion dates for each completed project, or the start and scheduled completion dates for projects currently underway.);

(b) An “relevant” effort is one performed under a contract or task order, as those terms are defined in FAR

2.101, for Federal, State or Local Governments, or the commercial or private sector. Multiple efforts or projects under a single contract or task order are considered one project. Do not combine multiple efforts or projects under separate contracts or task orders to create a single project. A “relevant” effort is one that is similar in scope (type, size, complexity and dollar value) to the effort/project types described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). For an effort or project to be assessed any degree of “relevancy”, it must reflect performance of or similar to “serving as a staffing agency for professional registered nurses who provided Occupational Health Nursing services in accordance with Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), applicable public health regulations, and other directives/protocols.” The offeror will indicate the relevance of their past performance information by enumerating the sections and/or specific paragraphs of the PWS on attachment 1 “Prime Contractor Project Data Sheet”.

(c) The quality of the past performance rating will be established in consideration of the information provided from references in the past performance questionnaires (PPQ) sent to the Government by offeror’s references. Further, the Government may establish the quality of offeror past performance by searching available information including, but not limited to, contacting each client/reference provided and searching the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

1.2.3 For the purpose of this Solicitation Requirement, the Offeror shall provide no more than three (3) examples of recent and relevant efforts or projects performed as the prime contractor or subcontractor that demonstrate the company’s ability to perform work similar to that required by this solicitation. If more than three (3) projects are submitted for evaluation, only the three (3) most recent projects will be evaluated.

1.2.4 Joint Venture Submission Requirements. Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV) shall obtain a DUNS number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) in the name of the Joint Venture. The Offeror, that is the JV, must provide no more than three (3) “recent”, relevant” projects performed by the JV that reflect the JV’s ability to perform the work required in this solicitation and projects that meet the requirements in this appendix.

1.2.4.1 If the Offeror, that is the JV, cannot provide a sufficient number of projects as the JV to meet the requirement, the Offeror must provide “recent”, “relevant” projects that it has performed as the JV, and then supplement the record with additional “recent”, “relevant” projects performed by any JV member in their individual capacities. In this instance, the total number of projects submitted shall be no more than three (3), regardless of the combination of JV projects and JV member projects. JV Offeror past performance that is not performed by the JV as the contractor will NOT be rated as favorably as past performance performed by the entire JV. Therefore, past performance only by one JV member will not be rated as favorably as performance by the JV.

1.2.4.2 If the Offeror, that is the JV, has no “recent”, “relevant” projects performed by the JV, then members of the JV must provide a combined total of no more than three (3) “recent”, “relevant” projects performed by either member of the JV that reflects the JV member’s ability to perform the work required in this solicitation. JV member performance will be treated as previously stated in paragraph 1.1.3.1.

1.2.5 Verification: The Government reserves the right to verify the information on projects submitted for evaluation, and to review Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and PPIRS, or other Government project appraisal systems, for information on other projects performed by the Offeror whether submitted as part of a proposal or not. The Government also reserves the right to contact project clients/customer, or other references.

1.3 Tab B – Factor 2 – Experience of Key Personnel. Key personnel are those staff required for duties such as, but not limited to management of the contract and recruiting. Offerors shall provide key personnel with no less than 3 years of experience related to the size, scope and complexity of this procurement. Describe the key personnel who will manage and execute this contract. Describe the role each person will play in the execution of this contract. Provide resumes for key personnel which demonstrates the key personnel’s training and certifications, as well as, experience in planning, managing and executing work similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to this work. Key personnel may be experienced supporting similar commercial and or state/local/Federal Government contracts, but key personnel with experience providing similar services for Federal Government customers will be considered a strength. If alternates are proposed for key personnel, the evaluation rating will be based on the lesser qualified or experience person, if there is a difference.

(a) Identify Home Office, Key Technical and Key Management Personnel. Describe the home office organization structure and allocation of responsibilities with lines of authority to support contract execution. An organization chart is required. Ensure the information fully coordinates and supports the narrative.

(b) Provide resumes and discuss qualifications of key personnel (Resumes are excluded from 25 page total for Volume 1). Personnel designated as “key” personnel must be at least 50% dedicated to this contract. Such personnel in the roles of project management, technical manager(s), technical review/ subject matter experts, supervisory, safety, quality control or other lead roles in which they oversee or review the work of their discipline, or are otherwise considered crucial for the execution of this contract.

Resumes of the proposed key personnel should clearly describe their professional qualification, job title, education, certifications, dates thereof and relevant experience of the Prime Offeror or other experience as referenced. Indicate fully, responsibilities key personnel had in connection with any of the projects listed in “Past Performance” and any other projects that involved managing projects comparable to this project.

1.4 Tab C – Management Approach. Describe your plan to manage personnel, coordinate and execute multiple tasks

(in the scope of work) for successful contract execution at various locations. Discuss your plans for recruiting, attracting, hiring, firing, developing and retaining a workforce to staff this contract with the skills and knowledge necessary to support the specialized ROHC missions and functions. Discuss any special licensing requirements and how you will satisfy these requirements. Address your strategy for handling surges and disaster deployment. Discuss how full performance of services will be maintained during employee absences and unscheduled leave. Address plans, prioritization of important tasks, and the extent to which Government interaction is required to accomplish successful transition and phasing in.

(a) Methodology.

1) Address the overall methodology that will be used to perform the work.

2) Discuss your technical approach of assigning work to schedule and produce efficient contract performance.

3) Discuss interface procedures with Government personnel.

4) Discuss staffing solutions for work described in the PWS to include 3 ROHC clinic locations and requirements to send Nurses to distant locations and provide Occupational Health Nurse services for Disaster and Emergency Response Missions.

(b) Prime Approach.

1) Discuss approach to accomplishing at least 51% of requirement as a small business (IAW FAR 52.219-14).

2) List work intended to be self-performed, other than management, to meet contract requirements.

3) Identify names of subcontractor(s), if any, and work intended to be performed by subcontractor.

4) Discuss and provide the experience of your lead technical members (both staff or subcontractor) as they relate various work disciplines in the consolidated scope.

(c) Management of work.

1 ) Describe how contractor personnel will be managed for onsite work at the Government workspace.

2 ) Discuss how personnel are managed daily; how work load is distributed; how interim/draft and final deliverables are developed and reviewed internally prior to submittal to the government; discuss how personnel will sign into meetings, answer phones, and correspond with others; discuss internal training program(s) and how they are administered.

3 ) Discuss coordination of work with subcontractors.

(d) Quality Control. Provide key elements and discussion of a Quality Control Plan addressing quality control of deliverables, specific technical review techniques, and processes in place for identifying a problem or deficiency is noted and interface/ communication procedure.

2. Submission Requirements for Volume II. The Price Proposal will consist of the excel worksheet titled “bid schedule” provided with this solicitation.

2.1 Bid Schedule. In submitting the Price Proposal, the Offeror will be required to fully complete the “bid schedule” worksheet (attachment 4) provided by the Government. The Offeror is responsible for the accuracy of all data provided, to include formulas and calculations. Offeror’s are cautioned to use the most current worksheet in the solicitation. Offerors shall insert a price on all numbered items of the Bid Schedule.

3. Submission Requirements for Volume III. The offeror shall provide the following administrative requirements in ONE file:

3.1 Tab A – Signed and dated SF33 along with an acknowledgement of any and all amendments by providing a copy of the SF30 from each amendment.

3.2 Tab B – Complete Representation and Certifications contained at FAR Clause 52.204-8 or provide a copy from the Offeror’s SAM registration.

3.3 Tab C – Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable): If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, a copy of the fully executed Joint Venture Agreement must be provided. When bidding as a Joint Venture, each member of the Joint Venture must complete the Representations and Certifications unless the Joint Venture Agreement designates one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the Joint Venture. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may render the bid non-responsive. For 8(a) Joint Ventures, the Offeror shall also submit evidence that it has notified and discussed the proposed Joint Venture with its SBA Servicing office.

3.4 Tab D – Current financial statement of the Offeror, certified by an independent accounting firm, if practicable, or by an authorized officer of the organization. If the financial statement is more than 60 days old, a certificate must be attached stating that the company’s financial condition is substantially the same or, if not the same, what changes have occurred. Such statements will be treated as confidential by the Government.

3.5 Tab E – Bank Reference Letter. Offeror shall provide a reference from their current Banking Institution (on bank letterhead), which will be treated as confidential by the Government, stating the following:

3.5.1 Active account dates

3.5.2 Average account balance (in estimated figures) for 12 months prior to proposal due date

3.5.3 Status of any lines of credit including amounts available. Availability and amount of credit, if required.

3.5.4 Evaluation of company standing with bank: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor

3.6 Tab F – Notice of Exceptions. Offeror shall identify any exceptions, deviations or waivers from the solicitation. Any exceptions, deviations or waivers from the solicitation shall be specifically identified. If no exceptions exist, state so. Any exception, deviation or waiver not specifically identified, regardless of whether it is included elsewhere in the proposal, shall be deemed invalid.

4. Requests for Information. Any questions about this solicitation, including technical questions, shall be submitted via the Bidder Inquiry Portal in ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org/projnet. Questions should be submitted no later than July 20, 2018, 2:00 p.m. Central Time to allow time for a response, and an amendment to the solicitation, if necessary. On this date and time, the portal will be closed. For technical questions, no other means of communication (e-mail, fax or telephone) will be accepted. Oral exchanges between offerors and the Government prior to award of the contract will not be binding. In addition to the information available to the Offerors on the Bidder Inquiry Portal, any information concerning this solicitation will be furnished to all Offerors as an amendment to the solicitation if the information is necessary to the submittal of offers.

4.1 To submit and review inquiries, an Offeror needs to be a current registered user of the ProjNet system. To register, go to https://www.projnet.org/projnet, click the “BID” tab, select “Bidder Inquiry”, select agency “USACE”, enter the “Bidder Inquiry Key” for the solicitation listed below, and your e-mail address, and then click login. Complete all required information and then click “Create User”. Verify that information on the next screen is correct and click “Continue”.

4.2 From this page you can view all bidder inquiries for this solicitation or submit an inquiry. Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their question via e-mail, and the Mobile District’s technical team will post a response to the ProjNet system after it has been processed.

4.2.1 SOLICITATION NUMBER is: W91278-18-R-0058

4.2.2 BIDDER INQUIRY KEY is: FHKWGG-587T5Y

4.3 Note: Any inquiry submitted and answered within this system, will be accessible to view by all interested Offerors on this solicitation.

4.4 If there are any conflicts between the solicitation and the responses provided in the ProjNet system, the solicitation governs. Changes to the solicitation will be made by amendment.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD

The evaluation factors are listed below in order. The Key Personnel and Management Approach (factors 2 & 3) are equal to each other and when combined are 1st in relative importance. Past performance is 2nd in relative importance. The Pricing and Administrative Volumes (II & III) will be evaluated as described below, but will not receive a rating. The evaluation process consists of four parts: (1) Volume I, Past Performance (2) Volume I Key Personnel AND Management Approach (3) Volume II, Price Proposal; and (4) Volume III Administrative - Proposal.

Volume Location Factor Description Order of relative importance

Volume I Factor 1

TAB A

Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor

These factors are equal in importance and when combined are more important than price Volume I

Factor 2

TAB B

Experience of Key Personnel

Volume I Factor 3

TAB C

Management Approach

Volume II Tab A Tab C

Worksheet Bid Schedule Seed Project Pricing

Not rated. Pricing evaluated using Price analysis.

Volume III Tab A- F Administrative Not rated.

1. Evaluation Criteria for Volume III Tab A Factor 1 Past Performance Information

1.1 There are three (3) aspect evaluated in Volume I Tab A Factor 1, and they are explained below.

a) Recency of Past Performance

b) Relevant Company Effort

c) Quality of Past Performance.

Only the past performance information of the Prime Contractor named on the signed Standard Form 33 will be evaluated. Only the experience detailed in Section L, Instructions to Offerors will be considered. JV past performance will be evaluated in accordance with instructions in section L.

1.1.1 Evaluation of Past Performance Information. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate past performance information, in accordance with RFP Section L instructions to offerors, for compliance with the RFP submission criteria found in the respective paragraphs for recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. A compliant project is a recent company effort that contains the required information on PPQ. Only compliant projects will be included in aspect 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. There is no overall relevancy rating. The following definitions for relevancy will apply:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Description

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

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

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

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

1.1.2 The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The SSEB will also evaluate the quality of the effort accomplished. The past performance evaluation conducted 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. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment

1.1.3 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). If there is past performance information that adversely impacts an offeror’s proposal assessment, an opportunity will be provided the offeror to address any such information on which it has not had a previous opportunity to comment. This opportunity may occur during clarifications, communications, or discussions, depending upon whether discussions are anticipated. The Government will summarize the problem(s) with sufficient detail to give the offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond.

1.1.4 Based on the relevancy and quality aspect assessments, the SSEB will reach an overall performance confidence assessment rating. The rating is an overall rating that takes into consideration the level of relevancy of each project, the quality ratings for those projects, and the general trend of the project portfolio as a whole. The more relevant the projects are, and the greater degree of satisfaction expressed by project owners, the stronger the prediction that such offeror will successfully perform the solicitation requirements. For JV Offerors, the SSEB will evaluate and assess the JV’s Past Performance Information, and/or each JV member’s/partner’s Past Performance Information, as appropriate. The performance confidence assessment ratings are described below.

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.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned.

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

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

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

1.1.5 In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past performance or where past performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. In such cases, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral confidence”.

2. Evaluation Criteria for Volume I Tab B/C - Factor 2/3, Key Personnel and Management Approach: The Government will assess strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and any deficiencies in the Offeror’s approaches to the work. The Government will evaluate how well an Offeror’s proposed approaches show compliance with the technical requirements and scope of work.

2.1 Definitions

2.1.1 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.

2.1.2 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).

2.1.3 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.

2.2 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Scheme. Based on the assessment of strengths, weaknesses, significant weakness and deficiencies found, if any, Factors 2 and 3 will each receive a Combined Technical/Risk Rating to reflect the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum capabilities and performance requirements of that factor. The combined technical/risk ratings are described below.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

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.

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.

3. Evaluation Criteria for Volume II Price Proposal

3.1 Cost and Price Analysis. Price will NOT receive an adjectival rating, but rather analyzed in accordance with

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.404-1 Proposal Analysis Techniques. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Techniques may include, but are not limited to, those listed in FAR 15.404-1(b) Price Analysis for Commercial and Non- Commercial Items.

3.2 Arithmetic Discrepancies. For the purpose of initial evaluation of the price proposal, the following will be utilized in resolving arithmetic discrepancies found on the face of volume II Price Proposal as submitted by the Offeror:

a) Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected;

b) In case of discrepancy between unit price and extended price, the unit price will govern;

c) Apparent errors in extension of unit prices will be corrected; and

d) Apparent errors in addition of lump-sum and extended prices will be corrected.

For the purpose of bid evaluation, the Government will proceed on the assumption that the Offeror intends its bid to be evaluated on the basis of unit prices, extensions, and totals arrived at by resolution of arithmetic discrepancies as provided above, and the bid will be so reflected on the abstract of bids.

4. Clarifications. 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.

5. Evaluation Process

5.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) composed of representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will evaluate the proposals. The SSEB will utilize technical advisors in the evaluation process, as necessary. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process.

5.2 The evaluation process consists of: Proposal Compliance Review, Volume I, Past Performance, Volume I Key

Personnel and Management Approach, Volume II Price Proposal, Volume III Administrative - Proposal.; and Best Value Determination.

5.2.1 Volume I, Tab A – Factor 1 Past Performance Review: The USACE Mobile District Contracting

Division will gather the past performance information and provide it to the SSEB. The information will be evaluated as stated previously in evaluation criteria

5.2.2 Proposal Compliance Review: This is a review by the Contracting Division to ensure that all required volumes, forms, certifications, etc., are complete and all administrative requirements comply with the RFP.

All responsive offers will proceed to price evaluation.

5.2.3 Volume I Tab B/C - Factor 2/3, Key Personnel and Management Approach: Without knowledge of price, the SSEB will evaluate proposals furnished to them by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The rating systems and definitions used for the non-price factors are included in evaluation criteria.

5.2.4 Price Evaluation: All responsive offers will be analyzed to ensure that the prices offered in the bid schedule and seed project are balanced, fair, and reasonable for the proposed effort. Price will be analyzed, but will not be rated. Pricing information will not be revealed to the SSEB until the Board has completed its evaluation and ratings of Volume I submissions.

6. Need for Discussions

6.1 In accordance with solicitation provision 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without “discussions” with offerors. The Government however reserves the right to conduct “discussions”, if the Contracting Officer determines that “discussions” are necessary or are otherwise in the Government's best interest. Considering the foregoing, Offerors are cautioned to provide their best terms for both price and non-priced technical submission with their initial offers, and not automatically assume they will be included in the competitive range for “discussions”, if “discussions” are deemed necessary. Note that “clarifications”, as described in FAR 15.306(a), conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors do not constitute “discussions”.

6.2 If “discussions” are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will include only those firms deemed to be the most highly rated and that have a reasonable chance for award. In certain circumstances, the Government may limit offers in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated offers. The Government may exclude an offer if it is so deficient as to require extensive “discussions” and major revisions such as to allow an Offeror unfair advantage over those having more competitive offers.

6.3 If “discussions” are required, Offerors included in the competitive range shall receive a list of the weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies found in their proposals. Offerors shall be given an opportunity to respond in writing. Responses, subsequent proposal revisions, and the final proposal revisions (FPR) shall be submitted electronically. The Contracting Officer will notify all the Offerors in the competitive range, in writing, how and when interim revisions and final proposals revisions are to be submitted.

6.3.1 If the offeror’s price proposal is revised, the changes in the proposal must be explained, traceable, and understandable.

6.3.2 Upon conclusion of “discussions”, all offers will be reevaluated and those still within the competitive range will be afforded an opportunity to submit a final revised proposal.

7. Basis for Award: The Government will award a Firm Fixed Price Contract to that responsible Offeror whose combined proposal (Volume I & II) conforms to the RFP, is fair and reasonable, and has been determined to be most advantageous to the Government. The evaluation factors (Volume I), other than cost or price, are more important than price (Volume II). This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation factors, and the Government reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. As the differences in technical ratings and relative advantages or disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror with any deficiencies as defined above.

7.1 Offerors with little or no relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for past performance. However, the proposal of an Offeror with little or no relevant past performance history, while rated neutral confidence in past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to proposals of other Offerors.

7.2 The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest price offer. The basis of award will be a conforming offer, the price of which may or may not be the lowest. If other than the lowest priced offer is selected for award, it must be sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest priced offer to justify the payment of additional amounts.

7.3 The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

(End of Summary of Changes)