W9127823R0018_Solicitation 0004.pdf

W9127823R0018

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

1. The purpose of this amendment is to update Section L (Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders).

2. As a result of this amendment proposal due date remain unchanged

3. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Sep-2023

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 W9127823R0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Aug-2023

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

26-Sep-2023

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO

BIDDERS

PROJECT SPECIFIC SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

1.7 INTRODUCTION. This is a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12, 13, and Subpart 13.5 competitive small business (SB) set-aside, and conducted in accordance with. “Best Value” Trade-off Source Selection processes and techniques from FAR Part 15 are being utilized as authorized by FAR 13.003(g)(2) to establish an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ), Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC). This ID/IQ SATOC shall support program planning and training requirements for U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center (USACRC) to provide a range of general planning services, specific planning support for programs and initiatives, and program coordination and management. The contractor will provide training instruction to Department of Defense (DoD) service members and civilians to execute the Planning and Training Support in accordance with requirements established by the DoD and the Department of the Army. Support includes both on-site and remote execution of meeting/workshop/training classroom training for end users and internal staff activities. Required support locations include the Continental United States (CONUS) and may also include DoD locations Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) as needed. Individual task orders (TOs) will be negotiated for specific requirements and locations.

In this source selection, the following are submission requirements:

Volume 1 – Technical Certifications, Past Performance, Key Personnel, and Technical Approach

Volume 2 – Bid Schedule (attached) and Price Proposal for Sample Project

Volume 3 – Administrative Requirements

1.8 Who May Submit. Any responsible businesses organized as a prime contractor that is a SB firm as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration.

1.9 Project Description. In general, this project is described in RFP Section C and other Sections and Appendices for the entire scope of effort required.

1.10 Request for Information. Any questions about this solicitation, including technical questions about Technical Provisions (TP’s), shall be submitted via the Bidder Inquiry Portal in ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org/projnet. Questions shall be submitted no later than 26 Sep 2023, at 5:00 p.m. Central Time to allow time for a response, and amendment of 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.

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”.

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.

SOLICITATION NUMBER: W9127823R0018

BIDDER INQUIRY KEY: SJUVRC-22B86X

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

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.

1.11 Pre-Proposal Conference. No pre-proposal conference is schedule for this solicitation.

1.12 Proposal Submission Address and Deadline: Submit proposal package to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers via electronic mail ONLY to jeffery.j.mason@usace.army.mil. Submit the Standard Form 1449 (SF1449), no later than the time and date specified in Block 8 of the SF1449. Any and all amendments to the solicitation will be issued on a Standard Form 30 (SF30) and shall be acknowledged by completion of Block 15 of the SF30.

1.13 Period for acceptance of offers. Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1(c).

The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 120 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

1.14 Proposal Submission Requirements. Submit electronic proposals in three separate volumes in the formats and quantities indicated below. Volumes I, II, and III shall be submitted via electronic mail ONLY to jeffery.j.mason@usace.army.mil. All submittals shall annotate the solicitation number, and company name.

1.14.1 Volume I – Technical Certifications, Past Performance, Key Personnel, and

Technical Approach (1 PDF copy total). See Section M for requirements regarding evaluation factors and evaluation criteria for Volume I.

A. Tab A – Technical Certifications

• Small Business certification for NAICS code 541990

• ISO 27001 Certification

• CMMi Services Level 2 or greater Certification at the time of submittal (Note: The Section C requires a CMMi Services Level 3 prior to contract award. Offerors must demonstrate they currently possess or are on track to possess this requirement by the date of award. Offerors should anticipate December 2023 as the estimated deadline for compliance with this requirement.)

B. Tab B – Past Performance

• Submit in 8-1/2” x 11” format

• 25 Page limit (count doesn’t include PPQ or CPARS pages)

C. Tab C – Key Personnel for Sample Project

• Resume Format

• Page limit of 21 pages

D. Tab D – Technical Approach for Sample Project

• 25 Page limit

• No detailed labor hours calculations or cost/price information should be included in the technical approach.

1.14.2 Volume II – Bid Schedule and Price Proposal for Sample Project. See Section M for requirements regarding evaluation factors and evaluation criteria for Volume

II.

A. Bid Schedule for Contract Labor Categories

• Use template excel file provided in solicitation files

• Submit 2 copies, one in PDF and one in excel

• Ensure all cost information is correctly rounded to the nearest

$0.01

B. Price Proposal for the Sample Project

• Submit 2 copies, one in PDF and one in excel

• Ensure all cost information is correctly rounded to the nearest

$0.01

• No page limit

1.14.3 Volume III – Administrative Requirements. In Volume III, the Offeror is to submit the following (1 PDF copy total):

A. Signed and dated SF1449 along with an acknowledgement of any and all amendments by completion of Block 15 of the SF30.

B. Proposal Data Sheet Completed and Signed (See Attachment 1 at the end of this section).

C. Complete Representation and Certifications contained at FAR

Clause 52.212-3 or provide a copy from the Offeror’s SAM registration.

D. 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.

E. Financial Statements. Provide a 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.

F. 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:

• What date was the accounts(s) opened with your bank?

• What is the average balance for the last 12 months on the company account (about how many figures)?

• Has this company established a line of credit with your bank? If so, what is the credit amount and how much is available at this time? If not, is the bank willing to establish a line of credit for this company? If so, is the bank willing to establish one in the low six figure range?

• Please indicate how you would evaluate the company as a customer: Poor; Fair; Very Good; Excellent.

• Are the company account(s) in good standing? Yes or No G. Notice of Exceptions. Offeror shall identify any exceptions, deviations or waivers from the solicitation in the Notice of Exceptions Form (See Attachment 2 at the end of this Section).

1.14.4 To evaluate proposals, the Government must receive information that clearly describe an Offeror’s capabilities, is sufficiently detailed, and is organized in the order described in this solicitation. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to submit complete proposal information and documents that are fully responsive to the submission requirements of the solicitation. Offerors are responsible for organizing submitted material sequentially under tabs and numbered pages to facilitate evaluation. Materials not organized under the appropriate tabs and in the sequence of subparagraphs set out below, may easily be overlooked during evaluations and therefore impact an Offeror’s rating.

(ATTACHMENT

1) PROPOSAL

DATA SHEET

In addition to the completed and signed SF1449, submit the Proposal Data Sheet and include in Volume III Administrative Requirements.

1. Name of Solicitation:

2. Offering Firm’s Name as Appears on the SF1449:

Offering Firm’s DUNS number as it appears on the SF1449:

Offering Firm’s CAGE Code as it appears on the SF1449:

2a If applicable, Offering Firm’s Joint Venture (JV) Individual Member Information:

JV Member 1 Name & DUNS:

JV Member 2 Name & DUNS:

3. Mailing Address:

4. Telephone Number:

5. Fax Number:

6. E-mail Address to use for all correspondence:

7. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. The Offeror represents that the following person(s) are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposal (RFP).

List name(s), title, and telephone numbers of authorized negotiator(s).

Name of Person(s) Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator’s Address:

Negotiator’s Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

End of Attachment 1

(ATTACHMENT 2)

NOTICE OF EXCEPTIONS

Any exceptions, deviations or waivers from the solicitation shall be specifically identified below.

If none, state so. Any exception, deviation or waiver not specifically identified below, regardless of whether it is included in the proposal, shall be deemed invalid. May supplement with additional pages if necessary.

End of Attachment 2

Attachment 1 – Prime Contractor Project Data Sheet

The Offeror shall provide the following information to show examples of the prime contractor’s company’s recent, relevant, specialized experience in similar type work. Use separate sheets for each project example.

1. Company Name:

2. Name of Project:

3. Location of Project:

4. Owner (i.e. customer work was completed for):

5. Cost for this single contract:

6. Your Role (Prime, Subcontractor, Joint Venture, etc.) and type work Your Company Self-Performed other than management:

7. Contract type:

(Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus Award Fee, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, etc.)

8. Extent and Type of Work Subcontracted Out:

9. Dates Project: Began 100% Completed One Year Completed (Month/Year) (Month/Year) (Month/Year)

10. Were You Terminated? If yes, attach an explanation. Were you assessed Liquidated Damages?

If yes, attach an explanation. Provide comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the owner or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions (use additional pages as necessary):

11. Name and contact information (telephone/email/etc.) of Owner’s point of contact:

12. Narrative Description of General Scope of Project/Contract as it relates to this solicitation (use additional pages as necessary):

Attachment 2 – Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

Part 1 of 3

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS

DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED

QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO

SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE

SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC

INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL

INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture

Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

(ATTACHMENT 2 con’t) Part 2 of 3

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(NA) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR

EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

Part 3 of 3

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U NA

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E

VG

S

M

U

NA

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U NA

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U NA

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U NA

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U NA

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U NA

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U NA

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort

E VG S M U NA

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U NA

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U NA

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U NA

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes

No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

SECTION M

Section M

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD

Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award

1.0 Evaluation Process

1.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), composed of representatives from the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers will evaluate the proposals. The SSEB, which is comprised technical evaluation team (TET) and a cost/price team (CPT), will utilize technical advisors PIEErevealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process.

1.2. The evaluation process consists of four parts: (1) proposal compliance review; (2) Volume I, evaluation of all evaluation factors other than cost/price; (3) Volume II, cost/price analysis;

and (4) tradeoff analysis on price proposal (Sample Task Order).

1.2.1. Proposal Compliance Review: This is a review by Contracting Division to ensure that all required Volumes, forms, certifications, etc., are complete and all administrative requirements are met in accordance with the RFP. Offers which are not compliant with the solicitation requirements may be marked deficient and removed from further consideration. The SSEB will review the severity of the non-compliance and determine if removal is warranted on a case-by-case basis.

1.2.2. Volume 1 Evaluation: Without knowledge of cost/price, the TET will evaluate all Volume I proposals furnished to them by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The rating systems and definitions used for the non-cost/price factor evaluations are included in this Section.

1.2.3. Volume 2 Evaluation: Upon completion of Volume 1 evaluations, the CPT will consider Volume 2 Cost/Price in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.404-1 Proposal Analysis Techniques.

1.2.4. Performance/Technical-Price Tradeoff Analysis: Upon completion of Volume 1 and

Volume 2 evaluations, the SSEB teams will then consider and compare the price in connection with the technical evaluation to determine which proposal offering is most advantageous to the Government. The tradeoff analysis will be conducted after evaluations of initial offers, if discussions are not necessary, or upon completion of the technical and cost evaluations of final proposal revisions if discussions are necessary. Offerors are reminded that some tradeoff considerations are usually part of the process used to determine which firms will be included in the competitive range for discussions, if discussions are necessary.

2.0 Submission Requirements for Volume I. Submit the requested Technical Certification and

Past Performance information in Volume I, under the tabs indicated below and number all pages. Note: Do NOT provide any price information in Volume I.

2.1. Factor 1 – Tab A: Technical Certifications. The Prime Contractor (Offeror) signed on the SF1449 is to provide its technical certifications required in Section C of this solicitation.

2.2. Factor 1 – Tab B: Past Performance of the Prime Contractor. The Prime Contractor (Offeror) signed on the SF1449 is to provide past performance information regarding recent and relevant efforts. This information also includes the quality (PPQ/CPARS) of those efforts to demonstrate capability to successfully perform and accomplish the effort required under this RFP. For Past performance, there are two informational aspects to be submitted: (a) Relevant Company Effort and (b) Quality of Past Performance.

2.2.1. DEFINITIONS:

A. Where the word "project” and/or “effort(s)" appears in the RFP, it is understood to mean a single contract or task order award. Examples of project effort submitted by Offeror may be projects performed for a State or Federal Government agency or for a commercial or private sector customer.

B. Where the word “recent” appears, it is understood to mean a contract or task order which is 100% complete. In the case of contracts with a base year and multiple ordering periods, recent is understood to mean 100% completion of the base year or most recently 100% completed ordering period. All project examples must have a completion date within five (5) years of the RFP issue date to be considered recent.

C. “Relevant” past performance information is one indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. Where the word “relevant” appears, it is understood to mean a single project effort comprising tasks and deliverables similar to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of work efforts listed in Section C.

2.2.2. RELEVANT COMPANY EFFORT. The offeror shall submit up to 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 (5) projects, only the first five (5) 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 Prime Contractor Project Data Sheet (Section L – Attachment 1). Do not combine tasks orders and present them as one entire project.

As a minimum, provide the following information:

A. Company Name B. Name of Project C. Location of Project D. Owner (i.e., customer work was completed for) E. Cost for this single contract F. Extent and type of work subcontracted out G. Contract Award Date (Provide Month and Year); Completion Date: (Provide

Month/Year) H. 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

I. Name and contact information of Owner’s point of contact J. General Scope of Project/Contract as it relates to this solicitation

2.2.3. QUALITY OF PAST PERFORMANCE

A. The Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of its past performance for each project submitted. 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, the Offeror shall provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Section L – Attachment 2).

If, at time of evaluation, a completed contractor performance evaluation exists in PPIRS that conflicts with a submitted PPQ, the completed contractor performance evaluation in PPIRS will govern.

B. Any past performance surveys/assessment/evaluation forms, other than PPIRS or the PPQ Form, are unacceptable submissions by the offeror to evidence the quality of its past performance and will not be considered or evaluated.

C. Completed PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be submitted. However, Offerors shall not incorporate PPQs by reference that were previously submitted for other RFPs, and thus must resubmit the PPQ with their proposal. However, 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.

D. PPQs lacking client information and signature in Blocks 5-8 will be considered non-compliant and will not be evaluated by the TET.

E. 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.

F. If a client will only provide completed PPQs 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

G. PPQs and/or PPIRS received after the proposal receipt date will not be considered timely and will not be included in the Offeror’s proposal. Please include the solicitation number in the subject line of the email.

H. Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV) shall obtain a DUNS number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a JV.

Include a fully executed Joint Venture Agreement

i. Standard Form 1449, acknowledgement of all amendments, and a completed and signed Proposal Data Sheet (See Attachment in Instructions).

ii. Pricing (Proposal and Bid Schedule)

iii. A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within the organization who are familiar with company’s performance. For a newly formed Joint Venture (JV), each JV partner must submit a list of present commitments.

I. Joint Venture Submission Requirements.

i. Like other Offerors, a JV Offeror shall provide no more than five (5) examples of recent, relevant projects performed by the JV that reflect the

JV’s ability to perform the work required in this solicitation

ii. If the JV Offeror does not have five (5) projects performed as a JV, the Offeror may supplement those projects with recent, relevant projects performed by either member of the JV in their individual capacity or as part of another JV. JV Offerors are not required to submit projects of both partners. Additionally, more consideration may be given for projects that were performed as a JV. Regardless, the total number of projects submitted by the JV shall be no more than five (5).

iii. Verification: The Government reserves the right to verify the past performance record of cited projects or other recent projects not submitted by reviewing the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), or other Government appraisal systems or to interview owner or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. An offeror will be afforded the opportunity to reply to or explain adverse performance information which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to address.

iv. Key Personnel and Key Subcontractors: Key Personnel and Key

Subcontractor experience and past performance information is not a submittal requirement under this Factor. Company past performance information and/or effort demonstrated by another corporate entity other than the offering entity signed on the SF1449 will not be considered in the evaluation.

2.3. Factor 2 – Tab C: Key Personnel for Sample Project. The Offeror shall provide professional qualifications/certification to include active security clearance information (as applicable), education, and work history for each of the Key Personnel listed in the Sample Project using a resume style format. Resumes provided shall match those personnel the Offeror would utilize in the execution of the Sample Project and should be cross referenced in Factor 2 – Tab D.

2.4. Factor 2 – Tab D: Technical Approach for Sample Project. The Offeror shall clearly describe its overall organizational and technical approach to manage and execute the Training Instruction Requirements of the Scope of Work for the Sample Task Order. If the Offeror intends to subcontract out any effort for services, they must discuss the effort to be performed by any subcontractor(s).

3.0 Evaluation Criteria for Volume I, Technical Certifications, Past Performance, Key Personnel, and Technical Approach. Evaluation of Volume 1 is broken out into two Factors (1 & 2) across four Tabs (A-D). The table below shows the breakout relative importance for each Tab.

Volume Location Factor Description Order of relative importance

Volume I Factor 1

TAB A

Technical Certifications of the Prime Contractor

Pass/Fail

Volume I Factor 1

TAB B

Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor

1st in relative importance

Volume I Factor 2

TAB C

Key Personnel 2nd in relative importance in combination with Tab D.

Volume I Factor 2

TAB D

Technical Approach to the Sample Task Order

2nd in relative importance in combination with Tab C.

3.1. Factor 1, Tab A – Technical Certifications of the Prime Contractor. Factor 1, Tab A is an evaluation to confirm that the Offeror meets the minimum Certification levels listed in Section C.

3.1.1. Based on the Offeror’s submittals. The Government will evaluate Tab A either as complaint or non-compliant.

3.1.2. Complaint proposals will move forward in the Factor 1 and Factor 2 evaluation processes.

3.1.3. Non-Complaint proposals will be considered substantially deficient removed from further consideration.

3.2. Factor 1, Tab B ؘ– Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor. In Tab B, two aspects of past performance are evaluated: 1) Relevant Company Effort, and 2) Quality of Past Performance.

3.2.1. Only information pertaining to the corporate entity listed on the signed SF 1449 will be considered for evaluation. Information related to a parent company, affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries, other related entities, subcontractors or the individual experience of their key personnel will not be considered.

3.2.2. The evaluation of Past Performance Information is a three-step evaluation process.

A. First, the TET will first evaluate all past performance information submitted in the proposal for compliance with the RFP submission criteria listed in Section M 2.2, Past Performance of the Prime Contractor. A compliant project is a recent project that meets submittal criteria listed in Section M 2.2.2 and the required PPIRS or signed PPQ record of quality submittal criteria listed in Section M 2.2.3.

i. Non-compliant projects will not be rated and will not move onward to the next evaluation step.

ii. Compliant projects will move onward to the next evaluation step.

B. Second, the TET will compare each compliant project to the efforts listed in solicitation Section C, reach a consensus, and assign each project submitted a relevancy rating. Review of each project’s quality of past performance in included in this step and is an element of the project relevancy rating. The TET determines relevancy and in making this determination, the following definitions for relevancy will apply:

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

Relevant – Project effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant – Project effort involved some scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant – Project effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

i. 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).

ii. If discussions are held, an Offeror will be given the opportunity the address any problems that they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

C. Finally, the TET will conduct the third step in the evaluation process which is assignment of an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating. This rating takes into consideration the level of relevancy assigned to each compliant project and serves as a stronger predictor of successful performance. If the Offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture (JV), the TET will utilize the information submitted to conduct the relevancy rating and performance confidence assessment ratings based on the information submitted by the JV Offeror. 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.

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.

i. For JV Offerors the TET will evaluate and assess the JV’s “Past

Performance Information” and/or 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.

ii. 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 C – Key Personnel for Sample Project. For Factor 2, Tab C, the government will assess the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and identify any deficiencies in the Offeror’s Key Personnel for the Sample Project. The Government will evaluate how closely the professional qualifications/certification to include active security clearance information (as applicable), education, and work history adhere to the Labor Category Descriptions listed in Section C and the work activities required under the Sample Project.

3.4. Factor 2, Tab D – Technical Approach for Training Instruction Requirements. For Factor 2, Tab D, the Government will assess significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and any identify any deficiencies in the Offeror’s technical approach to the Sample Project. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for adherence to Sample Project requirements.

3.5. Factor 2, Tabs C&D – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Scheme. Based on the assessment of strengths, weaknesses, significant weakness, and deficiencies found, if any, Factor 2 will 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.

3.6. Additional Definitions used in Volume I and Volume II.

3.6.1. 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.

3.6.2. 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).

3.6.3. 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.

3.6.4. 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 or 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 result in a revision. Clarifications do not require discussions or submission of additional proposal information.

4.0 Submission Requirements for Volume II. Submit the required Bid Schedule and Price

Proposal for the Sample Project.

4.1. Bid Schedule: The Bid Schedule is list of unburdened and burdened labor rates pricing for each Labor Category listed in Section C. The Government will provide a template Excel worksheet necessary for creation of the Bid Schedule. The Offeror will be required to fully complete the worksheet and is responsible for the accuracy of all data input, formulas, and calculations. Offerors are cautioned to use the most current worksheet in the solicitation or in the latest amendment.

4.1.1. Offerors shall insert a price on all numbered items of the Bid Schedule. Failure to do so will disqualify the bid.

4.1.2. Fringe, G&A, profit, and escalation rates shall be listed in the Bid Schedule.

4.1.3. Accepted unit pricing and rates will be applied for the life of the contract.

4.1.4. The Bid Schedule shall be submitted in both Excel and PDF format.

4.2. Cost Proposal: The Offeror shall create and provide a cost proposal for the Sample Project.

The Cost Proposal shall include a cost breakout for each task listed in the Sample Project Section 2. The breakdown shall itemize all prime and subcontractor labor, travel, other direct costs, G&A, and profit calculation for each task. While the Government may provide an example format as part of the Solicitation, the Offeror is responsible for the accuracy of all data input, formulas, and calculations. The Cost Proposal shall be submitted in both

Excel and PDF format.

5.0 Evaluation Criteria for Volume II Price Proposal

5.1. Price Analysis. Price will not be rated but analyzed in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.404-1 Proposal Analysis Techniques. Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements.

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.

5.2. Arithmetic Discrepancies. To initial evaluation of the price proposal, the following will be utilized in resolving arithmetic discrepancies found on the face of the bidding schedule(s) as submitted by the offeror:

5.2.1. Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected

5.2.2. In case of discrepancy between unit price and extended price, the unit price with govern

5.2.3. Apparent errors in extension of unit prices will be corrected

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

5.3. For bid evaluation, the Government will proceed on the assumption that the offeror intends its bid…