W9127N-16-R-0075.pdf

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

W9127N-16-R-0075 31-Jul-2016

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

503-808-4632

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

02:00 PM 30 Aug 2016

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012)

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

ADDENDA ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

23.

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TELEPHONE NO.

W9127N9. ISSUED BY

18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a. UNLESS BLOCK

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

CLOVIA S JONES

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

0 27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

20.

ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

(BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN

% FOR:SET ASIDE:UNRESTRICTED OR X

SMALL BUSINESSX

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL

BUSINESS (WOSB)

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

USACE PORTLAND DISTRICT

333 SW 1ST AVE

PORTLAND OR 97204-3440

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

13b. RATING

CODE15. DELIVER TO CODE W66QKZ 16. ADMINISTERED BY

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFPX

USACE PORTLAND DISTRICT

CENWP-PA

333 SW 1ST AVE

PORTLAND OR 97204-3440

TEL: FAX:

FAX:

TEL: SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS

(EDWOSB)

SIZE STANDARD:

$15 Mil

NAICS:

541990

OFFER DATED

29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF.

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

EMAIL:

TEL:

31c. DATE SIGNED

SEE SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICESITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

24.22.21.19.

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

PAGE 2 OF73

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f . TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINALPARTIALCOMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT

41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012) BACK

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

SEE SCHEDULE

20.

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

21.

QUANTITY UNIT

22. 23.

UNIT PRICE

24.

AMOUNT

19.

ITEM NO.

W9127N-16-R-0075

Section SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 Job NWP 15-year History Manuscript

FFP

Contractor to provide all materials, parts and labor to produce a scholorly manuscript per attached performance work statement.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

OFFEROR CHECKLIST

OFFEROR CHECKLIST

PROJECT TITLE: History of the Portland District 2000 - 2015

SOLICITATION NUMBER: W9127N-16-R-0075

In order for an offer to be considered responsive, the offeror shall submit the information listed in the checklist below. Failure to submit all the required information prior to the closing of the solicitation will result in the offer being nonresponsive. Submit a copy of this checklist with the offeror initials acknowledging inclusion of items in the proposal.

Responsive Quote Submission Checklist Offeror's Initials of Items Included in Submission

1. Submission of Volumes 1 (Technical) and 2 (Price) 1. _________________________ IAW Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors.

2. Filled-Out SF 1449 (Blocks 17A, 30A, 30B and 30C) 2. _________________________ Shall be signed by someone with the authority to bind the company.

Refer to FAR 4.102 (Contractors Signature) for required information.

3. Signed Amendment(s) – SF30 (If Applicable) 3. _________________________ (Blocks 8, 15A, 15B and 15C) Shall be signed by someone with the authority to bind the company.

4. Fill-in and submit clauses 52.204-17, 52.204-20, 52.209-2, 4. _________________________

52.212-3 and 52.219-1 found in full text within the solicitation.

For clause 52.212-3: If your information is already in the System for Award Management at SAM – https://www.sam.gov, it may be submitted instead of completing the clause.

5. A separate Excel spreadsheet with the proposal costs presented 5. _________________________ in the Price Proposal.

All inquiries shall be submitted to Sue Jones, Contracting Officer, at sue.jones@usace.army.mil.

Additional information can be found in Instructions, Conditions and Notifications to Offerors.

Offers shall be in the possession of the Government prior to the closing date/time located in Block 8 of the SF1449.

Offerors are responsible for confirming receipt of offer with the Contracting Officer.

INSTRUCTIONS-CONDITIONS-NOTICE

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1. INTRODUCTION

Your Small Business firm is invited to submit a proposal in response to Solicitation Number W9127N-16-R- 0075 for the project entitled “History of the Portland District – 2000 to 2015.” The Government intends to procure this requirement on a competitive basis in accordance with the provisions set forth in FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and within this solicitation. Award will be a Firm-Fixed-Price commercial item service contract to the offeror who provides the best value to the Government.

The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in digital format as set forth below. The solicitation shall provide the date and time for proposal submittal.

The offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes. The Volumes are I – Technical Proposal and II – Price Proposal. Include a separate Excel file with the costs submitted in the Price Proposal. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. Offerors must be registered to do business with the Government in the System for Award Management (SAM) website found at https://www.sam.gov/ . This is a small business set-aside and only small business offers will be accepted.

2. SITE VISIT

A site visit is not scheduled for this action.

3. SUBMITTING QUESTIONS

Questions shall be submitted to Sue Jones at sue.jones@usace.army.mil. No phone calls accepted. Questions and answers will be published to FedBizOps for all interested parties to see.

4. GENERAL PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

A. Electronic Proposal Submittal Requirements

1. File format The electronic proposal shall be Portable Document Format, filename extension: “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Include one Excel document of the Price Proposal costs in either “.xls or .xlsx” format.

2. Number of files

The proposal contents shall be presented in two separate “.pdf” files; one for the Technical Proposal and one for the Price Proposal. In addition, one “.xls or .xlsx” file

3. Method of submission

Electronic Mail: Proposals that contain two “.pdf” files and one “.xls or .xlsx” that total less than 10 MB, shall be submitted via email to Ms. Sue Jones at sue.jones@usace.army.mil. The USACE e-mail system does not accept files greater than 10MB. Do not send two separate emails, both .pdf files shall fit on one email. It is the offeror’s responsibility to confirm receipt of e-mail submitted electronic proposal copies.

B. Organization and Quantity of Volumes

The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

1. Volume 1: Technical Proposal 1 electronic (defined in paragraph A of this Section)

2. Volume 2: Price Proposal

3. Proposal Pricing on an Excel spreadsheet

C. Content – General

The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation. Absence of information will be deemed as if no support for that criterion was provided. Offerors submitting proposals should limit submission to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and money is expended in preparing information required by the solicitation. Penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001. Contents of your proposal shall include:

1. Table of Contents A Table of Contents should be incorporated within Volume 1 and Volume 2.

2. Paper size

Proposals are to be on 8 ½ x 11-inch paper, to the maximum extent practicable. Drawings shall be 11x17-inch paper, folded to the same dimensions as the 8 ½ x 11-inch paper. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper and bindings, and expensive/ extensive visual and other presentation aids are not necessary. Each proposal should address the requests for information in the order identified in Section J.

3. Tabs Contents of binders shall be tabbed and labeled to afford easy identification from the proposal Table of Contents. Tabs shall extend beyond the edge of the 8 ½ x 11-inch paper. Tabs are further defined in paragraph J of this Section.

4. Page Numbering

All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer.

5. Page Limits

Each section of the proposal shall not exceed 50 pages.

6. Signatures Original signature from the offeror’s responsible party is required in box 15 of the SF30 submitted with the Price Proposal.

D. Bookmarks

Electronic proposals shall be bookmarked. Bookmark titles shall match the tab numbering and labels and the volume table of contents. Additional bookmarks may be provided, but shall be nested under the appropriate tab bookmark.

E. Hyperlinks Hyperlinks in the electronic copy are not permitted. This includes hyperlinks within document, such as Figure or Table references to the page containing that content, and hyperlinks to websites.

F. Attachments

Attachments to the electronic copy are not permitted.

G. Tabs Tabs shall match the following numbering and title, and shall be reflected in the table of contents. Additional tabs are allowed, but not necessary. Additional tabs shall be alpha characters.

REQUIRED TABS FOR VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Table of Contents

Factor 1 – Tab 1: Recent Relevant Experience

Factor 2 - Tab 2: Past Performance

Factor 3 – Qualifications

Element 1 - Tab 3: Key Personnel

Element 2 - Tab 4: Writing Skills

REQUIRED TABS FOR VOLUME 2: PRICE PROPOSAL

Table of Contents

Factor 4 – Price Proposal

Element 1 – Tab 5: SF1449 and Amendments

Element 2 - Tab 6: Price Schedule

Element 3 – Tab 7: Representations and Certifications

5. DETAILED CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL

Offerors shall submit the information noted below for each tab. This is a minimum requirement. If an offeror fails to provide a piece of information, there shall be a written explanation for its omission: e.g. – for Tab 01 – an offeror without recent relevant experience preparing a scholarly manuscript should note that rather than leaving the section blank. Offeror must be self-performing at least 51% of the work.

Factor 1 - TAB 1: Recent Relevant Experience

Offeror shall submit project information that demonstrates recent or current relevant technical experience with the preparation of a scholarly manuscript in the past 3 years. Recent or relevant experience is defined as experience that is on-going or has occurred within the past 3 years with the preparation of a scholarly manuscript. The information provided in this factor shall reflect whether contractors have performed similar work before, not to be confused with Factor 2 - Tab 2: Past Performance, where the evaluation is based how well contractors performed. At a minimum, the contractor shall submit the following “Project Information” shown below, as well as any additional information deemed necessary, in order to be considered responsive. A minimum of two experiences and a maximum of five experiences shall be submitted. A new business shall submit a list of former projects within similar scope that demonstrates you or your key employees’ recent and relevant experiences and capabilities.

Each project submitted shall include the following content:

1. Contract number and offeror’s and/or major subcontractor’s specific role in the project.

2. Project name and location.

3. Name of customer, agency, or firm.

4. Point of contact (POC) information for the customer, agency, or firm, including name, title, email, and telephone number.

5. Scope of project; including but not limited to a description of the work, end product and number of manuscript pages.

6. Date of project start and completion or anticipated date of completion.

7. Key personnel participating in each project; including, but not limited to, the contractor’s Historical

Researcher and Technical Writer. Key personnel information should include, but not be limited to:

a. Name.

b. Role in contract.

c. Years of experience.

d. Education and/or other relevant qualifications.

e. Current professional registration, if applicable.

Factor 2 - TAB 2: Past Performance

The Government seeks a contractor who maintains a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in his technical proposal. In doing so, be mindful that “past performance” and “past experience” are not identical. Past experience measures what you have done and how many times, or for how long you have done it. Past performance, however, measures how well you have performed. Each offeror shall submit past performance information by using the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) found in Attachment I. At a minimum, submit a PPQ for at least two projects and a maximum of five projects successfully completed (or substantially completed) within the last three (3) years that affirmatively demonstrate the offeror’s and major subcontractor’s past performance on projects similar in scope of this project. Each project submitted shall include the following content:

1. Contract number and Offeror’s and/or major subcontractor’s specific role in the project.

2. Project name and location.

3. Name of customer, agency, or firm.

4. Point of contact (POC) information for the customer, agency, or firm, including name, title, email, and telephone number.

5. Scope of project (designed, built, and installed new major features, rebuilt select components, etc.);

focus on fabrication aspects of the project.

6. Date of completion or anticipated date of completion.

Factor 3, Element 1 - TAB 3: Key Personnel

Offeror shall provide the qualifications and experience of the offeror’s key personnel of the project team that demonstrate the capabilities of the offeror. The majority of the research and writing for this project shall be completed by a historian with a PH.D. That same historian will closely supervise research and writing performed by others. Proposal shall address the percentage of work to be performed by the historian.

Successful demonstration should include, at a minimum:

1. Resume of Historical Researcher; including a list of projects performed that are similar in scope and complexity to the requirements in this solicitation.

2. Resume of Technical Writer; including a list of projects performed that are similar in scope and complexity to the requirements in this solicitation.

Major Subcontractors: Offeror shall provide resumes of major subcontractors, which include a description of the company, services to be provided by the subcontractor, the number of years the subcontractor has been in business, and the number of contracts that the subcontractor has held with the prime contractor.

Factor 3, Element 2 - TAB 4: Writing Skills

All interested offerors shall demonstrate writing skills by including the number and quality of historical publications comp1eted; including articles, reviews, books, edited collections, special studies, and staff projects. Offerors shall include a minimum of two and a maximum of five writing samples, each a maximum of four pages and may have a preceding cover/data sheet, for each sample submitted.

6. DETAILED CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUME 2: PRICE PROPOSAL

Volume 2 – Price Proposal

Factor 4, Element 1 - Tab 5: SF1449 and Amendments

This tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness. The SF1449, and any amendments, shall be filled out completely by the offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company.

Submission shall include:

The first page of the SF1449 with boxes 30 completed and signed by an authorized company official;

The first page of the amendment, if applicable, with boxes 15 completed and signed; and The following clauses that are presented in full text within the solicitation and filled in by the offeror:

52.204-17 Ownership of Control of Offeror (NOV 2014) 52.204-20 Predecessor of Offeror (APR 2016) 52.209-2 Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations—Representation (NOV

2015) 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items (APR 2016)

If your information is already in the System for Award Management at SAM – https://www.sam.gov, it may be submitted instead of completing the clause.

52.219-1 Small Business Program Representations (OCT 2014)

Factor 5, Element 2 - Tab 6: Price Schedule The solicitation provides that cost/price will be evaluated as significantly less important than the combined importance of the other evaluation factors. The criteria used to evaluate cost/price include cost realism. Cost realism will be evaluated on the basis of whether pricing information reflects a clear understanding of the costs and risks associated with the project. Ordinarily, this will include a comparison of the proposed price with the Government Estimate and other proposed prices.

It may also include verification of an offeror’s price and exchanges with the offeror to determine whether it has an acceptable understanding of the difficulties that may be encountered in performing the contract. The information provided by the offeror will be subjectively evaluated based on the total for all line items to determine the overall best value to the Government.

The Price Schedule shall provide a detail of all costs. Detail shall include labor categories, labor rates, hours, overhead, profit, travel, materials and other direct costs. In addition to the “.pdf” version of these costs in the Price Proposal, an Excel spreadsheet containing these costs shall be submitted to assist in analysis of price. In the case a discrepancy exists between the two documents, the “.pdf” version will precedence over the Excel version.

Factor 5, Element 3 - Tab 7: Representations and Certifications

This tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness and completeness. The offeror shall complete the required Annual Representations and Certifications through the System for Award Management (SAM) at http://www.sam.gov/ and include a copy as proof of completion.

7. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Proposals must arrive at the location designated in the solicitation for receipt of such proposals prior to the time and date established in Block 8 of the SF1449. There will not be a public proposal opening. In order for the proposal to be considered, it MUST be prepared in ENGLISH, and must be submitted via email (Volume 1 and 2 and the Excel spreadsheet). Send to Sue Jones at sue.jones@usace.army.mil.

FILL THE EMAIL SUBJECT LINE AS FOLLOWS: Solicitation W9127N-16-R-0075

The Government is not responsible for problems arising from electronic systems or equipment failures.

Proposals must be received no later than 2:00PM Pacific Standard Time.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. INITIAL REVIEW OF PROPOSALS

Proposals will be reviewed for general conformance with the solicitation requirements. Proposals that do not generally conform to the solicitation requirements may be considered to have a deficiency; i.e. a deficiency that cannot be remedied by exchanges and/or permitted proposal revisions. If a proposal is suspected of having a deficiency, it will be brought to the immediate attention of the Source Selection Authority (SSA). If the SSA determines that there is a deficiency, the proposal will not be evaluated further and will be eliminated from further consideration. The affected offeror shall be promptly notified of the decision.

2. SOURCE SELECTION

All proposals conforming to the solicitation requirements will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of outlined in the Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors section of this solicitation. The principal objective of the evaluation process is to make award of a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be the “best value” to the Government, price and other factors considered. Source selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 -- Tradeoff Process -- (a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

The following table reflects the proposal format and relative importance of areas that the SSEB will thoroughly review and evaluate.

TECHNICAL FACTORS RELATIVE IMPORTANCE_______

Volume 1 – Technical Proposal; All technical factors are equal in importance. When combined, Factors 1-3 are significantly more important than Factor 4.

Factor 1– Recent Relevant Experience (Tab 1) Equal to Factors 2 and 3.

Factor 2 – Past Performance (Tab 2) Equal to Factors 1 and 3.

Factor 3 – Qualifications Equal to Factors 1 and 2

Element 1 - Key Personnel (Tab 3)

Element 2 - Writing Skills (Tab 4)

Volume 2 – Price Proposal; All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered to be more important than price.

Factor 4 – Price Proposal

Element 1 – SF1449 and Amendments (Tab 5) Reviewed for completion

Element 2 – Price Schedule (Tab 6) Evaluated for price reasonableness Less important than combined Factors 1-3 Element 3 – Representations and Certifications (Tab 7) Reviewed for completion

3.1 Technical Ratings – Factors 1 and 3

Technical merit, which reflects the Government’s confidence in each offeror’s ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the solicitation, will be evaluated based on the following:

3.2 Past Performance Ratings - Factor 2

These ratings assess the risks associated with each offeror’s likelihood of success in performing requirements stated in the solicitation based on the offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent contracts.

Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral rating for these factors. There will be both a relevancy and confidence assessment assigned to each past performance rating.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

RATING 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 Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude

Relevant 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.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to 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

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

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

Acceptable

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

Marginal

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

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unacceptable and unawardable.

reasonably assigned.

3.3 The price portion of the proposal will be subjectively evaluated allowing for a “trade-off” analysis of the proposal as a whole using a trade-off process. Pricing will be analyzed for price reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

3.4 Overall, evaluators shall assess the proposal’s acceptability to the requirements of the solicitation. If a technical factor/element is not addressed, it may be rated as a deficiency.

3.5 Important Note: The evaluation board will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference or otherwise referred to.

3.6 Definitions

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

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

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

4. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The Government will evaluate the proposal submitted in accordance with the Source Selection Plan. The Government will use the following evaluation criteria which were established in the Source Selection Plan.

4.1 Volume 1 - Factor 1 - TAB 1: Recent Relevant Experience

Evaluation is based upon experience demonstrated. More favorable ratings may be assigned for more recent projects or projects with a more comparable technical scope. Less recent and substantially different projects may not achieve the highest rating possible. Only project examples where the offeror was the prime contractor or subcontractor with a large percentage (over 25%) of the work will be evaluated.

A proposal will be rated more favorably if it contains all the Project Information as outlined in section 5, Detail of Content Requirements, found in the Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors portion of this solicitation.

Each offeror shall select a minimum of two projects and a maximum of five successfully completed (or substantially completed) within the past three years that are the same or similar in scope and complexity to this project, and that affirmatively demonstrate the offeror’s and/or major subcontractor’s specialized training, expertise, and ability. Recent or Relevant Experience is defined as experience that is on-going or has occurred within the past three years with preparation of a historical scholarly manuscript similar to the work outlined in the Performance Work Statement. Similar work include research and historical documentation.

Higher ratings will be assigned to offerors who have a greater number of similar projects with increased complexity and/or are larger in scope or complexity. Higher ratings will be given for experience demonstrating expertise in history as it relates to the Unites States government, governmental/Congressional processes, the Pacific Northwest and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

4.2 Volume 1 - Factor 2 - TAB 2: Past Performance (Refer to Attachment I) The Government seeks a contractor who maintains a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in his technical proposal. In doing so, be mindful that “past performance” and “past experience” are not identical. Past experience measures what you have done and how many times, or for how long, you have done it. Past performance, however, measures how well you have performed.

In order to receive a Performance Confidence Assessment rating of 'Satisfactory Confidence,' an offeror must have at least two and no more than five past performance questionnaires with a level of at least 'satisfactory' for the offeror and the primary proposed subcontractor.

Past performance of proposed major subcontractors indicating high levels of customer satisfaction; or completing in advance of original contract schedule; or finding innovative ways to cut costs, or increase value to the customer, may receive a better rating.

Past performance which is recent or similar in size and scope to this project may be considered to be more advantageous to the Government and may receive more credit than older projects, or projects dissimilar to the work required here. A good offeror would demonstrate consistent success in terms of timeliness of performance (include record of meeting milestones and delivery schedules), business relations and teaming, customer satisfaction, and quality of work.

For Business Relations and Teaming, include record of effective management, subcontractor management, meeting socio-economic goals, problem resolution, cooperative and proactive approach with customers, flexibility, submission of reasonably priced change proposals, responsiveness to inquiries, and would prior customers choose to do business with the offeror again.

Teaming Partners: The Government recognizes that completion of a project is often a team effort. Thus, offerors are encouraged to submit past performance information for major subcontractors to help demonstrate that the team they select to perform this project has an acceptable record of past performance.

Indeed, the Government may rate a proposal less favorably where the Government is unable to evaluate the past performance record of major subcontractors.

Other Sources: In addition to information provided in the technical proposal, the Government may consider other sources of past performance information including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), references and personal knowledge. These other ources may include telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other sources of past performance information. The Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey. 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.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Offerors should submit performance appraisals, evaluations, letters of recommendation, or any other information that the offeror believes will affirmatively demonstrate its commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. The Government will consider information submitted by the offeror, as well as any other source (including information from government personnel and CPARS). The offeror shall provide the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) found in Attachment I for each project.

Attachment I - Solicitation Submittal Requirement: The standard Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for USACE is Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11). It is provided as Attachment I for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2, Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

(1) Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment I), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

(2) Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. However, this does not preclude USACE from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Also include performance recognition documents received within the last three (3) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

(3) In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the PPIRS, including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), FAPIIS, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

(4) 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.

The proposal will be rated for past performance of the prime contractor. All past performance elements will be rated on the basis of returned Past Performance Questionnaires from previous customers and any CCASS ratings already in the system. Greater levels of customer satisfaction in the following sub-factors will receive a better rating.

4.3 Volume 1 - Factor 3, Element 1 - TAB 3: Key Personnel

Offerors shall demonstrate that they possess the required personnel in the proper configuration. Resumes that demonstrate more experience relevant to the performance specifications in this solicitation will receive better ratings. This experience shall include demonstrated skills and abilities in applying sound research methodology and analysis that shall be rated on the basis of research experience, and publications. Higher ratings may be given resumes that demonstrate experience based on field of study and expertise in history and more favorably as it relates to the Unites States Government, governmental/Congressional processes, the Pacific Northwest and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

This Element will be rated based on the experience and qualifications of the offeror’s key personnel who will be performing under the terms of the contract.

Prime contractor personnel. Proposals that include resumes for all key personnel listed under Factor 1 and Factor 2, as outlined in section 5, Detail of Content Requirements, found in the Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors section of this solicitation, may be rated more favorably than those that do not.

Resumes that clearly indicate experience with projects that are similar in scope and complexity to the work required in this solicitation, that indicate an individual has experience in the same role as proposed for this project (for example, the proposed Historical Researcher has been assigned as the Historical Researcher on previous contracts), and/or relevant personnel qualifications may receive more favorable ratings.

Major Subcontractors. The offeror shall demonstrate the expertise of its subcontractors. The Government will more highly rate offers that demonstrate that their subcontractors have expertise completing projects that are similar in technical scope and complexity as compared to the project that is required in this solicitation. Higher ratings may be given to subcontractors who have been in business for a minimum of 5 years or more, and/or have had a past business relationships with the prime contractor.

4.4 Volume 1 - Factor 3, Element 2 - TAB 4: Writing Skills

Offer’s shall demonstrate professional writing skills through submission of examples of historical publications completed; including articles, reviews, books, edited collections, special studies, and staff projects. This requirement is met with submission of two examples. Proposals including more than two examples may be rated more favorably. Examples relating to the Unites States government, governmental/Congressional processes, the Pacific Northwest and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be rated more favorably.

4.5 Volume 2 - Factor 4 - TABs 5-7: Price Proposal

For this solicitation, the non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The Price Proposal will be evaluated to determine reasonableness. Price will be evaluated based on the total for all line items. Evaluation of price may also include price realism analysis, if such analysis is determined necessary. If determined necessary, price realism will be evaluated on the basis of whether pricing information reflects a clear understanding of the costs and risks associated with the project. Ordinarily, this will include a comparison of the proposed price with the Government Estimate and other proposed prices. It may also include verification of an offeror’s price, and exchanges with the offeror to determine whether it has an acceptable understanding of the difficulties that may be encountered in performing the contract. The results of a price realism analysis may impact the evaluation of non-cost factors and the resulting award decision.

4.6.1 Volume 2 – Factor 4, Element 1 - Tab 5: SF1449 and Amendments

The SF1449 shall be filled out completely by the offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. The offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation and fill-in the clauses listed in section 6, Detailed Content Requirements for Volume 2: Price Proposal, found in the Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors within this solicitation. This Element is not rated, but is evaluated for completion. Unsigned offers may be considered deficient.

4.6.2 Volume 2 – Factor 4, Element 2 - Tab 6: Price Schedule

The solicitation provides that cost/price will be evaluated as significantly less than the combined importance of the other evaluation factors. Cost realism will be evaluated on the basis of whether pricing information reflects a clear understanding of the costs and risks associated with the project.

Ordinarily, this will include a comparison of the proposed price with the Government Estimate and other proposed prices.

It may also include verification of an offeror’s price and exchanges with the offeror to determine whether it has an acceptable understanding of the difficulties that may be encountered in performing the contract.

The information provided by the offeror will be subjectively evaluated based on the total for all line items to determine the overall best value to the Government.

4.6.3 Volume 2 – Factor 4, Element 3 - Tab 7: Representations and Certifications The offeror shall complete all representations and certifications found in clause 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications and submit them with the proposal. Further, in order to be eligible for award, the offeror is required to be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM) website found at https://www.sam.gov/. The representations and certifications from clause 52.204-8 shall mirror the Annual Representations and Certifications from the SAM website.

5. IMPORTANCE OF VOLUMES

The evaluation process uses adjectival scoring for each volume except for Volume II containing the cost/price information of the proposals. The cost and pricing information found in Volume II will be subjectively evaluated. The relative importance of Volume I is significantly more important than the relative importance of Volume II. Note: All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

6. PROPOSAL REVISIONS

At the conclusion of discussions, if required, each offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision. These proposal revisions shall be received, in writing, at a time and place established by the Contracting Officer.

7. AWARD OF CONTRACT

7.1 The Government will evaluate proposals and may award without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions.

7.2 The Government intends to award one (1) Firm Fixed-Price Service contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the criteria established in this solicitation and the Source Selection Plan, and is considered most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

Contract completion is nine (18) months from date of award with interim due dates as described in the Performance Work Statement and assuming no options are awarded.

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Performance Work Statement

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District

History of the Portland District - 2000 to 2015

1.0 General

The contractor shall provide non-personal services for the preparation of a scholarly manuscript on the continuing history of the Portland District (NWP) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) covering the years 2000-2015. The history must be completed in manuscript form and accepted by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the District Historian 18 months after date of contract award.

The manuscript shall provide an accurate, complete, interpretive, and readable history that is heavily illustrated and accessible to non-specialist readers. It should communicate a contextual account of the contributions of the Portland District to the development of the nation, and the states of Oregon and Washington.

The final manuscript must be publishable, include appropriate endnotes, bibliography and appendices.

Manuscript must employ methodology and interpretation that will pass a rigorous historical and technical peer review process.

The KTR shall provide all materials, transportation, and non-personal services necessary to prepare the manuscript for the History of the Portland District – 2000 to 2015 project as defined in this Performance Work Statement (PWS) except for those items specified as government furnished property, supplies and/or services.

The contractor shall perform to the standards in this contract necessary to carry out the following noted tasks.

Contracted service providers shall be accountable to the contractor (KTR) who, in turn is responsible to the Government.

2.0 Definitions

Throughout this performance work statement these terms are defined as follows:

Acceptable Quality Level (AQL): Acceptable Quality Level equals the performance standards listed in 5.0, Performance Standards and Requirements, and as summarized in 6.0, Performance Requirements Summary.

The contractor must re-perform all unsatisfactory work unless excused by the Quality Assurance Evaluator.

Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR): A written record of unsatisfactory performance by the contractor as observed by the Quality Assurance Evaluator.

Contracting Officer (KO): The Government employee who is authorized to enter into, administer, and/or terminate contracts, and make related determinations and findings. Only a warranted Contracting Officer (either a Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) or an Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)), acting within their delegated limits, has the authority to issue modifications or otherwise change the terms and conditions of this contract. If an individual other than the Contracting Officer attempts to make changes to the terms and conditions of this contract the contractor shall not proceed with the change and shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer.

Contracting Officers Representative (COR): The Government employee who has been authorized in writing as the KO’s representative, acting within the limits of their authority. The COR may not make changes to the terms and conditions of this contract.

Quality Assurance Evaluator (QAE): The Government employees responsible for checking contractor performance, this is the COR unless otherwise designated.

3.0 Government Will Furnish

Government personnel shall be availab1e to furnish the contractor such information as is available and to insure contractor access to all data, documents, and records in Northwestern Division and Portland District offices needed for the study. However, it is the responsibi1ity of the contractor to acquire primary and secondary research materia1s without assistance of district personnel. All official or unofficial materials borrowed from the Government will be returned upon completion of the study or phase of the contractor’s work.

The Government will provide the contractor with a temporary/part-time workspace for one person at the District headquarters in Portland, OR when needed. If or when a workspace is needed, the contractor shall communicate the need to the COR. The space will include access to telephone, computer, and Internet resources. The Government will provide the contractor with access to all the District's official files and photographic materials, to include maps, charts and tables that shall be incorporated into the manuscript.

Government employees will be officially encouraged to share information and documents with the contractor.

Site visits shall be coordinated through the COR to ensure personnel availability, adherence to security measures and site accessibility.

4.0 Contractor Shall Furnish

The contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment and materials necessary to perform required services under this agreement and comply with all local, state, and federal regulations during the performance of services. The contractor will be responsible for all travel in conjunction with research and interviews conducted during the preparation of this history update. Contractor personnel shall be expected to work in close coordination with the COR, the District Historian, and other assigned Government personnel.

5.0 Performance Standards and Requirements

This “Standard” covers the requirements for the preparation of a scholarly manuscript entitled History of the Portland District – 2000 to 2015. The purpose of the Standard established in this PWS is to ensure that activities occur in accordance with the Standard and that the Government receives services as contracted.

5.1 Content, Format and Visual Elements

Contractor efforts shall result in a manuscript narrative of approximately 450 double-spaced pages, ready for publishing. The manuscript shall conform to the Chicago Manual of Style on matters of format, style, and grammar.

5.1.1 Content

This project is an intellectual and institutional history documenting and evaluating the impact of the mission, activities and projects of the Portland District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers between the years 2000 and 2015. The contractor shall address all significant issues relating to this topic, including at a minimum, those listed below. Therefore, the following list is not all-inclusive; the final list of the topics to be covered will be reviewed and approved by the COR. General areas to be covered in the history include, but are not limited to:

a. Significant civil works…