12r8-am29.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 2

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

AM-0029 18 May 15

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

CECT-Contracting Division USACE, Honolulu See Item 6

Bldg 230, Room 103 Ft Shafter, HI 96858-5440

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State, and Zip Code) (x) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

W9128A-12-R-0008

X

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10 Jul 2012

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

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 Offers [ ] is extended, [ X ] is not extended.

Offers 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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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.

(x) 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.)

Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) for Cultural Resources and Related Investigations and Studies in the Pacific Ocean Region

(Continued on the next page)

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AM-0029 Standard Form 30 RFP No. W9128A-12-R-0008 Page 2 of 2 Pages Item 14 (Continued)

1. CHANGES TO SOLICITATION. Attached are new and deleted sections to the solicitation. The revision mark “(AM-0029)” is shown on each page.

A. NEW SECTIONS: The following items/pages are added to the solicitation.

i. Evaluation Factors Pages 1 – 19

ii. Performance Work Statement, 12 May 2015

B. DELETED SECTIONS: The following items/pages are deleted from the solicitation.

i. Evaluation Factors Pages 1 – 19 (Deleted in its entirety)

ii. Performance Work Statement, 13 November 2013

2. The proposal closing date/time of June 3, 2015, 2:00pm HST, remains unchaged.

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 1

(AM-0029)

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

AND EVALUATION FACTORS

1.0 GENERAL

1.1. Cost of Preparing Proposals

The Government will not reimburse any Offeror for costs incurred regarding preparation and submittal of a proposal in response to this solicitation.

1.2. Inquiries

Address all inquiries regarding this solicitation to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District Building 230, Otake Street, Room 103 ATTN: CECT-POH-E (Ms. Tristin Suetsugu and Mr. Kent Tamai) Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5440 Phone No. Ms Suetsugu - (808) 835-4382 Mr Tamai – (808) 835-4377 Fax No. (808) 835-4396/4395 E-Mail: W9128A-12-R-0008@usace.army.mil

1.3 Submittal of Proposals

The Offeror’s proposal should be complete, addressing any and all factors relevant to the specific question asked and demonstrating the Offeror’s understanding of the factors affecting performance of work.

Proposals may be submitted via U.S. Postal Service, courier service or personally delivered. Proposals submitted via U.S. Postal Service shall be mailed to the address shown in Block 8 of the Standard Form 1442. Proposals submitted via courier service or hand delivered shall be delivered to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District Attn: Contracting Division (W9128A-12-R-0008) Building 230, Otake Street, Room 103 Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5440

Proposals received by the Government after the date and time set for receipt of proposals will be handled in accordance with Provision “52.215-1, Instructions to OfferorsCompetitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (c), found in the “Provisions” Section of this solicitation.

1.3.1 Proposal Evaluation

Numerical scores and other point-scoring techniques will not be used in the evaluation process. Each factor will be rated on an adjectival rating system. The Government will evaluate offers in accordance with the EVALUATION FACTORS described below.

Offerors are advised that the Government intends to award a contract(s) without discussions. Upon completing the evaluation of all proposals, the Contracting Officer will, in accordance with the provisions of this solicitation and applicable acquisition regulations, proceed to award a contract(s) without discussions. However, if discussions are determined

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 2 necessary, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range and conduct discussions only with those Offerors within the competitive range.

Upon conclusion of discussions, if necessary, the Contracting Officer will request final proposal revisions from the Offerors remaining in the competitive range and may, upon receipt of final proposal revisions, proceed to award a contract without further discussions or notice.

1.4 Contract Award

An Offeror shall submit certain specified qualification-related proposal, demonstrating its capability to successfully execute the task order projects issued under the indefinite-delivery construction contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the criteria described herein.

The Government intends to award no more than three (3) contracts to responsible Offerors whose proposals the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conform to the solicitation, are fair and reasonable, and offer the best overall value to the Government, considering the evaluation factors described herein. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price.

The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contract(s) without discussions with Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions upon the determination and recommendation of the SSA. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from technical and price standpoints.

Each proposal will be evaluated on the factors listed below. An Offeror is required to provide data addressing each stated factor in a clear and understandable format. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated in the proposal. A Proposal that does not clearly address each factors may be considered unacceptable and may be eliminated from further consideration. The non-price and price factors are as follows:

NON-PRICE FACTORS (Proposal Volume I) Factor 1: Technical Approach (using a Sample Project) Factor 2: Key Personnel Factor 3: Experience Factor 4: Past Performance

PRICE FACTOR (Proposal Volume II)

Factor 5: Price Subfactor 1 – Proposal Schedule Subfactor 2 – Sample Project

The relative importance of evaluation factors for award is listed below.

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 3

Factor Description Relative Importance

1 Technical Approach (using a Sample Project) 1st

2 Key Personnel 1st 3 Experience 1st 4 Past Performance 1st 5 Price 5th

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), for this contract action, the non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The relevance of the non-price factors (in terms of importance to the overall evaluation) is as follows:

a. Non-price Factors 1 - 4 are equal in importance to each other.

b. Non-price factors (Factors 1- 4), when combined, are more important than the Price Factor (Factor 5).

c. Price subfactors 1 and 2 are equal in importance to each other.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for each of Factor 1 - Technical Approach (using a Sample Project), Factor 2 - Key Personnel, Factor 3 – Experience, and a rating of no less than “Relevant” AND “Satisfactory Confidence” for Factor 4 - Past Performance.

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.1 General

A Proposal shall consist of submittals for the evaluation factors listed below. The proposal shall be submitted in two (2) clearly marked envelopes (SOLICITATION NO. W9128A-12-R-0008, Volume I, Non-price Proposal and Volume II, Price Proposal). It shall contain one (1) original and four (4) copies, as well as two (2) CDs in read-only format, preferably using .pdf files of the proposal.

A Proposal shall completely address the requirements of the solicitation.

Elaborate format, binders, special reproduction techniques, and the like are not necessary. However, the proposal shall be neatly organized and bound.

Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in which section the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the section for each factor.

A Proposal shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors set forth below.

Offeror is cautioned that “parroting” of the solicitation requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not explain the Offeror's understanding of the problem or its capability to solve it. The inclusion of “filler” material from previous proposals or commercial applications shall be avoided unless it has direct application to the objective of this solicitation.

An Offeror shall include sufficient details in the proposal, and shall present the details in the same order in which they are requested in this section to permit prompt, complete, and accurate proposal evaluation from both a technical and management standpoint. The Government will not make any assumptions concerning the Offeror's intent, capabilities, facilities, W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 4 or experience. Clear identification of the pertinent details shall rest solely with the Offeror.

Legibility, clarity, coherence, and contents are important. An Offeror shall not submit verbatim sections of this solicitation as part of its proposal.

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with Provision “52.215-1, Instructions to OfferorsCompetitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (e), which is found in “Provisions” Section of this solicitation. The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

The proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. By submission of a proposal, the Offeror agrees that all items in its proposal will be used throughout the duration of the contract and any substitutions of any item will require prior approval of the Contracting Officer.

All references herein to “the Offeror” includes all proposed joint ventures.

Each entity in a joint venture must provide evidence of a binding joint venture agreement or other contractual agreement, which creates joint and severable liability for each entity in the joint venture. Information from Offerors in a joint-venture or from the joint-venture itself will be considered and evaluated provided the Offeror or joint-venture was a prime contractor. Information provided from an Offeror’s subcontractor utilized by the entities in the joint venture will be considered or evaluated, unless otherwise noted within Section 00120.

2.1.1 Table of Contents

Each proposal volume shall include a Table of Contents that includes the title of the subject matter discussed therein and the page number where the information can be found. The proposal shall be organized in the same order described below in paragraph 2.2. Proposal shall be separated/tabbed by evaluation factors. A Proposal that is not correctly organized may receive a lower rating.

Proposals shall consist of submittals for evaluations factors listed below.

The proposal shall be submitted in two (2) clearly marked envelopes (SOLICITATION NO. W9128A-12-R-0008, Volume I, Non-price Proposal and Volume II, Price Proposal).

2.2 Evaluation Factors

Each proposal will be evaluated on non-price factors. An Offeror is required to address each stated factor. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated. The Contracting Officer may use discretion in reasonably applying evaluation standards where an Offeror provides information to explain or justify deviation from selection criteria listed in the solicitation. A Proposal that does not address each factor may receive a lower rating and may be eliminated from further consideration.

NON-PRICE FACTORS (Proposal Volume I):

Volume I shall contain Evaluation Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 listed below.

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 5

Factor 1, Technical Approach (using a Sample Project)

Factor 2, Key Personnel

Factor 3, Experience

Factor 4, Past Performance

PRICE FACTOR (Proposal Volume II):

Volume II shall contain one original and one copy of the Offeror’s completed Standard Form (SF) SF 1449, using a printed copy of the SF 1449 included in this solicitation.

It shall also include the following:

• The original and two (2) copies of the Price Proposal Schedule.

• The original and two (2) copies of the Sample Project Price Proposal.

• The original and two (2) copies of the Offeror’s completed “Provisions”

Section, Representations and Certifications, using a printed copy of “Provisions” Section included in this solicitation. Provide one (1) copy of representations and certifications completed electronically via the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) at website at http://orca.bpn.gov.

• The original and one (1) copy of the Offeror’s executed joint venture agreement (if the Offeror is a joint venture).

2.2.1 Factor 1, Technical Approach (using a Sample Project)

This factor evaluates the Offeror’s technical and innovative ability to execute services in reference to the sample project Performance Work Statement (PWS). The evaluation criteria are as follows:

i. Technical approach is based on industry standards of practice for field and laboratory research methods utilizing an effective mix of labor disciplines with acceptable levels of effort.

ii. Technical approach demonstrates the Offeror has sufficient knowledge of the region, regulatory framework, transportation, and execution challenges to prepare a proposal in a timely manner.

iii. Technical approach will provide a research design with at least two (2) testable hypotheses, one of which will relate to the contribution of the project to the archaeology of the region.

iv. Technical approach utilizes methods that will accurately determine the presence of significant cultural resources.

v. Technical approach illustrates schedule management ensuring completion with sample project performance period.

vi. Technical approach will demonstrate the use of planning as it relates to the challenges of working in Pacific Island locations.

http://orca.bpn.gov/

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 6

Factor 1, Technical Approach, will be rated as follows:

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness. 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 weakness. 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 strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

2.2.2 Factor 2, Key Personnel

1) This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed competency and ability to provide knowledgeable, trained and experienced personnel for projects.

Key Personnel for this IDIQ MATOC include Principal Investigator, Field Director, and Field Crew Supervisor. The evaluation criteria for this evaluation factor are as follows:

i. Resumes of each Key Personnel (KP) will be evaluated to substantiate relevant experience and qualifications. No more than three (3) pages total (whether single-sided or double-sided, and each side will be counted as a one page) shall be submitted for each resume. Pages exceeding this 3-page limit will not be evaluated.

1) Principal Investigator (PI)

a. Demonstrated ability to carry research to completion in accordance with an approved milestone schedule.

b. Minimum of a graduate degree (masters degree or higher) in the cultural resources field of study (archaeology, anthropology, history, architecture, or similar)

c. Demonstrate at least seven (7) years of continuous experience, while possessing a graduate degree, as a PI in field work within the Pacific Ocean Division’s Area Of Responsibility (AOR). POD’s AOR includes:

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 7

Hawaii, Alaska, Japan, Korea, Guam, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Freely Associated States including Republic of Palau, Federated States of Micronesia and Republic of the Marshall Islands.

d. Demonstrate competency in subsequent written documentation, report writing and report compilation within POD’s AOR.

2) Field Director

a. Minimum of a graduate degree (masters degree of higher) in the cultural resources field of study (archaeology, anthropology, history, architecture, or similar)

b. Demonstrate at least five (5) years of continuous field experience, while possessing a graduate degree, in cultural resources and cultural resources-related studies within POD’s

AOR

c. Demonstrate competency in subsequent written documentation, report writing and report compilation within POD’s AOR.

3) Field Crew Supervisor

a. Demonstrates at least two (2) years of continuous field experience within POD’s AOR as a supervisor in the cultural resources and cultural resources-related field of study, including field notes writing and compilation, and subsequent report writing and compilation.

ii. Principal Investigator and Field Director must possess education and qualifications in accordance with the Qualification Standards as defined in ‘Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines, As Amended and Annotated’, (48 FR 44716)

iii. Key Personnel must be directly employed by the prime offeror.

Factor 2, Key Personnel, will be rated as follows:

TABLE 2 – COMBINED KEY PERSONNEL/RISK RATINGS

Outstanding Proposal meets the requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness. 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 weakness. 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 strengths. Risk of

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 8 unsuccessful performance is high.

2.2.3 Factor 3, Experience

1) The Government’s evaluation regarding Experience will be a subjective assessment, based on consideration of facts and circumstances provided by the Offeror. The Offeror may submit subcontracts or contracts (stand-alone or task order issued against an indefinite delivery type contract) that have been completed within eight (8) years from May 2015. The Offeror shall provide a narrative description of each contract included in its proposal. No more than five (5) contracts may be submitted. If an Offeror submits more than five (5) contracts, they will be evaluated in the order they appear in Volume I, and any contracts beyond the first 5 will not be considered.

2) Additionally, there is a five (5) page limitation for each submitted contract (whether single-sided or double-sided, and each side will be counted as one page). Any page exceeding this 5-page limit will not be evaluated.

3) An Offeror must demonstrate experience in each of the following. (One project can account for more than one of the criteria below). The evaluation criteria for this factor are:

i. Experience within Pacific Ocean Division’s Area of Responsibility.

ii. Experience in cultural resource field activities, support services, developing studies, analyzing impacts and conducting investigations as well as, experience in all the associated phases required by cultural resource work.

iii. Experience in environmental studies in support of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

iv. Experience in small and large projects. A small project is defined as less than $500K and large project is defined as greater than $500K.

v. Experience with local, state, and/or Federal Government Agencies

vi. Experience with projects in POD’s Area of Responsibility (AOR) which required plan and report acceptance by state or territorial historic preservation office (or equivalent).

4) A contract that meets the time requirement described in Section 2.2.3, paragraph 1 and that meets one or more of the criteria described in Section 2.2.3, paragraph 3 will be considered a relevant contract.

Factor 3, Experience, will be rated as follows:

TABLE 3 – COMBINED PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE/RISK RATINGS

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 9 outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates 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 strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

2.2.4 Factor 4, Past Performance

The Government’s past performance evaluation will be a subjective assessment, based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance. For each of the relevant contracts identified in Factor 3, Experience, the Offeror shall submit a completed USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 2) or a Government generated Past Performance Evaluation Form or a previous completed Past Performance Questionnaire. For PPQs, the Offeror shall complete Parts 1 through 4. The Offeror shall send the partially completed form to the Client (Administrative Contracting Officer or equivalent point of contact) for the identified contract for completion of Parts 5-8 and the rating sheet. The Offeror shall instruct the Client to submit the completed evaluation questionnaire and ratings sheet back to the Offeror, or directly to the Contract Specialist identified on the SF1449 or via email to W9128A-12-R- 0008@usace.army.mil, so the Government may solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government may contact and interview the points of contact, and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed reference. The Government may use personal knowledge or information from other sources, such as agency performance databases, in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance. The Offeror should explain problems encountered and actions taken for any contract listed. The evaluation will include a relevancy rating and confidence assessment as detailed below in subsections 1 and 2:

The Government intends to assess the relative risks associated with the offeror's performance based on the past performance information provided in the proposal. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the offeror to include all relevant information, including demonstrated corrective actions, in its proposal.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past mailto:W9128A-12-R-0008@usace.army.mil mailto:W9128A-12-R-0008@usace.army.mil

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 10

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), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. 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.

Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past five years from prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date. The Government will evaluate the relevancy of the information, the source of the information, and general trends in performance, along with any other information, which may help the Government assess performance risk. Information on significant problems encountered, customer dissatisfaction, and corrective actions taken should be provided.

If any adverse information is obtained in the Past Performance Questionnaires, supplemental inquiries by the Government regarding past performance, or from any other source, the Government will deliver an Evaluation Notice (EN) to the offeror(s) so that they may have a chance to respond and individually address and/or mitigate that adverse information, if applicable.

1) PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is determining the relevancy of an Offeror’s recent efforts to that being acquired by this solicitation.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2) PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is determining the quality of an Offeror’s prior performance. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 11

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required 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 reasonably assigned.

Offerors (a) for whom compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, has been established; and/or (b) for whom no negative information has been reported; or (c) certifying no past performance history of contract containing FAR 52.219-8 will be rated as “complying with FAR 52.219-8.” Such a rating shall have neither positive nor negative impact on the Offeror’s overall Past Performance evaluation. An Offeror for which negative information has been reported shall have such negative information, along with any explanations for comments responding to such negative information supplied by the Offeror, evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria for Past Performance. Such evaluation shall be substantiated and factored into the Offeror’s overall Past Performance evaluation.

2.3 Volume II, Price Proposal

The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2, Certification of current cost or pricing data, will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, Offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of the price.

The contract will be a firm fixed priced commercial service MATOC. The Price Factor includes 2 Subfactors – Subfactor 1 - Proposal Schedule and Subfactor 2 - Sample Project.

2.3.1 Subfactor 1 – Proposal Schedule

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 12

The Proposal Schedule requires an Offeror to propose Man Hour rates for all disciplines for the Base Schedule and all Option Period Schedules. The total price of the Base Schedule and all Option Period Schedules shall be included in the price calculation for the MATOC. The Offeror shall also identify if the discipline will be from the Prime Contractor’s staff (P) or a Subcontractor’s staff (S1, S2, S3, etc.), identify the name of each Subcontractor and the Overhead Rate for the Prime Contractor and each identified Subcontractors.

2.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Sample Project

The Offeror will be required to provide a price proposal for the Sample Project.

Using the sample project Performance Work Statement, complete the Sample Project Price Proposal Schedule. Instructions are provided in the notes to the Sample Project price proposal schedule. A price analysis will be performed on the lump sum prices for the Contract Line items (CLINs).

2.3.3 Price Analysis

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), Proposal analysis techniques, a price analysis will be performed to determine if the proposed prices are fair and reasonable and whether the prices are unbalanced. The Price Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure the prices are fair and reasonable:

1) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation

2) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information

3) Comparison of proposed prices with the Government Estimate

Evaluation criteria for this price factor will include data from Subfactor 1

- Proposal Schedule and Subfactor 2 - Sample Project price proposal schedule. If deemed necessary, the Government will request price breakdown information to assist in price evaluation.

Sample Project price proposal schedule shall be provided as if it were a real project. A price analysis will be conducted and offerors should be prepared to provide price breakdown information upon Contracting Officer request.

After determining that proposed rates on the MATOC Proposal Schedule are reasonable AND that the Sample Project Price Proposal Schedule is reasonable, the Government will add the total prices of the MATOC Proposal Schedules and Sample Project Price Proposal Schedule together for evaluation purposes. This will be the “Price Proposal” referred to below.

2.3.4 Basis for Evaluation

The Government’s price evaluation will be an integrated price analysis, as further detailed below, which will require complete information as described above in paragraph 2.3.3. Failure to provide all information requested may be cause to eliminate an Offeror from consideration in the evaluation.

The information provided in the Price Proposal will be used in the tradeoff analysis. For purposes of award, a determination will be made on the fairness and reasonableness of the Price Proposal.

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 13

The RFP requires firm-fixed price contract line items. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices are fair and reasonable. A proposal that is unreasonably high or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

Labor rates, materials, other direct costs, labor overhead, general and administrative, overhead and any other costs that may be associated with the Sample Project may be subject to Proposal Analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404 to assess the potential risk factor to the Government and to determine fairness and reasonableness of prices contained in the Price Proposal. This includes the comparison of cost/price information from other proposals, information relative to market research, historical procurement data, and/or the Independent Government Estimate and, if necessary, further evaluation to determine fairness and reasonableness and whether or not there is unbalanced pricing.

3.0 Definitions and Evaluation and Rating System

3.1 Definitions

The following definitions are provided to assist the evaluators in the evaluation process.

Significant strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceed the specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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.

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

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

3.2 Evaluation and Rating System

3.2.1 General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time.

After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified.

3.2.2 Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 14

3.2.3 Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjectival rating for all non-price factors.

For Factor 1, the SSEB will assign an adjectival Technical Approach rating of “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable.”

For Factor 2, the SSEB will assign an adjectival Key Personnel rating of “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable.”

For Factor 3, the SSEB will assign an adjectival Experience rating of “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable.”

For Factor 4, the SSEB will assign an adjectival Relevancy Rating of “Very Relevant,” “Relevant,” “Somewhat Relevant,” or “Not Relevant” and an adjectival Performance Confidence Assessment of “Substantial Confidence,” “Satisfactory Confidence,” “Limited Confidence,” “No Confidence,” or “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).”

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 15

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

US Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District

Building 230, Room 103 Honolulu, HI 96858-5440

July 9, 2012

Contracting Division

SUBJECT: Offeror Past Performance Assessment in Support of Request for Proposal (RFP) Number W9128A-12-R-0008; Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity for Cultural Resources and Related Investigations and Studies in the Pacific Ocean Region

Dear Sir/Ma’am;

The US Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District is currently conducting a competitive source selection to evaluate Offerors on the subject RFP. As part of this evaluation, we have requested that the Offerors provide information about their past performance on same or similar federal, state or local government or commercial contracts as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541720. You have been identified as the point of contact cited on the enclosure.

Your assessment of their performance is extremely valuable to our evaluation. Please complete the enclosure and return to the Contracting Division and/or to the Offeror , no later than August 1, 2012. If submitting directly to Contracting Division, please submit your questionnaire electronically to W9128A-12-R-0008@usace.army.mil.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Questions may be directed to Tim Griffin at

(808) 835-4388 or the undersigned at (808) 835-4377, or at the email address listed above.

Sincerely, Kent A. Tamai Contracting Officer

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 16

Attachment 2 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:

NOTE: NAVFAC/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.

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 17

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

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.

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

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 18

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

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 N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer? E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

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 N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program) E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client E VG S M U N

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 19

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)

E VG S M U N

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.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below. Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of…