12r8.pdf

CECT - CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE, HONOLULU

BLDG 230, ROOM 103

FT. SHAFTER HI 96858-5440

808-835-4386 808-835-4396

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

11. DELIVERY FOR FOB

RFQ

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

IFB RFP

CODE

SEE ADDENDUM

BLOCK IS MARKED

DESTINATION UNLESS

12. DISCOUNT TERMS

(No Collect Calls)

19M

13b. RATING

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER

X

CODE

W9128A-12-R-0008

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER 808-835-4388

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV 3/2005)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER) 31c. DATE SIGNED

ADDENDA X ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Govt. Use Only)

22. UNIT 23. UNIT PRICE 24. AMOUNT

21. QUANTITY

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

UNRESTRICTED

FAX: NAICS:

TEL:

CODE 18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY OFFEROR

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TEL.

W9128A

SIZE STD:

9. ISSUED BY

FACILITY

CODE

17a.CONTRACTOR/

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

15. DELIVER TO CODE 16. ADMINISTERED BY

SEE SCHEDULE

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

TIMOTHY GRIFFIN

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

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

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

19. ITEM NO. 20. SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

SEE SCHEDULE

541720

TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND DELIVER ALL ITEMS

SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY ADDITIONAL SHEETS

SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED HEREIN.

SB

HUBZONE SB

SET ASIDE: 100 % FOR

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

TEL: EMAIL:

2 COPIES

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

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. OFFER DATED YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN 29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REFERENCE X

8(A)

SVC-DISABLED VET-OWNED SB

EMERGING SB

X X j3ct9kat Typewritten Text j3ct9kat Typewritten Text j3ct9kat Typewritten Text j3ct9kat Typewritten Text 8/9/12,1400hrs j3ct9kat Typewritten Text j3ct9kat Typewritten Text j3ct9kat Typewritten Text j3ct9kat Typewritten Text j3ct9kat Typewritten Text 7/10/12 j3ct9kat Typewritten Text

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

SEE SCHEDULE

19. ITEM NO. 20. SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES 21. QUANTITY 22. UNIT 24. AMOUNT

23. UNIT PRICE

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 3/2005) BACK

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

j3ct9kat Typewritten Text j3ct9kat Typewritten Text j3ct9kat Typewritten Text

RFP No. W9128A-12-R-0008

Ordering Schedule - 1

ORDERING SCHEDULE

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

ITEM

NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT____

0001 Base Ordering Period 1 LS $9,500,000 (Not To Exceed)

0002 !st Option Ordering Period 1 LS $0

0003 2 nd Option Ordering Period 1 LS $0

0004 3 rd

0005 4 th

NOTES:

1. See S-36.36 Minimum/Maximum Value (Multiple Award) in “Clauses” Section for the maximum dollar value the Government will order under all of the contracts awarded.

-- End of Section --

CULTURAL MONITORING MATOC

PRICE PROPOSAL

BASE ORDERING PERIOD

Prime or Sub Ref No. DISCIPLINE

Estimated Man Hours

Hourly Rate Total

BASE ORDERING PERIOD $ $

0001 Principal Investigator 960

0002 Project Manager 480

0003 Field Director/Senior Archaeologist 1440

0004 Field Technician 3600

0005 Junior Archaeologist/Field Crew Supervisor 640

0006 Anthropologist/Ethnographer 480

0007 Cultural Specialist Monitor 600

0008 Historical Architect 120

0009 Historical Engineer 120

0010 Architectural Historian 240

0011 Historian/Archivist 240

0012 Environmental Protection Specialist 120

0013 Sedimentologist 80

0014 Biologist 80

0015 Botantist 80

0016 Geologist 80

0017 GIS Specialist 240

0018 Senior Planner 80

PRICE PROPOSAL

0019 Junior Planner 80

0020 Laboratory Director 1200

0021 Laboratory Technician 1200

0022 Editor 240

0023 Illustrator 120

0024 Draftsperson 120

0025 Word Processor/Administrative Assistant 160

Total

Overhead Rate

P Prime Contractor:

S1 Subcontractor 1:

S2 Subcontractor 2:

S3 Subcontractor 3:

S4 Subcontractor 4:

S5 Subcontractor 5:

PRICE PROPOSAL

1st OPTION ORDERING PERIOD Prime or Sub Ref No. DISCIPLINE

Estimated Man Hours

Hourly Rate Total

0101 Principal Investigator 960

0102 Project Manager 480

0103 Field Director/Senior Archaeologist 1440

0104 Field Technician 3600

0105 Junior Archaeologist/Field Crew Supervisor 640

0106 Anthropologist/Ethnographer 480

0107 Cultural Specialist Monitor 600

0108 Historical Architect 120

0109 Historical Engineer 120

0110 Architectural Historian 240

0111 Historian/Archivist 240

0112 Environmental Protection Specialist 120

0113 Sedimentologist 80

0114 Biologist 80

0115 Botantist 80

0116 Geologist 80

0117 GIS Specialist 240

0118 Senior Planner 80

PRICE PROPOSAL

0119 Junior Planner 80

0120 Laboratory Director 1200

0121 Laboratory Technician 1200

0122 Editor 240

0123 Illustrator 120

0124 Draftsperson 120

0125 Word Processor/Administrative Assistant 160

Total

Overhead Rate

P Prime Contractor:

S1 Subcontractor 1:

S2 Subcontractor 2:

S3 Subcontractor 3:

PRICE PROPOSAL

2nd OPTION ORDERING PERIOD Prime or Sub Ref No. DISCIPLINE

Estimated Man Hours

Hourly Rate Total

0201 Principal Investigator 960

0202 Project Manager 480

0203 Field Director/Senior Archaeologist 1440

0204 Field Technician 3600

0205 Junior Archaeologist/Field Crew Supervisor 640

0206 Anthropologist/Ethnographer 480

0207 Cultural Specialist Monitor 600

0208 Historical Architect 120

0209 Historical Engineer 120

0210 Architectural Historian 240

0211 Historian/Archivist 240

0212 Environmental Protection Specialist 120

0213 Sedimentologist 80

0214 Biologist 80

0215 Botantist 80

0216 Geologist 80

0217 GIS Specialist 240

0218 Senior Planner 80

PRICE PROPOSAL

0219 Junior Planner 80

0220 Laboratory Director 1200

0221 Laboratory Technician 1200

0222 Editor 240

0223 Illustrator 120

0224 Draftsperson 120

0225 Word Processor/Administrative Assistant 160

Total

Overhead Rate

P Prime Contractor:

S1 Subcontractor 1:

S2 Subcontractor 2:

S3 Subcontractor 3:

PRICE PROPOSAL

3rd OPTION ORDERING PERIOD Prime or Sub Ref No. DISCIPLINE

Estimated Man Hours

Hourly Rate Total

0301 Principal Investigator 960

0302 Project Manager 480

0303 Field Director/Senior Archaeologist 1440

0304 Field Technician 3600

0305 Junior Archaeologist/Field Crew Supervisor 640

0306 Anthropologist/Ethnographer 480

0307 Cultural Specialist Monitor 600

0308 Historical Architect 120

0309 Historical Engineer 120

0310 Architectural Historian 240

0311 Historian/Archivist 240

0312 Environmental Protection Specialist 120

0313 Sedimentologist 80

0314 Biologist 80

0315 Botantist 80

0316 Geologist 80

0317 GIS Specialist 240

0318 Senior Planner 80

PRICE PROPOSAL

0319 Junior Planner 80

0320 Laboratory Director 1200

0321 Laboratory Technician 1200

0322 Editor 240

0323 Illustrator 120

0324 Draftsperson 120

0325 Word Processor/Administrative Assistant 160

Total

Overhead Rate

P Prime Contractor:

S1 Subcontractor 1:

S2 Subcontractor 2:

S3 Subcontractor 3:

PRICE PROPOSAL

4th OPTION ORDERING PERIOD Prime or Sub Ref No. DISCIPLINE

Estimated Man Hours

Hourly Rate Total

0401 Principal Investigator 960

0402 Project Manager 480

0403 Field Director/Senior Archaeologist 1440

0404 Field Technician 3600

0405 Junior Archaeologist/Field Crew Supervisor 640

0406 Anthropologist/Ethnographer 480

0407 Cultural Specialist Monitor 600

0408 Historical Architect 120

0409 Historical Engineer 120

0410 Architectural Historian 240

0411 Historian/Archivist 240

0412 Environmental Protection Specialist 120

0413 Sedimentologist 80

0414 Biologist 80

0415 Botantist 80

0416 Geologist 80

0117 GIS Specialist 240

0418 Senior Planner 80

PRICE PROPOSAL

0419 Junior Planner 80

0420 Laboratory Director 1200

0421 Laboratory Technician 1200

0422 Editor 240

0423 Illustrator 120

0424 Draftsperson 120

0425 Word Processor/Administrative Assistant 160

Total

Overhead Rate

P Prime Contractor:

S1 Subcontractor 1:

S2 Subcontractor 2:

S3 Subcontractor 3:

Sample Project - 1

SAMPLE

PROPOSAL SCHEDULE

Archaeological Intensive Survey Proposed US Government Land Acquisition

South Kohala, Hawaii Island, Hawaii

ITEM

NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT____

0001 Archaeological Intensive Survey Proposed 1 LS $_____________ US Government Land Acquisition

Total Proposal Schedule: $_____________

NOTES:

1. This project is a sample project and will not be awarded.

Sample Project - 2

PAYMENT(S)

Compensation for all work to be performed under this contract will be made under the payment item(s) listed herein. Price(s) and payment(s) for the item(s) shall cover all work, complete and finished in accordance with the specifications, schedules, and drawings, and shall be full compensation for all work in connection therewith, including quality control as specified in the CONTRACT CLAUSES. Price(s) and payment(s) shall constitute full and final compensation for furnishing all materials, equipment, management, supervision, labor, transportation, fuel, power, water, and all incidental items necessary to complete the work, except as otherwise specified to be furnished by the Government. The term "designated billing office" and "designated payment office" are as follows:

a. Billing Office

U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu Ft Shafter Area Office, Bldg. 230 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440

b. Payment Office USACE Finance Center Attn: CEFC-FP 5722 Integrity Drive Millington, TN 38054-5005

-- End of Section --

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 1

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

AND EVALUATION FACTORS

1.0 GENERAL

1.1. Cost of Preparing Proposals

The Government will not reimburse any Offeror any costs incurred in the preparation and submittal of an offer in response to this solicitation.

1.2. Inquiries

Address all inquiries regarding this solicitation to:

U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu Corps of Engineers, Building 230 ATTN: CECT-POH-C (Mr. Tim Griffin and Kent Tamai) Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5440 Phone No. Mr Griffin - (808) 835-4388 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, 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 the requirements of 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 without discussions. Upon completing the evaluation of all proposals, the Contracting Officer will, in accordance with the provisions of this

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 2 solicitation and applicable acquisition regulations, proceed to award without discussions. However, if discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with those Offerors only 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

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

The Government intends to award approximately six (6) to nine (9) contracts to responsible Offerors whose proposal the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers 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 without discussions with Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions upon the determination and recommendation of the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

All proposals will be evaluated on the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors 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. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. The non-price and price factors are as follows:

NON-PRICE FACTORS

Factor 1: Technical Approach (using a Sample Project) Factor 2: Key Personnel Factor 3: Experience Factor 4: Past Performance

PRICE FACTOR

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 3 shall be evaluated on a GO/NO-GO basis. Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are listed with the order of importance.

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 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

Proposals shall consist of submittals for the evaluation factors listed below. The proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope, clearly marked, “SOLICITATION NO. W9128A-12-R-0008.” 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.

Proposals 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.

Proposals 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 reveal the Offeror's understanding of the problem or his 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.

Offerors 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 the Government to promptly, completely, and accurately evaluate the

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 4 proposal from both a technical and management standpoint. The Government will not make any assumptions concerning the Offeror's intent, capabilities, facilities, or experience. Clear identification of the pertinent details shall rest solely with the Offeror.

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

Offerors that disregard these standards unnecessarily delay the evaluation process and may be rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without receiving any further consideration.

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of 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 an offer, 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 reference to the Offeror includes all proposed joint venture partners.

All contractors in a joint venture must provide evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the joint venture.

Information from Offerors in a joint-venture or from the joint-venture itself will be considered and evaluated as long as the Offeror or joint-venture was a prime contractor. Information provided from potential sub-contractors (not included in the joint venture) will not be considered or evaluated.

2.1.1 Table of Contents

Proposal shall be separated by evaluation factor. 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. Proposals that are not correctly organized may receive a lower rating.

2.2 Evaluation Factors

All proposals will be evaluated on non-price factors. Offerors are required to address all stated factors. 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 Offerors provide information to explain or justify deviation from selection criteria listed in the solicitation. Offers that do not address all factors may receive a lower rating and may not receive further consideration.

Evaluation Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 are listed below.

Factor 1, Technical Approach (using a Sample Project)

Factor 2, Key Personnel

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 5

Factor 3, Experience

Factor 4, Past Performance

PRICE FACTOR (Proposal Volume II):

Volume II shall contain one original and 1 copy of the Offeror’s completed Standard Form (SF) SF1449, using a printed copy of the SF 1449 included in this solicitation.

It shall also include the following:

• One (1) original and two (2) copies of the Price Proposal Schedule.

• One (1) original and two (2) copies of the Sample Project Price

Proposal.

• One (1) 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.

• One (1) 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 Offerors technical and innovative ability to execute services in reference to the sample project PWS. The evaluation criteria is 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.

http://orca.bpn.gov/�

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 6

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

The Technical Approach Factor will be rated utilizing the below table with associated description in identifying strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal.

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.

The evaluation criteria for this evaluation factor is as follows:

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 7

i. Resumes of each Key Personnel (KP) will be evaluated to substantiate relevant experience and qualifications

ii. KP 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. KP that are directly employed by the prime offeror

iv. KP with the appropriate level of years of continuous fieldwork experience working with the various types of cultural resources inventory surveys and related work specified in the PWS within POD’s AOR including tropical island locations.

v. KP with at least one year of continuous experience working on government projects

The Key Personnel Factor will be rated utilizing the below table with associated description in identifying strengths, deficiencies, and

TABLE 2 – COMBINED KEY PERSONNEL/RISK RATINGS

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.

2.2.3 Factor 3, Experience

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 8

1) The Government’s experience evaluation will be a subjective assessment, based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances.

Evaluators will assess experience on each relevant contract as defined above in section C, paragraph 3. Furthermore, for previous experience to be considered relevant, the labor shall be spend directly and substantially supporting or implementing cultural resources and related environmental projects, contracts, subcontracts, or task orders that have been completed or substantially completed within seven (7) years from date of solicitation. The evaluation criteria for this evaluation factor is as follows:

i. Experience within Pacific Ocean Division boundaries (Area of Operations).

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. Small being defined as less than $500K and large being defined as greater than $500K.

v. Experience in managing projects that were completed on time, within budget, and met all performance objectives.

vi. Demonstrate ability to perform complex projects that required additional considerations not customary to cultural resource work

vii. Experience with local, state, and Federal Government Agencies

viii. Experience with projects in POD Area of operations (AOR) which required review by various state historic preservation offices and other regulators in POD’s AOR such as the various offices of Environmental Quality and cultural resources.

The Experience Factor will be rated utilizing the below table with associated description in identifying strengths, deficiencies, and

TABLE 3 – COMBINED PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE/RISK RATINGS

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.

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 9

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. Evaluators will assess past performance on each relevant contract as defined above in section C, paragraph 3. The evaluation will include a relevancy rating and confidence assessment as detailed below (subsection 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 (and major subcontractor’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 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. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, or employment histories of key personnel, or major subcontractors performing key elements of the project. 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 year prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 10 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 to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however. The following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant, which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming:

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 to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 11

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 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 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. Offerors for whom 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 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

The Proposal Schedule requires an Offeror to propose Man Hour rates for all disciplines for the Base Schedule and all Option Period Schedules. The

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 12 total price of the Base Schedule and all Option Period Schedules shall be included in the price calculation for the MATOC. The Offer 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 all identified Subcontractors.

2.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Sample Project

The Offeror will be required to provide a price proposal for the Sample Project. Should the Government determine proposed prices are unbalanced, this will be considered a performance risk.

Using the drawings and specifications provided as a Sample Project, complete the Sample Project Price Proposal Schedule in Section 00010. 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), a price analysis will be performed to determine that the proposed prices are fair and reasonable, including if there is unbalanced pricing. The Price Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure the prices are fair and reasonable:

- Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation

- Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information

- 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

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 13 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 reasonableness of the Price Proposal.

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 offered are fair and reasonable. Offers found to be 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 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027�

W9128A-12-R-0008 Evaluation - 14 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.

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 Experience rating of “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable.”

For Factor 2, the SSEB will assign an adjectival Experience 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 - 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…