W912BU-17-R-0008_Amendment_0001.pdf

W912BU-17-R-0008

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PHILADELPHIA

POC: LINDA DOBBS

WANAMAKER BUILDING

100 PENN SQUARE EAST

PHILADELPHIA PA 19107-3390

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Amendment 0001 under W912BU-17-R-0008, Analytical Laboratory Services for Environmental Sample Analysis

See attached.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Mar-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912BU-17-R-0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Feb-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

22-Mar-2017

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PHILADELPHIA

CONTRACTING DIVISION

WANAMAKER BUILDING

100 PENN SQUARE EAST

PHILADELPHIA PA 19107-3390

W912BU 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE W912BU

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

AMENDMENT 0001

1. Contractors are instructed to remove and replace the Sections titled, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD and INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS. All changes to the original sections are highlighted in yellow. With this issuance of this amendment, Small Business Participation is being added as a 4th Evaluation Factor. Proposals are being evaluated by four (4) factors: Technical Capability, Past Performance, Price Reasonableness, and Small Business Participation.

2. A Small Business Participation Plan (to be submitted by all offerors) and a Subcontracting Plan (to be submitted by all other than small business) are attached.

3. A Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form is also attached and shall be submitted with proposal submission.

4. The closing date for the receipt of proposals has been extended from 2:00pm (EST), March 24, 2017 until 1:00pm (EST), March 31, 2017.

5. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 24-Mar-2017 02:00 PM to 31-Mar-2017 01:00 PM

(EST).

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four

(4) factors: Technical Capability, Past Performance, Price Reasonableness, and Small Business Participation. The Technical Capability evaluation factor is significantly more important than Price Reasonableness, which is more important than Past Performance and the

Small Business Participation factor. Sub-factors under each factor are listed in descending order of importance. Key points within a sub-factor are of equal importance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all sub-factors). Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS

COMBINED ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE REASONABLENESS.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without conducting negotiations with offerors. However, in the event the Source Selection Authority (SSA) concludes conducting discussions is in the best interest of the Government, the Contracting Officer will establish a Competitive Range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the Competitive Range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the offerors initial proposal should contain the offerors best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

Factor 1: The Technical factor is further divided into the following sub-factors:

a. Sub-factor 1: Accreditations and Sensitivity Capabilities

b. Sub-factor 2: Laboratory Personnel and Equipment

c. Sub-factor 3: Laboratory Information Management System

d. Sub-factor 4: Data Access

e. Sub-factor 5: Same-day Courier Services

f. Sub-Factor 6: Turnaround Time

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each sub-factor as it applies to the Statement of Work (SOW). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the

Government will assign each sub-factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Price: The resulting award will be a firm-fixed price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

Factor 4: Small Business Participation: The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). Specifics of the Source Selection Team are included in Appendix A.

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is as follows:

Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: (Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The technical factors may include various “Key Points”. Key Points will be evaluated separately and will facilitate a thorough review and evaluation of the subfactor/factor. Where used, Key Points are identified herein.

1. Technical Factor The Technical factor is divided into the following sub-factors:

Sub-Factor 1: Accreditations and Sensitivity Capabilities: Each offeror’s proposal will be reviewed to determine whether they have the minimum certifications required by the RFP and the overall scope of certifications that will be advantageous to the Government. In addition each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine the detection limits their respective lab is capable of in order to ensure they can meet the requirements in the RFP.

Key Points for Sub-Factor 1 - Accreditations and Sensitivity Capabilities

• Certifications

• Quantitation Limits and Detection Limits

• Multiple Dilutions Policy

Sub-Factor 2: Laboratory Personnel and Equipment: Each offeror’s proposal will be reviewed to determine the overall capability demonstrated by the offeror and their organization. The review will consider the availability of resources and the organization’s business related capability to successfully perform and respond to the requirements of this project.

Key Points for Sub-Factor 2 - Laboratory Personnel and Equipment

• Sampling Technicians

• Key Personnel Resumes

• Staffing

• Equipment List

Sub-Factor 3: Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS): Each offeror’s proposal will be reviewed to evaluate capabilities of the LIMS.

Key Points for Sub-Factor 3 - Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS)

• Interfacing Capabilities

• PDF Capabilities

• Sample Status Tracking

Sub-Factor 4: Data Access: Each offeror’s proposal will be reviewed to evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide USACE access to data electronically via a secure internet link.

Sub-Factor 5: Same-day Courier Services: Each offeror’s proposal will be reviewed to evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide timely (occasionally same day) courier services such as delivery or pickup of supplies and samples. The offeror shall indicate what the distance or mileage limits are, and how much prior notification is required to use this service.

Sub-Factor 6: Turnaround Times: Each offeror’s proposal will be reviewed to evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide data deliverables in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical factor requirements.

TABLE 1 – Technical Capability Ratings

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

2. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the SOW.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D. The Government will also use data collected from Contract Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) to evaluate past performance.

b. 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. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral 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, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541380. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of each offeror’s past performance and assign a performance confidence assessment rating.

(i) Recency: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Any past performance within the past three years will be considered recent.

(ii) Relevancy: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Any past performance information that involves chemical analytical services for environmental sample analysis will be considered relevant. The relevancy of the offeror’s past performance will be rated in accordance with the below table:

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

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

Somewhat 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.

(iii) Quality of Products or Services: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. A separate quality assessment rating will not be used; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance..

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.

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

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

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

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

3. Price Factor: The contract will be a firm-fixed price contract. This solicitation will only require pricing to be provided. As a result, a Price Analysis will be conducted to determine Price Reasonableness.

The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed priced effort. Should the Government determine proposed prices are unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

The RFP requires a firm-fixed-priced contract line item. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in” is not occurring.

4. Small Business Participation Factor: All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent past performance in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business” and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Subcontractors.

e. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals: Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {2%} of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): {.5%} of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {.5%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: {0.25%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): {.25} of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {.25%} of the total contract value. Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) {0%} (Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {1%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards

VOSB).

Overall:

During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

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

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

Green 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.

Yellow 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.

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

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1 . INTRODUCTION

The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically via email and on a compact disc, as set forth below. The RFP shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal. NOTE: There is a 20MB limitation per e-mail. If needed, multiple e-mails may be submitted.

The offeror’s proposal shall consist of five (5) separable sections. The Sections are I – Technical and Past Performance, II – Price, III – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations, and IV – Small Business Participation. Files shall not contain classified data. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. NO PRICE INFORMATION SHALL BE INCLUDED IN ANY OTHER SECTION to allow for a fair and impartial technical review.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements of the specifications with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Technical and Past Performance Section and the Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents Section shall be in PDF format. The Price Section shall be in Microsoft Excel. There are no page limitations.

Printing should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

One copy of each proposal shall be submitted.

3. PROPOSAL FILES

Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each section shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each section shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be included.

Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.

The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the narrative discussion and/or proposal:

SECTION I

FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL. The section shall be organized into the following sections:

Sub-Factor 1 – Accreditations and Sensitivity Capabilities

At a minimum, the offeror’s proposal shall address the following Key Points.

KEY POINT 1 Certifications

The offeror shall submit available National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) certification for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), other State certification(s), and Department of Defense (DoD) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) certifications for the methods and associated matrices listed in schedule B. Provide a list of the schedule B analyses that will need to be subcontracted to a different facility (as well as the name of the subcontract lab) to achieve NJDEP NELAP and DoD ELAP certification requirements. This includes subcontracting that will occur within a corporate laboratory network. Overall status of method certifications in soil/sediment, aqueous, and air matrices will be used in the evaluation process to assess breadth of laboratory capabilities and proficiency, and also enable USACE to determine the amount of subcontracting that will be required.

Evaluation Criteria The ability to provide the maximum number of NJDEP NELAP and DoD ELAP certified schedule B analyses (for soil and water or air matrices, as appropriate) in the proposed laboratory facility with minimal subcontracting for the contract will be the primary evaluation criterion for this Key Point. An acceptable rating will be assigned for proposals documenting these certifications for EPA SW-846 methods of analysis for volatile and semivolatile Target Compound List (TCL) organic compounds and Target Analyte List (TAL) metals (using ICP- AES and ICP-MS techniques) in both a soil and water matrix. Higher ratings will be assigned on the basis of the additional Schedule B method certifications the proposed facility maintains, with an emphasis on the methods of analysis the Philadelphia District has required for past projects as well as anticipated future needs.

KEY POINT 2 Quantitation Limits and Detection Limits

The offeror shall provide available reporting and detection limits (to include quantitation limits, limits of quantitation, limits of detection and method detection limits) for the analytical parameters to be used in this contract as part of the proposal. The limits should be consistent with the best currently available technology and instrumentation in the industry using the test methods provided in this solicitation. If lower detection limits are available for certain parameters by using extra sample volume (for example using 25-mL purge sample rather than 5-mL purge sample for aqueous VOCs), or other adjustment, this should be noted and the lower reporting limits and new method detection limits should be provided.

Evaluation Criteria The laboratory’s ability to achieve the sensitivity required to meet the current NJDEP Ground Water Quality Standards and NJDEP Residential Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards for organic and inorganic analytes via NJDEP NELAP and DoD ELAP certified methods of analysis will be the primary evaluation criterion for this Key Point. An acceptable rating will be assigned for proposals documenting the laboratory’s capability of meeting the stated sensitivity requirements for TCL volatile and semivolatile compounds and TAL metals via certified methods. Higher ratings will be assigned for facilities demonstrating certified method and sensitivity compliance for the referenced NJDEP Standards that are over and above the acceptable rating category.

KEY POINT 3 Multiple Dilutions Policy

The offeror shall provide a description of the laboratory policy for analysis of samples requiring multiple dilutions to achieve project sensitivity requirements (i.e., detection/reporting limits) and any additional unit costs for this occurrence. Similarly, a description of the policy for re-runs in the event of sample quality control outliers (i.e., surrogate and/or internal standard outliers) and cost implications for this occurrence shall also be provided. The government will look favorably upon laboratories with a policy that strives to meet all project sensitivity requirements, going beyond the standard 10-fold increase in sensitivity relative to the analysis required to bring the highest concentration target compound within the instrument calibration range.

Evaluation Criteria The evaluation for this Key Point will include an assessment of potential cost ramifications to achieve project sensitivity when high concentration samples are submitted for a project. A similar cost assessment will be performed for reruns on the basis of surrogate and/or internal standard outliers.

Sub-Factor 2 – Laboratory Personnel and Equipment.

As a minimum, the offeror’s proposal shall address the following Key Points.

KEY POINT 1 Sampling Technicians

The offeror shall have the staffing capability to mobilize two trained, experienced sampling technicians within a two week notice to perform or assist in the collection of samples during field events located in the USACE Philadelphia District area of operation. Contractors are not limited to the two (2) trained, experience sampling technicians to complete the job. Personnel shall have a minimum of a high school diploma and three years of field sample collection experience with soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater, air and waste samples. Sampling personnel shall meet the training requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazardous Waste and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER). Training records and medical certifications for qualified personnel shall be provided. The use of respiratory protection may be required during some sampling efforts. Trained sampling personnel will be required to sample in accordance with the NJDEP Tech Regs and NJDEP Field Sampling Procedures Manual or modifications per the specific project requirements.

Evaluation Criteria An outstanding rating will be assigned for proposals documenting that the laboratory has the desired sampling personnel with required training and availability. Lower ratings will be assigned in proportion to the stated capability.

KEY POINT 2 Key Personnel Resumes

The offeror shall provide resumes for key laboratory personnel. These key personnel include the laboratory manager, project managers, section supervisors, quality assurance manager, and LIMS/database manager.

Evaluation Criteria The evaluation for this Key Point will include an assessment of the overall experience level of key laboratory personnel and the degree of continuity of management personnel, as evidenced by the number of years of key individuals experience at that particular facility. An acceptable rating will be assigned for those proposals documenting that experience levels for specified key personnel meet those key personnel experience levels that are provided in Section 2.2 of the Statement of Work. Ratings will be adjusted on the basis of additional and overall experience available at the particular facility, with a focus on past USACE project requirements as well as projected future USACE needs.

KEY POINT 3 Staffing

Certain USACE projects require the laboratory to analyze a high volume of complex samples within a limited timeframe and provide data deliverables (both data packages and project specific electronic data deliverables) within 2 weeks of sample receipt, and sufficient staffing on a regular basis is required to ensure that large projects can be handled with minimal impact. The offeror shall provide a list of the analysts that were regularly engaged in environmental testing at the specific laboratory location, the test areas the analysts were associated with (along with education levels and years of experience in the associated test area), and support staff (LIMS personnel, sample log-in, etc.) for the laboratory.

Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of this Key Point will be based upon the laboratory’s staffing capacity to support a project requiring two week turn around (from sample receipt) for CLP equivalent final data packages (in pdf) and EDDs for analysis of 250 analyses for TCL VOCs by SW-846 method 8260, 120 analyses for 1,2-dibromoethane by SW-846 method 8011, and 120 analyses for selected TAL metals by SW-846 method 6020. Samples to be collected over a two week sampling period and delivered to the laboratory after each day of collection. Projected level of effort to complete this work will be assessed relative to available staff to determine how significantly a project of this size will impact overall laboratory operations. An acceptable rating will be assigned for proposals documenting that completion of this project in the desired time frame will utilize no more than 25% of the laboratory analyst staff capacity in the associated sections.

KEY POINT 4 Equipment List The offeror shall provide a comprehensive listing of available working laboratory equipment shall be provided to document that redundant instrumentation is available in key areas.

Instrumentation breakdown must specify if instruments for organic analysis are dedicated to volatile or semivolatile compounds. Equipment list is specifically for instrumentation located at the laboratory facility seeking this contract, and is not to include instrumentation from other laboratories within a laboratory network. Adequate instrumentation is required to ensure that:

samples requiring multiple re-runs (to meet project reporting requirements) can be performed;

analyses can be completed within holding times, and; project reporting deadlines can be achieved.

Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of this Key Point will be based upon the laboratory’s capacity to handle the same project described in the preceding Key Point, 3. Projected instrumentation time to complete this work will be assessed relative to available instruments in the associated section. An acceptable rating will be assigned for proposals documenting that completion of this project will utilize no more than 25% of the laboratory instrumentation capacity in the associated section.

Sub-Factor 3 – Laboratory Information Management System

At a minimum, the offeror’s proposal shall address the following Key Points:

KEY POINT 1 Interfacing Capabilities

Offerors must indicate the extent to which laboratory instrumentation interfaces directly with the LIMS. Direct electronic transfer of data from laboratory instrumentation to the LIMS is desirable as it eliminates potential data entry errors and reduces problems on the reporting side of operations. Similarly, results from any spreadsheet calculations should also be electronically transferred to the LIMS to eliminate errors. A list of the Schedule B analyses will be provided as part of the proposal indicating which instrumentation/spreadsheet calculations interface directly with the LIMS, as well as methods which do not directly interface with the LIMS (i.e., manual data entry is required).

Evaluation Criteria The extent to which laboratory instrumentation interfaces directly with the LIMS and enables electronic data transfer will be the primary evaluation criterion for this Key Point. An acceptable rating will be assigned for proposals documenting instrumentation for the analysis of volatile and semivolatile TCL organic compounds using GC/MS instrumentation and TAL metals using ICP- AES and ICP-MS techniques are integrated directly with the laboratory LIMS. Higher ratings will be assigned on the basis of the additional Schedule B analyses enabled with this integration, with an emphasis on the methods of analysis the Philadelphia District has required for past projects as well as anticipated future needs.

KEY POINT 2 PDF Capabilities

Laboratories shall be able to provide analytical data and results via the laboratory’s LIMS directly to a Portable Document Format (PDF) without the need to manually handle and/or input the analytical data. The LIMS should be able to verify the content of information and seamlessly transfer the electronic analytical data to a fully searchable and bookmarked PDF that is identical to the hard copy report by the project specific turnaround time. The fully searchable PDF documents should be housed on a secure web site for client use. This will ensure data integrity and data defensibility to withstand litigation.

Evaluation Criteria Proposals documenting laboratory capability of providing instrumentation data and results for volatile and semivolatile TCL organic compounds using GC/MS instrumentation and TAL metals using ICP-AES and ICP-MS techniques directly via the LIMS to a fully searchable and bookmarked PDF without the need to manually handle and/or input the analytical data will be assigned an acceptable rating. Higher ratings will be assigned on the basis of the additional Schedule B analyses enabled with this capability, with an emphasis on the methods of analysis the Philadelphia District has required for past projects as well as anticipated future needs.

KEY POINT 3 Sample Status Tracking

The offerors must indicate whether its selected laboratory is capable of using the LIMS to track the status of samples throughout the entire operation sequence of sample handling, analysis, and reporting by the lab. Specifically, the lab shall provide a description of how the LIMS is used to control the following major functions, and the extent of human intervention that is required for each:

• Sample receipt and login

• Sample scheduling

• Data acquisition

• Data processing and data approval

• QC data processing

• Final reporting

• Electronic data deliverables

• ADR

• SEDD

• Verification of ADR and SEDD electronic data deliverables against the project ADR libraries and correction of any laboratory errors prior to data submission to the USACE

• Project specific electronic data deliverable including EQUIS, ACCESS, or equivalent database systems, including the EPA Region 2 data base and similar formats.

Evaluation Criteria Proposal descriptions for this Key Point will be assessed to determine the degree to which the LIMS is capable of tracking the status of samples through the analysis and reporting process.

Proposals demonstrating the capability of tracking all of the bulleted items listed for this Key Point will be assigned a satisfactory rating. Higher ratings will be assigned for proposals demonstrating desirable sample tracking capabilities over and above the bulleted items.

Sub-Factor 4 – Data Access

At a minimum, the offeror’s proposal shall address the following Key Point:

The capability of providing USACE access to data electronically via a secure internet link is important. The offeror shall provide a summary description and information, including security measures, regarding any access capabilities that are available to USACE. Specific items include:

• Sample status information

• Access to completed chain of custody forms

• Timely access to analytical results

• Access to historical data

• Generation of complete searchable structured analytical reports in pdf including raw data

• Generation of project specific EDDs

• Internet function that allows customers to create custom EDDs.

• Invoice information

Evaluation Criteria Proposals documenting that USACE will have secure internet access to complete all of the functions described in this sub-factor will be assigned an acceptable rating. Higher ratings will be assigned for proposals demonstrating desirable access capabilities over and above the bulleted items.

Sub-Factor 5 – Same-day Courier Services

At a minimum, the offeror’s proposal shall address the following Key Point:

The offeror’s laboratory shall have the capability to provide timely (occasionally same day) courier services such as delivery or pickup of supplies and samples. The offeror shall indicate what the distance or mileage limits are, and how much prior notification is required to use this service. This service is necessary in providing an additional shipping alternative for USACE to the analytical laboratory and will facilitate analyses with short holding times (e.g. less than 24 hours).

Evaluation Criteria Proposals documenting that the laboratory has courier capabilities servicing Philadelphia and surrounding areas (southeastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware – provide specifics on delivery area serviced) will be assigned an acceptable rating. Higher ratings will be assigned based upon improved capabilities desirable to the USACE.

Sub-Factor 6 – Turnaround Times

At a minimum, the offeror’s proposal shall address the following element:

The offeror’s laboratory shall have the capability to provide USACE with electronic access to the required data package deliverable (pdf version) and EDD within 21 days of sample receipt.

Evaluation Criteria

Proposals documenting that the laboratory can provide electronic versions of report packages and EDDs within the 21-day time frame for the schedule B analyses (with the exception of gamma spectroscopy, line item 70, when a 21-day ingrowth is required) will be assigned an acceptable rating. Higher ratings will be assigned based upon turnaround times for the referenced deliverables that are less than the 21-day time frame without any price mark-up.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

This section shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts within the last three years from date of issuance of the RFP. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort required by the RFP. Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by each/any proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror.

This section shall be organized into the following sections:

Section 1 – Contract Descriptions

This section shall include the following information in the following format.

a. Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

b. Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

c. Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers.

d. Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

e. Awarded price/cost.

f. Final or projected final price/cost.

g. Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

h. Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

Section 2 – Performance

Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP.

For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

Section 3 – Project execution

The TEC will evaluate each offeror’s past performance to determine how well it satisfied its customers. Previous USACE experience is preferred; however, this is not necessary. The TEC will contact one or more of each offeror’s customers and others to determine whether the offeror met schedule requirements; electronic data deliverables requirements (SEDD, ADR, etc.); produced high-quality data; performed corrective actions to the customer’s satisfaction;

conformed to the terms and conditions of the contract; and was committed to customer satisfaction.

Section 4 - Capacity Limitations

Offerors shall provide a list of projects demonstrating that the laboratory has sufficient capacity to simultaneously handle large projects. Documentation shall include projects supported within the last two years, highlighting analytical services for concurrent projects valued between $20K and $60K and completed over the same two week period. Include a point of contact, telephone number, and dollar value for each job listed and any other contracts similar in size and scope to this procurement. Also include information on any analyses that were subcontracted for these projects, including labs that are within the laboratory network but at a different geographic location.

Section 5 – Subcontracts

Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors.

This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 10% of the total proposed price.

Section 6 – New Corporate Entities.

New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.

Section 7 - Past Performance Questionnaire

For two of the contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to linda.m.dobbs@usace.army.mil and Adriana.a.dunaway@usace.army.mil. The offeror shall e-mail to the Contracting Office a list of all the POC’s who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day).

Section 8 - Submissions

Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency points of contact (POC) in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

Section 9- Small Business Participation Past Performance.

All Offerors shall submit information substantiating the Offerors’ past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business”, maximizing opportunities for U.S. small business subcontractors. Offerors shall also provide a statement indicating mailto:linda.m.dobbs@usace.army.mil whether any negative information has been reported in the past six years concerning the Offerors’ past compliance with FAR 52.219-8. If any such negative information has been reported, the Offeror may submit explanations or comments responding to such negative information. Offerors with no prior contracts containing FAR 52.219-8 shall certify the same.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

This shall consist of any and all information related to Price. Offerors are reminded that no price information is to be included in the other sections.