JBA ORC Final Solicitation_Amendment #2_19NOV19.pdf

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

Project Name: Joint Base Andrew s Optimized Remediation Contract, Joint Base Andrew s, Maryland

The purpose of this amendment is to modify the requirements to section L, specifically in attachment L-1, Public Affairs Officer

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 47

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Nov-2019

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 W912DR19R0025

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Oct-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

19-Nov-2019

CODE

USACE BALTIMORE

2 HOPKINS PLAZA

BALTIMORE MD

W912DR 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DR19R0025

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at (https://www.projnet.org) No Later Than (NLT) 1:00 P.M. (ET), 28 October 2019. To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective vendor who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email. Another email to the same address will notify the prospective vendor once the reply is available for viewing.

The Bidder Inquiry Key is 39A8N8-HHQ7QT Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be provided any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

PLEASE NOTE: THE LAST DAY FOR INTERESTED BIDDERS TO SUBMIT THEIR CONTRACTING

AND TECHNICAL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION IN PROJNET IS 29 APRIL 2019 AT 11:00 AM

(EST). NO OTHER REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER 11:00 AM (EST).

*** NOTE: QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN PROJNET ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL AN AMENDMENT IS

ISSUED. ***

PROPOSALS DUE DATE AND TIME

Proposals shall be received no later than the date and time indicated in Block 9.

Proposals shall be received at:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Attention: Contracting Division (Leigha Arnold) 2 Hopkins Plaza, Rm. 00-A-22 Baltimore, MD 21201 Office: 410-962-0154 Email: Leigha.M.Arnold@uace.army.mil

Offerors are responsible for ensuring proposals are received by the due date and time as indicated. Late proposals may not be accepted. Offerors should ensure adequate time is allowed for security checks prior to admittance to the building. Mail or Delivery Service is permitted; however the Offeror is responsible for ensuring confirmation of receipt by the Contract Specialist indicated.

INTRODUCTION. The intent of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to solicit proposals for a standalone C Contract to provide Joint Base Andrews (JBA) Optimized Remediation.

Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1, the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offerors’ initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements of the SOW 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.

Offerors shall submit in their proposal all requested information specified in this section of the solicitation at or before the exact time specified. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, an ambiguity, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the KO in writing with supporting rationale.

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L)

This is a competitive small business set-aside acquisition for the award of a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) C-contract for the JBA ORC EPA program. A contract will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. This determination will be made based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. The evaluation factors applicable to this procurement include:

FACTOR 1: Technical/Risk Approach FACTOR 2: Corporate Experience/ Past Performance FACTOR 3: Management Approach FACTOR 4: Price

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. The proposal shall consist of five (5) volumes (illustrated below). Each volume shall be submitted in hard copy with one (1) compact disc (CD) (CD can include all volumes on the one (1) disc). digital media, as well as electronically via the DOD SAFE site https://safe.apps.mil/. Any portion of the proposal that is changed (as a result of discussions and/or proposal revisions) shall be annotated and dated. Each volume shall be submitted electronically as a separate file utilizing the naming convention indicated in paragraph 2.B. 1.c. below. Individual volume files may be zipped using WinZip as described in paragraph 2.B. 1.c. below.

b. Each paragraph shall be single spaced, and shall be separated by at least one (1) blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode. A page is considered one single sided 8.5” by 11” unless otherwise noted.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Title Hard Copies Digital Copies Maximum Pages

I Technical/Risk Approach* 4 1 60

II Corporate Experience/Past Performance* 4 1 20

III Management Approach 4 1 20

IV Price 4 1 No page limit

V Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations

4 1 No page limit

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

* Manpower charts, Joint Venture (JV) and/or teaming agreements, subcontractor arrangements, letters of commitment, exhibits/figures, Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), and Milestone Payment Schedule (MPS), and CPARS/PPQs are excluded from the page count.

The contractor team agreement shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror’s technical proposal, prior to Factor 1, and will not be included in the overall page count.

2. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer.

A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

The following additional restrictions apply:

a. File Packaging. All of the proposal files may be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using

WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aide in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format; all calculation formulas must be accessible by the USACE team during evaluations. The USACE utilizes Microsoft Office 2013. Ensure files are compatible and viewable in Microsoft Office 2013 format. Self-extracting exe files are not acceptable.

b. 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 first page of the Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability. The following shall be included in the narrative discussion for each Factor identified above.

1) VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 Technical/Risk Approach. The Offeror shall submit a narrative that demonstrates the Offeror’s basic understanding of the RFP requirements and approach taken to address the unique complexities, challenges, opportunities, and constraints inherent to this project. The Offeror shall also provide a narrative to effectively demonstrate sound approaches to achieve the Air Force specified Performance Objectives (PO), identifies risks, offers comprehensive risk mitigation strategies (including triggers for adopting alternative approaches), and provides an explanation in sufficient detail to support Government evaluation of how all of the objectives and requirements in the PWS and other applicable agreements will be met or exceeded while ensuring protection of human and ecological health, maintaining regulatory compliance, and minimizing Air Force life-cycle costs.

A. Offeror’s shall include:

A summary table (can be an 11x17 page size) including the following information for each site listed in the PWS: Site ID, Site Name, Performance Objective, and Summary of proposed Technical Approach.

A technical approach and identification of risks associated with the proposed approach demonstrating understanding of Air Force and regulatory requirements along with mitigation strategies to achieve the POs at each site. Mitigation strategies shall identify decision logic, thresholds for determining implemented decisions, and timing if the proposed approach proved incapable of meeting the POs within the performance periods.

For all sites in PWS Table 1: Performance Table with a PO, the offeror shall demonstrate the following: a logical and realistic technical approach, supported by a business case analysis, providing accelerated concentration reductions and indicating quantified annual and final performance goals will be met.

B. Offeror’s proposals shall also include a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), Integrated Master

Schedule (IMS), and Milestone Payment Schedule (MPS) (without price information). These documents may be 11x17 page size but each side will be counted as one page if printed double sided.

The WBS shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the ORC process and work required to achieve each PO; this would be demonstrated by a thorough work decomposition of each task and effective application of a WBS structure. The WBS shall align with the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)/Sub-CLIN Structure provided with the RFP, consistent with the Offeror’s proposed approach, and in accordance with the requirements in PWS Section 4.2 and supplemental guidance.

The IMS shall be built from the WBS above. At a minimum, the offeror’s IMS shall:

Present a realistic sequence and timing of all activities and documents necessary to demonstrate achievement of the POs within the performance periods.

Include Sub-CLIN activity detail at a level that demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the work and project execution.

Demonstrate logical incorporation of realistic Government and regulatory review periods as defined in the PWS.

Identify timing of decision points addressing risk mitigation and/or contingency strategies.

Demonstrate a thorough and realistic plan for executing all work required to achieve individual performance objectives. The schedule shall include detailed task activities, clearly defined reports/documents and milestones, realistic activity durations, appropriate logic ties to identify the critical path.

The MPS (without price information) shall be organized in a WBS aligned with the CLIN/Sub-CLIN Structure provided with the RFP, consistent with the Offeror’s proposed approach and the IMS, and in accordance with the requirements in PWS Section 4.3. At a minimum, the offeror’s MPS (without price information) shall:

Present appropriate milestone payments considered integral and necessary to the achievement of the POs.

Include a reasonable number of milestone payments per CLIN/sub-CLIN based on the PWS and anticipated duration to achieve CLIN/sub-CLIN objective and/or POs.

Excludes unacceptable milestone payments representing a “progress” payment or a monthly payment for level of effort expended as well as management or overhead type costs.

Include final CLIN/sub-CLIN milestone payments demonstrating achievement of the CLIN/sub-CLIN objective which is a minimum of 20% of the total CLIN/sub-CLIN value.

A comprehensive understanding of the technical and management approach will be demonstrated by a logical hierarchy, and effective correlation between the WBS, IMS, and MPS.

2) VOLUME II – FACTOR 2 Corporate Experience/Past Performance. Describe the overall corporate experience of the Offeror’s team. If the Offeror is made up of more than one firm (e.g., joint venture), describe the business relationship, the authorities of the team members, and the delegation of authorities, if any, within the team to include partnering firms and subcontractors. Provide an organizational chart depicting the hierarchical structure of the team members responsible for project execution. This chart may be an 11x17 page size but each side will be counted as one page if printed double sided.

Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the PWS will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number. This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical services or whose subcontract is for more than 10% of the total proposed price. Include written consent of major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of their subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors.

Offerors shall quantitatively define success, such as, reduced time to achieve POs, reduced life cycle cost as a result of implementation of optimization initiatives, or new/innovative technology. Positive consideration will be given to projects that include the following:

Effective negotiation approaches and collaboration with regulatory agencies under performance based environmental projects resulting in quantifiable success.

Successful use of innovative or state-of-the-science technologies and techniques.

Proactive implantation of mitigation plans under performance-based environmental projects to achieve the

PO.

Proposed key personnel have experience successfully executing performance based environmental projects

(both prime and subcontractors) resulting in achieving or exceeding the POs within the performance periods.

Offerors shall submit a maximum of five (5) example projects demonstrating the Offeror’s recent, relevant experience as it relates to ORC within the past five (5) years. The Government will not consider performance on a project that concluded more than five (5) years prior to the date of solicitation issuance. Three (3) of the five (5) projects shall be from the Prime Contractor. Project submissions shall include the following:

a) Projects contract number.

b) Brief Description of the Project: Address how the project is relevant to optimized remediation that is similar in size and scope described in the RFP’s PWS.

c) Location of the project.

d) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material

(T&M), etc.). Role of Offeror: Indicate type and percentage of work performed by the Offeror or Offeror’s team member.

e) Total Dollar Amount: Project original award amount and final total dollar amount (or estimate at completion) including modifications and options (with reasons for any changes in dollar amounts). If the project is currently ongoing, provide the percent complete at the time of proposal submission.

f) Project Completion Dates: Project original and final period of performance dates (start and end date) Customer Primary Point of Contact: Name, relationship to project, agency/firm, phone number, and e-mail address. The Government may contact and interview project references. Reference information will not be revealed to other parties.

g) Procuring Activity Point of Contact: Name, relationship to project, agency/firm, phone number, and e-mail address. The Government may contact and interview project references. Reference information will not be revealed to other parties.

h) Projects current status, if it was completed on-time/budget, and whether or not the Offeror encountered any performance issues or challenges. If issues or challenges did arise, provide information on how the Offeror addressed the issue or challenge.

Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) or any other type of task-order contracts that provide for the issuance of task orders for the performance of tasks will not be considered projects for the purposes of this evaluation. Only individual task order issued under such contracts will be evaluated as projects. Project descriptions that do not clearly describe Offeror’s or team member’s limit of experience, scope of the project or periods of project performance will not be considered.

In the case of affiliates, past performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract. This commitment, nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects and experience of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

The contractor team agreement/commitment shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror’s technical proposal, prior to Factor 1, and will not be included in the overall page count.

The following are to be used in determining the status of the Offeror’s team for the evaluation of project submissions:

1. In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a Prime Contractor and Subcontractor(s), where the Prime Contractor submits the proposal in response to this RFP, the Prime Contractor is considered the “Prime Offeror”.

2. In the case of joint ventures, the “Prime Offeror” experience is limited to entities with signed agreements.

3. In the case of mentor/protégé relationships, the relationship must be established by the two Offerors and approved by the chosen Government Agency prior to proposal submission. The “Prime Offeror” experience is limited to entities with signed agreements. The approved mentor/protégé document from the Government Agency must be submitted along with the teaming agreement.

4. In the case of additional projects submitted by subcontractors, the subcontractor must submit the final cost of their portion of the project along with total project cost and all other required information.

5. In the case of Offerors that are large, multi-function firms (consisting of subsidiaries), experience must only be submitted by the segment of the firm (e.g., division, group, and unit) that is submitting a proposal in response to this

RFP.

6. In the case of affiliates, Past performance of an Offeror's "affiliate," as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. This commitment and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate.

For all contracts identified above, submit a copy of the official CPARS evaluation. For projects that do not have a CPARS evaluation, a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) must be completed and submitted. Additionally, Offerors shall provide a list of POCs who were sent a questionnaire with their proposal submission. 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). The PPQ is provided as Attachment A in the

RFP.

3) VOLUME III – FACTOR 3 Management Experience. The Offeror shall demonstrate a comprehensive management plan including identification of risks, risk mitigation strategies, contingencies, and key personnel qualifications (See Attachment L-1 – Labor Category Qualificiations). The management plan shall include a qualified field and management team, including key personnel with demonstrated relevant experience to efficiently and effectively achieve the POs within the performance periods and ensure quality services and deliverables.

A. The offeror’s management plan shall demonstrate the requirement in the following order:

Efficient and effective management of team members and subcontractors including clear identification of roles, responsibilities, and communication strategies for key personnel, subcontractors, and other relevant team members.

o Provide an organizational chart depicting above elements.

o Key Personnel: Offerors shall provide up to two (2) resumes for the Offeror’s proposed key personnel to include team members which demonstrate the qualifications necessary for this project. This shall include the documentation and identification of key personnel.

The key personnel are: Program Manager, Project Manager(s), Program Chemist, Program Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC), Program Health and Safety Manager, Alternate Object Site Lead, Geophysicist for UXO projects, and Public Affairs Officer. Provide experience/resumes with regard to minimum education and experience for all Key personnel. Resumes shall be limited to two (2) pages. Resumes longer than two (2) pages will only have the first two pages evaluated.

Additionally, resumes shall describe individual experience on specific projects that are similar to the requirements in the PWS. Include the following information:

Project name, location, beginning and completion date, and final contract cost.

The individual’s role on the project in enough detail to demonstrate level of involvement.

Provide a brief project description to demonstrate the project is similar to the PWS requirements.

Provide a matrix to include all key disciplines (and alternates) submitted using the attached template in Attachment B of the RFP. Indicate if the person filling the key discipline worked on any of the projects submitted, as well as their role and the duration of their role. Ensure that the information provided in the matrix is validated/verified within the key discipline resumes.

Effective and efficient management of the work in order to meet the requirements of the PWS including management of multiple and concurrent events.

Relevant team experience with the remediation technologies proposed.

Procedures/processes to ensure services that result in submission of high-quality technical documents and deliverables. At a minimum, the contractor shall include procedures/processes that address the following:

prime and subcontractor staffing management sampling and analysis health and safety An effective communication strategy between stakeholders (Air Force, Contractor, Regulators, and Community).

Procedures/processes to identify, monitor, mitigate, and/or address management risks.

4) VOLUME IV Price. This is a FFP service contract. Offerors shall propose on all line items in the price schedule.

Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. If such information is requested, the information submitted prior to award for this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and the requirements set forth below. There are no page limitations for this volume.

For proposal preparation purposes, the expected or approximate date for initiation of contract performance is February 2020.

5) VOLUME V – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

Certifications and Representations – Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Section A – Standard Form 33 (SF 33), Solicitation, Offer and Award Section G – Contract Administration Data Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME V – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS /REPRESENTATIONS.

Attachment A – Past Performance Questionaire

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

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: 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.

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.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

E VG S M U N

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

Yes No

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

Yes No

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

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

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

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

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

Yes No

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

E VG S M U N

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

Attachment B – Past Performance Questionaire

Name of Key Personnel

Proposed Role for the Project

Example Projects

1 2 3 4 5

Number Example Project Name

Attachment C – Performance Objective Checklist

Attachment 1. Generic Checklist The TET determines the applicability of a given project element based on site status and proposed Technical Approach.

Project Element Acceptable Strength Weakness

Criteria Risk Rating

Conceptual Site Model / Site Understanding

If a CSM will be developed, approach to develop CSM provides fundamental understanding of the current CSM including geological, hydrogeological, biological, physical, and chemical mechanisms and uses DQOs in accordance with UFP-QAPP and EPA guidelines. ☐ If a CSM already exists, approach contains reasonable plans to update CSM as new information is obtained using DQOs in accordance with UFP-QAPP and EPA guidelines. ☐

Provides expert understanding of the current CSM beyond what is stated in available information (e.g., GFI), including fate and transport models, CSM uncertainties and how these will be overcome, and reasonable plans to update the CSM that are advantageous to the Air Force, minimize risk, and increase project success. ☐ Applies innovative strategies to refine CSM (e.g., mass flux assessment, nested wells with short screens, sequence stratigraphy and geostatistics). ☐

Lacks understanding of the current site-specific CSM and specific elements affecting site strategy with no plans to update the

CSM. ☐

Low ☐

Moderate ☐

High ☐

Unacceptable ☐

Project Element Acceptable Strength Weakness

Criteria Risk Rating

Remedy Selection, Design, Operations

Based in site-specific CSM and will be done in a manner and schedule that maintains optimal conditions. ☐ As appropriate, proposed measures are described that will enhance mass removal and accelerate the remediation timeline.

Conservation measures are described, including minimizing generation of solid waste, use of hazardous materials, use of ozone depleting chemicals, generation of hazardous waste, and use of energy and water. ☐

Based in site-specific CSM and considers contaminant plume dynamics, biogeochemical characteristics, site logistics/constraints, remedy longevity, and life cycle cost reduction. Includes appropriate testing and potential adverse consequences and risk management approaches. ☐ Justification for proposed remedies, including business case analysis comparing alternatives, is provided. ☐ As appropriate, proposed measures are described that will enhance mass removal and accelerate remediation timeline based on site-specific data and sound scientific and engineering principles.

Uses innovative technologies and GSR techniques to the extent practicable. ☐

Based solely on proven technologies. ☐ Proposed measures are not expected to improve existing conditions when possible. ☐

Criteria Risk Rating

Performance Monitoring

Monitoring in accordance with decision document requirements is discussed. ☐ Monitoring in accordance with DQOs is discussed. ☐ Approach is/will be representative of the extent of contamination, remedy effectiveness, and confirmation of complete contaminant destruction/removal.

Monitoring parameters are specified including supporting groundwater quality and geochemistry parameters. ☐ Approach identifies how monitoring parameters will be evaluated to assess remedy performance, including the use of a performance model. ☐

Demonstrates a detailed understanding of remedy progress based on the site-specific groundwater monitoring and reporting requirements, systems, and processes.

Specific groundwater monitoring and reporting, and monitoring optimization approaches (e.g., geostatistical optimization approach), techniques, and or tools are proposed. ☐ In addition to a representative network, monitoring wells are/will be placed and screened appropriately based on the plume delineation relative to local hydrogeological conditions. ☐ The performance model is developed based on available data and experience gained from sites with similar contaminant and hydrogeologic conditions. It sets aggressive, but realistic expectations. ☐

Monitoring and reporting approach would not meet decision document requirements. ☐ Monitoring optimization is not addressed. ☐ Performance monitoring approach is discussed in general terms and only focused on contaminant concentration reduction. ☐

Criteria Risk Rating

Decision Logic / Contingencies

Decision logic for remedy implementation, performance monitoring, and additional remedial actions, which are based on performance monitoring, are described. ☐ Decision logic including triggers for remedy optimization and risk mitigation/ contingency actions are identified. ☐ Contingency actions are not the same as primary remedial approach. ☐

Remedy approach, design, and performance monitoring are adaptive. They will be modified in response to monitoring data to optimize performance.

Uncertainties are accounted for with dynamic plans to respond to observed conditions. ☐

Risk management/ contingency actions or modifications to remedy design and implementation are not discussed. ☐ Contingency actions are the same as primary remedial approach.

Regulatory / confirmation sampling requirements

Regulatory requirements, including the confirmation sampling to confirm remedy permanence, are identified to occur within the PoP. ☐

Regulatory requirements, including the sampling and analysis schedule to confirm remedy permanence, COC analytical schedule and QA/QC plan, are identified, and the approach includes flexibility for schedule slippage to meet RC/SC requirements within the PoP. ☐

Site-specific regulatory requirements are not specified, and there is minimal flexibility for schedule slippage.

Criteria Risk Rating

Abandonment / decommissioning

The site-specific abandonment approach is provided and compliant with local/state/federal regulations and AFCEC protocol.

Systems that will require decommissioning are identified. ☐ Abandonment/ decommissioning activity will be documented using inspection records, abandonment logs, and a narrative report. ☐

Final inspection punch list is included, as necessary.

Decommissioning plan documents system infrastructure clean-up, dismantling, recycling and/or disposal, and site restoration, are documented, as necessary.

Abandonment approach will eliminate/minimize preferential channeling within and between aquifers. ☐ Abandonment approach uses practices that minimize waste, cross-contamination, and disruption to land/infrastructure. ☐ Final water-quality samples or water-level measurements will be collected prior to well abandonment. Final decommissioning and abandonment report will be prepared. ☐

No specific approach to abandonment or decommissioning is specified. ☐

Site Closeout (SC) Checklist The SC checklist addresses requirements prior to achieving unrestricted use/unlimited exposure (UU/UE) conditions. This checklist only addresses regulatory requirements and infrastructure abandonment activities for sites progressing past RC/LTM and does not include activities in previous remedial phases (RA-O, LTM, etc.).

Project Element Acceptable Strength Weakness

Criteria Risk Rating

Site Description

Figures, map(s), and site plans and photo documents of a facility site and/or SWMU for SC considerations are identified.

Hazardous site ID or EESOH-MIS site ID is presented. ☐

Site description, including the extent of facility/SWMU operation and maximum waste inventory and capacity are described. ☐

Minimal identifications for hazardous site ID or EESOH-MIS site ID and site name are presented. ☐

Regulatory/ confirmation sampling requirements

Regulatory requirements, including the confirmation sampling to confirm remedy permanence, are identified to occur within the PoP. ☐

Regulatory requirements, including the sampling and analysis schedule to confirm remedy permanence, COC analytical schedule and QA/QC plan, are identified, and the approach includes flexibility for schedule slippage to meet SC requirements within the PoP. ☐

Site-specific regulatory requirements are not specified, and there is minimal flexibility for schedule slippage.

Criteria Risk Rating

Abandonment/ decommissioning

The site-specific abandonment approach is provided and compliant with local/state/federal regulations and AFCEC protocol.

Systems that will require decommissioning are identified. ☐ Abandonment/ decommissioning activity will be documented using inspection records, abandonment logs, and a narrative report.

Final inspection punch list is included, as necessary.

Decommissioning plan documents system infrastructure clean-up, dismantling, recycling and/or disposal, and site restoration, are documented, as necessary.

Abandonment approach will eliminate/minimize preferential channeling within and between aquifers. ☐ Abandonment approach uses practices that minimize waste, cross-contamination, and disruption to land/infrastructure. ☐ Final water-quality samples or water-level measurements will be collected prior to well abandonment.

Final decommissioning and abandonment report will be prepared. ☐

No specific approach to abandonment or decommissioning is specified. ☐

Removal of administrative restrictions (LUCs, signage, water covenants, etc.)

The site-specific administrative restrictions and controls to be removed are specified. ☐

N/A

Removal of administrative restrictions and controls are discussed only in general. ☐

Long Term Management (LTM) Checklist Per the Defense Environmental Restoration Program Management Guidance dated September 2001, LTM occurs after a site has achieved Response Complete and while a site has not met criteria for Site Closeout (SC). Specific requirements for LTM are site specific and dependent on the specific elements of the remedy such as fences, signs, caps, leachate and landfill gas collection systems, groundwater monitoring, land use controls, etc. The expectation of the LTM approach review is that all elements of the remedy will be in place before LTM starts and that the contractor will not add any elements as part of LTM. If the approach includes an LTM phase followed by SC, use the SC checklist for abandonment/ decommissioning requirements.

Project Element Acceptable Strength Weakness

Criteria Risk Rating Fences and Signs

Fence and sign inspection

Inspection of fences and signs installed as part of the…