Amendment_0008.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

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Answ er Offerors Questions. Responses to offerors inquiries are provided "for info purposes only" and does not revise solicitation.

2. Revise Section M - Evaluation Factors for Aw ard

3. To extend proposal due date to 01 Aug 2017 at 4:00 P.M. EST at 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1843, New York N.Y. 10278. NOTE: Offeror must acknow ledge receipt of this amendment by the date specified in the proposal (or as amended) by one of the follow ing methods: in the space provided on SF1442, by separate letter, or by signing block 15 below . FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AMENDMENTSBY THE DATE AND TIME SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

SUBMISSION,MODIFICATION, REVISION, AND WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS (FAR 15.208)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 43

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-Jul-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 W912DS-16-R-0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Mar-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

25-Jul-2017

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NEW YORK

26 FEDERAL PLAZA, RM 1843

NEW YORK NY 10278-0090

W912DS 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DS-16-R-0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0008

Responses to Request for Information

1. Amendment 7 of subject RFP states on page 36 that any small or large business may submit a proposal. It was our understanding that this is SDVOSB set‐aside opportunity.

Please clarify.

Response: Correction made to Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 1.1, now state “Who May Submit- Any Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)”

2. Page 37 of Amendment 7 indicates that the personnel qualification matrix will be assembled in the format of Matrix 2(see Appendix), and an OSHA key personnel matrix will be assembled in the format of Matrix 3. Both of these contradict the answer to question 7 of group B. Please clarify.

Response: Revised response to Question 7 Group 5 of Amendment 0007 Matrices 1 and 3 should be prepared as part of Section 2.1, Volume 1, General Requirements, C ‐ Resume of Prime Contractor Personnel (page 36). Matrix 1 provides the resumes of the prime contractor only and Matrix 3 provides evidence that the offeror meetings the OSHA requirements.

Matrix 2 is required for the categories identified Section 3.1 (5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3) on pages 40 and 41 of Amendment 7.

3. Is Bonding required?

Response: Bonding is not required, all references to bonding has been removed.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 27-Jul-2017 12:00 AM to 01-Aug-2017 04:00 PM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

NOTICE TO OFFERORS, PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIRMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS,

EVALUATION PROCEDURES, BASIS OF AWARD, REVELANT PROJECT INFORMATION

SHEET & PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONARE (FROM THE 00 22 11 SECTION) - BEST

VALUE LPTA

1.0 NOTICE TO OFFERORS

1.1 Acquisition

1.1. This is a “Best Value - Lowest Price Technically Acceptable” solicitation, in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, for the Biological, Environmental and Cultural Resource (BECR) investigations and studies in various locations in and around the New York District's Area of Responsbility. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to the responsible Offeror, whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value, lowest price technically acceptable, to the Government.

1.2 Target

NOT USED

1.3 Who May Submit - Any Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB)

1.4 Professional Registration - Not Used.

1.5 Page Limit and Size of Printed Materials

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer/PCO must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below. A page printed on two sides will be counted as two pages. Pages containing text shall be submitted on 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper. Drawings or sketches may be submitted on paper not exceeding 11 x 17 inch paper, folded to not exceed 9 x 11 inch. Each 11 x 17 inch sheet will counted as two pages and two sided counted as four. Use of ‘TAB’ pages are encouraged to identify each section of the proposal and shall not count against proposal’s total page count. Each page of text shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one inch margins all around.

2.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Proposal Requirements and Submission

Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Two (2) separate volumes shall be submitted as Volume I - Technical Proposal and Volume II - Price Proposal. Do not assume that Offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

Do not submit any material not required by this solicitation (such as company or system brochures).

The Government will not make assumptions concerning the intent, capabilities, or experiences of the Offerors. Clear identification of proposal details shall rest as sole responsibility of the Offeror.

Therefore the proposal shall meet the following basic requirements:

General Requirements: The proposal will meet the submission and format requirements.

Volume I – Technical - General Requirements: A Offeror submittal should be professional in appearance and permit quick and easy review. Each Offeror submittal will contain the following:

A. 5 copies (1 original and 4 copies) in 3-ring binders;

B. Pages double sided;

C. The submittal shall be in the following format:

Cover Page Table of Contents;

Identification of Prime Contractor and Sub-Contractors;

Sub-Contractor Commitment Letters;

Resumes of Prime Contractor Personnel;

List of Key Personnel (Subcontractors);

Resumes of Sub-Contractor Personnel;

Project Staff, Team Experience and Evaluation;

Key Personnel OSHA Requirement;

Volume I – Technical -Specific Format Requirements: An Offeror submittal will contain the following specific formats:

A. Prime and Sub-Contractor Past Experience and Performance Section: An Offeror submittal will have the following format for this section:

1. One page (8 1/2" x 11 ") will be used to demonstrate experience for each requested study and/or product for a technical criteria. For example, if a technical criteria requested four (4) studies, then no more than four (4) pages (1 page per study) will be submitted.

2. A letter from the Sub-contractor to the Prime Contractor committing its personnel and resources to the Prime Contractor for performance of the contract.

B. Prime and Sub-Contractor Personnel Qualifications Section: This section will include but is not limited to:

1. Up to a one page resume per person per job category that includes information such as years of experience, experience and education to include degree(s) and major(s).

2. A personnel qualification matrix will be assembled and will be in the format of Matrix 2 (See Appendix “B”).

3. An OSHA key personnel matrix will be assembled and will be in the format of Matrix 3 (See Appendix “B”).

Volume II – PRICE PROPOSAL AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

An offeror will include the following in their price proposals:

- Completed SF 33 (Blocks 12-18).

- Completed Section K, “Representations and Certifications”.

- Completed Price Schedule, from Section B.

- Offeror will provide their Volume II’s as follows:

(1 original and 4 copies);

In 3-ring binders; binders shall be marked Original, Copy 1 of 4, Copy

2 of 4, Copy 3 of 4 or Copy 4 of 4 on the outside of the binder.

Pages single sided.

2.2 Where to Submit

Offerors shall submit their proposal packages to the Corps of Engineers (USACE) at the address shown in Block 7 of Standard Form 1442.

FAXED OR EMAILED PROPOSALS, MODIFICATIONS THERETO, OR CANCELLATIONS WILL

NOT BE ACCEPTED. However, proposals may be withdrawn in writing by letter or e-mail. Any written notice to withdraw an offer sent to this office must be received in the office designated in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for receipt of offers not later than the exact date and time set for receipt of proposals.

2.3 Submission Deadline

The USACE must receive proposals not later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

Due to increased security on packages submitted from outside the U.S., your proposals may take longer than anticipated in arriving to New York District's Contracting Office in Room 1843. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that its proposal arrives by the designated date and time.

2.4 Incurring Costs

The Government is not liable for any costs incurred by the Offerors submitting an offer in response to this solicitation.

2.5 Format Requirements

Submit one (1) original plus five (4) copies. All proposals shall contain the volume number and the name, address and telephone number of the Prime and Subcontractors, Joint Venture, or other entity identified on the cover. The original proposal must be clearly marked as “ORIGINAL” and the original signatures must be in blue ink. Copies of the proposals must also be clearly marked as “COPY x of y (i.e. COPY 1 of 5)”. Proposal clarity and material organization in each volume are mandatory. No material shall be incorporated by reference. Each volume will be submitted separately bound. The proposal shall address and contain the information listed below.

The information will be used by the Source Selection Board to evaluate each proposal. Offerors are advised that conciseness and relevance of the proposal is important and unrelated information will not be evaluated. Proposals that provide only superficial coverage of the information required below, may not receive additional consideration and may be excluded from the competitive range. Additionally, should the proposal include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the proposal may be determined to be "unacceptable" and thus ineligible for award.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1 VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Table 1: Breakout of Factors and Sub-Factors and Requirements for a Technically Acceptable Rating

Source Selection Plan for Biological, Environmental and Cultural Resources Services New York District

Ratings for each of the three Evaluation Factors (Professional Qualifications, Project Staff/Team Experience, and Past Performance) are based on the rating for each factor/sub-factor. Factor ratings are based the cumulative rating for each sub-factors' sections. The Past Performance Evaluation Factor rating is based on contractor evaluations archived in PPIRs. A review of the evaluations in PPIRs will result in a either a rating of

Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory Confidence. No ratings in PPIRs will receive a neutral rating which will be considered acceptable.

Evaluation Criteria Total No. of Criteria

No. of Criteria for Technically

Acceptable Rating

No. of Criteria for Technically

Unacceptable

I. Prime and Sub-Contractor Key Professional Qualifications Factor (4 Sub-Factors)

4 4 3 or less

1. Biological Sub-Factor (5 Criteria) 5 4* or more 3 or less

2. Environmental Sub-Factor ( 11 Criteria) 11 7** or more 6 or less

3. Cultural Resources Sub-Factor (1 of 2; 7 Criteria) 7 5 or more 4 or less

4. Cultural Resources Sub-Factor (2 of 2; 7 Criteria) 7 5 or more 4 or less

II. Project Staff/Team Experience Factor (4 Sub- Factor)

4 4 3 or less

1. Biological Sub-Factor (3 Sections) 3 3 2 or less

Terrestrial Ecosystem Section (4 Criteria) 4 3 or more 2 or less

Aquatic Ecosystem Section (4 Criteria) 4 3 or more 2 or less

Marine Ecosystem Section (4 Criteria) 4 3 or more 2 or less

2. Environmental Sub-Factor (3 Sections) 3 3 2 or less

HTRW (3 Criteria) 3 2 or more 1 or less

Air Quality General Conformity (2 Criteria) 3 2 1 or less

Geospatial Systems and Data (2 Criteria) 3 2 1 or less

3. Cultural Resources Sub-Factor (1 of 2 Cultural Resources Sub-Factors; 4 Sections)

4 4 3 or less

Underwater Archaeology Section 3 2 or more 1 or less

Regional (NAD) Prehistoric Archaeology Section 3 2 or more 1 or less

Regional (NAD) Historical Archaeology Section 3 2 or more 1 or less

Architectural History Section 2 1 or more none

4. Cultural Resources Sub-Factor (2 of 2 Sub-Factors; 4 Sections)

4 4 3 or less

Underwater Archaeology Section 3 2 or more 1 or less

Regional (NAD) Prehistoric Archaeology Section 3 2 or more 1 or less

Regional (NAD) Historical Archaeology Section 3 2 or more 1 or less

Architectural History Section 2 1 or more none

III. Past Performance Evaluation Factor NA Satisfactory

Confidence/Neutral No Confidence

*Supervisory individuals listed must have 40 hours of EPA HTRW Supervisory Experience; one for Biological and Environmental Sub-Factors.

**One individual must demonstrate either has or can achieve 40hr HTRW certification.

5.1 Prime and Sub-Contractor Key Professional Qualifications Evaluation Factor:

There are four (4) sub-factors of this Evaluation Factor. Biological, Environmental and two (2) Cultural Resources. Outlined below are the technical criteria necessary for each sub-factor.

One individual may be nominated in multiple categories. Multiple personnel can be nominated in each category. For each key personnel job category below, the Offeror will provide a one paragraph to one page resume for each personnel identified for that category. As each Offeror is to have at least two different Cultural Resource firms as part of their overall team, each Offeror shall provide information for at least two separate sources for cultural resource activities.

A description of key personnel job category qualifications are defined in Appendix A titled Professional Qualifications of Assigned Staff. The key personnel required to be on staff, associated with or a consultant with the firm (prime or subcontractor) and be available to perform work under this contract are:

5.1.1Biological Sub-Factor: 5 Criteria

Supervisory Biologist/Project Manager (NEPA experience)* Senior Biologist (NEPA experience):

Biologist (NEPA experience Biologist (Wetland Delineation) Aquatic/Benthic/Freshwater Ecologist;

5.1.2 Environmental Sub-Factor: 11 criteria

Environmental Engineer:* Civil Engineer:

Environmental/Physical Scientist (supervisory / project management experience –

HTRW):* **

Environmental /Physical Scientist- HTRW certificate eligible) :** Environmental//Physical Scientist (supervisory / project management experience-Air

Quality:* Environmental/Physical Scientist-Air Quality Geographer;

Geospatial Data System Manager;

Geospatial Data Spatial Analyst (CADD/ArcView/Micro station systems experience);

Geospatial Data Spatial Analyst (GIS Database Specialist);

Industrial Hygienist***

Notes on special ancillary requirements:

* Supervisory individuals listed must have forty (40) hours of supervisory experience.

**Certain Task Orders may require EPA 40 hr training or 8 hr refresher certificate. For at least one individual, in lieu of current active certification, or obtaining one solely for this proposal;

the offeror can specify ability/experience/past possession /other qualifying certificates to show they can achieve this certification (at no cost to government) if so tasked in a T.O.

*** All task orders will require Activity Hazard Analysis IAW EM 385-1-1.

5.1.3 Cultural Resources Sub-Factor (2 Independent Sub-Factors) 14 criteria

5.1.3.1 Cultural Resources Sub-Factor 1 (of 2) 7 criteria

Principal Investigator – Prehistoric;

Principal Investigator – Historic;

Principal Investigator – Industrial;

Principal Investigator - Underwater;

Archaeologist Field or Laboratory Director;

Historian;

Architectural Historian

5.1.3.2 Cultural Resources Sub-Factor 2 (of 2) 7 criteria

Principal Investigator – Prehistoric;

Principal Investigator – Historic;

Principal Investigator – Industrial;

Principal Investigator - Underwater;

Archaeologist Field or Laboratory Director;

Historian;

Architectural Historian

5.1.4 Rating of each Prime and Sub-Contractor Key Personnel Qualification Factor:

5.1.4.1 Criteria (Resume) screening: For each criteria/ resume provided for the key personnel identified above, an Offeror’s submittal will receive either a technically acceptable or technically unacceptable rating. To receive a technically acceptable rating for a resume, an Offeror’s submittal must provide the resumes for the key personnel that meet for that expertise identified in Appendix A as well as above. For Cultural Resources, two separate sets of resumes for each of the two Independent Cultural Resource Sub-Factors must be provided.

5.1.4.1.1 Technically Acceptable Rating: A technically acceptable rating for the Prime and sub-Contractor Key Qualifications Criteria will be assigned to each criteria (resume) that substantially meets the requirements identified in Attachment A and in the notes above and below of the key personnel identified of the four sub-factors (Biological, Environmental and 2 Cultural Resources).

Note: Supervisory individuals listed must have forty (40) hours of supervisory experience.

With regard to the Environmental sub-factor, one individual must have or have the ability/experience to obtain at (40) hours of supervisory EPA HTRW certificate and or the (8) hour annual refresher HTRW course experience. (In lieu of a current active certification, or obtaining certification solely for this proposal;

the Offeror can specify ability/experience/past possession/other qualifying certificates to show a key personnel can achieve this certification at no cost to government if tasked in a T.O.)

5.1.4.1.2 Technically Unacceptable Rating: A technically unacceptable rating for the Prime and sub-Contractor Key Qualifications Criteria will be assigned to each resume that does not substantially meet the requirements identified in Attachment A and in the notes above for the key personnel identified in the four sub-factors (Biological, Environmental and 2 Cultural Resources).

5.1.4.2 Evaluation of Prime and Sub-Contractor Key Professional Qualifications Factors. Each sub-factor rating will be determined based on TEB consensus for four (4) Key Professional Qualifications sub-factors, as follows:

5.1.4.2.1 Biological Sub-Factors of Key Professional Qualifications (5 criteria):

An Offeror will receive a rating of technically acceptable for this sub-factor if, based on TEB consensus, if an Offeror has received a technically acceptable rating for four

(4) or more criteria (resumes).

An offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating for three (3) or less criteria will be rated technically unacceptable in this sub-factor. As the Offeror has received two (2) or more technically unacceptable ratings, there is a high risk to the government that the professional qualifications of the key team are not sufficient.

5.1.4.2.2 Environmental Sub-Factor of Key Professional Qualifications (11 criteria):

An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating for seven (7) or more criteria will be rated technically acceptable for this component.

An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating for six (6) or less criteria will be rated technically unacceptable in this component. As the Offeror has received six (6) or more technically unacceptable ratings, there is a high risk to the government that the professional qualifications of the key team are not sufficient.

5.1.4.2.3 Cultural Resources Sub-Factors (2) of Key Professional Qualifications (7 criteria each) : The (2) two Cultural Resource Sub-Factors will be rated independently. They will comprise two autonomous sub-factors of the Key Professional Qualifications Evaluation Factor. Each Cultural sub-factor rating will be determined separately as described below:

An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating of five (5) or more criteria in both sub-factors will be rated technically acceptable for each Cultural Resource sub-factor.

An offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating for four (4) or less criteria in one sub-factor will be rated technically unacceptable. As the Offeror has received three (3) or more technically unacceptable ratings for Cultural Resource Sub-Factor criteria, there is a high risk to the government that the professional qualifications of the key team are not sufficient.

5.1.5 Overall Evaluation of the Prime and Sub-Contractor Key Professional Qualifications Evaluation Factor: Based on the consensus rating received for each of the four sub-factors identified above in Section 5.1.4 , an overall consensus rating for this Evaluation Factor will be determined. Offerors must receive a technically acceptable rating for each of the four Prime and Sub- Contractor Key Professional Qualifications Sub-Factors (Biological, Environmental, and 2 Cultural Resources) to be further evaluated.

5.1.5.1 Technically Acceptable An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating for all four Sub-Factors will be rated technically acceptable for this evaluation factor.

5.1.5.2 Technically Unacceptable: As described previously in paragraph 5.1.4 any Offeror who achieves a consensus technically unacceptable rating for one or more of the sub-factors will be rated technically unacceptable in this evaluation factor and disqualified. This rating indicates there is a high risk to the government that the professional qualifications of the key team are not sufficient or that the proposal is non- responsive to the criteria.

5.2 Project Staff/Team Experience Evaluation Factor:

The Offeror will prepare a team experience resume for projects meeting the requirements identified in sections below. The experience should be cited in paragraph form; clearly linking the cited experience to the specific criteria (projects). The involved personnel from the Project Team should be identified within each individual criteria requirement as well. At the Offerors’ discretion, multiple experience examples may be submitted for each/any criteria to insure acceptance of one qualifying experience example. The presence or absence of multiple examples will not be an influence in the rating except as explained above. Any study, project and/or product that an Offeror references to represent their experience must have been conducted after 2006.

5.2.1 Biological Sub-Factor: (12 criteria divided into 3 ecosystem sections) Biological experience will embody three ecosystems, Terrestrial, Aquatic and Marine. A study and/or product that an Offeror references to represent their experience can be applied to more than one ecosystem in this sub-factor when/if applicable. The study, project and/or product cited can involve the prime firm / sub firm or any individual associated with the proposal. A study and/or product that an Offeror references to represent their experience can be applied to more than one criterion in this ecosystem when/if applicable. The study and/or product cited can involve the prime firm / sub firm or any individual associated with the proposal. Any study, project and/or product that an Offeror references to represent their experience must have been conducted after 2006.

5.2.1.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem Section: (4 criteria)

(a). Investigations: Demonstrate team experience being involved in some phase (planning, conducting, analyzing, reporting, etc.) of a Terrestrial Biological/Ecological study involving vegetation (e.g. identification, classification, habitat, cover type mapping, etc.) or an animal ( e.g. mammal, birds, reptiles, insects, etc.).

(b). NEPA: Demonstrate team experience in the management, creation, contribution, execution of a National Environmental Policy (NEPA) decision document (e.g. EA with FONSI or EIS with ROD) involving a Terrestrial ecosystem such as a levee, upland dredged material disposal site, etc.)

(c). Development of Conceptual Plan/Proposal: Demonstrate team experience in a phase of development of a preliminary conceptual plan/proposal for a Terrestrial Ecosystem Biological/Ecological study. (Ecosystem Restoration Plan, Mitigation Plan, Planting Plan, Water Budget Plan, Success Criteria Plan etc.). Note: This is not a requirement for a P.E. drawing or design, which are not within the scope of this contract.

(d). Compliance: Demonstrate team experience in a Terrestrial Ecosystem Biological/Ecological project for pre/during/post construction compliance issues (including but not limited to Coastal Zone Management, Coastal Barrier Resources Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, coordination, applicable permitting, Mitigation execution, Monitoring plans and activities, adaptive management etc.).

5.2.1.1.1 Rating System for Terrestrial Ecosystem Section –Biological Sub-Factor: The standard for the above ecosystem section is based on the consensus ratings of technical acceptability of the section criteria by the TEB.

Technically Acceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating of three (3) or more criteria will be rated technically acceptable for the Terrestrial Ecosystem Section.

Technically Unacceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically unacceptable rating for two (2) or less criteria will be rated technically un-acceptable for the Terrestrial Ecosystem Section. As the Offeror has received two (2) or more technically unacceptable rating, there is a high risk to the government that the professional experience of the key team is not sufficient. .

5.2.1.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Section Criteria: (4 criteria).

(a). Investigations: Demonstrate team experience being involved in some phase (planning, conducting, analyzing, reporting, etc.) of an Aquatic Biological/Ecological study involving vegetation (e.g. identification, habitat classification, wetland delineation, SAV etc.) or an animal ( e.g. mammals, fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, anthropods) (b).NEPA: Demonstrate team experience in some part of the processes (management, creation, contribution, execution) of a National Environmental Policy (NEPA) decision document (e.g. EA with FONSI or EIS with ROD) which involved aquatic habitat (flood control assessment and impacts, riverine, lacustrine impacts, wetland assessments and impacts water quality assessments and impacts etc).

(c). Development of Conceptual Plan/Proposal: Demonstrate team experience in a phase of development of a preliminary conceptual plan/proposal for an Aquatic Ecosystem Biological/Ecological study. (Ecosystem Restoration Plan, Wetland Mitigation/restoration/creation, On-site Habitat Mitigation Plan, Off site Habitat Mitigation Plan etc.). Note: This is not a requirement for a P.E. drawing or design, which are not within the scope of this contract.

(d). Compliance: Demonstrate team experience in an Aquatic Ecosystem Biological/Ecological project for pre/during/post construction compliance issues (including but not limited to Coastal Zone Management, Coastal Barrier Resources Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, ESA Biological Assessment and coordination, water quality permitting, wetland regulation, Mitigation execution, Monitoring plans and activities, adaptive management, etc.)

5.2.1.2.1 Rating System for Aquatic Ecosystem Section –Biological Sub-Factor: The standard the section criteria by the TEB.

Technically Acceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating of three (3) or more criteria will be rated technically acceptable with color code for the Aquatic Ecosystem Section.

Technically Unacceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating for two (2) or less criteria will be rated technically unacceptable for the Aquatic Ecosystem Section. As the Offeror has received two (2) or more technically unacceptable ratings, there is a high risk to the government that the professional experiences of the key team are not sufficient.

5.2.1.3 Marine Ecosystem Section Criteria: (4 criteria)

(a). Investigations: Demonstrate team experience being involved in some phase (planning, conducting, analyzing, reporting, etc.) of an Marine Biological/Ecological study involving vegetation (e.g. identification, habitat classification, beach / dune cover plants, coastal estuarine wetland, SAV etc) or an animal ( e.g. marine mammals, anadromous / demersal fish, coastal/marine birds, reptiles (turtles), arthropods, benthic invertebrates) (b).NEPA: Demonstrate team experience in some part of the processes (management, creation, contribution, execution) of a National Environmental Policy (NEPA) decision document (e.g. EA with FONSI or EIS with ROD) which involved marine ecosystem & associated habitat (coastal erosion control assessments and impacts, offshore dredging assessment and impacts, marine and estuarine impacts, coastal wetland assessments and impacts, water quality assessments and impacts, etc.).

(c). Development of Conceptual Plan/Proposal: Demonstrate team experience in a phase of development of a preliminary conceptual plan/proposal for a Marine Ecosystem Biological/Ecological study. (Beach Planting Plan, Coastal Ecosystem Restoration Plan, Intertidal Benthic Recovery Monitoring Plan, Offshore Borrow Area Benthic Recovery Monitoring Plan etc.). Note: This is not a requirement for a P.E. drawing or design, which are not within the scope of this contract.

(d). Compliance: Demonstrate team experience in an Marine Ecosystem Biological/Ecological project for pre/during/post construction compliance issues (ESA Biological Assessment and coordination, water quality permitting, Coastal Zone Management - CZM, CBRA, NOAA/NMFS EFH & ESA, FWS ESA, Compliance Monitoring plans and activities, etc.).

5.2.1.3.1 Rating System for Marine Ecosystem Section – Biological Sub-Factor: The standard the section criteria by the TEB.

Technically Acceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating of three (3) or more criteria will be rated technically acceptable for the Marine Ecosystem Section.

Technically Unacceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating for two (2) or less criteria will be rated technically unacceptable for the Marine Ecosystem Section. As the Offeror has received two (2) technically unacceptable ratings, there is a high risk to the government that the professional qualifications of the key team are not sufficient.

5.2.1.4 Overall Rating System for Biological Sub-Factor of Project Staff/Team Experience Evaluation Factor: (3 sections): Offerors whom are rated acceptable in each section of the Biological Sub-Factor will be rated acceptable for the Overall Biological Sub-Factor of Project

Staff/Team Experience. Offerors which received an unacceptable rating in any section will receive an unacceptable rating for the Biological Sub-Factor.

Technically Acceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating of three or sections will be rated technically acceptable for the Biological Sub- Factor.

Technically Unacceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically unacceptable rating for two or more sections will be rated technically unacceptable for the Biological Sub-Factor.

5.2.2 Environmental Sub-Factor: 7 criteria in 3 sections: The Contractor must show that they have Environmental experience. The Environmental Sub-Factor is dived into three sections which are integral to the NAN BECR mission. A successful offer must show technically acceptable experience in each section and the overall Environmental Sub-Factor. Offerors who are below the floor for any section cannot be qualified for the Component. The study and/or product cited can involve the prime firm / sub firm or any individual associated with the proposal. Any study, project and/or product that an Offeror references to represent their experience must have been conducted in January 1, 2006 and after.

5..2.2.1 HTRW Section: 3 criteria

(a) HTRW Phase I: Demonstrate Team Experience in the development of a phase I HTRW risk assessment, to include assessment of previous site uses, research of EPA and State Databases for CERCLA and spill risks, probability of site contamination. Identification of potential contamination risks, development of risk-oriented phase II test plan with appropriate safety plan.

(b) HTRW Phase II: Demonstrate team experience in developing and conducting HTRW field investigations that may include soil borings, soil gas analysis, Monitoring well installation, and sampling and analysis plans of soil and ground water, to include soil/sediment testing. The Offeror must demonstrate access to a certified laboratory for testing sediment and soil testing for HTRW.

The Offeror will document appropriate levels of EPA and OSHA training and certification for the operation of drilling equipment, work in contaminated areas, etc.

(c ) Sample Collection and Analysis: Demonstrate access to certified drillers for New York and/or New Jersey and the operation of truck/skid/track mounted drill rigs and geoprobes. Sample analysis for sediment, soil and/or water to include but not limited to: volatile organics, semi-volatile organics/acid based neutrals, pesticides, PCBs, RCRA metals TCLP, TAL metals, priority pollutant metals, TPHC, PAHs, SPLP, VOA-soil, VOA-aqueous, VOA+15, SVOA+15, agricultural samples (nitrates, ammonia, salinity, nitrogen, percent solids, soluble salts, inorganic nitrogen, macro-nutrients, micro-nutrients, pH, organic content);

geotechnical analysis (Atterburg limits, grain size, moisture content, Shelby tubes, unit weight, specific gravity, triaxial test, unconfined compression test, shear test), bacteriological analysis (E-coli), lead-based paint, asbestos containing material.

5.2.2.2 Air Quality General Conformity Compliance Section: 2 criteria

(a) Air Quality General Conformance Compliance - Initial Compliance Analysis Demonstrate team experience with aspects of General Conformity Compliance (GCC) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) such as: project analysis and development of equipment lists, emissions inventory, Regional Impact volumes/timeframe analysis and scheduling, SIP analysis, regional non-attainment zones conformity compliance determinations; such as a RONA, and/or a conditional statement of compliance, with supporting analysis.

(b) Air Quality General Conformity Compliance – Compliance Implementation: Demonstrate team experience with aspects of implementation measures for Clean Air Act General Conformity Compliance such as, monitoring project emissions, Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Program development, non-attainment zone in- zone mitigation measures, use of offset credit mitigation, Experience with coordinating CAA GCC issues with State and EPA office

5.2.2.3 Geospatial Systems and Data section: 2 criteria

(a) Data Collection and Analysis: Demonstrate team experience with GIS systems such as CADD/ArcView/Microstation. Show ability to use/access GIS field data collection tools such as GPS, LIDAR, Reconnaissance flights and public databases. Show experience collecting GIS data, analyzing collected data and integrating GIS data from investigations into project plans.

(b) Creation/Integration/Management of GIS databases. Demonstrate team experience with creation and management of project/study GIS databases from existing sources for project planning and or enterprise purposes; such as real estate, tax data, HTRW, wetlands, storm damages etc.

5.2.2.4 Rating System for the Environmental Sub-Factor Sections

Technically Acceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating for two (2) or more criteria in each section will be rated technically acceptable for that section of the Environmental Sub-Factor.

Technically Unacceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating for one (1) or less of the criteria of a section will be rated technically unacceptable for that section of the Environmental Sub-Factor. As the Offeror has received at least one (1) technically unacceptable ratings in any one section, there is a high risk to the government that the professional experience of the key team are not sufficient.

5.2.2.5 Environmental Sub-Factor Overall: The overall Environmental Sub-Factor evaluation has (3) Sections. An Offeror who has all three Environmental Sections rated as acceptable will be assessed on the Environmental Sub-Factor by a compilation of their Section ratings. An Offeror who has received an unacceptable rating in anyone one section, will receive an Unacceptable rating for the overall component. Standards are listed below.

Technically Acceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating of three acceptable ratings for Environmental Sections will be rated technically acceptable for the Environmental Sub-Factor.

Technically Unacceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically unacceptable rating for two or more sections will be rated technically unacceptable for the Environmental Sub-Factor.

5.2.3 General Cultural Resources Sub-Factors (2): (11 Criteria each in 2 Sub-Factors). The Offeror must demonstrate experience and qualifications in the areas listed below. Experience must be within the geographic area as defined in the SOW. A single project may be used to satisfy more than one requirement. The study and/or product cited can involve the prime firm / sub firm or any individual associated with the proposal. Any study, project and/or product that an Offeror references to represent their experience must have been conducted from January 1, 2006 and after can be included.

The Offeror must have two (2) individual Cultural Resource Teams as part of their overall team. Each Sub-Contractor must send in their specific requirements to be judged in terms of the criteria listed below.

The Offeror must submit a description of a project or projects that include specific reference to the successful completion of the following:

5.2.4 Cultural Resources Sub-Factor A

5.2.4.1 Underwater Archaeology Section- Cultural Resources Sub-Factor A (3 criteria).

The Offeror must identify a project or projects for each of the following:

a remote sensing survey, including but not limited to side scan sonar, magnetometer, and sub bottom profiler, has been conducted an underwater investigation to located and identify anomalies/returns; and underwater data recovery had been completed

The project description(s) should identify the name and location of the project(s), the agency for which the project was conducted, the date(s) the project was conducted, a summary of the work completed, a description of the site(s) identified, evaluated and subject to data recovery projects, and any public outreach the Offeror developed or in which the Offeror participated. The Offeror may use a single project that went through each type of investigation to provide the required information.

5.2.4.1.1 Rating System for Underwater Archaeology Section - Cultural Resources Sub- Factor A: The standard for this section is based on the consensus ratings of technical acceptability of the section criteria by the TEB.

Technically Acceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating of two (2) or more criteria will be rated technically acceptable for the Underwater Archaeology Section Cultural Resources Sub-Factor A.

Technically Unacceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating for only one (1) will be rated technically unacceptable for the Underwater Archaeology Section Sub-Factor A. As the Offeror has received two (2) technically unacceptable ratings, there is a high risk to the government that the professional experiences of the key team are not sufficient.

5.2.4.2 Regional (NAD) Prehistoric Archaeology Section Sub-Factor A: (3 criteria). The Offeror must identify a project or projects for which Phase I, II and III (Data Recovery) was undertaken for a project with a substantial prehistoric archaeology sub-factor. The project description(s) should identify the name and location of the project(s), the agency for which the project was conducted, the date(s) the project was conducted, the phase, a summary of the work completed, a description of the site(s) identified, evaluated and subject to data recovery, reports or other documents or deliverables prepared, and, for data recovery projects, and any public outreach the Offeror developed or in which the Offeror participated. The Offeror may use a single project that went through each phase to provide the required information. Also the Offeror may combine the Regional Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology project if a single, multi-phase, multi-component project is described and for which each Phase (I, II, and III) is accomplished for both prehistoric and historic archaeology components.

5.2.4.2.1 Rating System for - Regional (NAD) Prehistoric Archaeology Section - Cultural Resources – Sub-Factor A. The standard for this section is based on the consensus ratings of technical acceptability of the section criteria by the TEB.

Technically Acceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating of two (2) or more criteria will be rated technically acceptable (for the Regional (NAD) Prehistoric Archaeology Section Sub-Factor A.

Technically Unacceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating for only one (1) will be rated technically un-acceptable for the Regional (NAD) Prehistoric Archaeology Section Sub-Factor A. As the Offeror has received two (2) technically unacceptable, there is a high risk to the government that the professional experience of the key team is not sufficient.

5.2.4.3 Regional (NAD) Historical Archaeology Section- Sub-Factor A: (3 criteria). The was undertaken. The project description(s) should identify the name and location of the project, the agency for which the project was conducted, the date(s) the project was conducted, the phase, a summary of the work completed, a description of the site(s) identified, evaluated and subject to data recovery, reports or other documents or deliverables prepared, and, for data recovery projects, any public outreach the Offeror developed or in which the Offeror participated. The Offeror may use a single project that went through each phase to provide the required information. Also the Offeror may combine the Regional Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology project descriptions if a single, multi-phase, multi-component project is described and for which each Phase (I, II, and III) is accomplished for both prehistoric and historic archaeology sections.

5.2.4.3.1 Rating System for Regional (NAD) Historical Archaeology Section- Sub-Factor A: The standard for the above Cultural Resources section is based on the consensus ratings of technical acceptability of the section criteria by the TEB.

Technically Acceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating of two (2) or more criteria will be rated technically acceptable for the Regional (NAD) Historical Archaeology Section- Sub-Factor A.

Technically Unacceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically unacceptable rating for only one (1) criteria will be rated technically unacceptable for the Regional (NAD) Historical Archaeology Section- Sub-Factor A. As the Offeror has received two

(2) or more technically unacceptable ratings, there is a high risk to the government that the professional qualifications of the key team are not sufficient.

5.2.4.4 Architectural History Section Sub-Factor A (2 criteria). The Offeror shall provide the description of each of the following:

A project that resulted in the completion of a National Register of Historic Places nomination; and

A project that resulted in the preparation of either Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation.

5.2.4.4.1 Rating System for Architectural History Section- Cultural Resources Sub-Factor A: The standard for this section is based on the consensus ratings of technical acceptability of the section criteria by the TEB.

Technically Acceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable

(Go) rating of two (2) criteria will be rated technically acceptable for the Architectural History Section – Sub-Factor A.

Technically Unacceptable: An Offeror who does not achieve a consensus technically acceptable for any of the criteria will be rated technically unacceptable for the Architectural History Section – Sub-Factor A. As the Offeror has received a technically unacceptable rating, there is a high risk to the government that the professional experiences of the key team are not sufficient.

5.2.4.5 Cultural Resources Sub-Factor A Overall: The overall Cultural Resources Sub- Factor A rating is based on the section ratings. Only offerors whom achieve acceptable rating for all sections will be evaluated for the overall Cultural Resources Sub-Factor A rating. An Offeror who has four acceptable ratings for the sections of Cultural Resources Sub-Factor A will be rated acceptable for the Cultural Resources Sub-Factor A. Offerors whom have an unnaceptable rating for any Cultural resources section will be rated unnaceptable for the Cultural Resources Sub-Factor A

5.2.4 Cultural Resources Component B

5.2.5.1 Underwater Archaeology Section- Cultural Resources Sub-Factor B (3 criteria).

The Offeror must identify a project or projects for each of the following:

a remote sensing survey, including but not limited to side scan sonar, magnetometer, and sub bottom profiler, has been conducted an underwater investigation to located and identify anomalies/returns; and underwater data recovery had been completed

The project description(s) should identify the name and location of the project(s), the agency for which the project was conducted, the date(s) the project was conducted, a summary of the work completed, a description of the site(s) identified, evaluated and subject to data recovery projects, and any public outreach the Offeror developed or in which the Offeror participated. The Offeror may use a single project that went through each type of investigation to provide the required information.

5.2.5.1.1 Rating System for Underwater Archaeology Section - Cultural Resources Sub- Factor B: The standard for this section is based on the consensus ratings of technical acceptability of the section criteria by the TEB.

Technically Acceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating of two (2) or more criteria will be rated technically acceptable for the Underwater Archaeology Section Cultural Resources Sub-Factor B.

Technically Unacceptable: An Offeror who achieves a consensus technically acceptable rating for only one (1) criteria will be rated technically unacceptable for the Underwater Archaeology Section Sub-Factor B. As the Offeror has received two

(2) technically unacceptable ratings, there is a high risk to the government that the professional experiences of the key team are not sufficient.

5.2.5.2 Regional (NAD) Prehistoric Archaeology Section – Sub-Factor B: (3 criteria).

The Offeror must identify a project or projects for which Phase I, II and III (Data Recovery) was undertaken for a project with a substantial…