W912DW19R0010-NWS_MATOC_Solicitation(Final).pdf

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

W912DW19R0010 01-Mar-2019

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

206 764-6692

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

12:00 PM 02 Apr 2019

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012)

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

ADDENDA ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

23.

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TELEPHONE NO.

W912DW9. ISSUED BY

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

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

GREGORY COOK

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

0 27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

20.

ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

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

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN

% FOR:SET ASIDE:UNRESTRICTED OR X

SMALL BUSINESSX

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE

ATTN: CENWS-CT

4735 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH, BLDG. 1202

SEATTLE WA 98134-2388

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

13b. RATING

CODE15. DELIVER TO CODE 16. ADMINISTERED BY

SEE SCHEDULE

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFPX

FAX:

TEL: SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SIZE STANDARD:

$15,000,000

NAICS:

541620

X

OFFER DATED

29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF.

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

EMAIL:

TEL:

31c. DATE SIGNED

SEE SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICESITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

24.22.21.19.

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (WOSB)

ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

EDWOSB

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

PAGE 2 OF69

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f . TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINALPARTIALCOMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT

41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012) BACK

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

SEE SCHEDULE

20.

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

21.

QUANTITY UNIT

22. 23.

UNIT PRICE

24.

AMOUNT

19.

ITEM NO.

Section SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERICAL ITEMS

(Addendum to FAR 52.212-1)

DESCRIPTION OF WORK

Work to be performed under this contract consists of technical support as required for Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) navigation projects and other environmental services. Work will include environmental investigations, studies, and surveys, and development of relevant documentation required by Federal and state regulations, most notably the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, literature searches, and coordination with Federal, state and local agencies. The Government intends to award up to four firm fixed price Task Order Contracts. The anticipated Period of Performance (POP) is one Base Year Period plus four Option Year Periods.

1. GENERAL PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS

This requirement is for Environmental Consulting and will be acquired through the use of the Source Selection Procedures. The Request for Proposal (RFP) requires prospective offerors to develop and submit a Technical and Price Proposal (with the information required in this Addendum), which will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.212‐2, “Evaluation – Commercial Items”.

NOTE: You must provide all items required in this addendum and follow the directions for the submittal of the proposal precisely or your proposal may be rejected.

2. PROPOSAL COMPOSITION

The proposal shall be submitted in two volumes as follows:

i. Volume I – Technical Proposal (to include Factors A through C)

ii. Volume II – Price (to include Factor D)

3. FORMAT AND CONTENT

FORMAT

Proposal Format – Proposals shall follow these guidelines:

Pages containing text are expected to be 8 ½ x 11 inches with at least one-inch margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Larger format drawings or tables may be added by folding them to fit within the binder. Paragraphs should be separated by at least one blank line. A standard 12-point font in either Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required.

The quote shall be submitted in two separate volumes, one containing the Technical information and the other containing the Price information. All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume. In order to reduce size, confine the volumes to recent and relevant information and documentation sufficient to provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation. Each volume is expected to contain a table of contents, summary section with a brief abstract of the volume and the narrative discussion. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

CONTENT

Volume I: Technical (See Evaluation Factors Section)

The technical volume shall be submitted as a separate PDF document and include the following sections:

1. Corporate Experience and Capabilities

2. Sample Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)

3. Past Performance of the Prime Contractor

DO NOT INCLUDE PRICE INFORMATION IN THE TECHNICAL VOLUME

Volume II: Price

The price volume shall be in a separate PDF file and include the following sections:

1. DUNS Number, CAGE Code, and Tax ID Number

2. Signed and dated Standard Form 1449 (Commercial Solicitation)

3. Complete Price/Work Schedule - All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the Government. In case of discrepancy between the unit price and the extended price, the unit price will govern.

4. Representations, Certificates and Other Statements of Offerors (see SAM Registration Below)

5. Acknowledgement of any amendments issued (amendment number and date acknowledged by Offeror).

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

The offer must submit the following number of copies of each volume:

PROPOSAL HARDCOPIES ELECTRONICCOPY

Volume I (Technical) One Original and Four Copies One Electronic Copy Volume II (Price) None One Electronic Copy

Volume I – Technical Proposal, one original, four paper copies, and one electronic copy for a total of six items submitted for Volume I.

Submit the electronic the copy to Gregory.A.Cook@usace.army.mil

Send original and paper copies of the proposal to the below address no later than the date and time set forth in Block 8 of the SF 1449:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District ATTN: Contracting Division (Gregory Cook) 4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98134

Volume I I– Price Proposal, one electronic copy to Gregory.A.Cook@usace.army.mil

It is your responsibility to verify that the package was received in a timely manner. No faxed proposals will be accepted.

OFFERORS MUST AGREE TO A 60 DAY OFFER ACCEPTANCE

PERIOD.

SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (SAM) REGISTRATION REQUIRED

If not registered, please visit www.sam.gov . Lack of registration in the SAM Database will make an offeror ineligible for award.

Have you completed your FAR 52.212-3 Representations and Certifications on-line at www.sam.gov? If your Reps and Certs have not been completed on-line in SAM, please complete the full text of FAR 52.212-3 clause within this solicitation and return it with your quote.

QUESTIONS

All inquiries regarding this solicitation are to be submitted in writing to Gregory.A.Cook@usace.army.mil or to Scotty.W.Britt@usace.army.mil .

EVALUATION FACTORS

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., Best Value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Corporate Experience and Capabilities, Sample Sampling and Analysis Plan, Past Performance of the Prime Contractor, and Price. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced offeror.

FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Proposals will be evaluated on the following evaluation factors:

FACTOR A: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITIES

FACTOR B: SAMPLE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN (SAP)

FACTOR C: PAST PERFORMANCE OF THE PRIME CONTRACTOR

FACTOR D: PRICE

Award will be made to the offerors whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

EVALUATION FACTORS

Each proposal will be evaluated using the Evaluation Factors. The evaluation method is the tradeoff process per FAR Subpart 15.101-1. The offeror’s proposal shall include responses to the technical and past performance evaluation factors, be in the form prescribed herein, and meet the minimum submittal requirements stated. Selection will be made on the basis of the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the RFP requirements, demonstrates the highest technical capability and lowest risk, and presents the most advantageous offer to the Government.

Relative Importance: Selection of the firms will be based on the primary factors, listed in descending order of importance (Table 1). Price is significantly less important than all other factors combined. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness for understanding of the project’s requirements.

Table 1: Factors and Sub-Factors

Factor Description FACTOR A Corporate Experience and Capabilities FACTOR B Sample Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) FACTOR C Past Performance of the Prime Contractor FACTOR D Price

TECHNICAL RATING DEFINITIONS

The SSEB will use a common set of combined technical/risk adjectival ratings, as defined in Table 2, to evaluate non-Cost/Price Factors or Past Performance. The combined technical/risk rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets, or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

Table 2: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

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

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

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

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

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

FACTOR DESCRIPTIONS

The following are the evaluation factor descriptions. Note: The “minimum” submittal requirements stated must be met.

FACTOR A: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITIES

Factor A evaluates the offeror’s project experience, capabilities, and technical competency in executing navigation dredging sediment characterization and environmental/NEPA projects in the specialties identified in the PWS.

Submittal Requirements for Evaluation of Factor A:

The offeror must provide the following three (3) elements:

1. Organizational Chart

2. Individual Relevant Project Sheets

3. Relevant Experience Matrix

Each Submittal is described in more detail below.

1. Organizational Chart: The offeror must submit a one-page organizational chart that, at a minimum, demonstrates the team structure, including joint venture partner(s) and/or significant subcontractor(s) that fulfill all or part of the requisite technical expertise and experience. The organizational chart should focus on corporate structure and not individual personnel.

2. Individual Relevant Project Sheets. The offeror shall submit project experience information for at least five (5) and no more than eight (8) projects, demonstrating the team’s experience and capabilities. Project sheets should demonstrate wide-ranging capabilities and experience handling complex and diverse navigation dredging and environmental/NEPA projects in the specialties identified in the PWS.

If more than eight projects are submitted, only the first eight projects will be evaluated in the order they are presented in the proposal. If the project is complete, it must have been completed within the past ten (10) years from the solicitation response due date. Offeror may include both Governmental and Commercial projects.

Each Project Sheet must contain, at a minimum, the following information:

a. Project title

b. Offeror’s role (e.g., Prime, JV, Subcontractor, etc.) and responsibility (e.g., design work, field sampling, lab analysis, etc.) in the project.

c. Project location

d. Project completion status (estimated or actual completion date, submittal status, etc). Incomplete projects (in progress) must be at least 75% complete for the scope of work for that project to be eligible for evaluation.

e. Period of performance (start and completion dates; projected end date if project is ongoing)

f. Project total (awarded) dollar value (awarded)

g. Customer Point of Contact (name, organization, and contact phone or email)

h. Narrative Project Description.

i. Demonstrates how the project is relevant to the PWS and one or more of the key specialties defined in the PWS and listed below.

ii. If applicable, includes discussion of project performance issues and remedies (e.g., cost overruns, schedule delays, health and safety issues, regulatory/stakeholder issues, other performance issues, etc.).

iii. Demonstrates quality control management processes and procedures that result in quality end products.

i. Project photo or image. Submit at least one (1) representative photo or image.

The submitted projects, when combined, should demonstrate the offeror’s experience in the key specialties identified in Section 2 of the PWS. At a minimum, the projects should demonstrate the specialties on the list below that are marked with an asterisk (*). Not all key specialties must be demonstrated in any one project.

Key Specialties:

Navigation Projects:

*Sediment Ecology *Biological and Physical Oceanography *Chemistry/Quality Assurance *Toxicology *Dredging Planning & Operations

Other Environmental Services (NEPA focus):

*Wildlife Biology *Wetland Ecology *Fisheries/Aquatic Biology *Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat Analyses Geomorphology Watershed Analyses/Geohydrology *Marine/Estuarine Ecology *NEPA Environmental Documentation & Procedures (Environmental Assessments, Environment Impact Statements, Biological Evaluations, etc.)

*Water Quality Air Quality Noise *Cultural Resources (National Historic Preservation Act)

General:

*GIS/Cartography/Aerial Imagery Interpretation/Mapping/Graphics Soil Science Remote Sensing Survey Data Collection *Laboratory Services

3. Relevant Experience Matrix. Provide a table similar in format to the table below that identifies the key specialty(ies) demonstrated by each project sheet.

Table 3. Relevant Experience Example Matrix Key Specialties Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 … Project X

N av ig at io n

P ro je ct s

Sediment Ecology X

Biological and Physical Oceanography X X X

Chemistry/Quality Assurance X X X

Toxicology X X

Dredging Planning & Operations X X

O th er E nv ir on m en ta l S er vi ce s

Wildlife Biology X

Wetland Ecology X X

Fisheries/Aquatic Biology X X

Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat Analyses

X X X

Geomorphology X

Watershed Analyses/Geohydrology X

Marine/Estuarine Ecology X X

NEPA Environmental Documentation & Procedures

X X

Water Quality X X X

Air Quality X

Noise

Cultural Resources (NHPA) X

G en er al

GIS/Cartography/Aerial Imagery Interpretation/Mapping/Graphics

X X X

Soil Science X X

Remote Sensing X

Survey X X Data Collection X X Laboratory Services X X X X

Additional Considerations

The proposal may be evaluated more favorably if the projects demonstrate full project completion, prior experience with the subcontractor(s) identified in the organization chart, experience completing sediment characterization projects for USACE, experience working on projects that cover key specialties beyond the asterisked/minimum specialties, or experience performing NEPA/ESA work in the Pacific Northwest:

FACTOR B: SAMPLE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN (SAP)

Submittal Requirements for Evaluation:

Offeror shall provide a complete SAP based on the Sample Project PWS found in Attachment 3 “Dredged Material Characterization, Olympia Harbor, Federal Navigation Channel, 2018.

NOTE: This is a fictitious project whose sole purpose is the evaluation of responses to this Request for Proposal. Actual dredging of the fictitious Olympia Harbor project is not planned.

Evaluation Standard:

At a minimum, the offeror must demonstrate the ability to prepare a SAP in accordance with the Performance Work Statement

Additional Considerations The proposal may be evaluated more favorably if the SAP demonstrates:

Evidence of a working knowledge of relevant regulations and guidance (e.g., DMMP

User Manual, SMS, PSEP) to sediment dredging characterization projects in the state of Washington.

Evidence of a feasible and technically appropriate approach to the specific project characteristics described in the sample project PWS.

Evidence of a sampling design, field methodology, laboratory analyses, and quality control components adapted to fit the unique need of the sample project.

Ability to calculate accurate volume calculations (using the provided survey data) that consider slope factors, authorized depth, and overdepth.

Conceptual Dredged Material Management Unit (DMMU) design that can be practically dredged

Writing skills that present the information in a clear and logical manner with little to now grammar or syntax problems.

Ability to communicate complex information through a combination of narrative, tables, and figures.

FACTOR C: Past Performance

Past performance information may be obtained by the Government from any available sources including, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

If an offeror does not have past performance available in CCASS/ACASS/CPARS, or wishes to augment the available system ratings, the offeror may submit Customer Satisfaction Surveys from reputable sources. The projects surveyed must be complete and/or currently under execution (75% complete).

Instructions concerning the surveys are as follows:

The customer survey form located in Attachment 1 must be used when soliciting prior customers for referral (re-formatting is okay).

Offerors are encouraged to include surveys of relevant projects submitted under Factor B.

Please direct customers to submit questionnaires directly to the Government POC on the form. (Attachment 1). The Government reserves the right to verify any and all information on the questionnaire.

At a maximum, no more than ten (10) customer satisfaction surveys will be considered for the prime/JV firm. If there are more than 10 submitted surveys, only the first 10 surveys will be considered in the evaluation.

Only those surveys received for projects within the past ten years from the date proposals are due are eligible for evaluation.

Surveys must be received no later than the date and time by when this proposal is due to be eligible for evaluation.

The board will consider the relevancy of each performance evaluation on services contracts to the proposed contract, including the type of work, performing office, age of the evaluation, and whether subsequent evaluations indicate a change in a firm’s performance.

Evaluation Method:

The Board will review past performance records for all Prime, Joint Venture Partner contractors, and if determined appropriate by the Board, the Board will review past performance records for all team members.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and confidence.

Table 4: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 5: Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Rating Description Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

FACTOR D: Price

The offeror must submit the properly filled out pricing schedule provided for evaluation of the sample project in Attachment 3, entitled “Dredged Material Characterization, Olympia Harbor, Federal Navigation Channel.” Offeror may submit supporting documentation to justify the proposed pricing schedule. Page size should be no larger than 11x17 inches.

Evaluation Method:

Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness based on the project’s requirements. Price is significantly less important than all other factors combined.

Evaluation Approach:

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

1. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the

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

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

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors o Non-price Factor A is significantly more important than Factor B and C. Factor B is more important than Factor C.

o Non-price Factors A, B, and C, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor

D. Price is significantly less important than all other factors combined. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness for understanding of the project’s requirements.

CONTRACT MINIMUM/MAXIMUM

1. During the life of the contract, the Government shall be obligated to order services in the minimum task order amount of $2,500.00 and maximum task order amount of $1,000,000.00.

2. The aggregate value of all task orders shall not exceed $5,000,000.00, during the life of the contract.

ORDERING PROCEDURES

TASK ORDER PROCESSING PROCEDURES.

1. When the Government requires work under this contract, the Contracting Officer will issue a Task-

Order Request for Proposal (RFP) to the Contractor awarded the contract from this solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 16. The task-order RFP will include a statement of work describing the work to be performed, any special instructions and conditions, and a completion schedule for the project.

Task orders may be handled by electronic means (e.g., email), facsimile or telephone for urgent requirements.

2. The contractor shall prepare a proposal in accordance with the requirements of the task-order RFP and this contract. The contractor shall respond within 2 weeks, unless otherwise stated in the RFP, by submitting a proposal to the Contracting Officer. The proposal shall contain detailed pricing information which will support proposed labor hours, material quantities and costs, and any other associated costs that may be required during work performance. Price proposals must be consistent with the current rates negotiated in the base contract.

3. Upon conclusion of satisfactory negotiations (if required), a task order will be issued by the

Contracting Officer reflecting the negotiated order price and payment terms as outlined in the Statement of Work. The task order will contain an original or electronic signature by the Contracting Officer, and will be forwarded to the contractor via mail, facsimile or electronic means.

4. The task order completion schedule shall commence upon receipt of written, verbal, or electronic notice of award, and shall end as specified in the Statement of Work of each task order. The contractor shall insure that all task-order work is completed and that submittals are made in accordance with the time allowances and progress schedule set forth in the Statement of Work of each task order. The schedule is subject to adjustment by the Contracting Officer, in writing, for material delays on the part of the Government and for conditions beyond the control of the parties hereto.

5. The contractor is advised not to perform any services under this contract requested by any person other than the Contracting Officer, orally or in writing, which is considered to be a change in the work or services required by this contract or a negotiated task order that would necessitate an adjustment in task-order price, until the contractor has made a proposal to the Contracting Officer covering such change in services, and both parties have negotiated a mutually satisfactory modification to the task-order price and the contractor has received either written, oral or electronic notice of modification award or verbal direction to proceed from the Contracting Officer.

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Performance Work Statement Miscellaneous Environmental Services and Sediment Sampling and Analysis in Various Northwest States

Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) Northwestern Division, USACE Seattle

DESCRIPTION OF WORK

Work to be performed under this contract consists of technical support as required for Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) navigation projects and other environmental services. Work will include environmental investigations, studies, and surveys, and development of relevant documentation required by Federal and state regulations, most notably the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, literature searches, and coordination with Federal, state and local agencies.

Navigation Projects

Technical support for USACE navigation projects will consist primarily of studies involving sediment and biota collection, chemical and biological testing, associated environmental coordination and preparation of required NEPA, Clean Water Act and other compliance documents. Studies may include testing of dredged material, reference areas/sites, and dredged material disposal sites in western Washington, western Oregon and southeastern Alaska. Work will include coordination and consultation with USACE representatives to design sampling and analysis plans, quality assurance plans and other study and/or planning documents

Studies may include physical, chemical and biological testing and evaluations in the marine, estuarine and freshwater environments. Physical evaluations may include use of sediment profile imaging.

Biological testing may include bioassays and bioaccumulation testing. Studies may also involve collecting sediment benthos and performing taxonomic and community structure evaluations, and tissue testing.

Work will require familiarity with all applicable regulations, including NEPA, CERCLA (Superfund), MTCA (Model Toxics Control Act), DMMP (Dredged Material Management Program), and Washington State Sediment Management Standards (SMS).

Other Environmental Services

The environmental services to be performed under this contract will involve environmental resources and issues throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, primarily western Washington, western Oregon, northern Idaho and western Montana. This work includes site-specific resource field examinations, field sampling, monitoring and data analyses and reporting; NEPA environmental planning and impact assessment; and multimedia environmental compliance assessment and follow-up.

STATEMENT OF CONTRACTOR SERVICES

The contractor shall provide services that will be detailed on each specific task order. Examples of work contractors would accomplish may include, but are not limited to, the following services and their associated tasks:

Sediment Characterization and Ecology

Sampling and analysis plans Sediment collection Physical, chemical and biological testing Sediment, biota, data collection and evaluation – water quality and biological specimens, literature search, interviews, field observations, etcetera Sediment profile imaging (SPI) Evaluation of physical and benthic community structure data from SPI Technical reports based on results of various sediment biological, physical and chemical analyses Database entry of sediment characterization data Quality assurance/quality control evaluations and reports

Oceanography

Various biological and physical oceanography surveys and studies Hydrodynamic modeling Sediment fate and transport modeling Sampling of various water column organisms, primarily ichythyoplankton and zooplankton Quality assurance/quality control data analyses and reports

Chemistry/Quality Assurance

Sediment, soil, and water laboratory testing, data analysis/interpretation; development of sampling and analytical strategies Data validation services – quality assurance/quality control evaluations and reports Analytical Services in accordance with the Dredged Material Management Program User

Manual (DMMP homepage) http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Dredging.aspx.

Toxicology

Bioassay testing/data interpretation Bioaccumulation testing and data interpretation per Federal/state agency DMMP (Dredged

Material Management Program) requirements Toxicological evaluation, including ecological risk assessments

Dredging Planning & Operations

Analyses of sediment dredgability, design of dredging projects, design and analysis of dredge material containment and disposal options Dredge expense cost estimates Analysis and selection of appropriate environmental dredging techniques

Wildlife Biology

Population analysis, population modeling, carrying capacity and habitat analyses Ecosystem analyses, including limiting factors analysis Landscape analyses Technical reports and wildlife impact analyses for National Environmental Protection Agency

(NEPA)

Documentation, feasibility studies, and other planning documents, to include assessment of mitigation requirements and planning of compensatory mitigation projects

Study and sampling plans, data collection (including standard collection protocol) and analyses Planning, design, and monitoring/analysis of restoration projects Wildlife assessments employing various trapping and handling techniques (NOTE: Biologists in this category should have an ability to obtain a Federal or State scientific collection permit.)

Wetland Ecology

Wetland functional analyses, restoration planning, and vegetative and soils analyses Standard assessment procedures such as Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP), Wetland

Evaluation Technique (WET) and the Hydrogeomorphic Method (HGM) Wetland delineation and functional assessment methodologies appropriate to the region being examined including USACE regional assessment supplemental manuals (NOTE: wetland ecologists should be state-certified, if applicable.)

Physical, chemical and biological characteristics of wetlands, including hydrology, soils, vegetation and wildlife

Clean Water Act Section 404 compliance documents, including detailed alternatives analyses and monitoring reports

Habitat restoration and compensatory mitigation planning, design, compensatory mitigation, and construction and post-construction monitoring

Cowardin Wetland classification and rating Determinations of a significant nexus for a jurisdictional determination, following current EPA regulations under the Clean Water Act Design of planting plans appropriate to the ecosystem and landscape position, mitigation plans, and long-term O&M (operations and maintenance) plans in compliance with USACE guidelines

Fisheries/Aquatic Biology

Ecosystem analyses including limiting factors analyses, fisheries surveys and run reconstructions In-stream flow analyses, habitat restoration, impact analyses Population analyses, population modeling, carrying capacity and habitat analyses Pelagic and benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and assessment and fish diet analysesTechnical reports and fisheries impact analyses for NEPA documentation, feasibility studies, and other planning documents, to include assessment of mitigation requirements and planning of compensatory mitigation projects

Study and sampling plans, data collection and analyses Fish collection and monitoring, including electrofishing, biotelemetry, hydroacoustic, and PIT tagging. (NOTE: Biologists in this category should have an ability to obtain a Federal or State scientific collection permit.)

Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat Analyses

Biological assessments and biological evaluations for Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section

7 consultations, including evaluations of USACE project effects on all ESA- listed species throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, primarily Washington, Oregon, northern Idaho and western Montana, for example salmonids, bull trout, green sturgeon, marine and land mammals, sea turtles, birds and plants

Field studies, technical reports and endangered species analyses for ESA documentation Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) analyses for the EFH of all species managed by the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Monitoring and analysis of restoration projects

Geomorphology

Assessment procedures to address such issues as landscape analyses, watershed analyses, channel classification, channel form, sedimentation processes, sediment budgets, wood loading budgets, stream and floodplain stability, hydrology and hydraulic interaction and erosion

Description and evaluation of historic and prehistoric conditions and processes Hydrogeomorphic assessments Planning and evaluation of habitat restoration and other riverine project, including the placement of large woody debris, and creation or restoration of side channels and tributaries Technical reports and geomorphology analyses for NEPA documentation, feasibility studies, and other planning documents, to include assessment of mitigation requirements and planning of compensatory mitigation projects

Experience with standard collection protocols, current literature and Pacific Northwest river basin dynamics

Geophysical testing

Watershed Analyses/Geohydrology

Assessment procedures to address stream and floodplain stability, hydrology and hydraulic interaction, and erosion

Description and evaluation of historic conditions and processes Technical reports and watershed/geohydrology analyses for NEPA documentation, feasibility studies, and other planning documents, to include assessment of mitigation requirements and planning of compensatory mitigation projects

Geohydrology studies, including in-stream flow modeling and water management assessments Experience with standard collection protocols, current literature and Pacific Northwest river basin dynamics Watershed restoration studies Watershed design, implementation, analyses and monitoring

Marine/Estuarine Ecology

Ecosystem analyses, including limiting factors assessments Fisheries surveys and run reconstructions Shellfish, eelgrass and macroalgae habitat assessments, impact analyses and restoration planning Vertebrate and macroinvertebrate sampling and assessment and fish diet analysis Population analysis, population modeling, carrying capacity, and habitat analyses Technical reports and marine ecology analyses for NEPA documentation, feasibility studies, and other planning documents, to include assessment of mitigation requirements and planning of compensatory mitigation projects

Planning, design, and monitoring of restoration projects Invasive species assessments, for both freshwater and marine species

NEPA Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement/Other Required Environmental

Documentation

Preparation of Federal environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This includes preparation of draft and draft final documents, either for environmental assessments or environmental impact statements

Preparation of draft Section 404 (b)(1), Clean Water Act (CWA), evaluations and other draft compliance documents, including draft Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determinations

Assessment of project mitigation requirements and planning of compensatory mitigation projects

Water Quality

Fresh and Marine water quality monitoring, data reduction and reports Water quality impact analyses for environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, and planning documents to include the assessment of mitigation requirements and planning for compensatory mitigation projects

Air Quality

Air quality criteria, pertinent regulatory requirements and data analyses Air quality impact analyses for environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, and planning documents to include the assessment of mitigation requirements and planning for compensatory mitigation projects

Noise

Noise monitoring and data analyses based on pertinent regulations Noise impact analyses for environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, and planning documents to include the assessment of mitigation requirements and planning for compensatory mitigation projects

Cultural Resources (National Historic Preservation Act)

Fulfil State Historic Preservation Office requirements for obtaining confidential site records and cultural resources reports Conduct background research specific to project location Conduct archaeological and/or architectural surveys including both reconnaissance and/or intensive level surveys.

Prepare cultural resource reports and provide recommendations for the Government’s consideration.

Conduct cultural resources monitoring during construction activities.

Conduct cultural resources monitoring during geotechnical and/or sediment sampling field activities and examine sediment for archaeological resources (i.e. artifacts, shell midden deposits; etc.)

Plan and conduct archaeological data recoveries.

Development of mitigation and/or site treatment plans Prepare evaluations of cultural resources for National Register of Historic Places eligibility Preparation of cultural resource management plans; research designs and Determination of

Eligibility/Effect Preparation of cultural resources sections in Environmental Assessments (EA) and

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and other Corps planning documents.

Conduct specialized studies (artifact/faunal analyses; geoarchaeology studies, etc)

GIS/Cartography and Aerial Imagery Interpretation

Compiling and analyses of GIS data using current technology Statistical analyses of geographic information Imagery interpretation and analyses, remote sensing (air and satellite) Map planning and map construction

Public Involvement

Collaborative public participation and engagement, communication strategies, conflict management, and decision-making techniques for intergovernmental and stakeholder processes

Facilitation of technical meetings, intergovernmental and stakeholder group meetings and workshops, advisory committees, and public meetings

Soil Science

Field surveys of soil types, condition and quality Field collection and laboratory analyses of soil samples for such items as soil nutrition, soil compaction and soil age Experience with standard collection techniques

Remote Sensing

Airborne and spaceborne remote sensing technology and management of technical remote sensing applications Remote sensing missions, post processing, and application development Digital data layers and maps for natural resource management Remotely sensed multi-spectral data utilizing Arc/Info an Arc/View and related extensions such as ArcGrid or Spatial Analyst, Erdas Imagine, ENVI or other remote sensing and GIS software for ITAM or other projects

Determination of need for acquisition of aerial photography, multispectral and hyperspectral data necessary for GIS application for projects

Variety of data layers, including but not limited to, soils, topography, cultural resources, vegetative communities, location of threatened and endangered species, aquatic habitat types and floodplain delineation

Remote sensing products including analysis, reports, maps and other documentation of analysis techniques

Remote sensing databases collected and organized according to Federal regulations

Survey

Digital Global Positioning System (GPS) surveying techniques Boundary, topographical, right-of-way, easement, and encroachment surveying, and aerial mapping ground control GPS and geodetic surveyor receivers and real time kinematic mode (RTK) surveys Design, boundary, control, topographic and construction surveys

Data Collection

Collection of data pertaining to soils, flora, fauna, hydrology, elevation, slope and other biophysical characteristics to assess the environmental effects of various projects

Laboratory Services

Chemistry/Analytical Bioassay Bioaccumulation Geotechnical

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED DATA

The Government will furnish the following data for each task order relating to the particular work or site under investigation (all Government Furnished Data shall be returned prior to final payment of this contract).

Seattle District Guide for Architects-Engineers-Consultants, Volume I EM 385-1-1, US Army Corps of Engineers, Safety and Health Requirements Manual, current version

Project specific data, such as surveys, geospatial data, drawings, Government obtained permits, and other information may be provided by the Government as part of the specific Task Order performance work statement.

RESPONSIBILITY OF CORRECT DOCUMENTS

The Contractor is responsible for document accuracy. The Contracting Officer (KO) or the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) may review all documents. Should the KO or COR find that corrections and/or clarifications are necessary, the Contractor shall revise the work and submit the revisions (original and reproducible copies as required by the task order) within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of the KO’s request, unless otherwise specified in the task order Performance Work Statement.

KEY PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE

Key personnel, recognized regional experts and experienced specialists, are essential to the successful completion of the contract work. Expectation is that each selected firm will have the experienced personnel to accomplish services as required by this Statement of Work and subsequent task order statements of work.

Evaluation of proposals for task order awards may include criteria addressing specific key personnel.

Anticipated key personnel typically include the following:

Program Manager

The Program Manager will serve as a single point of contact for coordination of program issues with USACE. The Program Manager is responsible for the overall management of the contract including cost, schedule and technical quality. The Program Manager oversees the development and implementation of record keeping, administrative and quality control programs, and ensures that the firm delivers a quality product. Expectation is that the Program Manager will have a bachelor’s degree in engineering, science, business management, or related field.

Quality Control Officer

The Quality Control (QC) Officer is responsible for overall management of Contractor Quality Control (CQC) and has the authority to act in all CQC matters. Expectation is that the QC Officer will have appropriate education and experience in the specialized area identified in the task order, (e.g., chemistry, bioassay, geology, hydrogeology, environmental services, and environmental reporting and documentation). The QC Officer is responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements identified in the Performance Work Statement and the Contractor Quality Control Plan.

This person will oversee the site/project specific Quality Control Managers (QCM). QCMs shall be stationed at the project site whenever work is in progress. The need for an on-site QCM will be defined in the Performance Work Statement for the project specific task order.

Safety and Health Officer

The Safety and Health Officer (SHO) ensures that all work is performed in accordance with the USACE Safety and Health Requirements Manual (EM385-1-1, current version) and must have the authority to shut down the site work if/when Health and Safety becomes an issue. The SHO enlists the support of safety and occupational health professionals with appropriate education and experience when working on sites with multiple (chemical, biological, and physical) hazards. At minimum, the SHO is responsible for the following actions:

Ensuring all work is performed in accordance with EM385-1-1;

Developing, maintaining, and overseeing implementation of the Site Safety Health Plan

(SSHP);

Visiting the project as needed to audit the effectiveness of the SSHP;

Remaining available for project emergencies;

Developing modifications to the SSHP as needed;

Evaluating occupational exposure monitoring/air sampling data and adjusting SSHP requirements as necessary;

Serving as a QC staff member;

Approving the SSHP by signature.

Other Technical Personnel

Other disciplines not listed may be required to perform specific task orders. These disciplines will be required to have comparable qualifications in their field of expertise and the resumes of these individuals may be required as part of task order proposals.

LABORATORY REQUIREMENTS

Certification, accreditation, and/or license documentation will be required for each Task Order awarded as part of the Task Order proposal. This documentation requires the name and location of the prime laboratory and secondary laboratory(ies) to be used and indicate the state(s) in…