W912DW19R0010R0002-Solicitation_Amendment.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

Please see continuation sheet.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Mar-2019

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912DW19R0010

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Mar-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

14-Mar-2019

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE

ATTN: CENWS-CT

4735 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH, BLDG. 1202

SEATTLE WA 98134-2388

W912DW 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DW19R0010

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:

NOTES

The purpose of this amendment (R0002) is to answer the attached questions, make the following changes in the Evaluation Factors Section, and provide a link to the January 2017 hydrosurvey data required to prepare the sample project sampling and analysis plan (Factor B):

1. Factor A: Corporate Experience and Capabilities has been revised to include Public Involvement as a key specialty in both the text and Table 3.

2. Factor C: Past Performance has been edited to reflect past performance records will only be evaluated for Prime and Joint Venture Partner contractors.

3. The January 2017 hydrosurvey data required to prepare the sample project sampling and analysis plan (Factor B) is now available online through the USACE hydrographic surveys database (a public resource):

http://navigation.usace.army.mil/Survey/Hydro#state=WA

Applicants should select "Seattle District" from the drop-down menu and zoom into Olympia harbor to find the January 2017 dataset.

See the following changes in red.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q&A

1. A: Corporate Experience and Capabilities. The Performance Work Statement lists Public Involvement, but is not a key specialty listed under Factor A. It is also not included Table 3 of Factor A or in the experience matrix example in Attachment 2. Is Public Involvement a requested specialty for this contract?

Response: Public Involvement is a key specialty and should have been listed under Factor A and included in Table 3 of Factor A. Factor A has been revised to include Public Involvement in both the text and Table.

2. Factor A: Corporate Experience and Capabilities. Can or should resumes of key personnel be submitted under Factor A to demonstrate experience and capabilities, or does Seattle District prefer not to receive resumes? Key Personnel are discussed in the Performance Work Statement, but resumes are not requested under Factor A.

Response: Resumes are neither requested nor required.

3. Factor C: Past Performance. Under Evaluation Method, it is stated that 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.

If we are listing a relevant project under Factor A where a proposed subcontractor on our team was the prime, would it be appropriate for our subcontractor to submit a past performance questionnaire for that project?

Response: Past performance records will only be evaluated for Prime and Joint Venture Partner contractors.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

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 Characterization and 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 Public Involvement 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

Public Involvement

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 and 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.

Rating Definition 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.

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.

(End of Summary of Changes)