RFP_17_R_UES3_Ft_C_H2O_w_Atts_Signed.pdf

Contract Management Division B Energy Support Branch

To: Gas, Water and Electric Utility Providers in the USAG Fort Campbell KY Service Area

Subject: Request for Proposal, RFP: W912DY-17-R-UES3, Fort Campbell KY

Your firm is requested to submit a proposal for an anticipated Utility Energy Service Contract (UESC) project for Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for the Performance Work Statement (PWS) Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) listed below. NAICS codes 221310 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems, 221110 Natural Gas Distribution, and 221122 Electric Power Distribution, are eligible to participate.

• Building 2311 Water Conservation – reduction in consumption and water monitoring.

The electronic version of this RFP including the Proposal Requirements and attachments constitutes the official notice. Based on FAR 6.1, your firm among other firms requested to submit a proposal for this effort. Proposal preparation costs incurred by any utility provider to prepare a response to this RFP will not be paid by the Government.

Proposals are limited to a maximum of 15 pages, and should be detailed, explicit, and should include supporting data in detail sufficient to permit appropriate review and analysis. Your proposal should outline your approach to fulfilling the requirements. A site visit is being scheduled for the near future.

After receipt of your proposal, the Government will evaluate proposals and may conduct discussions on any issues that may be necessary. Only one (1) utility provider will be selected from this evaluation to move forward with the Preliminary Assessment and/or Investment Grade Audit, and final Price Proposal for consideration of contract award.

Submit your electronic proposal to:

Name Email address Jeffery D. Byrd Jeffery.d.byrd@usace.army.mil Barbara L. Osterkamp Barbara.l.osterkamp@usace.army.mil

The electronic proposal shall arrive no later than 5:00 PM Central Time, Wednesday, March 8, 2017. Offerors shall propose and the Government will handle receipt of proposals in accordance with FAR 15.208. Offerors are cautioned that due to file size limitations (10MB per email) and email security protocols, there is a risk that not all correspondence will be received by this office. It is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure timely receipt of all email

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

HUNTSVILLE CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

P.O. BOX 1600

HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA 35807-4301

February 2, 2017 mailto:Jeffery.d.byrd@usace.army.mil

SUBJECT: RFP: W912DY-17-R-UES3, Fort Campbell KY Page 2 February 2, 2017 correspondence. Failure to meet the deadline may preclude your firm from further consideration on this project/PWS.

Should additional program or project information be required, please contact Mr. Jeffery Byrd at telephone 256-895-1543, email: jeffery.d.byrd@usace.army.mil, or the undersigned at telephone (256)895-1782.

Sincerely, Barbara L. Osterkamp Contracting Officer

Attachments

1. Proposal Requirements

2. FAR Clauses

3. Small Business Participation Plan

4. Subcontracting Letter of Commitment

5. DOL Wage Guidelines

6. Safety Requirements mailto:jeffery.d.byrd@usace.army.mil

RFP: W912DY-17-R-UES3 Attachment 1 Proposal Requirements January 30, 2017

RFP # W912DY-17-R-UES3

Department of Defense

Fort Campbell, KY Requirements for Utility Energy Service Companies

January 30, 2017

1.0 Proposal Requirements

The proposal is limited to a count of 15 pages; thus, the proposal should be descriptive and concise, providing the information necessary in order to determine your firm's capabilities specific to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) described in the Request for Proposal (RFP) letter dated February 2, 2017. All portions of the proposal including cover pages, table of contents, and tabs (tabs are not included in the page count) should use a font no smaller than 12 font, Arial. The font for charts, diagrams, and graphics may be smaller; however, they shall be clearly legible. Any deviation from this format may be cause for rejection of the proposal. If a proposal exceeds the page limit, the pages that exceed the limit will not be considered or evaluated. The proposal shall be submitted to the Contracting Office in either electronic format (preferred), or hard copy with CD, by the date and time specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP) letter. Timeliness of a proposal shall be determined by date and time of receipt to the Contracting Office. The last proposal version received before the time cutoff will take precedence over previous versions and will be the only version that is evaluated.

1.1 Method of Procurement.

The US Army Engineering and Support Center Huntsville (HNC) intends to conduct this 42 U.S.C. 8287 acquisition in accordance with the provisions set forth in the RFP. From this RFP, a contract or order may be awarded to the utility provider that is determined to be able to provide the most advantageous/best value to the Government, all factors considered. Any contract(s) or order(s) issued will be Firm Fixed Price. The Government reserves the right to forego the Preliminary Assessment/Site Survey phase of UESC development and proceed directly in to the Investment Grade Audit/Detailed Feasibility Study phase with Price Proposal phase of the UESC award process.

2.0 Proposal Submittals. Proposals received after the due date and time specified in the RFP letter will be considered late and will not be evaluated.

2.1 If submitting an electronic (preferred) word searchable format proposal in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF -

Send via email to: barbara.l.osterkamp@usace.army.mil and jeffery.d.byrd@usace.army.mil

3.0 Proposal Format and Content.

The proposal should discuss in detail the work that will be performed as defined by the PWS/ECM(s) and what efforts the utility provider plans to perform. In addition, the proposal should include discussion on the Technical Approach, Previous Experience, Management Approach, Financial Capability, and Cost/Pricing factors. Utility providers are encouraged to liberally interpret the factors listed below to prepare a proposal that demonstrates innovativeness, resourcefulness, mailto:barbara.l.osterkamp@usace.army.mil mailto:jeffery.d.byrd@usace.army.mil experience, capability, etc., in order to execute the project scope. Format for the proposal shall be:

▪ Cover (not included in page count)

▪ Table of Contents (not included in page count)

▪ Executive Summary

▪ Tab 1 – Technical Approach

▪ Tab 2 – Previous Experience

▪ Tab 3 – Management Approach

▪ Tab 4 - Financial Capability

▪ Tab 5 – Past Performance

▪ Tab 6 - Cost/Pricing Factors

▪ Tab 7 - Small Business Participation Plan

▪ Tab 8 - Subcontracting Letter(s) of Commitment (not included in page count)

▪ Highlights (Not included in page count; 1 page maximum.

Provided for corporate and business overview information and will not be evaluated.

3.1 Proposal Volume Content.

Tab 1 – Technical Approach.

The Offeror should provide its best technical approach to accomplishing all work required in order to implement the project Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) listed on page 1 of the RFP letter. Your firm’s technical approach should demonstrate a thorough and complete understanding of all the requirements. It should be concise, as well as cover every aspect of the overarching work your firm will execute. Your proposal should also provide general details of the technical requirements/approach you expect to perform for each ECM listed. Any innovative technical approach that would provide an advantage for your firm in the determination should be identified. Any unique qualifications your firm possesses specific to the ECMs should be included.

Your proposal should also discuss any and all assumptions made when developing the technical approach. This section should be further detailed as follows:

• UESC project technical approach – Identify the approach that will be used to implement a UESC project to satisfy the requirements of the ECM(s).

• PWS/ECM technical approach – Identify the actions that will be taken and items that will be investigated with respect to the items identified in the PWS/ECM(s).

• Assumptions – List any assumptions made when developing the approach.

• Other – List any other pertinent technical approach information.

Tab 2 – Previous Experience.

The Offeror should provide details of no more than five (5) examples of projects which demonstrate the utility provider’s and/or its partner's/team member's experience in performing work that is similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to that as described in the PWS/ECM(s) for this RFP. Additional projects beyond the five (5) examples requested will not be evaluated.

The utility provider may include federal, state, and commercial work. The examples should include:

1. Projects that were completed or are substantially completed within the last three (3) years from the RFP issuance date.

2. A description of the project.

3. Project information such as size, complexity, and distinctive or unique features.

4. Whether the utility provider was the prime or subcontractor.

5. Descriptions of roles/duties in execution of the work (i.e. the major components of the project which were completed by the prime’s staff and major components which were subcontracted out including a funds percentage distribution).

6. Description of major unexpected issue(s) encountered and mitigation measures taken.

The Offeror should provide specific information to demonstrate that it or its partner/team member has relevant experience in the PWS/ECM activities. The experience of a subcontractor(s) will be evaluated only if a signed Letter of Commitment with that subcontractor(s) is included in the proposal.

Tab 3 – Management Approach.

The Offeror should provide:

1. A description of the key personnel with qualifications the utility provider determines to be essential to perform the various elements of this type work. The qualifications of the personnel and their relationship to the organization are more relevant than the name(s) of the personnel.

2. A schedule briefly identifying the major activities and duration through the end of the contract period.

3. Any expected issue(s)/challenges and a proposed resolution to the issue(s) of implementing the PWS/ECM(s) at the installation.

4. An approach for execution of this project including delineation between work that will be self-performed and work that will be subcontractor performed.

5. Strategies describing how risks associated with teaming/subcontracting arrangements will be eliminated.

Tab 4 – Financial Capability.

The Offeror shall demonstrate the ability to acquire third party financing or to self-finance projects of similar dollar value. Acceptable evidence of financing ability includes but is not limited to:

• Evidence (narrative format) that the Offeror has self-financed recent projects of similar dollar value.

• Evidence (narrative format) that the Offeror has obtained third party financing for recent projects of similar dollar value.

• A letter of interest from a financial institution/lender.

No more than three (3) financed projects will be evaluated.

Tab 5 - Past Performance.

Offeror shall provide a list of no more than five (5) most recent Federal Government third-party financed projects awarded for which implementation/construction has been completed. Include the location, date of award, contact name, contact phone number(s), and construction value of project.

The Government reserves the right to review the utility provider’s performance on current and past projects performed either for HNC for other Government agencies. The Government may consider relevant and reliable information of projects of similar scope, size and relevancy to the effort stated in the RFP/PWS, obtained from any other source (including information from Government personnel and data bases such as CPARS). The Government may evaluate the most current and relevant information, source, general trends in performance as well as other information such as quality of the final projects or work performed, timeliness of completing the work or meeting the milestones, and the utility provider's ability to manage and control its budget/costs, which may assist the Government towards assessing performance risk.

Tab 6 - Cost/Pricing Factor.

The Offeror shall provide a maximum overhead rate and profit/fee percentage that will be applied to all work that will be performed for the implementation effort.

The Offeror shall also provide a single maximum overhead rate and profit/fee percentage that will be applied to all work that will be performed during the performance period for items such as Operation and Maintenance (O&M), administration, or other.

At the time of contract award, the overall construction and performance period indirect and profit/rates percentage may be further negotiated downward, but cannot exceed the maximum proposed Markup rates.

Tab 7 - Small Business Participation Plan.

If the Offeror is a large business or a non-profit organization, it shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Although a non-profit organization is not considered a small or a large business under FAR 19.001, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is still required.

Tab 8 - Subcontracting Letter of Commitment.

Should the Offeror plan to enter into a teaming arrangement for this opportunity, the Offeror is required to provide a Subcontracting Letter of Commitment signed by the Prime Offeror and teaming partner under this tab if submitting the partner's/team member's experience under the Previous Experience tab. The Offeror shall identify the company relationship and the planned approach to successfully complete the project if a teaming or subcontracting agreement will be used for the project.

4.0 Proposal Evaluation Ratings and Importance of Factors.

4.1. The following factors will form the basis of this proposal evaluation. The Government will select the utility provider whose proposal best conforms to the RFP. The evaluation process uses adjectival ratings for all factors with the exception of Cost/Pricing (Mark-up) and Past Performance: Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable, explained in paragraph 4.2. The table below shows the relative importance of each rating factor. Factor 1 – Technical Approach, is of greater importance than Factor 2 – Previous Experience. Factor 2 - Previous Experience, is of greater importance than Factor 5 – Past Performance, which is of greater importance than Factor 4 – Financial Capability. Factor 3 – Management Approach, is of lesser importance than Factors 1, 2, 4 and 5. Cost/Pricing (Mark-up), is of greater importance than Factor 7 - Small Business Participation Plan. All non-Cost/Pricing (Mark-up) factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Pricing (Mark-up).

Factor Title Relative Importance 1 Technical Approach High 2 Previous Experience High 5 Past Performance Medium 4 Financial Capability Medium 3 Management Approach Medium 6 Cost/Pricing (Mark-up) Low 7 Small Business Participation Plan Low

NOTE on Factor 3 - Past Performance: If no other information is available, the Offeror will receive the ratings based on PPIRS and/or CPARS and any other relevant source of information.

See paragraph 4.3 for additional rating information.

4.2 Factors 1 through 4, 6 and 7, will be rated using the following adjectival ratings.

(i) Outstanding: Proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of requirements and utility provider’s proposal shows that they have significantly exceeded performance or capability standards. Proposal has multiple strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. Proposal represents very low risk that the utility provider’s performance of any work requirements will impact schedule, cost, or performance.

(ii) Good: Proposal demonstrates a good understanding of requirements and utility provider’s proposal shows that they have exceeded performance or capability standards. Proposal has strengths that will benefit the Government. Proposal represents low risk that the utility provider's performance of any work requirements will impact schedule, cost, or performance.

(iii) Acceptable: Proposal demonstrates understanding of the requirements. Proposal meets performance or capability standards, and demonstrates that it will meet the Government’s requirements. Proposal represents moderate risk that the utility provider's performance of any work requirements will impact schedule, cost, or performance.

(iv) Marginal: Proposal demonstrates shallow understanding of requirements and utility provider’s proposal only marginally meets performance or capability standards for minimal but acceptable contract performance. Proposal has no strengths that will benefit the Government and may have weaknesses that are detrimental to the Government. Proposal represents high risk that the utility provider's performance of any work requirements will impact schedule, cost, or performance

(v) Unacceptable: Proposal fails to meet performance or capability standards.

Requirements can only be met with major changes to the proposal. Proposal represents very high risk that the utility provider's performance of any work requirements will impact schedule, cost, or performance.

4.3 Past Performance risk ratings will be done for each Offeror.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements and delivering high quality products and services as indicated by that Offeror’s record of past performance. In this context, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime Contractor and its proposed partners. A Letter of Commitment must be provided from proposed partners. A “Contractor team arrangement” is an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime Contractor, or (2) a potential prime Contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program (see FAR 9.6). In either case, the prime Contractor and proposed key subcontractors will be assessed individually, and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the Offeror’s Past Performance rating. Past Performance of prime Contractors or partner's whose firms are divided into severable segments (i.e. division, group, unit, etc.) will only be evaluated as it relates to those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work. Past Performance references will reviewed to determine the relevancy of the Past Performance information. Past Performance must have occurred within the five years prior to closing date of this RFP and be similar in scope and complexity as the RFP effort to be considered relevant. The evaluation will use four levels of relevancy as shown in the bullets below. More relevant Past Performance will be treated as a stronger predictor of future success and will therefore have more influence on the overall performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Risk Rating Definition

Very Relevant:

Past performance effort is recent and involved essentially the same scope and complexity this solicitation requires.

Relevant:

Past performance effort is recent and involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexity this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant:

Past performance effort involved some of the scope and complexity this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant:

Past performance effort is not recent and/or involved little or none of the scope and complexity this solicitation requires.

When determining the overall Performance Confidence Assessment for an Offeror, the Government will take into consideration the following areas: demonstrated record of successful performance in comparable projects; demonstrated ability to select, retain, support and, when necessary, replace subcontractors; demonstrated implementation of corrective measures that have been implemented to resolve performance issues; demonstrated record of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; demonstrated record of cost and schedule management; and the degree of relevancy of all of the considered efforts. The Government will evaluate performance ratings by the customer (e.g. Past Performance Questionnaires). If the Government does not receive past performance information for the project(s) identified by the Offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, or if the Offeror has no past performance record, the Offeror will be given an “Unknown Confidence” assessment rating.

The Offeror is cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal in addition to data obtained from other sources.

Since the Government may not necessarily obtain information on all of the listed contract references and/or may not contact all of the identified POCs provided by the Offeror, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government may elect to consider data obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. In the event that adverse past performance information is obtained from other sources, the Offeror will have the opportunity to respond to any adverse information received which it had not had a previous opportunity to comment.

Confidence 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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

5.0 Evaluation Criteria.

The Government will evaluate the information submitted using adjectival ratings established in paragraph 4.1 based upon the requested information for each section as defined in Paragraphs

3.0 and 3.1.

Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate this tab based on the methods by which the Offeror will implement the project outlined in the PWS. The Government will subjectively evaluate the technical approach used to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the work and likelihood of success.

Previous Experience

The Government will evaluate Previous Experience based upon the Offeror’s and its partner/team member's demonstration of its ability to perform and successfully complete the type of work identified in the PWS. The Government will subjectively evaluate the previous experience demonstrated to determine the Offeror’s likelihood of success. Note: Partnership/team member arrangements for this project must be evidenced by a signed Subcontracting Letter of Commitment between the parties stating there will be a contractual relationship binding the utility provider and the partner/team member to performance should the projects identified in the future formal site survey be awarded.

NOTE: If an Offeror wishes the Government to consider the experience of a subcontractor, the Offeror is required to submit a Subcontracting Letter of Commitment.

Subcontracting Letter of Commitment

Any deviation from the commitment letter will require advance approval of the Contracting Officer, both before and after award.

Management Approach

The Government will evaluate management based on the Offeror's understanding of the work and ability to successfully complete the work as identified in the PWS. The Government will subjectively evaluate the management applied.

Financial Capability

The Government will evaluate this tab based on the Offeror's demonstrated ability to self-finance or acquire third party financing.

Past Performance

Past Performance will be evaluated using adjectival rating factors (Low Risk, Moderate Risk, High Risk, and Unknown Risk). The Offeror will receive the ratings assessed in CPARS and/or PPIRS, and any other relevant source of information. See paragraph 4.3 for additional rating information.

Cost/Pricing Factors

Since the total cost of the anticipated project is unknown at this time, for allocation purposes, utilize 80% for the construction effort, and 20% for the performance period efforts. Therefore, accordingly, the construction period Mark-up will be more heavily weighted than the performance period Mark-up, although both will impact the Cost/Pricing factor rating.

Small Business Participation Plan Goals

Each Offeror's proposal (large business and non-profit business Offerors) will be evaluated based on the level of small business commitment demonstrated for the proposed acquisition. The following shall evidence small business participation:

• The extent to which small business firms, as identified in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 19, are specifically identified in the proposal;

• The extent of commitment to use small business firms (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

• The complexity and variety of the work small businesses are to perform;

• The realism of the proposed Small Business Participation Plan;

• The percent of dollar participation of small business firms compared with the total estimated value of the acquisition, to include Small Disadvantaged Business percentage by the North American Industry Classification Code System (NAICS).

• The Offeror's detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation percentages.

OCT 2015

OCT 2016

OCT 2015

NOV 2015

JAN 2017

SEP 2016

OCT 2015

FEB 2016

COT 2015

JUN 2016

JUN 2016

DFARS 252.204.7012 – Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident

OCT 2015

MAR 2016

DEC 2016

DEC 2016

DEC 2016

JAN 2017

RFP: W912DY-17-R-UES3 Attachment 4 Page 1 of 1

Letter of Commitment for Key Subcontractors Fort Campbell, KY

Energy Savings Initiatives

LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY SUBCONTRACTOR

TO: Contracting Officer

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Contract/Order for _____________________.

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby make the unequivocal commitment hat, in the event of an award of a contract/order to [fill in name of utility provider], that [fill in name of key subcontractor] will fulfill the duties of [state role on the project].

Sincerely, Title of Official ______________________

Date _______________________________

RFP: W912DY-17-R-UES3 Attachment 5

Service Contract Act and Davis-Bacon Act Wage Determinations may be found on this website:

https://www.wdol.gov

RFP: 17-R-UES3 Attachment 6 January 30, 2017

1. General. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.236-13, Alt I, Accident Prevention (FAR 52.236-13), the Contractor shall comply with the latest version of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Safety and Health Requirements Manual 385-1-1 (EM 385-1-1), including any interim revisions, in effect at the time of the solicitation. EM 385-1-1 and its changes are available at: http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-manuals/EM_385-1- 1_languages/EM_385-1-1_English_2008/toc.html

2. Safety Health Program. The Contractor is required by regulation to develop and maintain a written Safety and Health Program (SHP) in compliance with the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), EM 385-1-1, 29 CFR1910, 29 CFR 1926, 29 CFR 1960, and FAR 52.236-13. The Contractor shall submit this plan to the Contracting Officer for review after contract award and prior to the commencement of any work under the awarded contract.

3. Site Specific Accident Prevention Plan (APP). The Contractor will be required to submit an accident prevention plan to the Contracting Officer within 21 days after the site visit and no later than 21 days before start of work. Accident Prevention Plans (APP) shall address applicable items listed in Appendix A (Minimum Basic Outline for Accident Prevention Plans) of EM 385-1-1 in addition to the other applicable requirements of EM 385-1-1 and OSHA requirements. The plan shall be site specific and shall also address any unusual or unique aspects of the project or activity for which it is written. The Contractor shall coordinate with the facility representatives or facility contractor, on first aid, emergency phone numbers, response plans, site evacuation plans, evacuation drills, etc. The APP shall include site specific Activity Hazard Analysis (AHAs) for the project. The APP is the document that details how the safety and health requirements of OSHA;

other regulatory codes and documents; and EM 385-1-1 are to be accomplished. The APP with AHAs shall be submitted to the Government by cover letter from the Contractor.

4. Abbreviated Accident Prevention Plan (AAPP). The Contractor will be required to submit an AAPP to the Contracting Officer prior to commencement of any site visit. The Contractor shall prepare a “fill-in-the-blank” template AAPP to be used for all site visits. The AAPP shall be adapted to sites specified in the individual task/delivery orders and shall be prepared prior to each site visit. The AAPP shall be submitted to the USAESCH Safety Office for acceptance before any work under this contract is awarded. An example of an AAPP can be obtained by contacting the Safety Office.

5. Site and Safety Health Officer (SSHO). Per FAR 52.236-13 Accident Prevention that references Per EM 385-1-1, ; 01.A.17 the SSHO shall be an employee other than the supervisor and a full-time responsibility unless specified in the contract. The SSHO shall meet the minimum training requirements stated in EM 385-1-1; 01A.17.b.

6. Accident Reporting and Exposure: Monthly Man-hour reporting. In accordance with EM 385- 1-1, the Contractor shall complete a monthly summary report of accident experience, exposure, restricted duty (RD) and lost work days (LWD). The report shall be on the electronic data collection tool provided by the USAESCH Safety described as total hours associated where workers are exposed to the activity hazards and forwarded to the Government Designated Authority (GDA) no later than close of business (COB) the 10th day of the following month. The http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-manuals/EM_385-1-1_languages/EM_385-1-1_English_2008/toc.html http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-manuals/EM_385-1-1_languages/EM_385-1-1_English_2008/toc.html

RFP: 17-R-UES3 Attachment 6 January 30, 2017

Government Designated Authority will be identified in the individual delivery/task orders.

Exposure hours and RD or LWD cases will be copy furnished to the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville (USAESCH), ATTN: CEHNC-SO. The data must be submitted to arrive at the USAESCH not later than 10 calendar days after the end of each month. The information cut-off date will be the last day of each month. The monthly submission must include the title of the report, i.e., Accident Exposure Data Report, contract number, task order number, project site, month and year for which the report is made, a point of contact listing both email address and telephone number, and number of lost workday accidents to include total days lost. If no hours are worked on the project/task, a report showing “zero (0)” is required.