W912HN-10-R-0056-0004.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 07-Jul-2011 02:00 PM to 15-Jul-2011 02:00 PM.

The solicitation issue date has changed from 22-Jun-2011 to 30-Jun-2011.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for a Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) under which task orders shall include preparation of such documents as Project Management Plans, Reconnaissance Studies, Feasibility Studies, or parts of same (Formulation, Economics, Engineering, Environmental, etc.). Also, provide a complete array of environmental compliance services in support of Savannah District’s Civil Works, Regulatory, Military Programs, and the International and Interagency Services Program. Environmental compliance services shall include such work as preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, cultural resource surveys, wetland delineations and mitigation plans, natural resource management support, and other types of service as specified in detail in Section C of the solicitation.

1.2 The evaluation process will be conducted utilizing the BEST VALUE method (trade-off analysis). This method entails an analysis of each proposal with respect to pre-established criteria for the following factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. Technical is divided into three sub-factors: Technical Approach, Previous Experience and Key Personnel. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other. Rather, evaluators will use an adjectival rating system to assess the merits of the proposal and to depict how proposals meet solicitation requirements and standards. Evaluators will also perform separate evaluations of proposal and performance risk. The proposal risk assessment will be used to evaluate the risks associated with an offeror’s proposed approach for accomplishing the RFP requirements. Performance Risk Analysis will be used to evaluate an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP. Using the adjectival rating system will allow maximum flexibility in making the trade-offs among the evaluation factors. The key to making this rating method successful is to ensure source selection is performed impartially, equitably, comprehensively, efficiently, and free from outside influence.

1.3 Narrative supporting statements will be used in conjunction with the adjectival ratings. Evaluators will identify deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and risks applicable to each proposal. Narrative statements will then be used to describe identified strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks in an expanded way that adjectives alone cannot. Narrative statements will be of sufficient detail to allow the SSA to differentiate between two offers that receive the same adjectival rating and to make an informed and reasoned selection.

1.4 Price will be evaluated (but will not receive an adjectival rating) for completeness and reasonableness. The price will be reviewed to ensure a fair and reasonable price in accordance with FAR 15.805-2. Price analysis techniques may include the following: price comparison with offeror’s, price comparison with previously negotiated contract; price comparison with independent government cost estimates; and review of proposals for unbalanced pricing.

1.5 In cases where the evaluation team cannot agree on the evaluation result, it should be ascertained that none of the evaluators have misunderstood or misinterpreted any aspects of the proposal evaluation. If no misunderstanding or misinterpretation exists and there is still a significant difference of opinion between group members, a minority opinion should be issued. This technique will ultimately provide the SSA the tools to develop an overall assessment of the Offerors’ proposals. A narrative description of the minority opinions should be made part of the Summary Report to the SSEB Chairman.

1.6 Evaluation findings will be completely documented to provide an audit trail of each determination made and the basis thereof. Worksheets and related papers showing derivation of findings and supporting data will be retained in the SSEB files. All documentation must be prepared legibly and include appropriate references, the data to support the evaluation findings, and the name(s) of the participating and concurring evaluator(s).

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal.

2.2 Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered 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. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. The Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement.

2.3 If applicable, the Offeror shall submit evidence from the Offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel. For 8(a) set-aside procurements, all prospective Joint Ventures must comply with Title 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 124.513. For HUBZone set- aside procurements and awards to HUBZone SBCs through full and open competition after a price evaluation preference in favor of qualified HUBZone SBCs, a Joint Venture must comply with 13 CFR 126.616.

2.4 Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant to this acquisition. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight, if any, of the information to this procurement. Where information about a subcontractor is properly submitted and given significant weight during the evaluation, the failure of the Offeror to actually perform with that subcontractor may be grounds for termination for default.

2.5 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in Block 7 of Standard Form 33.

2.6 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT:

3.1 Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. If more than one binder is used, the complete table of contents shall be included in each. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.3 Printed Matter Submissions. Written material shall be on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper printed in no less than a 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Pages in excess of any specified limitation shall not be evaluated. A single 8 ½ x 11 inch sheet with written material on one side only shall constitute one page. However, if both sides of the sheet bear written material then this single sheet shall be counted as two pages.

3.4 Binders. Proposals shall be submitted in tabbed, three ring binders.

3.5 Number of Copies. Offerors shall submit an original of Volume One and an original and six (6) hard copies of Volume Two.

3.6 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I – Price/Representative/Compensation

TAB A – Standard Form 33, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

TAB B – Proposal Pricing Schedule, Schedule B.

TAB C – Section K – Representations and Cerifications

TAB D – Proposal Data Sheet – See Attachment 1 provided at the end of this section. Offerors should ensure telephone number; fax number, e-mail address and DUNS number are all included. DUNS number will be used to access Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data. Offerors should also provide any other assigned number that identifies them in the CPARS database. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must be submitted. A DUNS number shall also be provided for each company identified in any other proposed association of firms or Contractor Team Arrangement. The offeror should also submit their Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB E – Teaming Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 2.2, Note to 8(a)—SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture. See paragraph 2.3.

TAB F - Financial Information & Bonding Capability (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings and/or number, etc.) Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount.

TAB G – Subcontracting Plan – FOR LARGE BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY. Subcontracting Plan shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, and SBA’s Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) located at http://esrs.gov. Instructions for the completion of requisite forms, as well as guidance on coordinating and preparing all compliance reviews by Federal agencies can be found at the website. Offerors are to ensure subcontractors agree to submit to ESRS. Savannah District’s assigned subcontracting goals are as reflected in Section H, Special Contract Requirements - Subcontracting Plan for Small Business.

HAND-CARRIED OR MAILED PROPOSALS

HAND CARRIED PROPOSAL SUBMISSION, except for delivery by Federal Express, United Parcel Service and DHL, IS NOT AUTHORIZED.

Mailed proposals must be clearly identified with the contractor’s name and address. To ensure timely and proper handling, the lower left corner of the outermost wrapper should indicate the following:

Request For Proposal No: W912HN-10-R-0056

Due Date of Proposal: July 15, 2011

Time by which Proposals are Due: 2:00 P.M. (E.T.)

Title of Project: PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES The Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf as indicated below.

Proposals delivered by commercial carrier and those sent by U.S. Mail, including U.S. Express Mail, must be addressed as indicated below.

U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah

ATTN: CECT-SAS-E (Nikisha Weston)

100 West Oglethorpe Avenue

Savannah, Georgia 31401-3640

Proposals sent by U.S. Mail or delivered by commercial carrier must be received by mailroom personnel on the first floor of 100 West Oglethorpe Avenue by the time specified in Block 13 of the SF 1442 for receipt of proposals.

Offerors are cautioned that proposals sent via United States Postal Service Express Mail are first delivered to the Savannah District Post Office Box instead of 100 West Oglethorpe Avenue, “the office designated for receipt of proposals” therefore, allow sufficient mailing time.

VOLUME II - Technical

TAB H – FACTOR 1 Technical Experience

TAB I – FACTOR 2 Past Performance

4. TAB H- FACTOR 1 Technical Experience

4.1 Submission Requirements.

4.1.1 The offeror should demonstrate a comprehension of the role and function of this contract. The offeror should demonstrate the ability to accomplish the work described in paragraph 2.0 (Technical Requirements) of Section C of the RFP. This includes but is not limited to:

a. Management and preparation of reconnaissance and feasibility level planning studies for water resources projects. This includes the necessary economic, environmental, and cultural resources data collection, analyses, documentation, and report preparation.

b. Conducting studies and preparing reports in support of the District’s Operation and Maintenance Program

c. Providing a full array of sediment and water quality sample collection and analyses capabilities in both aquatic and marine habitats.

d. Providing a full array of environmental resources and cultural resources capabilities including data collection, analyses, documentation, and report preparation.

4.1.2 Projects must be deemed relevant to be considered for this procurement. Relevant projects are those projects which meet the minimum criteria specified in paragraph 4.1.2.1. Projects which do not meet the minimum criteria specified SHALL be deemed not relevant and shall not be considered further. Relevant projects which meet some or all of the additional criteria specified in paragraph 4.1.2.2 may be given more weight by the Government in determining the appropriate rating. The Government will not consider multiple projects such as individual task orders combined to meet the criteria referenced in 4.1.2 below. Offerors are cautioned to focus experience submissions on projects wherein the Offeror, or proposed team members, played a significant role and to clearly define those roles.

4.1.2.1 Minimum Criteria: Minimum Criteria: Minimum Criteria: Projects submitted by the Offeror should be at least $300,000.

4.1.2.2 Additional Requirements

Personnel Qualifications and Availability

The contractor shall have access to qualified personnel during the contract period to perform the various tasks that will be required in the task orders. Qualified personnel may consist of personnel employed by the contractor or by proposed subcontractors. The contractor should demonstrate that they have access to the following disciplines with the required education and experience.

Program Manager

Bachelor of Science (S) in scientific or engineering field

5 years of experience in the administration and management of Civil Works and Environmental Programs

Project Manager

Bachelor of Science (S) in scientific or engineering field

5 years of experience in project management

Hydrologist

BS in scientific or engineering field with course work in hydrology

2-years experience relating to hydrologic field investigations

Hydraulic Engineer

BS in hydrologic engineering

2-years practical experience in the field of hydraulic engineering

Civil Engineer

BS in Civil Engineering

2 years of experience in engineering

Environmental Engineer

BS in engineering field with course work in environmental engineering

2 years of practical experience

Transportation Engineer

B.S. in Civil Engineering or equivalent.

2 years of practical experience.

Water Resources Engineer

B.S. in Civil Engineering or equivalent

2 years of practical experience.

Economist

BS in economics

2 years experience in economics

Financial Analyst

Degree in economics or business

2 years experience in related field

Marine Resource Transportation Specialist

Degree in economics

2 years experience in economics

Socioeconomic Impact Analyst

BS in economics

2 years experience in economics

City Planner

BS degree in engineering or architecture

2 years experience as a city planner

General Biologist

BS in Biology

2 years of experience relating to biological field investigations in southeastern US

Wildlife Biologist

BS in wildlife biology or BS in biology with course emphasis in wildlife biology.

2 years of experience relating to environmental field surveys in the southeastern US

Fisheries Biologist

BS in fishery biology or BS in biology with emphasis on fishery biology

2 years field experience in fishery studies

Botanist

BS in botany or BS in biology with emphasis in plant science

2 years of field experience relating to flora surveys in the southeastern US

Forester

BS in Forestry

2 years of experience in forestry related field investigations

Soil Scientist

BS in scientific or engineering field with course work in soil sciences

2 years experience in field surveys relating to soils investigations

Archaeologist

Archeologist M.A. in Anthropology, Archeology, History, or a related field with specialized training in Archaeology

Minimum of one year of full-time supervisory experience

Historian

B.A. in American History American Studies, or American Civilizations

Knowledge of basic historic preservation privileges

Historical Architect

Bachelor’s degree in landscape architecture or architecture

Knowledge of historic preservation principles

Landscape Architect

Bachelor’s degree in landscape architecture or architecture

Basic knowledge of historic preservation principles

Marine Survey Archeologist

Graduate degree in archeology

At least one year of supervised experience in marine survey archaeology, including inshore and offshore training in the operation of remote sensing devices and analysis and interpretation of data

Senior Archaeological Diver

Graduate degree in archaeology with at least one year of supervised experience in archival research, underwater archeological testing and mitigation of wrecks and other structures, analysis of data, and preparation of reports

A current nationally recognized certification in first aid and CPR. First aid training should include the use of oxygen systems

Verification of satisfactory completion of medical fitness examination and an approval for diving performed by a licensed physician within the last twelve months

A current nationally recognized basic SCUBA certification

Knowledge of the diving requirements outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual EM 385-1-1dated 3 November 2003.

Meets the training requirements outlined in Health Requirements Manual EM 385-1-1 dated

3 November 2003.

Experience in blackwater diving environments

Experience in surface-air supplied diving.

Archeological Diver

A Bachelor’s degree in anthropology, archeology, and/or history and a graduate-level field school in nautical archaeology or a Bachelor’s degree in anthropology, archeology, and/or history and at least two months of supervised experience in underwater archeological testing and mitigation

A current nationally recognized certification in first aid and CPR. First aid training should include the use of oxygen systems.

Verification of satisfactory completion of medical fitness examination and an approval for diving performed by a licensed physician within the last twelve months.

A current, nationally recognized basic SCUBA certification

Knowledge of the diving requirements outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual EM 385-1-1, dated 3 September 1996

Experience in blackwater diving environments

Experience in surface-air supplied diving

Conservator

BS in chemistry or related field or 3 years experience as curator

Knowledgeable of effects of chemicals and environment on materials/artifacts

Physical Anthropologist

Masters Degree in Anthropology, specializing in biological, physical anthropology.

3 years experience in identifying and analyzing human skeletal remains in the field or museum setting.

Archeological Technician

Bachelors Degree in Anthropology, Archaeology, or related field and an archaeological field school, or 2 years experience working on projects in the field and in the laboratory.

Registered Land Surveyor

Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering/Land Surveying/Geodesy

2 years experience with boundary surveys, topographic surveys, GPS surveying and GIS projects.

Licensed by examination as a Registered Land Surveyor in state of GA, SC, or NC

GIS Specialist

Bachelors Degree in Geography, Environmental Science or related field.

2 years experience with geographic information systems (ESRI products) including computer graphics and computer hardware digitizing procedures as well as Trimble GPS equipment.

Chemist

BS in chemistry

2 years experience

Geologist

BS in geology

2 years experience

Water Quality Specialist

BS in scientific or engineering field

2 years experience with work relating to EPA and/or state water quality standards

Computer Programmer

Technical school training in computer programming field

2 years practical experience in computer programming field

Graphics Operator

Technical school training in graphics field

2 years practical experience in the operation of various graphics equipment

Technical Assistant

2 years practical experience relating to assisting with data collection and analyses

Clerical

2 years of practical experience in the clerical field

Knowledge of Issues

The Offeror should demonstrate a comprehension of the role and function of this contract in meeting the needs of the Savannah District Corps of Engineers. The Offeror should submit an example of a recent report delivered by the proposed study team. The Offeror should also address their qualifications relative to the following issues.

a. Practical experience in applying the Federal and State laws, regulations, and guidance in the following areas: protected species, wetlands, flood control, navigation, hydropower, shoreline protection, and environmental restoration and water supply.

b. A working knowledge of the geographic areas which this contract will cover as evidenced by previous work in the region (Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina).

c. The degree to which Contractor's experience has been demonstrated in multi-purpose projects in coastal communities and coastal environments, similar to those likely to be encountered in potential work assignments.

d. Knowledge of the concepts, principles, and practices of current issues to applicable to ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance notebook.

e. Knowledge of applications of database management programs, Global Positioning Systems, Geographic Information Systems and/or CADD systems to the technical areas previously discussed.

f. The ability to prepare well-organized and concise analytical reports.

Management Plan

The Offeror should provide a management plan for fulfillment of the proposed contract. Offerors shall include the following information in their proposals:

a. A demonstrated expertise and ability for rapid turn-around and flexibility on short-term projects.

b. Proposed subcontractors and extent of involvement in the performance of this contract.

c. The capability to effectively direct multiple simultaneous work assignments.

d. An ability to provide, integrate, and utilize interdisciplinary study teams effectively on assignments requiring a variety of skills and expertise from in-house resources.

e. Methods for assuring product quality, cost control, delivery schedule, and project oversight.

4.1.3 Offerors must provide a list of at least 3 Project Information Sheets (e.g. similar in size, scope, and complexity of the work required in the RFP) and applicable subcontracts completed by the offeror during the past three (3) years. In addition, offerors must list all relevant contracts and subcontracts currently in progress. Contracts listed may include those entered into with the Federal Government, agencies of state and local governments and commercial customers. Offerors that are newly formed entities without prior contracts should list contracts and subcontracts, as required above, for all key personnel. As a minimum the Project Information Sheet shall provide:

· Name of contracting activity

· Contract number

· Contract type

· Total contract value

· Description of service

· Period of performance

· Name and number of Contracting Officer

· Name and number of Program Manager

· Name and number of Administrative Contracting Officer

· List of major subcontractors

b. Offerors may provide information on problems encountered on the contracts and subcontracts identified above and the corrective actions taken to resolve those problems. Offerors should not provide general information on their performance on the identified contracts. The Offeror shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire to the Point of Contact for each project listed. A sample Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire is included as Attachment 1 to this solicitation. When completed, these forms shall be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the Savannah District Contract Specialist identified in the sample transmittal letter also attached to this solicitation. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire is provided to the references, since the Government may not make additional requests for past performance information from the references. The evaluation form shall be provided to the Savannah District Contract Specialist directly from the reference Point of Contact for each project. Offerors should note that the Past Performance Questionnaire is a tool the Government intends to use in the gathering and validation of general performance information.

c. Offerors shall provide information on contracts that provide the best evidence of experience in the performance of functions in the Performance Work Statement. The balance of the narrative shall be organized so that presentation of Relevant Experience and Past Performance Record is included.

4.2 Evaluation Criteria.

4.2.1. There are three factors for evaluation: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are more important than Price. Technical is more important than Past Performance. Technical is comprised of three sub-factors: Technical Approach, Previous Experience (Environmental Compliance Services- Planning studies and reports, and engineering reports and surveys) and Key Personnel.

4.2 See Attachment 1, Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, for information provided to Offerors on proposal submission and criteria.

4.3 See Attachment 2, Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, for additional discussion of evaluation methodology and specific evaluation elements.

4.4 Adjectival Rating Scales.

Adjectival rating scales specified in this section are to be used in the assessment and evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each offeror’s proposal. The Government will also assess the relative risks associated with each offeror and each proposal as an inherent part of the best value decision process. Evaluators will determine the degree of risk associated with each competing offeror based on the potential of each offeror’s proposed approach to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. The evaluator’s assessment of proposal and performance risk will be integrated into the ratings for Technical and Past Performance.

Proposal risk is an overall assessment derived from the technical evaluation and is driven by each of the sub-factors within the Technical factor. Performance risk is associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by the offeror’s record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed by the evaluation of past performance information furnished by the offeror as well as similar information independently collected by the Government. As such, there are distinct and separate evaluations and rating scales for the Technical factor versus the Past Performance factor. Price is not a factor in considering proposal risk.

4.5 Technical Factor Scales.

During the evaluation of the Technical factor, evaluators will use the following rating scale to classify the quality of an offeror’s technical merit and risk.

Excellent – Excellent in all respects; offers one or more significant advantages not offset by disadvantages; very good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Good – High quality in most respects; offers one or more advantages not offset by disadvantages; good probability of success with overall low to moderate degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Satisfactory – Adequate quality; any advantages are offset by disadvantages; fair probability of success with overall moderate to high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Marginal – Overall quality cannot be determined because of errors, omissions or deficiencies which are capable of being corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal.

Unsatisfactory – A proposal which contains major errors, omissions or deficiencies, or an unacceptably high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements; and these conditions cannot be corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal.

5. TAB I FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 Past performance refers to the quality of recent, relevant project experience from the owner’s perspective. The Offeror shall complete and provide a Past Performance Assessment Sheet (Attachment 3) on no more than three (3) projects total; inclusive of team member submissions, if any. Projects submitted under this factor must first be deemed relevant in accordance with the minimum criteria specified in paragraph 4.1.2 before being evaluated for quality in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph 5.3. Offerors are cautioned to focus past performance submissions on projects wherein the Offeror or proposed team member played a significant role and to clearly define those roles. The Offeror shall provide clear and adequate information in response to the past performance elements identified on Attachment 3. Though not required, ideally project past performance information submitted under this factor would be on the same projects submitted for consideration under Factor 1. Individual project Past Performance Assessment Sheets shall not exceed five (5) pages. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. The Government will call and confirm information provided by the offeror on the Past Performance Assessment Sheet with the points of contact, to the extent necessary to conduct a meaningful evaluation. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available.

5.1.2 Other Sources. The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the Offeror for information with respect to past performance. These other sources may include but are not limited to: Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), other Government sources, and telephone interviews with organizations or individuals familiar with the Offeror’s performance. CCASS ratings on all relevant projects submitted by the Offeror under factor Corporate Relevant Experience as well as up to five (5) additional CCASS ratings on recent, relevant projects in accordance with 5.2.3 and 4.1.2 will be considered.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance using the sources available to it including but not limited to: the example projects identified by the Offeror and submitted on the Past Performance Assessment Sheets and any additional information received from references, ACASS, and CCASS or other sources. Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond if such information is determined to impact the rating to be assessed.

5.2.2 The Government will consider past performance of the prime construction contractor and the design firm, (or the prime contractor if design is to be self-performed). If a firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate the past performance of the unit or division submitting the offer. The Government may also consider the past performance information submitted on any other team member. However, in accordance with paragraphs 2.2 and 2.4, above, the consideration and weight given to past performance information concerning other than the prime contractor will be based on the extent of involvement of the team member in the project and the adequacy of the proposal in identifying and addressing such arrangements and roles. Past performance information submitted on a team member who does not perform a major or critical role on the project or whose role has not been clearly or adequately described as required will not be considered. Where the Government views an Offeror’s role, or that of its team members, if any, as not significant or as not clearly defined, the Government reserves the right to view this lack of involvement, or clarity, as a risk which may impact an Offeror’s rating for this factor despite the quality of recent, relevant past performance information.

5.2.3 The Government will consider recent, relevant projects that are successfully completed, or substantially completed within 5 years preceding the date of the solicitation. To be deemed relevant, projects must comply with criteria specified herein and that of paragraph 4.1.2. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. The Government places higher value on projects for which successful performance can be validated by means other than the Offeror’s self-assessment such as through independent telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CCASS/ACCASS or other agency performance databases, Offeror furnished references or personal knowledge. The Government places a higher value on projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the Offeror used to resolve problems successfully.

5.2.4 Offerors are cautioned that the submission of each Past Performance Assessment Sheet shall not exceed five (5) pages and that Government evaluators will review and evaluate only the information contained on the first five pages.

5.3 The Government will evaluate past performance based on the elements listed below:

5.3.1 Quality of the Product. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the quality of the product and the standards of workmanship exhibited by the Offeror.

5.3.2 Timeliness of Performance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the completion of projects within the scheduled completion times.

5.3.3 Customer Satisfaction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to customer satisfaction, cooperation with customers, and interaction on past projects.

5.3.4 Subcontractor Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to effective management of subcontractors on past projects.

5.3.5 Safety. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the contractor’s safety program or efforts.

5.4 If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the Offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

5.6 Past Performance Factor Scale.

During the evaluation of the Past Performance factor, evaluators will use the following rating scale to classify the quality of an offeror’s past performance and assess performance risk. For purposes of this evaluation, relevant past performance is determined by identification of relevant experience and the subsequent evaluation of the past performance record for identified relevant experience. (Offeror’s with no relevant experience or relevant experience for which no performance record exists, will be given a neutral/unknown risk rating.)

Neutral/Unknown Risk (NU) No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the offeror or key team members/subcontractors or their key personnel. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

Unsatisfactory/Very High Risk (UH) Based on the offeror’s past performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Offeror’s past performance record contains serious problem(s) for which the offeror’s corrective action(s) appear to be, or were, ineffective.

Marginal/High Risk (MH) Based on the offeror’s past performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Offeror’s past performance record reflects a serious problem for which either the offeror has not yet identified corrective action(s), or the proposed corrective action(s) appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Satisfactory/Moderate Risk (SM) Based on the offeror’s past performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Offeror’s past performance record indicates some minor problem(s) for which corrective action(s) taken by the offeror appear to be, or were, satisfactory.

Very Good/Low Risk (VL) Based on the offeror’s past performance record little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Offeror’s past performance record indicates performance was accomplished with some minor problem(s) for which corrective action(s) taken by the offeror were effective.

Exceptional/Very Low Risk (EL) Based on offeror’s past performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Offeror’s past performance record indicates performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective action(s) taken by the Offeror were highly effective.

6. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

7. NON-COST FACTORS:

FACTOR 1: Technical EXPERIENCE: This factor is more in importance than Factor 2.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE: This factor is less in importance than Factor 1.

8. Price all non-cost factors, when combined, are more important than Price.

9. BASIS FOR AWARD

9.1 Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility.

9.2 In order to determine which proposal(s) represent the best value, the Government will compare proposals to one another. The Government will award one contract to the responsible Offeror whose technical submittal contains the combination of those criteria described in this document offering the best value to the Government. Best value will be determined by a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP.

9.3 The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer(s). The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers.

9.4 Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

ATTACHMENT 1

TAB D

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

W912HN-10-R-0056

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES

1. Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

DUNS # (used for accessing CCASS)

Tax ID #

If a joint ventureor contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide DUNS for each.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

2. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

[List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.]

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

ATTACHMENT 2

TAB I

CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

DATA SHEET

W912HN-10-R-0056

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES

Project Title:

Location:

Address of building(s):

Contract number:

If applicable, Task Order Number:

Nature of involvement in this project, i.e. General Contractor, subcontractor, designer, or other:

Level of involvement in this project in terms of specific work performed:

Procuring activity:

Procurement point of contact and telephone number:

List date of construction completion or percent completion if construction is underway:

Total cost:

Indicate type of project (private sector, Government, planned unit development, etc.):

General description of project:

List the relevant criteria associated with this project in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2:

ATTACHMENT 3

TAB J

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SHEET

W912HN-10-R-0056

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES

For each project provide the following information:

Project Title:

Location:

Address of building(s):

Contract number:

If applicable, Task Order number:

Procuring activity:

Procurement point of contact and telephone number:

Date of Award:

Status: Active _________ (provide percent complete)

Complete __________ (provide completion date)

Total cost:

Total cost of all modifications:

Indicate type of project (private sector, Government, planned unit development, etc.):

General description of project:

List the relevant criteria associated with this project in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2:

For each project provide the following assessment:

QUALITY OF STUDIES/REPORTS:

Describe your company’s performance in complying with contract requirements, quality achieved, and overall technical expertise demonstrated.

TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

Describe your company’s timeliness of performance in the following areas:

Was the contract completed ahead of schedule or on time, if not why?

Were liquidated damages assessed, if so provide an explanation?

Did the award amount or delivery schedule change, if so why?

If any issues were identified, how were they resolved?

If a problem surfaced, what actions were taken to fix it?

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

Describe your company’s assessment of the customer’s satisfaction in relation to Quality, Cost, and Schedule.

SUBCONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT:

Describe your company’s assessment of how well subcontractors, suppliers, and the labor force were managed and coordinated.

What was the relationship between your company and subcontractors?

Did the subcontractors perform the bulk of the effort or just add breadth or depth on particular technical areas?

SAFETY:

Describe your company’s assessment in complying with safety standards and the effectiveness of your company’s safety program.

ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

Describe your company’s assessment on any weak/strong points identified throughout the project.

For each project, please provide the name, title, Government agency or commercial organization, email address and phone number of three current or previous Points of Contact. Persons identified below should be able to confirm your company’s assessment of this project and be able to answer any other questions the Government might have about the performance of this project.

Name: ______________________________________________________

Title: _______________________________________________________

Organization: ________________________________________________

Email address:________________________________________________

Phone: ______________________________________________________

Email address:________________________________________________

Phone: ______________________________________________________

Email address:________________________________________________

Phone: ______________________________________________________

TERMINATED PROJECTS:

Attach a list of any projects within the last three years that have been terminated. Provide an explanation, as well as a Point of Contact (Name, organization, email, phone number) for each terminated project.

The following have been deleted:

NOTE TO OFFERORS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been deleted:

(End of Summary of Changes)