B.08 MFR PMFX Amendment 0002 7.25.23.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Incorporate upated Performance Work Statements for the Northeast Region, dated 07202023, and Midw est Region, dated 07252023.

2. Revise Section M, Mandatory Sources of Services to include "Custodial, Grounds Maintenance, and Solid Waste Service at Marine Corp Reserve Training Center (MCTC), Lynchburg, NC." And to update the Source America Points of Contact.

3. Revise Section L, Proposal Submission to direct offerors to submit proposals via the PIEE System.

Please See Summary of Changes

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-Jul-2023

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 W912HP23R3000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Jul-2023

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 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

25-Jul-2023

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CHARLESTON

69-A HAGOOD AVENUE

CHARLESTON SC 29403

W912HP 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HP23R3000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. Introduction. To ensure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. The Offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this section of the Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation at or before the exact time specified. There will be public opening of the proposals received as a result of this RFP. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Copies of the RFP are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All RFP documents will be made available for viewing at the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website (http://www.fbohome.sam.gov). All amendments will be made available for viewing on FBO. It shall be the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website for amendments.

2. Inquiries. Offerors with technical inquiries shall submit their inquiries in writing via “Bidder Inquiry” in ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet. The bidder inquiry key is E3TEB6-5E8TA6. The government reserves the right to decline addressing certain questions. Further, no questions, unless in the government’s interest, will be answered any later than ten business days prior to the stated deadline for offers. All Offerors are encouraged to register on ProjNet for alerts so as to stay abreast of Q&A’s that are posted in reference to this solicitation. Only self-registered users on ProjNet can submit & review inquiries. To self-register, go to the webpage, click BID tab, select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter the key for this solicitation listed above and your email address. After initial login, enter all the required information to create your user ID. Verify the information on the next screen and from there you may submit and view inquiries. Those submitting inquiries will receive a system generated email notification when their inquiry has been processed and answered. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to monitor for inquiries and responses.

3. General Proposal Submission Requirements.

a. Regional Contract Submittals. For each regional contract the offeror is proposing on, submit a Volume I, Non-Price Proposal and Volume II, Price Proposal.

Ex. Offeror is proposing on the Northeast and Central regional contracts, offeror shall submit two Volume I and two Volume II proposals, one each for the Northeast and Central region. Each Volume must be clearly marked as to what regional contract (Southeast, Northeast, Central, or Midwest) volume is written for.

b. Electronic Proposals. In an effort to reduce paperwork and costs, ALL

RESPONSES TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED

ELECTRONICALLY. Hand carried delivery or USPS/UPS/Fedex delivery of hard copies and/or CD-ROMs are not authorized. Facsimile submission is not authorized. Email submission is not authorized. ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED THROUGH THE PROCURMENT INTERGRATED

ENTERPRISE ENVIRONMENT SYSTEM (PIEE). The PIEE System has information & instructions on how to utilize this feature (https://piee.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/home/login.xhtml)

c. File Size Limitations. Offerors are advised to follow the FBO instructions for uploading files larger than 10MB (java upload). FBO has not posted official file size limitations for its electronic response module; however, it has been observed that uploads to FBO tend to be problematic when the files are sized 100MB or greater. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

d. File Names. To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention: Each filename shall begin with the solicitation number, followed by the word “RESPONSE”, followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description. EXAMPLES:

(1) “W912HP-18-R-1001 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I southeast.pdf”

(2) “W912HP-18-R-1001 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I southeast Part 1.pdf”

(3) “W912HP-18-R-1001 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I southeast Part 2.pdf”

(4) “W912HP-18-R-1001 RESPONSE Firmname Volume II southeast.pdf”

(5) “W912HP-18-R-1001 RESPONSE Firmname Volume II southeast, diagrams, figures.pdf”

(6) “W912HP-18-R-1001 RESPONSE Firmname Volume southeast III.pdf”

(7) “W912HP-18-R-1001 RESPONSE Firmname Volume III southeast, price data.docx”

e. File Organization, Formatting, and other instructions. Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled.

Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized--larger page sizes (such as 11x17 foldouts, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the Evaluation Factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented.

Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in each section for each factor.

f. Upload Completion & Deadline. Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date on this announcement page. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion/delivery time & date recorded within PIEE.

Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g., 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes - this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Experience shows that if an upload does not complete until after the deadline, the PIEE system WILL NOT COMPLETE. The PIEE system will automatically shut off the “Electronic Submission” feature at the specified deadline - once that occurs, the feature will disappear from the announcement.

Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record.

g. Electronic files shall be in their native format (i.e., doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. If the electronic files are of a size at which they must be compressed (zipped), they shall be compressed into one zipped folder using WinZip version 6.2 or later. Self-extracting .exe files will not be accepted.

h. Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215- 1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (e), which is found in Section L of the RFP. The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

4. Submission Requirements, Volume I, Non-Price Proposal: Volume I shall include a section for each Non-Price factor, as described above under Evaluation Factors. Volume I shall be organized as follows:

a. Section A - Executive Summary. Include a one-page cover letter, the Proposal Data Sheet not to exceed one page (Appendix D1), and any applicable executed joint venture agreements or other evidence of formal teaming agreements. In this Executive Summary, the Offeror shall identify which region(s) the proposal is addressing.

b. Section B- Factor 1, Understanding of the Work. See requirements in Section M, Factor 1, Understanding of Work.

Proposal information for this Factor will be limited to 25 pages.

c. Section C - Factor 2, Offeror Past Performance See requirements in Section M, Factor 2, Offeror Past Performance. Offerors shall include completed Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Forms and/or CPARS, in available, in addition to proposal information. A sample Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form is provided in this Section (See Appendix D3).

5. Volume II, Price Proposal: Volume II shall include the following:

a. Section A-Completed Standard Form (SF) 1449, using a printed copy of the SF 1449 included in this solicitation for the contract. As applicable, Offerors shall also submit a completed SF 30 for each solicitation amendment, acknowledging the amendments.

b. Section B-Electronic copy in MS Excel format of completed

CLINs (provided with the solicitation) for each region for which the Offeror is submitting a proposal. CLINs spreadsheet posted with the solicitation shall be completed by the Offeror & submitted in MS Excel file format. The completed CLINs will constitute Offerors’ proposed prices for the services corresponding to the PWS. Upon contract award, a price schedule in contract section B will be created using the completed CLINs from the successful Offeror. Failure to bid on all items in the CLINs will cause the proposal to be considered nonresponsive and therefore ineligible for contract award.

c. Section C-One (1) copy of the Offeror’s executed joint venture agreement or teaming arrangement, if applicable.

d. Section D-Completed Section K, Representations and

Certifications included in this solicitation. Please note that the representations and certifications must also be completed via the System for Award Management (SAM) website at www.sam.gov.

e. Section E-Financial Information (e.g., past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings, and or number, banks name, and POC, etc.).

f. Section F-Letter from the Offeror’s surety shall be provided to indicate Offeror has bonding capacity equal to or greater than the maximum task order size as specified in FAR 52.216-19 Order Limitations.

g. Section G – Sub-Contracting Plan for identified AbilityOne

Locations – Offeror shall submit evidence of a plan to subcontract for the services and locations identified above at Section II, Paragraph B, titled Mandatory Sources of Supplies. This will include the name of the identified AbilityOne Non-Profit Agency (NPA) that you intend to subcontract to and a Point of Contact for the NPA.

DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. The Government intends to award without discussions, in accordance with the provisions of the RFP and applicable acquisition regulations. The Government will evaluate offers in accordance with the NON- PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS as described above, and the Offeror’s proposed price. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(d), however, discussion sessions may be held if the Contracting Officer determines them necessary to determine that award will satisfactorily provide the Government its requirement at a fair and reasonable price.

Should discussions take place, a competitive range will be established, and all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed an opportunity to submit Final Proposal Revisions. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the

Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each Offeror will be notified in advanced. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors. Award will be made to the Offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described in paragraph B of this section. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Factor.

The government considers it to be in its best interest to allow award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The perceived benefits of the higher-priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406.

C. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

All proposals will be evaluated on the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated in the proposal. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” paragraph C of this section. Evaluators will ensure Offerors complied with all submission requirements set forth in the “Proposal Submission,” paragraph D of this section.

The non-price and price factors are as follows:

NON-PRICE FACTORS. The purpose of the non-price factors is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. An unacceptable evaluation for any one of these factors will result in an overall unacceptable proposal.

Factor 1: Understanding of the Work Factor 2: Past Performance

PRICE FACTOR. The purpose of the price factor is to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The price factor will be evaluated differently than the non-price factors and is subject to Contract Pricing policies as set forth in FAR Subpart 15.4.

Factor 3: Price

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the non-price factors (Factors 1 - 2), when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price (Factor 3).

Concurrent with or upon completing the evaluation of all non-price proposals, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will, in accordance with the provisions of this RFP and applicable acquisition regulations, evaluate price. If discussions are determined necessary, the PCO will conduct discussions with Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. In determining the competitive range, the Government will include analysis of the non-price and price proposals of Offerors. Upon conclusion of discussions, the PCO will request final proposal revisions and may, upon receipt of final proposal revisions, proceed to award a contract without further discussions or notice.

MANDATORY SOURCES OF SERVICES

This solicitation has a mandate for bidders to subcontract services from the AbilityOne mandatory source, pursuant to 41 CFR 51-5.2(e), where work currently on the AbilityOne procurement list (PL) has been included in the competed acquisition. Specifically, potential bidders will be required to subcontract the following requirements to a designated Non-Profit Agency (NPA):

- Janitorial/Custodial Service at Marine Corps Reserve Training Center, 101 Base Avenue, Battle Creek, MI

- Custodial & Grounds Maintenance Service at Marine Corps Reserve Training Centers (MCRTC), Brook Park, OH

- Custodial, Grounds Maintenance, and Solid Waste Service at Marine Corp Reserve Training Center (MCTC), Lynchburg, NC

The Commission is the federal agency tasked with administration of the AbilityOne Program and holds the sole authority for designating an NPA as a mandatory source for any specific PL item or service. Bidders shall contact the designated Source America contact, Ms. Carla Gocool to obtain assistance on receiving established Fair Market Pricing for services on the PL at the above locations.

Proposals received without evidence of a plan to Subcontract the above locations to an AbilityOne NPA will not be considered.

Ms. Nanette Damon, 571-226-4607, ndamon@sourceamerica.org Alternate - Mr. Erin Godfrey, 678-838-5166, egodfrey@sourceamerica.org

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

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

1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation process:

Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See

FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal, indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306.

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems, such as “Past Performance Information Retrieval System” (PPIRS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.” (FAPIIS).

2. TEAM ARRANGEMENTS. As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. For a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, there must be full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships in the team's proposal. The proposal must include a narrative that explains the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member (to include identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, the duration of the agreement, and the percentage of the participants, specifically, the percentage of the controlling party). The proposal must also include an agreement that has been or will be executed prior to award between/among all team members. The proposal and agreement must be consistent; substantive inconsistencies between the proposal and agreement may be construed against the Offeror. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility.

a. Joint Ventures (JV). If the Offeror is a joint venture, the Offeror must provide evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the joint venture and submit evidence or confirm that the JV submitted its paperwork to its local Small Business Administration Office for this specific requirement. The agreement must indicate the percentages of the participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party.

b. Other Teaming Arrangements. In the case of prime-sub teams (e.g., if an Offeror proposes to utilize a “key subcontractor”), the agreement must reflect that the prime contractor is vested with control and responsibility for the daily management of the work and that it remains responsible for contract performance, including those items allocated to a subcontractor on the team. Offerors are reminded that the prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors. However, consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government may consider the responsibility of subcontractor team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. Finally, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default. Regardless of any provision to the contrary in a team or subcontract agreement, all members of a recognized team arrangement are bound to perform any resulting contract and options by means of the same team. There can be no substitution of subcontractor team members except that, in the case of a prime-sub team arrangement, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a subcontractor with equivalent or greater capability for a subcontractor on the identified team. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

c. For proposed teaming arrangements, the contractually responsible managing partner in a JV relationship or the Prime Contractor in a Prime-Subcontractor teaming arrangement shall by capable of providing the facilities preventative maintenance and facilities repair work required by this solicitation.

3. RELEVANT CONTRACTS. For evaluation purposes, the definition of a relevant contract must meet the following conditions:

a. The contract was awarded to the Offeror as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror which is a JV or a Prime-Subcontractor team, the contract must have been awarded to support the requirements of paragraph 3.d below to either member of the JV or either member of the Prime-Subcontractor team as the prime contractor.

b. The contract was completed no earlier than three (3) calendar years before the closing date of this RFP or has been ongoing for at least one (1) year before the closing date of this RFP.

c. A contract of no less than $500,000 per year. The Government will not permit multiple projects, such as individual task orders from different contracts, to be combined to meet the minimum value of $500,000 per year.

d. The contract is fundamentally for facilities preventative maintenance and facilities repair work. Where a project was awarded as a task order or delivery order under an IDIQ type contract, Offerors are cautioned to submit information specific to the task or delivery order considered similar to the requirements of this RFP rather than the umbrella contract.

NON-PRICE FACTORS: Data provided in response to the non-price factors described below shall be included in Volume I, “Non-Price Proposal.”

e. Factor 1, Understanding of the Work.

Evaluators will determine whether the Offeror’s submission for this factor demonstrates a thorough understanding of the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement.

The proposal submission for this factor shall include a brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of requirements of the solicitation. The narrative shall not exceed 25 pages. The narrative may utilize charts, tables, sketches, and maps as needed to make the work approach understandable. The narrative shall address and contain a description of the following items.

Facility Investment (Planned Maintenance). The Offeror shall describe their approach to perform planned maintenance required by the scope of this contract, including what work will be performed by the Offeror’s in-house personnel, what work will be performed by subcontractors and the geographic location of in-house personnel and subcontractors.

Service Calls. The Offeror shall describe their approach to performing routine and emergency service calls, including meeting emergency response time requirements, including what work will be performed by the Offeror’s in-house personnel, what work will be performed by subcontractors and the geographic location of in-house personnel and subcontractors.

Inspection, Testing and Certification services. The Offeror shall describe their approach to perform inspection, testing and certification services required by the scope of this contract, including what work will be performed by the Offeror’s in-house personnel, what work will be performed by subcontractors and the geographic location of in-house personnel and subcontractors.

Custodial, Pest Control, Refuse Collection and Recycling, Grounds Services, and Pavement

Clearance Services. The Offeror shall describe their approach to perform custodial, pest control, refuse collection and recycling, grounds services, and pavement clearance services required by the scope of this contract, including what work will be performed by the Offeror’s in-house personnel, what work will be performed by subcontractors and the geographic location of in-house personnel and subcontractors.

IDIQ. How the Offeror will perform IDIQ work that includes facility repair, restoration, and modernization work, including what work will be performed by the Offeror’s in-house personnel, what work will be performed by subcontractors and the geographic location of in-house personnel and subcontractors.

Subcontractor Approach and Management. The Offeror shall describe how subcontractors are managed by the Offeror. The Offeror shall discuss how subcontract relationships are structured to assure proper balance and flow-down of contract requirements, duties, responsibilities, and properly balanced and proportioned risk management. The Offeror shall discuss how non-performance by subcontractors is handled by the Offeror.

Organizational Chart: The Offeror shall provide an organizational chart that identifies key personnel and individuals on the project team that show clear lines of authority, responsibility, and communication between corporate staff, key on-site staff, and the prime/subcontractor interface, to include the staffing for both urgent and emergency service calls as well as typical day to day operations. The flow of authority should be logical and demonstrate how the responsibilities associated with the work will be assigned, and how the geographic location of proposed personnel for the multiple geographic sites will impact operation of the project.

Resumes. The Offeror shall provide resumes of key personal (see Annex 0200000).

The difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with the work and how the Offeror will minimize these risks, this shall also address how the Offeror will meet the Transition Phase/startup plan requirements.

Planning and Scheduling. The Offeror shall describe the time control capabilities and systems to be used to plan and manage assigned PM and IDIQ work, including internal procedures for scheduling and managing work, best utilization of manpower leveling of resources, while minimizing time growth or ‘schedule creep.”

Quality Control. The Offeror shall describe the quality control management approach, including the proposed quality control organization and proposed staffing plan. The Offeror shall provide specific information on how the Offeror will manage PM, service calls, and task orders and coordinate schedules to facilitate more efficient Government reviews. The Offeror shall provide information on how the Offeror will handle internal and external requests for information, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation.

Safety and Health. The Offeror shall describe the Offeror’s safety and health approach and capabilities to maintain safety and health throughout design and construction. The discussion should address the Offeror’s understanding of, familiarity with, and intended use of the USACE Safety and Health Manual, EM 385-1-1. The Offeror shall describe the proposed safety and health organization, including the staffing plan and how these resources will develop and manage specific safety and health plans under this contract

For the Understanding of the Work evaluation, Offeror’s will be rated utilizing the chart provided below:

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is un-awardable.

f. Factor 2: Past Performance.

The Government’s past performance evaluation will include an assessment of past performance on relevant contracts. The evaluators will assess whether the Offeror has obtained an overall satisfactory past performance rating on relevant contracts, to demonstrate the ability of the Offeror to accomplish the work specified under the RFP. Key focus areas will include the following (see Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)):

Quality Schedule/Timeliness of Performance Customer Satisfaction Management/Personnel/Labor Cost/Financial Management Safety/Security

This subjective assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance.

The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ, Appendix D3) and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the PPQ. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and e-mail addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted with the proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact via e-mail no later than the closing date of this RFP. Include Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) performance evaluation ratings, if available. For projects which were performed for other government entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available. Also include performance recognition documents received for the Factor 1 projects such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. The Government may call and confirm information provided by the offeror on the Past Performance Information Sheet with the points of contact. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. If an Offeror has no relevant past performance history, the Offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

*NOTE: In evaluating Past Performance, the Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including Past Performance Information related to contracts not submitted for consideration under Factor 1. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, or employment histories of key personnel, or major subcontractors performing key elements of the project.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

For the Past Performance evaluation, the evaluation will include a relevancy rating and confidence assessment, as detailed below. Note: 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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

(i) Past Performance Relevancy Rating. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel, and extent of subcontracting/teaming:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

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

(ii) Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on previous contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information on how well the Offeror performed on past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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.

4. PRICE FACTOR

a. Price will not be rated but will be evaluated as to its fairness and reasonableness. Pricing for each region supported by the contract shall be completed and submitted on the Section 00 00 10, Contract Line Item Schedule. The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received for the contract. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 to determine fairness and reasonableness. The evaluation will determine the extent to which the price proposal is consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Historical price information, competitive price information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) or any other pricing tool as necessary will be utilized in making this determination. Offerors are advised that any offer wherein pricing is deemed unfair or unreasonable will be rendered ineligible for award.

b. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. The Government reserves the right to make award to other than the lowest priced Offeror.

(End of Summary of Changes)