A21_-_Combined_Synopsis_Solicitation_W912HQ19R0002_RIBITS.pdf

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation Number: W912HQ19R002 – Request for Offers

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format FAR 12.603 – Streamlined Solicitation for Commercial Items, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation. Offers are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. This solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2019-01, dated 20 December 2018.

The requirement is for full and open competition under NAICS code 541618, Other Management Consulting Services. The size standard for this NAICS code is $15,000,000.00.

Description: This requirement will be awarded as a Firm-Fixed-Priced (FFP), performance-based single award task order contract (SATOC) to support the Institute for Water’s (IWR) Regulatory In-Lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS) under FAR part 16.5 – Indefinite Delivery Contracts.

RIBITS is an automated system for management of compensatory mitigation and conservation bank and in-lieu fee programs and to a lesser extent other environmental credit types (e.g.

water quality trading, Natural Resource Damage Assessment credits). The contractor would be tasked with operations, maintenance, and minor enhancements to RIBITS, as well as more substantive system modifications to facilitate use by other Government organizations as well as the general public. The required work would include updating and maintaining the application on an outward–facing server in the Corps’ ACE-IT Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), transitioning the application to a cloud environment, establishing and maintaining production, development, and training environments for the system in a cloud environment, managing component software applications, troubleshooting operational issues, making minor system enhancements to facilitate operations, assisting system users, and developing, testing, and implementing a number of modifications for specific system users.

More substantive system modifications may include but are not limited to the following:

development of more robust data query and display mechanisms; automated data registration and download for non-USACE users; more robust geospatial analysis and display capabilities;

additional web services and xml data exchange capabilities for other system applications both within the Corps Civil Works Business Intelligence systems and outside of the Corps and Department of Defense; alternative map control mechanisms; presentation and display of other data layers (such as soils, ecoregions, HUC 10 boundaries, basic permit information, etc.).

The contractor may also be tasked with developing training materials, hosting training sessions, and developing and modifying user documentation for users at different permission levels.

Contract Line Items: This requirement and associated contract line item numbers (CLINs) is provided in a separate document labeled, “A21 - Appendix D – Labor Rates Pricing Schedule

RIBITS.”

Basis for award: The Government will award a contract resulting from this combined synopsis solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to represent the “Best Value” to the Government using tradeoff procedures, price and other factors considered. The evaluation factors are Technical Understanding & Approach, Personnel Experience, Past Performance and Price. See 52.212-1 (and addenda) and 52.212-2 for additional information.

Offerors are required to be actively registered with the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov prior to award. Offerors are highly encouraged to download and review all attachments to this solicitation prior to submitting an offer.

Period and Place of Performance:

The period of performance will be one base year and four one-year option periods. Work is estimated to begin in April of 2019.

Unless specified at the individual task order level, the work required on this solicitation is expected to be carried out at the contractor’s location. If work is required at Government facilities, normal workdays are Monday through Friday except US Federal Holidays. Federal workers typically work eight (8) hours per day, 40 hours per week. Flextime workers start not earlier than 0600 and not later than 0900. Core hours of work are from 0900 to 1500 daily. All employees are expected to be available during core hours.

Date, Time, and Place Offers are Due: The closing date for the delivery of a response to this combined synopsis/solicitation is on or before 1:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), on Tuesday, 12 March 2019. Offers should be e-mailed or mailed to the Point of Contact (POC) shown below by the closing date and time. If offers are mailed, an electronic version of the offer (i.e. CD, DVD, etc.) should accompany the paper copy. If an offer is e-mailed to the POC shown below, it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the transmission is received by the Government prior to the closing date and time. Upon receipt of an electronic offer, the Government will acknowledge receipt of that offer via email to the offeror.

POC: Brandon Chapple Address: 7701 Telegraph Road Alexandria VA Phone: 703-428-7129 Email: Brandon.M.Chapple@usace.army.mil

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS, ADDENDA

As required in 52.212-1(b), Submission of offers, the offeror shall also include the following information in their proposal package:

The Technical factor should include the following information for each subfactor:

Factor 1: Technical Understanding and Approach

Subfactor 1: Understanding of support needs

Subfactor 2: Technical approach for responding to task orders

Offerors shall submit written narrative proposal which describes and demonstrates the offeror’s Technical Understanding and approach to satisfy the support needs of each element listed in the PWS from sections 4.1 through 4.5.3.

Factor 2: Personnel Experience

Subfactor 1: Relevance of work experience of key individuals

Subfactor 2: Appropriateness of education/expertise

Offerors shall propose Key Personnel for this requirement and submit resumes demonstrating appropriate education and experience and letters of commitment (See Appendix C - Labor categories).

Factor 3 – Past Performance.

(i) Offerors shall submit past performance information for a maximum of 5 contracts or subcontracts completed or on-going within the last 5 years from the release date of this solicitation by the contractor. For joint ventures, offerors may include past performance for each member. On-going contracts must be at least 50% complete or have been in place for at least one year as of the release date of this solicitation. Offerors shall provide a project narrative and reference information in narrative form to address each of the bullets below. All points of contact, addresses, telephone numbers, data, fax numbers, etc. should be verified by the offeror prior to submission to the Government as part of the offeror’s proposal. Points of contact should be knowledgeable of past performance from a contractual, managerial, and technical perspective.

•Project Title

• Project Description

• Project Start & Ending Date

• Offeror’s role in the Project

• Contract Value/Actual Awarded Amount

• POCs, Phone, Fax, Address, Email

• Performance recognition documents

• Narrative description of relevancy to this PWS, mapped to the PWS where applicable.

(ii) The Naval Facilities (NAVFAC)/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire Form, included in Appendix F, is provided for the offeror to submit to the client for each contract the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2 – Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and e-mail addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with the offeror’s proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a contract(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective contract(s). The offeror 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, Mr. Brandon Chapple via email at Brandon.M.Chapple@usace.army.mil before the due date for proposal submission. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other Request for Proposals (RFP). However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation

(iii) In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. 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 codes/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), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

Factor 4 – Price.

The offeror shall complete the pricing schedule using the Microsoft Excel template provided in Attachment D: Labor Rates Pricing Schedule, which are binding labor rate ceilings. The Offeror shall fill in the rates columns for each of the base and option years. It is up to the Offeror to ensure all calculations are correct. The hours per labor category are yearly estimates and should not be changed.

Additionally, offeror shall include a statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation. Offers that fail to furnish required representations or information, or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1: Technical Understanding and Approach

Subfactor 1: Understanding of support needs

Subfactor 2: Technical approach for responding to task orders

The Technical Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. Higher technical ratings will be given for greater demonstrated understanding of the requirements in the PWS, experience and previous/current successful first-hand experience directly supporting an operations and maintenance requirement.

Offerors shall submit written narrative proposal which describes and demonstrates the offeror’s Technical Understanding and approach to satisfy the support needs of each element listed in the PWS from sections 4.1 through 4.5.3.

Factor 2: Personnel Experience

Subfactor 1: Relevance of work experience of key individuals

Subfactor 2: Appropriateness of education/expertise

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to the extent that it demonstrates relevance of work experience of key personnel and the appropriateness of education/expertise of key personnel as described in Appendix C - Labor categories)

The Technical Understanding and Approach and Personnel Experience Factor Ratings, excerpted below, focus on strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal:

Rating Description

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

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.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little to no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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.

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

NOTE: Statements that the Offeror understands, can or will comply with all specifications, statements paraphrasing the specifications or parts thereof, or phrases such as “standard procedures will be used” or “well known techniques will be used” will be considered insufficient and could render the proposal as unacceptable. Instead, please explain how any submittals (and any recent contracts referenced) are relevant to the non-Price evaluation factors (Technical Understanding, Personnel Experience, Past Performance).

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of this PWS. This evaluation includes considering the relevancy of the submitted past performance along with the quality of work of those efforts. Highly relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser complexity, dollar value, and/or contract type.

Relevant contracts are those completed or ongoing for the same or similar in nature, complexity, and dollar value to the work required in this solicitation’s PWS, sections 4.1 through 4.5.3.

Contracts must have been completed within the last five (5) years from the solicitation release date. Ongoing contracts must be at least 50% complete or have been in place for at least one year by the solicitation release date. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts in their proposal.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past five years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date.

The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and quality assessment.

(i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Past Performance on projects that are similar in size and scope to this project may be considered to be more advantageous to the Government. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/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) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The quality of the offeror’s relevant past performance will be determined by results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is to provide a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of relevancy, and quality of performance

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.

Factor 4: Price. Price will not be scored or rated, but will be evaluated to determine whether it is reasonable. Price reasonableness will be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b). The offeror shall complete the pricing schedule using the Microsoft Excel template provided in Attachment D: Labor Rates Pricing Schedule, which are binding labor rate ceilings. The Offeror shall fill in the rates columns for each of the base and option years. It is up to the Offeror to ensure all calculations are correct. The hours per labor category are yearly estimates and should not be changed.

The award will be made using trade-off procedures where the non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the price.

For Factor 1, “Technical Understanding and Approach,” the Subfactor 1, “Understanding Support Needs” is somewhat more important than Subfactor 2, “Technical Approach to Responding to Task Order.” For Factor 2, “Personnel Experience,” Subfactor 1, “Relevance of Work Experience,” is somewhat more important than Subfactor 2, “Appropriateness of Education/Expertise.” The “Technical Understanding and Approach” and “Personnel Experience Factors” are equal in importance, and together are more important than the “Past Performance Factor.” The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the

Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

MINIMUM GUARANTEE:

This is a Firm Fixed Price, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) and the resulting ID/IQ contract includes a base ordering period of one- year and four one-year option periods. There is no guarantee that the option periods will be exercised on the awarded contract. The minimum guaranteed order for each awardee shall be $5,000.00 for the base year. The Contracting Officer is under no obligation to issue any task orders against this contract in excess of the minimum guarantee amount. Awarded task orders will share an estimated capacity of $4,500,000.00. The Government reserves the right to move unused capacity between CLINs and performance periods as necessary. The only authorized ordering office is the Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity (HECSA).