W912HQ21R0002_Amendment0004.pdf

W26HM403014706

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 remove the reference to "navigation, data and decision support, and future directions" from the Factor 4

Past Performance evaluation criteria (Section M). All other solicitation requirements remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Apr-2021

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 W912HQ21R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Apr-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

20-Apr-2021

CODE

USACE HUMPHREYS ENGR CTR SPT ACTIVITY

ATTN: CEHEC-CT,

7701 TELEGRAPH ROAD

ALEXANDRIA VA 22315-3860

W912HQ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HQ21R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

The award(s) will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) proposal(s) that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the six (6) evaluation factors: 1-Technical

Understanding and Approach, 2-Personnel Experience and Availability, 3- Organizational Management, 4- Past

Performance, 5- Small Business Participation, and 6-Price. The Technical Understanding and Approach factor (1) and the Personnel Experience factor (2) are of equal importance and are more important than factors 3, 4 and 5. The relative order of importance for these remaining non-price factors, in descending order, is the Organizational

Management factor (3), Past Performance (4), and Small Business Participation (5). To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factors and the Small Business

Participation factor. Award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. NOTE: ALL NON-PRICE

FACTORS COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

The Government intends to make awards without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. For this reason, the offeror’s proposal must be complete and contain their most favorable terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. The proposal shall address and contain the information listed in Section L of the Solicitation. The information will be used by the Source Selection

Evaluation Board (SSEB) to evaluate and rate each proposal.

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).

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal is most beneficial to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Understanding and Approach

Technical Understanding. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s understanding of support needs, including 1) decision support systems and tools 2) water resources data, methodologies, tools and models, 3) facilitation, outreach, and training services, 4) analyses and assessments and 5) studies. Offerors will also be evaluated on multi-disciplinary capability (staffing). Evaluation of the multi-disciplinary capability (staffing) will focus on the offeror’s current “teaming”, “partnering” or “subcontracting” arrangements that support its ability to provide personnel with a wide variety of technical qualifications and experiences, sufficient to support the requirements stated in Section C, 1.1 Mission. Evaluation will also include the offeror’s methods for obtaining a qualified labor force with relevant experience for future task orders as they arise, including methods and plans for obtaining and retaining staff identified as “Key Individuals”.

The proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the PWS and provide a detailed description of the approach to addressing the PWS that demonstrates an understanding of the technical disciplines required to successfully perform the PWS requirements. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate how the offeror would solve both existing and near term (5 years) future technical problems and issues for the Corps of Engineers and provide a brief discussion on future applications that could be used to accomplish the stated objectives of each task.

Factor 2: Personnel Experience and Availability

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to the extent that it demonstrates relevance of work experience of key personnel in the technical areas of Section 1.2 of the PWS and the appropriateness of education/expertise of key personnel. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to the extent that it demonstrates availability of proposed key staff in accordance with Appendix A – Labor Categories

Factor 3: Organizational Management

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on their ability to demonstrate a feasible management plan and organizational structure for accomplishment of work and services of the magnitude involved in this contract. The offeror’s organizational structure chart must demonstrate a clear hierarchy, delineate responsibilities and establish overall coordination between the contractor and the Government. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the adequacy of the proposed work force required to respond to the fluctuating workloads and requirements in response to contract requirements. The offeror must demonstrate sufficient technical and administrative facilities and staff to accomplish and support contract requirements.

Factor 4: Past Performance

Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy and the quality of performance on the past contracts. A past performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy and quality of 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 the PWS. The offeror will be evaluated on past performance of the offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record in providing services that meet contract requirements within the the technical areas of Section 1.2 of the PWS across the Corps of Engineers, other federal and state agencies and private sector firms. The offeror's past performance and experience in providing relevant technical and other study support for the Corps of Engineers, other Army Commands, other DOD or Federal agencies, state agencies, or private sector companies will also be considered. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of performance as it relates to solicitation requirements, including schedule, performance and management of sub-contractors. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing services that meet contract requirements.

Factor 5: Small Business Participation

The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated against the goals established in the Solicitation. All offerors (both other than small and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of the contract (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the contract. All offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which small businesses, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals. Offerors will be evaluated on the extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones). Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they identify complex and varied work small firms are to perform. Offerors will also be evaluated on the extent of past performance in compliance with FAR 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business Concerns” and FAR 52.219-9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan.” Offerors will also be evaluated on the extent of small business participation as prime contractors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goal of 17% small business participation.

All apparently successful offerors that are considered other than small businesses must submit an acceptable subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 to be eligible for award.

Factor 6: Price

The resulting award(s) will be a multiple award FFP IDIQ contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed-Price effort. The price factor will be evaluated using price analysis techniques described at FAR 15.404-1(b), consisting of comparison of competitive offers received in response to the solicitation and to the IGE. Proposed prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing. For evaluation purposes only, the estimated quantity of labor hours will be used to determine the total evaluated price for the Labor CLINs. The

Government will evaluate price proposals based upon a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the base year and all option years combined.

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven methodologies and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete future task orders as required by the mission.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below, focuses on consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical factors’ requirements. Factors 1, 2 and 3 will be rated using the following combined technical/risk adjectival ratings:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The associated risk descriptions are as followed:

Risk Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2. The Past Performance factor will be used to make a determination of the level of performance risk associated with each offeror. Offerors should provide performance history and references to demonstrate satisfactory performance for at least three (3) prior or current contracts that are similar in size, scope and complexity to this requirement performed within the last three (3) years. References should also be provided for any anticipated subcontractor to be used. Offerors should provide the following:

Reference: Name, Address, POC and phone numbers

Contract Number, Value and Dates

Description of the Contract Effort Relevance to this Solicitation

a. Each Offeror will be evaluated on its performance under existing and prior efforts for similar services. The offerors may include an overall narrative explaining what aspects of the contract effort are deemed relevant to the proposal effort, as well as significant accomplishments and difficulties. Offerors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of all information and the government does not assume the responsibility for conducting research as a result of incorrect reference information of any kind. The references should be provided in descending order, with the most relevant contracts appearing first.

b. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance within the last three (3) years to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

c. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform twenty-five (25) percent or more of the proposed effort. 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 (within the past three years) 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 a “neutral 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 as compared to the North American

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541618. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three 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.

d. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

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

recency, relevancy and performance confidence assessment:

RECENCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For this acquisition, recency is defined as past performance references within the last three years as of the date of this solicitation release

RELEVANCY: The second 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. 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.

QUALITY: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance by determining how well the contractor performed on the recent and relevant contracts. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Evaluators will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3. Small Business Participation Factor: All offerors (both other than small and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of the contract (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein.

Offeror’s proposal must meet the minimum mandatory Total Small Business Participation goal of 17% (through collective small business participation from any type of small business or subcategory of small business). The subcategory small business goals are NOT mandatory. However, the Government will evaluate the proposals to determine which offeror(s) propose the best value in terms of meeting all the Small Business Participation goals herein. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will be evaluated as Small

Business Participation.

Small Business Participation Commitments (from all offerors) will be evaluated on the basis of:

a. The extent to which such small businesses, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent past performance in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business” and FAR 52.219-

9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan.”

e. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals. Goals for this procurement are:

Total Small Business (any type of small business) 17 % (MANDATORY) of the total contract value.

Sub-Category Small Business (not mandatory) Goal

Small Disadvantaged Business 5 % of the total contract value

Women Owned Small Business 2% of the total contract value

HUBZone Small 1% of the total contract value

Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 1% of the total contract value

Veteran Owned Small Business 1% of the total contract value

Note: For example, a participation plan that reflects 2% of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB.

When evaluating small business participation, the following ratings will be utilized:

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

All apparently successful offerors that are considered other than small businesses must submit an acceptable subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 to be eligible for award.

4. The Price factor will be evaluated using the price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b) for the Total

Evaluated Price (TEP) for the base and option years.

(End of Summary of Changes)