B08.03 Solicitation - W912HQ26RA017 SF 30 Amendment 0001 dated 2026.09.17.pdf

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offers 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 theoffer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

J 1 30

0001 17 SEP 2026

W912HQ

W4LD USA HECSA

KO CONTRACTING DIVISION, 7701 TELEGRAPH ROAD

ALEXANDRIA, VA 22315-3860

UNITED STATES

MACKENZIE RIVERA, EMAIL: MACKENZIE.RIVERA@USACE.ARMY.MIL TELEPHONE:

703-428-7943

SCD: PAS:

W912HQ26RA017

09 SEP 2026

SEE SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

Update Factor 2 and Factor 4 relevancy

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified from:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

1.1 General Guidance: This section provides a general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested in this section and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any Offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered ineligible for award. The proposal must be compliant with the requirements as stated in the PWS.

Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this section may result in unfavorable proposal evaluation.

1.2 Proposal Submission. Offerors shall submit proposals electronically to the following address:

The file name should contain the solicitation number W912HQ26RA017. Electronic submissions are required. Failure to submit proposals by the closing time and date may result in the proposal being deemed "late" and not considered for evaluation. See RFO 15.107(b) for rules concerning submission of offers and late proposals. Proposals will not be returned (except for timely withdrawals), but will be retained by the Government for official record purposes.

NOTE: Offerors proposal must be received by the Government at the time proposals are due.

Merely transmitting prior to the time proposals are due can potentially result in a proposal arriving "late" thus ineligible for evaluation.

1.3 Inquires. Offerors may submit inquires, questions or comments relating to this solicitation via email to Mackenzie.Rivera@usace.army.mil and David.A.Kaplan@usace.army.mil no later than 15 September at 430PM Eastern Daylight Time. Email subject line shall read: "Solicitation No.

W912HQ26RA017 Questions". The Government will consider all correspondence, but will not issue individual responses; instead, if appropriate, a solicitation amendment will be issued. No questions will be accepted via phone. Individual meetings with firms will not be scheduled.

Voicemails with questions and/or requests for meetings will not receive a response. Questions received after 15 September at 430PM Eastern Daylight Time may or may not be answered.

1.4 Period of Acceptance for Offer. The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for a minimum of 30 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

2.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

To effectively and equitably evaluate proposals, the Government must receive information sufficiently detailed and in the order described below that clearly describe an Offeror's capabilities.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to submit complete proposal information and documents that are fully responsive to the submission requirements of the solicitation. Offerors are responsible for organizing submitted material sequentially under tabs and numbered pages to facilitate evaluation.

Materials not organized under the appropriate tabs and in the sequence of subparagraphs set out below, may easily be overlooked during evaluations, possibly affecting an Offeror's rating. Submit proposals in the format and quantities as indicated below. Proposals shall be comprised of four volumes, and submitted in electronic form, as indicated below.

2.1 Organization. Offerors shall organize their proposal into volumes as follows:

- Factor 1: Technical Understanding and Approach

- Factor 2: Personnel Qualifications and Experience

- Factor 3: Organizational Management

- Factor 4: Past Performance

- Factor 5: Price

2.2 Format. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. Documents shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins - Top, Bottom, Left, Right - 1"

Gutter - 0"

From Edge - Header, Footer 0.5"

Page Size, Width - 8.5"

Page Size, Height - 11"

Font Size - 12-point except for tables and illustrations

Font Style - a font with Serifs is preferred for body text (Times New Roman or Calibri are preferred) and a font without Serifs is preferred for headings/headers (Arial is preferred)

Spreadsheets, table, charts, etc. may be 11" x 17", but will count as two pages. Tables and illustrations may be landscape, and may use a reduced font size of no less than 10-point.

The following additional restrictions apply:

File Packaging: All volumes shall be submitted in PDF Format. Volume III Price should include a MS Excel Spreadsheet in addition to the PDF.

Content Requirement. The proposal shall be prepared clearly and concisely to demonstrate that the Offeror has a complete understanding of the requirements. Offerors shall prepare proposals on the presumption that the Government has no previous knowledge of the Offeror's capabilities.

Proposals will be evaluated only on the information specifically presented in respective submittals, with the exception of the Past Performance evaluations. When applicable, the Offeror shall cross reference to the solicitation by annotating the solicitation reference in parenthesis, (e.g., Sec C, para 4.0). Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation (including attachments). The penalty for making a false statement in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. (S)1001. Offerors should submit their best proposal initially as the Government intends to make awards without discussions in accordance with RFO 52.215-1

.(except clarifications, as described in FAR 15.202(a)(2)) The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if deemed necessary. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. Title pages and table of contents are not included in page counts. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file.

Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

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.

3.1 VOLUME I - TECHNICAL

Volume I shall not exceed 75 pages

3.1.1 Factor 1: Technical Understanding and Approach

Technical Understanding. Offeror should submit a proposal that includes a comprehensive discussion of understanding of the requirement of each task in 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 required tasks. The offeror's proposal shall provide their estimated level of effort and labor categories for the personnel that would be used to complete each task in the PWS.

3.1.2 Factor 2: Personnel Experience and Availability

The offeror's proposal should demonstrate the work experience of key personnel, including the combined experience of the support personnel covering software development specifically in context to real-time modeling for water management and the accompanying data and decision support needs, 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 staff for multiple tasks simultaneously in accordance with the PWS.

3.1.3 Factor 3: Organizational Management

The offeror's proposal should 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 should detailed the proposed work force that will complete the requirements the PWS. The offeror should demonstrate sufficient technical and administrative facilities and staff to accomplish and support all contract requirements.

3.2 VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE

Volume 2 shall not exceed 25 pages.

3.2 Factor 4 - Past Performance. The Offeror that signs the SF1449 shall provide its past performance information regarding recent and relevant efforts and the quality of those efforts to demonstrate accomplishments and capabilities to successfully perform and accomplish the effort required by this RFP. There are two aspects to the past performance information to be submitted:

(a) Relevant Company Effort and (b) Quality of Past Performance.

3.2.1 Relevant Past Performance

The Offeror shall submit a minimum of one (1) and no more than three (3) examples of its most "recent" and "relevant" project efforts performed to demonstrate its company's accomplishments on contracts similar to the effort required in this solicitation. Efforts are considered "Recent" if their performance occurred within the last three (3) years. For each "recent" and "relevant" project example, the Offeror shall furnish the information specified below. If the Offeror is submitting "task order type projects", each single task order project shall be submitted on a separate project data sheet. Do not combine tasks orders and present them as one entire project.

As a minimum, provide the following information:

3.2.1.1 Required Information

(1) Company Name

(2) Name of Project

(3) Location of Project

(4) Owner's Name and Owner's Point of Contact, (telephone, e-mail)

(5) General Scope of Project/Contract Work as it relates to the PWS of this solicitation, including project size, complexity, and any distinctive and/or unique features of the project)

(6) Offeror's Role (Prime, Subcontractor, Joint Venture Partner, etc.) and the type of work your company self performed

(7) Contract Type (e.g., performance based, Firm-Fixed-Price, etc.)

(8) Contract Award Date (Month/Year); Completion Date of the Base Task: (Month/Year);

Completion of option tasks (Month/Year)

(9) If this contract is being performed under an option task the completion date of the current option being performed: (Provide Month/Year)

(10) Contract Dollar Value - Base Task Price and Total Price (Base Task and all Options)

(11) Type and Extent of Work Subcontracted

(12) The Approach to the Operational Services

(13) How the Project was Managed (e.g., oversight, schedule, quality, property management, safety, etc.)

(14) Termination or Liquidated Damages Information (comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions)

(15) Contract Number (if providing information from a US Government contract)

3.2.1.2 Quality of Past Performance.

3.2.1.2.1 The Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of its past performance on the projects submitted in paragraph 3.2.1.1. The Offeror shall provide a completed Contractor performance evaluation, whether annual or final, found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (www.cpars.gov). If a completed Contractor performance evaluation does not exist in

CPARS (example, non-U.S. Government projects), the Offeror shall provide completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (see Attachment 2). If, at time of evaluation, a completed Contractor performance evaluation exists in CPARS that conflicts with a submitted PPQ, the completed contractor performance evaluation will govern.

3.2.1.2.2 Any past performance surveys/assessment/evaluation forms, other than CPARS or the PPQ form provided at the end of this section, are unacceptable submissions by the Offeror to evidence the quality of its past performance and will not be considered or evaluated.

3.2.1.2.3 Completed CPARS or PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection. However, Offerors shall not incorporate any CPARS or PPQs by merely referencing other proposals. A copy of the CPARS or PPQ must accompany the company effort submitted under Experience/Past Performance in paragraph 3.2.1. 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.

3.2.1.2.4 If an Offeror has been required to take corrective action for any substandard performance, other performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc., the Offeror should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken.

3.2.1.2.5 If a project owner will only provide completed PPQ's and/or CPARS directly to the U.S.

Army USACE Mission Support Battalion, it is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure that the project owner submits the PPQ and/or PPIRS before the proposal due date using the following electronic mailing addresses: MacKenzie Y. Rivera at email: MacKenzie.Rivera@usace.army.mil - and a copy furnished to David A. Kaplan at email: David.A.Kaplan@usace.army.mil PPQ's and/or CPARS received after the proposal receipt date will not be considered timely and will not be included in the evaluation of the Offeror's proposal.

3.2.2 Verification of Past Performance

The Government reserves the right to verify the past performance record of cited projects (or other recent projects not submitted) by reviewing the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS), or other Government appraisal systems, or to interview owners or references.

The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. An Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to reply to or explain adverse performance information which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to address.

3.3 VOLUME III - PRICE

Factor 5 - Price

Offerors shall submit a price proposal that details the estimated amount of labor per each labor category, the hourly rate for each labor category, subtotals of the contract, travel costs and the grand total price to complete the entire contract. Please propose an estimated amount for travel on CLIN 0005. All travel will be reimbursed at actual cost. Offerors are not entitled to profit on travel.

3.4 VOLUME IV - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

There is no page limit for this volume.

The Offeror shall submit the following in the manner indicated in the Proposal Submission Requirements:

3.4.1 Signed and dated Standard Form 1449, acknowledging any and all amendments by completing Block 30a of the SF1449

3.4.2 Agreements (if applicable)

3.4.3 Bank Information. Offeror shall provide the following information regarding its current

Banking Institution:

Name

Address

Point of Contact

Fax Number

Phone Number

4.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most beneficial to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The Government will award a Firm-Fixed-Price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conformed to the RFP, is fair and reasonable, and has been determined to be most beneficial to the Government based on the five evaluation factors which are listed in descending order of importance:

(1) Technical Approach and Understanding

(2) Personnel Experience and Availability

(3) Organizational Management

(4) Past Performance

(5) Price

Relative Importance of Factors: Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4. The non-price factors when combined are significantly more important than the price factor.

As the differences in technical ratings and relative advantages or disadvantages become less distinct, differences in prices between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in prices become less distinct, differences in ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination. To receive consideration for award, an offeror must receive a rating of no less than acceptable for all technical factors and past performance confidence level of no less than neutral.

The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest price offer. The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

5.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

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.

5.1 Factor 1: Technical Understanding and Approach

Technical Understanding. The offeror's proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror's understanding of each task in the Performance Work Statement. The proposal shall include a comprehensive discussion of understanding of the requirement of each task in 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 required tasks. The offeror's proposal shall provide their estimated level of effort and labor categories for the personnel that would be used to complete each task in the PWS.

5.2 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, including the combined experience of the support personnel covering software development specifically in context to real-time modeling for water management and the accompanying data and decision support needs, 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 staff for multiple tasks simultaneously in accordance with the PWS.

5.3 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 completed the requirements the performance work statement. The offeror must demonstrate sufficient technical and administrative facilities and staff to accomplish and support contract requirements.

5.4 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 these technical areas (software development for real-time water management modeling, data, and decision support) 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 DOW 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.

5.5 Factor 5: Price

The resulting award will be a firm fixed price contract. Price reasonableness will be used for evaluation. The price factor will be evaluated using the price analysis techniques described at RFO 15.404-1, consisting of comparison of competitive offers received in response to the solicitation and comparison to the independent government cost estimate (IGE). Prices found to be unreasonably high or low may reflect a lack of understanding of the requirement and may result in an unfavorable rating. Proposed prices will be evaluated to determine whether unbalanced pricing was proposed. The Government will evaluate price proposals based upon a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the base task and all option tasks combined.

6.0 EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the requiring activity.

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

6.1.1. 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.

6.1.2 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.

6.1.3 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 Methods:

Blu e

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

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.

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

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

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 follows:

Technical Risk Rating Methods:

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.

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.

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.

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

6.1.4. The Past Performance factor will be used to decide 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:

6.1.4.1. 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 because of incorrect reference information of any kind. The references should be provided in descending order, with the most relevant contracts appearing first.

6.1.4.2. 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.

6.1.4.3. 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) 541990. 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.

6.1.4.4. 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 the information available.

6.1.4.5. 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:

6.1.5 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 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

6.1.6 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:

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

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

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

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

6.1.7 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.

6.1.8 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.

Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Based on offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no

6.2. The Price factor will not be rated but will be evaluated to determine whether it is reasonable.

Price reasonableness will be evaluated using the price analysis techniques at RFO 15.404-1 for the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the base and option tasks. Prices found to be unrealistically low or high or unbalanced may reflect a lack of understanding that may result in an unfavorable rating.

To:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

1.1 General Guidance: This section provides a general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested in this section and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any Offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered ineligible for award. The proposal must be compliant with the requirements as stated in the PWS.

Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this section may result in unfavorable proposal evaluation.

1.2 Proposal Submission. Offerors shall submit proposals electronically to the following address:

The file name should contain the solicitation number W912HQ26RA017. Electronic submissions are required. Failure to submit proposals by the closing time and date may result in the proposal being deemed "late" and not considered for evaluation. See RFO 15.107(b) for rules concerning submission of offers and late proposals. Proposals will not be returned (except for timely withdrawals), but will be retained by the Government for official record purposes.

NOTE: Offerors proposal must be received by the Government at the time proposals are due.

Merely transmitting prior to the time proposals are due can potentially result in a proposal arriving "late" thus ineligible for evaluation.

1.3 Inquires. Offerors may submit inquires, questions or comments relating to this solicitation via email to Mackenzie.Rivera@usace.army.mil and David.A.Kaplan@usace.army.mil no later than 15 September at 430PM Eastern Daylight Time. Email subject line shall read: "Solicitation No.

W912HQ26RA017 Questions". The Government will consider all correspondence, but will not issue individual responses; instead, if appropriate, a solicitation amendment will be issued. No questions will be accepted via phone. Individual meetings with firms will not be scheduled.

Voicemails with questions and/or requests for meetings will not receive a response. Questions received after 15 September at 430PM Eastern Daylight Time may or may not be answered.

1.4 Period of Acceptance for Offer. The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for a minimum of 30 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

2.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

To effectively and equitably evaluate proposals, the Government must receive information sufficiently detailed and in the order described below that clearly describe an Offeror's capabilities.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to submit complete proposal information and documents that are fully responsive to the submission requirements of the solicitation. Offerors are responsible for organizing submitted material sequentially under tabs and numbered pages to facilitate evaluation.

Materials not organized under the appropriate tabs and in the sequence of subparagraphs set out below, may easily be overlooked during evaluations, possibly affecting an Offeror's rating. Submit proposals in the format and quantities as indicated below. Proposals shall be comprised of four volumes, and submitted in electronic form, as indicated below.

2.1 Organization. Offerors shall organize their proposal into volumes as follows:

- Factor 1: Technical Understanding and Approach

- Factor 2: Personnel Qualifications and Experience

- Factor 3: Organizational Management

- Factor 4: Past Performance

- Factor 5: Price

2.2 Format. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. Documents shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins - Top, Bottom, Left, Right - 1"

Gutter - 0"

From Edge - Header, Footer 0.5"

Page Size, Width - 8.5"

Page Size, Height - 11"

Font Size - 12-point except for tables and illustrations

Font Style - a font with Serifs is preferred for body text (Times New Roman or Calibri are preferred) and a font without Serifs is preferred for headings/headers (Arial is preferred)

Spreadsheets, table, charts, etc. may be 11" x 17", but will count as two pages. Tables and illustrations may be landscape, and may use a reduced font size of no less than 10-point.

The following additional restrictions apply:

File Packaging: All volumes shall be submitted in PDF Format. Volume III Price should include a MS Excel Spreadsheet in addition to the PDF.

Content Requirement. The proposal shall be prepared clearly and concisely to demonstrate that the Offeror has a complete understanding of the requirements. Offerors shall prepare proposals on the presumption that the Government has no previous knowledge of the Offeror's capabilities.

Proposals will be evaluated only on the information specifically presented in respective submittals, with the exception of the Past Performance evaluations. When applicable, the Offeror shall cross reference to the solicitation by annotating the solicitation reference in parenthesis, (e.g., Sec C, para 4.0). Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation (including attachments). The penalty for making a false statement in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. (S)1001. Offerors should submit their best proposal initially as the Government intends to make awards without discussions in accordance with RFO 52.215-1

.(except clarifications, as described in FAR 15.202(a)(2)) The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if deemed necessary. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. Title pages and table of contents are not included in page counts. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file.

Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

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.

3.1 VOLUME I - TECHNICAL

Volume I shall not exceed 75 pages

3.1.1 Factor 1: Technical Understanding and Approach

Technical Understanding. Offeror should submit a proposal that includes a comprehensive discussion of understanding of the requirement of each task in 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 required tasks. The offeror's proposal shall provide their estimated level of effort and labor categories for the personnel that would be used to complete each task in the PWS.

3.1.2 Factor 2: Personnel Experience and Availability

The offeror's proposal should demonstrate the qualification of key personnel, including the combined education and experience of the support personnel specifically in context to the compilation and statistical analysis of deep-draft vessel operating costs and the associated computerized application, and the appropriateness of qualifications of key personnel. The offeror's proposal will be evaluated to the extent that it demonstrates availability of proposed staff for multiple tasks simultaneously in accordance with the PWS.

3.1.3 Factor 3: Organizational Management

The offeror's proposal should 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 should detailed the proposed work force that will complete the requirements the PWS. The offeror should demonstrate sufficient technical and administrative facilities and staff to accomplish and support all contract requirements.

3.2 VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE

Volume 2 shall not exceed 25 pages.

3.2 Factor 4 - Past Performance. The Offeror that signs the SF1449 shall provide its past performance information regarding recent and relevant efforts and the quality of those efforts to demonstrate accomplishments and capabilities to successfully perform and accomplish the effort required by this RFP. There are two aspects to the past performance information to be submitted:

(a) Relevant Company Effort and (b) Quality of Past Performance.

3.2.1 Relevant Past Performance

The Offeror shall submit a minimum of one (1) and no more than three (3) examples of its most "recent" and "relevant" project efforts performed to demonstrate its company's accomplishments on contracts similar to the effort required in this solicitation. Efforts are considered "Recent" if their performance occurred within the last three (3) years. For each "recent" and "relevant" project example, the Offeror shall furnish the information specified below. If the Offeror is submitting "task order type projects", each single task order project shall be submitted on a separate project data sheet. Do not combine tasks orders and present them as one entire project.

As a minimum, provide the following information:

3.2.1.1 Required Information

(1) Company Name

(2) Name of Project

(3) Location of Project

(4) Owner's Name and Owner's Point of Contact, (telephone, e-mail)

(5) General Scope of Project/Contract Work as it relates to the PWS of this solicitation, including project size, complexity, and any distinctive and/or unique features of the project)

(6) Offeror's Role (Prime, Subcontractor, Joint Venture Partner, etc.) and the type of work your company self performed

(7) Contract Type (e.g., performance based, Firm-Fixed-Price, etc.)

(8) Contract Award Date (Month/Year); Completion Date of the Base Task: (Month/Year);

Completion of option tasks (Month/Year)

(9) If this contract is being performed under an option task the completion date of the current option being performed: (Provide Month/Year)

(10) Contract Dollar Value - Base Task Price and Total Price (Base Task and all Options)

(11) Type and Extent of Work Subcontracted

(12) The Approach to the Operational Services

(13) How the Project was Managed (e.g., oversight, schedule, quality, property management, safety, etc.)

(14) Termination or Liquidated Damages Information (comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions)

(15) Contract Number (if providing information from a US Government contract)

3.2.1.2 Quality of Past Performance.

3.2.1.2.1 The Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of its past performance on the projects submitted in paragraph 3.2.1.1. The Offeror shall provide a completed Contractor performance evaluation, whether annual or final, found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (www.cpars.gov). If a completed Contractor performance evaluation does not exist in CPARS (example, non-U.S. Government projects), the Offeror shall provide completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (see Attachment 2). If, at time of evaluation, a completed Contractor performance evaluation exists in CPARS that conflicts with a submitted PPQ, the completed contractor performance evaluation will govern.

3.2.1.2.2 Any past performance surveys/assessment/evaluation forms, other than CPARS or the PPQ form provided at the end of this section, are unacceptable submissions by the Offeror to evidence the quality of its past performance and will not be considered or evaluated.

3.2.1.2.3 Completed CPARS or PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection. However, Offerors shall not incorporate any CPARS or PPQs by merely referencing other proposals. A copy of the CPARS or PPQ must accompany the company effort submitted under Experience/Past Performance in paragraph 3.2.1. 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.

3.2.1.2.4 If an Offeror has been required to take corrective action for any substandard performance, other performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc., the Offeror should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken.

3.2.1.2.5 If a project owner will only provide completed PPQ's and/or CPARS directly to the U.S.

Army USACE Mission Support Battalion, it is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure that the project owner submits the PPQ and/or PPIRS before the proposal due date using the following electronic mailing addresses: MacKenzie Y. Rivera at email: MacKenzie.Rivera@usace.army.mil - and a copy furnished to David A. Kaplan at email: David.A.Kaplan@usace.army.mil PPQ's and/or CPARS received after the proposal receipt date will not be considered timely and will not be included in the evaluation of the Offeror's proposal.

3.2.2 Verification of Past Performance

The Government reserves the right to verify the past performance record of cited projects (or other recent projects not submitted) by reviewing the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS), or other Government appraisal systems, or to interview owners or references.

The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. An Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to reply to or explain adverse performance information which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to address.

3.3 VOLUME III - PRICE

Factor 5 - Price

Offerors shall submit a price proposal that details the estimated amount of labor per each labor category, the hourly rate for each labor category, subtotals of the contract, travel costs and the grand total price to complete the entire contract. Please propose an estimated amount for travel on CLIN 0005. All travel will be reimbursed at actual cost. Offerors are not entitled to profit on travel.

3.4 VOLUME IV - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

There is no page limit for this volume.

The Offeror shall submit the following in the manner indicated in the Proposal Submission Requirements:

3.4.1 Signed and dated Standard Form 1449, acknowledging any and all amendments by completing Block 30a of the SF1449

3.4.2 Agreements (if applicable)

3.4.3 Bank Information. Offeror shall provide the following information regarding its current

Banki…