A07.23_W912HZ-16-R-0034-0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Section L and M have been revised.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 19

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Oct-2016

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 W912HZ-16-R-0034

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Sep-2016

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

18-Oct-2016

CODE

ERDC CONTRACTING OFFICE

3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD

VICKSBURG MS 39180-6199

W912HZ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HZ-16-R-0034

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Proposals shall be mailed to: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Contracting Office, ATTN: CEERD-CT, Mrs. Allison Hudson, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 39180-6199, USA.

1.2 In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 4.1102, prospective contractors must be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) prior to the award of a contract. You may register at the SAM website, https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/.

1.3 Offeror's Responsibility. It is the offeror's responsibility to ensure the completeness and accuracy of his or her proposal. Corrections will not be made by the Government. Errors in the proposal will be considered, among other factors, as a reflection of the offeror's technical and management capability.

1.4 Policy on Requests by Prospective Offerors for Assistance in the Preparation of Proposals. It is the policy of the Corps of Engineers to not provide any assistance to prospective offerors in the preparation of their proposals. However, this is not meant to preclude offeror's requests for information or clarification. Information will be provided if it is available and releasable, while clarification will be provided in all cases.

1.5 Offerors shall respond to all requirements of the solicitation document. Offerors are cautioned not to alter or disassemble the solicitation.

1.6 The written proposal will be the primary basis on which the Government will determine the capability of the Offeror to perform this work. It shall be specific, detailed, complete, thorough, and clear. It must address each requirement stated in the Performance Work Statement for the Base Award and Sample Task Order 0001. The Government reserves the right to award Sample Task Order 0001 as the first task order under the resulting contract if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

1.7 The proposal shall not merely offer to comply with the Government's requirements by simply restating them, but shall specifically describe the means of accomplishment. The proposal in its entirety shall be specific, detailed, complete, through, and clear to demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the solicitation requirements. Non-detailed statements such as

“the Offeror understands, can or will comply with the requirement listed in the Performance Work Statement”, statements that paraphrase the Performance Work Statement, or ambiguous phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used” may be considered unacceptable.

1.8 Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper or bindings, and expensive visual or other presentation aids (with the exception of technical drawings and figures) are neither necessary nor desired. The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion. When necessary, the Offeror shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within its proposal.

1.9 Please see clauses 52.203-2, Certification of Independent Price Determination and 52.203-5, Covenant Against Contingent Fees

2.0 Communications Concerning the Solicitation

All questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted to the Government via email to Allison.B.Hudson@usace.army.mil. The Government will accept questions up to five (5) calendar days of the proposal due date. Answers to questions will be provided via amendment to the solicitation document.

3.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions

3.1 Overall Arrangement of Proposal –The overall proposal shall consist of five (5) physically separated volumes (Vols. I, II, III, IV, and V) individually titled as stated below. In addition, the Offeror shall submit one (1) copy of all proposal materials in electronic format on compact disc (CD). In case of conflict between the paper copy of the proposals submitted and the CD, the paper copy shall take precedence. The proposals shall remain valid for a minimum of one hundred and twenty (120) days and shall not contain classified data/information.

3.1.1. Proposal Volume and Titles

Volume I – Technical Proposal Volume II – Operational Proposal Volume III – Corporate Experience Proposal Volume IV – Past Performance Proposal Volume V – Price Proposal

3.2 Original and Copy requirements.

Volume I – Original and three (3) copies Volume II – Original and three (3) copies Volume III – Original and three (3) copies Volume IV - Original and three (3) copies

Volume V - Original and two (2) copies

3.3 Page Limitation and Volumes:

Volume Number Page Limitation Volume I – Technical Proposal

Base IDIQ Technical Approach 10 Sample Task Order Technical

Approach

Volume II – Operational Proposal Management Approach 10 Organizational Structure / Teaming

Arrangements

Key Personnel 5 Transition 5

Volume III – Corporate Experience Proposal Corporate Experience 10

Volume IV – Past Performance As Required Volume V – Price

Fully Completed SF 1449 As Required Copies of legal documents outlining joint ventures or partnering arrangements if applicable

As Required

Fully Completed Attachment A Pricing Table

As Required

Price Proposal for Sample Task Order

As Required

3.4. Formatting and Page Limitations:

Volume I, II, and III - Technical Proposal, Operational Proposal, and Corporate Experience Proposal shall be typed in Times New Roman font type and font size 12 for text pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches for text pages, and a maximum of 11 x 17 inches for spreadsheets, charts, tables, diagrams, or design drawings; font type and font size shall be appropriate for spreadsheets, charts, tables, diagrams, or design drawings. Pages larger than

8.5 x 11 inches shall count as two pages for determining page limits. Page margins shall be a minimum of one inch at the top, bottom and each side. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

3.5. Contents and Formatting

Each Offeror’s proposal shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, separate section, each section fully addressing the relevant requirements of the solicitation. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each major section shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date, and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. A suggested outline follows:

3.6. Volume I – Technical Proposal

Offerors shall submit their Technical Proposal following the format below. Proposals not conforming to this format may not receive as high an evaluation as a properly formatted proposal would because the information is not as easily located, extracted and analyzed by the Government. This is a large section and it shall be subdivided as appropriate. NO PRICE

INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN VOLUME I.

3.6.1. Cover

The cover shall indicate the following:

Title of the proposal Solicitation number Name and address of Offeror Identification of original signature copies Classified CAGE code

3.6.2. Table of Contents

The Table of Contents shall provide detail sufficient to allow the important elements to be located easily. The use of tabs and dividers is encouraged, but not necessary.

3.6.3. Introduction

The introduction shall briefly state the purpose and content of the proposal.

3.6.4. Factor 1: Base IDIQ Technical Approach

The proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s capability to provide a high quality technical approach to meet the requirements of the PWS and satisfy the needs outlined for each specific performance objective. The proposal shall include a discussion on how the offeror will perform the technical requirements of the PWS. The Offeror shall describe the approach for scaling the cited capability to provide the full range services for a large and complex network of at least 3,000 users. The proposal shall include a Quality Control Plan (QCP) assuring that requirements of the contract are met across functional requirements outlined in the PWS.

3.6.5. Factor 2: Sample Task Order Technical Approach

The proposal shall include a technical approach that meets all of the requirements of the Sample Task Order PWS. The proposal shall include a staffing solution stated in terms of labor categories and level of effort (hours) only. The technical proposal for Sample Task Order 0001 shall contain NO contractual price information. Sample Task Order 0001 pricing shall be submitted in Volume V, Price proposal.

3.7 Volume II - Operational Proposal

Offerors shall submit their Operational Proposal following the format below. Proposals not conforming to this format may not receive as high an evaluation as a properly formatted proposal would because the information is not as easily located, extracted and analyzed by the Government. This is a large section and it shall be subdivided as appropriate. NO PRICE

INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN VOLUME II.

3.7.1. Cover

The cover shall indicate the following:

Title of the proposal Solicitation number Name and address of Offeror Identification of original signature copies Classified CAGE code

3.7.2. Table of Contents

The Table of Contents shall provide detail sufficient to allow the important elements to be located easily. The use of tabs and dividers is encouraged, but not necessary.

3.7.3. Introduction

The introduction shall briefly state the purpose and content of the proposal.

3.7.4 Factor 1: Management Approach

The proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s capability to provide an efficient and effective management approach. The proposal shall include a discussion that fully describes the procedures for planning, executing and administering the entire effort. The discussion shall describe how the offeror will allocate and control resources for the contract award, as well as, describe the process for scheduling, budgeting and accumulating expenditures. The discussion shall address the process for timely incorporation of subcontractor/team member technical, schedule, and financial performance data into the prime’s monthly reports if subcontractors will be used. The proposal shall demonstrate a competitive methodology to effectively attract, retain, and motivate a highly qualified workforce, employ major subcontractors, and provide an effective management plan to accommodate shortfalls. The proposal shall demonstrate an approach to accommodate short-term requirements for unique skills and capabilities (surge) and reacting to new situations requiring the timely reallocation or reduction of resources.

3.7.5 Factor 2: Organization Structure / Teaming Arrangements

The offeror shall propose an organizational structure and staffing concept that demonstrates an effective approach to organize, staff, lead, plan, coordinate, and control resources to meet the requirements of the PWS. The proposal shall discuss organizational business practices and management of subcontractors that will be implemented to facilitate the successful execution of the Government’s requirement.

3.7.6 Factor 3: Key Personnel

The proposal shall identify the following for key personnel:

Name Security Clearance and Date Granted Education Colleges attended, Major, Dates of Attendance, and Degree Attained and/or Hours

Completed Special Training Experience (In reverse chronological order, list the inclusive dates, employer, and brief description of the task performed, and job title) The most significant managerial accomplishment in the last five years related to this effort.

The most significant technical accomplishment in the last five years related to this effort.

Planned percentage of time to this effort Date of availability

The proposal shall discuss the qualifications of the key personnel, specifically addressing experience in efforts similar to this effort in terms of technical scope and contractual complexity and magnitude. The discussion shall include qualifications (education and experience) as it relates to the functional area requirements of the PWS and demonstrate how these qualifications meet or exceed the applicable minimum qualifications. The proposal shall identify the proposed location and staffing support for key personnel and explain how the key personnel will interface/coordinate to manage operations and services.

3.7.7 Factor 4: Transition Plan

The proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s past experience successfully transitioning as outgoing and incoming contractor to and from a non-affiliated entity on an effort of similar technical scope, contractual complexity, and magnitude. The proposal shall discuss how the past experience can be scaled to transition the full range of services required by this solicitation.

The proposal shall provide a Transition Phase-In approach and plan to address the offeror’s approach from ramping up the effort to hiring or assigning personnel to fully staffing the effort ensuring a seamless transition. The proposal shall describe how the transition will be accomplished providing uninterrupted service during transition and into steady state. The proposal shall discuss the intentions, if any, concerning incumbent contractor personnel. The transition plan shall include transition period length and key activities. The proposal shall identify any risks associated with the proposed timeline.

3.8 Volume III – Corporate Experience Proposal

Offerors shall submit their Corporate Experience Proposal following the format below. Proposals not conforming to this format may not receive as high an evaluation as a properly formatted proposal would because the information is not as easily located, extracted and analyzed by the Government. This is a large section and it shall be subdivided as appropriate. NO PRICE

INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN VOLUME III.

3.8.1. Cover

The cover shall indicate the following:

Title of the proposal Solicitation number Name and address of Offeror Identification of original signature copies Classified CAGE code

3.8.2. Table of Contents

The Table of Contents shall provide detail sufficient to allow the important elements to be located easily. The use of tabs and dividers is encouraged, but not necessary.

3.8.3. Introduction

The introduction shall briefly state the purpose and content of the proposal.

3.8.4 Factor 1: Corporate Experience

The proposal shall identify up to seven (7) of its most relevant projects within the last three years. The proposal shall provide a comprehensive description of the offeror’s significant capabilities and relevant corporate experience performing projects similar to the PWS requirements. Relevant corporate experience is experience within the last three years that is of the same or similar technical scope to the work described in the Performance Work Statement, and is of the same or similar contractual complexity (contract type) and magnitude (performing services that, on an annual basis, are at least half the dollar value estimated to perform the Performance Work Statement’s requirements). Each description shall clearly identify the correlation between the identified capability and relevant corporate experience and the specific PWS functional area requirements(s) to which the capability/experience applies. Each description of relevant corporate experience shall clearly specify the following:

Contract/Task Order number (If a subcontract, also include the prime contract number) Title of Effort

Total potential dollar value (If a subcontract, also include the amount of the prime contract) Performance Period Contractor role (prime or subcontractor) and percentage of work performed in that role Description of the effort

The offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for every project identified as relevant corporate experience. PPQ is included in the solicitation as Attachment C.

If the Offeror has limited experience within the past five years, but does have relevant experience beyond five years in the past, a full description of this past experience must be given along with a narrative describing why this past experience is still relevant and what steps have been taken over the intervening time span to retain the necessary technical expertise and capability to fulfill the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.

3.9 Volume IV - Past Performance Proposal

The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant past performance or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. Relevant past performance is performance under contracts or efforts within the past three years that is of the same or similar scope, complexity, and magnitude to that which is described in the solicitation (as explained under the Corporate Experience subsection).

If the Offeror has limited experience within the past three years, but does have relevant experience beyond three years in the past, a full description of this past experience must be given along with a narrative describing why this past experience is still relevant and what steps have been taken over the intervening time span to retain the necessary technical expertise and capability to fulfill the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.

Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate Offeror past performance. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems it finds in the proposal. The burden of providing thorough and complete Past Performance information remains with the Offerors.

Proposals that do not contain the information requested risk rejection or a less than acceptable rating by the Government.

Past Performance Questionnaire - The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation as Attachment C is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Volume II, Past Performance Proposal. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment C), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Mrs. Allison Hudson via email at Allison.B.Hudson@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

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/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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.

New Corporate Entities -- New corporate entities may submit data on prior relevant and recent contracts (within the last 3 calendar years) involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Past performance information on work for state and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontractors that are similar to the Government requirement will be evaluated equally with similar federal contracts. Offerors shall submit information on key personnel, major subcontractors, and work performed as part of a team or joint venture and other previous reincarnation of its current organization.

3.10 Volume V – Price Proposal

Offerors shall submit the Price proposal in the following format. Conformance with the requested format for a proposal demonstrates ability to follow directions and understand requirements.

A cover sheet shall be submitted with the offeror's name, the volume number, and the solicitation number. The second sheet shall be an index/table of contents.

Price proposals shall consist of the following basic components:

Fully completed SF 1449. The Government will complete section B at time of award.

Copies of legal documents outlining joint ventures or partnering arrangements if applicable.

Fully completed Attachment A Pricing Table. Labor Rates - Fully loaded labor rates must be provided for all FFP labor categories in Attachment A for the five year ordering period and the Option Period.

Other Direct Cost (ODC) Related Information - The offeror may propose a maximum percentage to be applied to other direct costs. The percentage may be negotiated to a lower rate for subsequent task orders, but may not exceed rate proposed for duration of the ordering period.

Price Proposal for Sample Task Order 0001- Proposal must include:

Breakdown of labor skill/mix, rates and totals for performance requirements based on rates taken from Attachment A.

Any other direct costs associated with performance of Sample Task Order 0001

The on-site labor category rates proposed in Attachment A shall be based on contract performance in Vicksburg, MS. The offeror shall also propose Factor for other ERDC sites listed below. The purpose is to provide a Factor that can be multiplied by the Vicksburg, MS labor rates to convert those rates to the other geographical locations listed.

LOCATION FACTOR

Vicksburg, MS 1.0 Hanover, NH Alexandria, VA Champaign, IL

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

1.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1.1 In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) has been established to evaluate proposals submitted for this acquisition.

Proposals received in response to the Solicitation will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria set forth in Section M below. In accordance with FAR Part 15.306, it is the Government’s intent to award without discussions but does reserve the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Offerors shall submit their initial offers based upon terms and conditions, which they consider to be the most favorable to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government, in consideration of all factors, including Technical, Past Performance, and Price, including all options. The basis for award will be an acceptable proposal, the price of which may not be the lowest. However, if the award is not based on the lowest price, the proposal must be sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest priced proposal so as to justify the payment for additional costs.

1.2 When the term “offeror” is used, it is defined as a single offeror, joint venture, or a team of offerors and major sub-contractors. Proposals submitted under a formal partnering agreement or joint-venture must be accompanied by a copy of the legal document establishing such.

Documentation shall be provided as established in Section L.

1.3 It is the Government’s intent to award one indefinite delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract resulting from this solicitation with provisions for issuing firm- fixed-price (FFP) task orders and/or cost-reimbursable (Cost) for other direct costs.

1.4 Selection of a Contractor will be made by an integrated assessment of the proposals submitted and in light of the following criteria. The integrated assessment will involve a determination by the Government of the overall merit of each offeror's proposal, recognizing that subjective judgment on the part of the Government evaluators are implicit in the entire process. Award will be made to the offeror whom the Government determines able to accomplish the necessary work in a manner most advantageous to the Government. The evaluation of Technical and Past Performance will be accomplished without reference to price. A price analysis will be performed.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

All factors and significant sub-factors that will affect contract award are listed below:

2.1 Volume I – Technical Proposal

2.1.1 Factor 1: Base IDIQ Technical Approach

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate its capability to provide a high quality technical and management approach to meet the requirements of the PWS and satisfy the needs outlined for each specific performance objective. Proposals demonstrating a clear understanding of how to deliver services to meet the requirements of the PWS and demonstrate that proposed technical personnel possess the technical qualifications, experience, and capabilities to deliver the expert services called for in the PWS will be evaluated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate a Quality Control Plan (QCP) assuring that requirements of the contract are met across functional requirements outlined in the PWS. Proposals containing QCPs that clearly describe the way in which the contractor will produce deliverables and the step-by-step approach taken to ensure the quality of the services and the products derived from those services will be rated more favorably.

2.1.2 Factor 2: Sample Task Order Technical Approach

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate a sound technical approach that meets all of the requirements of the Sample Task Order PWS with an effective and efficient staffing solution. Proposals demonstrating a clear understanding of how to deliver services to meet the requirements of the Sample Task Order PWS with a proposed staffing solution will be rated more favorably.

2.2 Volume II – Operational Proposal

2.2.1 Factor 1: Management Approach

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate a sound plan to achieve all phases of planning, executing, and administering the effort including resourcing, scheduling, budgeting and expending for multiple sources of funds and tasks. Proposals that demonstrate clear and effective processes for budgeting and expending hours and dollars, identifying expenditure and schedule problems, tracking and measuring performance, and providing timely detailed performance status to corporate management and the government will be evaluated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate an effective and efficient process for timely incorporation of subcontractor/team member technical, schedule, and financial performance data into the prime’s monthly reports if subcontractors will be used. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate a competitive methodology to effectively attract, retain, and motivate a highly qualified workforce, employ subcontractors, and provide an effective management plan to accommodate shortfalls. Proposals that provide innovative management concepts and cross-utilization techniques that provide for an agile, responsive, and efficient workforce, address accommodation of short-term requirements for unique skills and capabilities, and demonstrate flexibility and efficiency in reacting to new situations requiring timely reallocation or reduction of resources will be evaluated more favorably.

2.2.2 Factor 2: Organization Structure / Teaming Arrangements

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate an effective organizational structure and staffing concept approach to organize, staff, lead, plan, coordinate, and control resources to meet the requirements of the PWS. Proposals identifying effective lines of communication, lines of responsibility and interfaces between prime and subcontractors, management/supervisory and technical staffs, Government personnel, and other support contractors and customers will be evaluated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to discuss organizational business practices and management of subcontractors that will be implemented to facilitate the successful execution of the Government’s requirement. Proposals that demonstrate an organization structure that will result in enhanced performance or reduced cost will be evaluated more favorably.

2.2.3 Factor 3: Key Personnel

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to identify key personnel that will contribute to overall performance and management of the effort to meet the requirements of the PWS.

Proposals that provide adequate and clear information that establishes the key personnel possess adequate qualifications and experience to effectively perform and manage the requirements of the PWS will be evaluated more favorably. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to sufficiently discuss the qualifications and experience of the key personnel clearly describing in detail efforts similar in technical scope and contractual complexity. Proposals that substantiate the key personnel have the qualifications and experience required to successfully perform and manage this effort will be evaluated more favorably.

2.2.4 Factor 4: Transition Plan

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to describe past experience successfully transitioning as outgoing and incoming contractor to and from a non-affiliated entity on an effort of similar technical scope, contractual complexity, and magnitude. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to provide a plan demonstrating effective and realistic transitioning of incoming resources and incumbent contractors. Proposals that include a plan that effectively transition resources and ensure full continuity of services on the required start date of the contract will be evaluated more favorably.

2.3 – Volume III – Corporate Experience Proposal

2.3.1 Factor 1: Corporate Experience

The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to describe its significant capabilities and relevant corporate experience in performing services similar to the PWS requirements. Proposals including significant capabilities and relevant corporate experience in providing similar services will be rated more favorably.

2.4 Volume IV - Past Performance Proposal

The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant past performance or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. Relevant past performance is performance under contracts or efforts within the past three years that is of the same or similar technical scope, contractual complexity, and magnitude to that which is described in the solicitation (as explained under the Corporate Experience subsection).

If the Offeror has limited experience within the past three years, but does have relevant experience beyond three years in the past, a full description of this past experience must be given along with a narrative describing why this past experience is still relevant and what steps have been taken over the intervening time span to retain the necessary technical expertise and capability to fulfill the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.

Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate Offeror past performance. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems it finds in the proposal. The burden of providing thorough and complete Past Performance information remains with the Offerors.

Proposals that do not contain the information requested risk rejection or a less than acceptable rating by the Government.

Past Performance Questionnaire - The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation as Attachment C is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Volume II, Past Performance

Proposal. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment C), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Mrs. Allison Hudson via email at Allison.B.Hudson@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

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/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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.

New Corporate Entities -- New corporate entities may submit data on prior relevant and recent contracts (within the last 3 calendar years) involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Past performance information on work for state and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontractors that are similar to the Government requirement will be evaluated equally with similar federal contracts. Offerors shall submit information on key personnel, major subcontractors, and work performed as part of a team or joint venture and other previous reincarnation of its current organization.

2.5 Volume V - Price Proposal

Price Analysis will be accomplished in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 and will encompass the following:

Labor Rates: The purpose of the price analysis will be to ensure fair and reasonable price associated with proposed labor rates.

ODC Cost Rate: The purpose of this cost analysis is to ensure a fair and reasonable rate to be applied to other direct costs.

Price for Sample Task Order 0001: The purpose of this price analysis is to ensure that prices are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the efforts described in the offeror’s technical proposal for Sample

Task Order 0001. An excessively high or low price proposal will be considered an indication of a limited understanding of the task or an inefficient organization and may be render the offeror as non-responsive.

Sample Task order 0001 price proposal will be evaluated based on:

Overall labor cost based on NTE total (estimated labor mix and hours proposed will be evaluated in Technical Approach).

Other direct costs associated with performance of Sample Task Order 0001

3.0 Evaluation Weights and Adjective Ratings

Evaluation Weights: An award will be made based on the best value proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the non-price/cost factors.

The Technical Proposal is more important than the Operational Proposal which is more important than the Corporate Experience Proposal and Past Performance Proposal. Within the Technical Proposal and Operational Proposal, all factors are of equal importance. Past Performance is more important than Price. All of the non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. To be considered for award, the Offeror must be determined to be acceptable in all areas. A deficiency in any of the areas could constitute a basis for rejection of a proposal.

3.1 Technical Rating. The rating for overall Technical Rating includes factor 1 – Base IDIQ Technical Approach and factor 2 – Sample Task Order Technical Approach. The rating for overall Operational Rating includes factor 1 – Management Approach, factor 2 – Organizational Structure / Teaming Arrangements, factor 3 – Key Personnel, and factor 4 –Transition. The rating for overall Corporate Experience Rating includes factor – 1 Corporate Experience. The Technical Rating, Operational Rating, and Corporate Experience Rating will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. The adjectival ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

Table 1. Combined Technical/Operational/Corporate Experience/Risk Ratings Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach 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 or 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.

3.2 Performance Rating Definitions. The Past Performance Risk ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

Relevance: There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate 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. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The below table will be used when determining relevancy

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.

Confidence: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current 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. The below table will be used when determining confidence:

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.

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.

3.3 Key Evaluation Terms. The following terms are applicable to the evaluation process.

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

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

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

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

Significant Weakness. A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Communications. Communications are exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range (if required).

Communications shall be limited to:

Offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing them from being included in the competitive range. Such communications will address adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not had a prior opportunity to respond; and

Offerors (other than those discussed above) whose exclusion from or inclusion in the competitive range is uncertain.

Communications may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal; or facilitate the Government's evaluation process.

Communications cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or price elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the technical or price elements of the proposal. Such communications may be considered in rating proposals for the purpose of establishing the competitive range, if required. Communications shall not provide an opportunity for the Offeror to revise their proposal, but may address ambiguities in the proposal or other concerns (e.g. perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes and information relating to relevant past performance).

Clarifications. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g. relevance of past performance information, and adverse past performance) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

Relative Order of Importance Terminology. The following terminology is provided to give offerors an understanding of the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors.

Significantly More Important. The factor is substantially more important than another factor. The factor is given far more consideration than another factor.

More Important. The factor is greater in value than another factor, but not as much as a significantly more important factor. The factor is given more consideration than another factor.

Comparatively Equal. The factor is nearly the same in value as another factor; any difference is very slight.

4.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award one contract to the responsible offeror whose proposals are responsive to the solicitation and determined to be the best value and most advantageous to the Government. Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each offeror’s proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors in the solicitation.

(End of Summary of Changes)