W912HZ23R00320001 Amendment 0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of Amendment 0001 is to:

1. Extend the closing date from 25 August 2023 at 12:00PM CST to 1 September 2023 at 3:00PM.

2. Revise Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, Page Limitation and Parts:

Part I – Technical Proposal Subfactor 2: Key Personnel the page allow ance for Key Personnel is changed from 10 to As required.

All other terms and conditions remain the same

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.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Aug-2023

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912HZ23R0032

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-Aug-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, 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

16-Aug-2023

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:

W912HZ23R0032

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 25-Aug-2023 12:00 PM to 01-Sep-2023 03:00 PM.

The number of offeror copies required 1 has been added.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL PREP INSTRUCTIONS

Proposals should be emailed to Amanda.Andrews@usace.army.mil and sonia.j.boyd@usace.army.mil by 3:00 PM Central on 1 September 2023.

Questions shall be submitted no later than 19 August 2023. Response to questions will be issued in an amendment.

Overall Arrangement of Proposal –The overall proposal shall consist of three (3) parts in one volume individually titled as stated below.

Page Limitation and Parts:

Part Number Page Limitation Part I – Technical Proposal

a. Experience 20

b. Key Personnel As Required

c. Technical Approach 40

Part II – Past Performance As Required Part III – Price As Required

Part I – Technical Proposal

NO PRICE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN PART I.

Subfactor 1: Experience

The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant corporate experience related to the evaluation criteria. Relevant corporate experience is experience (within the last 5 years) that is of the same or similar scope and complexity to the work described in the Performance Work Statement, and is of the same or similar magnitude (i.e., performing services that, on an annual basis, are at least half the dollar value proposed by the Offeror to perform the Performance Work Statement’s requirements). To demonstrate its corporate experience, the Offeror shall identify up to five (5) of its most relevant contracts or efforts within the past five (5) years, and provide any other information the Offeror considers relevant to the requirements of the solicitation. Offerors shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts or efforts to the requirements of the solicitation.

To the extent that the Offeror intends to subcontract significant portions of the effort, for each subcontractor the Offeror shall identify up to five (5) of the most relevant contracts or efforts within the past five (5) years and provide any other information the Offeror considers relevant to the requirements of the solicitation. “Significant”, in this case, means work efforts involving more than 4,000 man hours per annum. In evaluating subcontractor experience, the relevance of subcontractor experience will be determined based on the scope, complexity, and magnitude of the aspects of the work in the solicitation for which the subcontractor is proposed to perform. Therefore, the proposal shall detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that each subcontractor is intended to perform. The Offeror shall also provide information as to where the subcontractor fits into their organizational chart.

Subfactor 2: Key Personnel

Key Personnel is to include narrative descriptions related to the evaluation criteria. Documents required for evaluation include:

Staffing Plan to reflect staffing and management of personnel to fill requirements under the purchase order, resume(s) for the key personnel proposed, and the physical location of the key personnel and identification of teaming and subcontractors partners. (Please note inclusion of and restrictions contained in clause 52.219-14 “Limitations on Subcontracting” in this procurement)

Quality Control Plan

Subfactor 3: Technical Approach

i. Demonstrate understanding of requirements of Performance Work Statement.

ii. Demonstrate approach to meet technical requirements of Performance Work Statement.

iii. Ability to provide labor/skill mix to meet functional/technical requirements as outlined in Performance Work Statement.

Part II - 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 five (5) years that is of the same or similar scope, complexity, and magnitude to that which is described in the solicitation.

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.

Part III - 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.

Price proposals shall consist of the following basic components:

a. Fully completed SF 33 and bidding schedule

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

c. Fixed price for all labor and other direct costs for each task.

d. Price Proposal for the Performance Work Statement- Proposal must include:

i. Breakdown of labor skill/mix, rates and totals for each task.

ii. Any other direct costs associated with performance of the Performance Work Statement

RELATIONSHIP OF ACCEPTED PROPOSAL CONTENT TO THE CONTRACT

REQUIREMENTS. By submission of an offer pursuant to this solicitation, the Offeror agrees that the capability presented in the proposal becomes a contract requirement upon award of a contract. No changes, substitutions, or deviations from the accepted proposal may be made without the approval of the Contracting Officer. You, as the Offeror, agree that the explicit capability presented in your proposal shall be provided under this contract at the stated price.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

It is the Government’s intent to award one purchase order contract resulting from this solicitation that will be firm fixed-price (FFP).

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.

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

Part I – Technical Proposal

Subfactor 1: Experience

The Offeror’s corporate experience will be evaluated on the degree of relevance to the requirements of the Performance Work Statement on the basis of similarity in size, scope, complexity, contract type and period of performance. Only recent experience (within the last 5 years) will be evaluated.

i. Must have demonstrated a minimum of five years experience implementing major resilience efforts (i.e. water, energy, coastal protection) in support of DoD military installation master or natural resource planning.

ii. Must have demonstrated a minimum of three years experience with coastal resilience efforts in supportof DoD and/or other Federal government agencies (e.g., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]).

iii. Must have experience with using sediment in development of NBS designs in coastal systems.

iv. Must have demonstrated a minimum of three years’ DoD, state, or other outside government agency experience with organization, coordination, and planning of large and diverse stakeholder and partnering working groups (defined as more than three organizations outside your company in a single effort) for the purpose of pursuing development of NBS.

iv. Must have demonstrated a minimum of three years experience with development of NBS field study plans (development, scoping, design) and collection of field data and other data such as wind, wave, weather, and current forces that informs decision making tools such as carbon sequestration models, hydrodynamic and sediment transport models, digital elevation models.

v. Must have demonstrated a minimum of three years’ experience with developing detailed health and safety procedures and associated documentation for diverse data collection, surveying, land planning, and/or natural resource planning associated with field-based activities conducted on a military onstallation, to include coordination with designation installation points-of-contact (POC) responsible for mission and training operations.

Subfactor 2: Key Personnel

i. Resumes of key personnel should be included in the proposal. Evaluation will be made as to the relevance of Key Personnel past experience to the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.

ii. Quality Control Plan with a schematic of project management

Subfactor 3: Technical Approach for Performance Work Statement

i. Demonstrated understanding of requirements of Performance Work Statement.

ii. Demonstrated approach to meet technical requirements of Performance Work Statement.

iii. Demonstrated ability to provide labor/skill mix to meet functional/technical requirements as outlined in

Performance Work Statement.

Part II - Past Performance Proposal

The evaluation of Past Performance is a subjective assessment of the Offeror's Past Performance on contracts of a similar nature, size, scope, and complexity, utilizing a comparable number of personnel with like skills. The Government will consider the Offeror's previous and current record of contractual performance.

The Government will use data provided in the Offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources. The Offeror is cautioned that while the Government will consider data from other sources, the burden of demonstrating satisfactory past performance rests with the Offeror.

Part III - Price Proposal Price Analysis will be accomplished for the fixed price proposed for each task.

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 factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor and Price factor. Within the Technical factor, all subfactors 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.

Technical Factors Rating. The rating for overall Technical, Subfactor 1 – Experience, Subfactor 2 – Key personnel, and Subfactor 3 – Technical Approach 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/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.

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

Relevance:

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:

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 (Netural) 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.

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. Any aspect of a proposal when judged against a stated evaluation criterion enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful 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 between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals and before establishment of the competitive range are exchanges, 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.

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

b. 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.

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

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)