Amendment 03.docx

W912P420R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 05-Aug-2020 03:00 PM to 19-Aug-2020 03:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0004

The pricing detail quantity has increased by 14,809.00 from 63,465.00 to 78,274.00.

CLIN 0006

The pricing detail quantity has increased by 6,084.00 from 26,075.00 to 32,159.00.

CLIN 0008

The pricing detail quantity has increased by 7,034.00 from 30,147.00 to 37,181.00.

CLIN 0010

The pricing detail quantity has increased by 2,165.00 from 1,356.00 to 3,521.00.

CLIN 0012

The pricing detail quantity has decreased by 1,183.00 from 2,855.00 to 1,672.00.

CLIN 0014

The pricing detail quantity has increased by 372.00 from 1,598.00 to 1,970.00.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

This is a competitive, Small Business Set-Aside (SBSA), FAR Part 15, best value, tradeoff, source selection solicitation in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Buffalo District (LRB). From the source selection, the Government intends to make one award in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f). The resultant contract will be a hybrid contract containing Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract line times and Firm Fixed Price contract line items. The maximum length of the contract shall not exceed 10 years from the date of award (including options). Each competing prime contractor, hereinafter referred to as the “offeror”, must submit a proposal that includes the required information in the following paragraphs to demonstrate its capabilities to perform the work described in the RFP. By submission of a proposal, the offeror accedes to all the terms of the request for proposal (RFP). The following instructions are for the preparation and submission of proposals. The purpose of this section is to establish requirements for the format and content of proposals, so that proposals contain all essential information and can be evaluated equitably. Offerors are instructed to read the entire solicitation, including all attachments, prior to submitting questions and preparing your offer. Omission of any information to the proposal submission requirement may result in rejection of the offer. All information within the page limitations of the proposal is subject to evaluation.

The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in Section M of this solicitation. Offerors are prohibited from modifying, in any way, shape, or form, any documents, printed or electronic, associated with this solicitation and any amendment(s) thereto. The electronic solicitation documents, as posted on beta.sam.gov will be the “official” documents for this solicitation.

The Government will not reimburse offerors for any cost incurred for the preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation. All proposal information is subject to verification by the Government. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) with their Unique Entity Identifier under the appropriate North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition. Registration can be completed on the SAM website at https://www.sam.gov. If assistance is needed with SAM registration, contact the SAM helpdesk at https://www.fsd.gov or (866) 606-8220.

Any questions about this solicitation must be submitted via email to Contract Specialist, Frank D’Andrea at frank.j.dandrea@usace.army.mil and Contracting Officer, Jeffrey Ernest at jeffrey.g.ernest@usace.army.mil. These are the only individuals to whom questions should be addressed. The cut-off date for questions to be considered for response is 10 July 2020. For questions, no other means of communication (fax, telephone) will be accepted. Oral exchanges between offerors and the Government prior to award of the contract will not be binding. Any information concerning this solicitation will be furnished to all offerors as an amendment to the solicitation if the information is necessary to the submittal of offers. Any amendments will be posted to the beta.sam.gov website.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

All responses to this solicitation shall be submitted electronically. Hand carried delivery or USPS/UPS/FEDEX delivery of hard copies and or CD-ROMs are not authorized. Facsimile submission is not authorized.

Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, DOD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil). There are no user accounts for SAFE. Authentication is handled via email. The application is available for use by anyone. The SAFE “Getting Started Guide” has information on how to utilize the system (https://safe.apps.mil/about.php).

Instructions for uploading proposals to DOD SAFE are as follows:

1. Send an email to the Contracting Officer (jeffrey.g.ernest@usace.army.mil) and Contract Specialist (frank.j.dandrea@usace.army.mil) to receive the link to drop of your proposal. This will need to be completed within five (5) days of the proposal due date, but no later than one day prior to the proposal due date. You will receive an email with the link to submit your drop-off.

2. Short Note to the Recipients: Click the Add Files or Drag and Drop your files. For file description, enter W912P420R0004-FIRMNAME.

3. Click Upload button to send documents.

4. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified. No additional action is required by CAC users.

5. File Size Limitations: Offerors are advised to follow the DOD SAFE instructions for uploading files. DOD SAFE supports delivery up to 8GB.

6. File Naming Convention: To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

· W912P420R0004-FIRMNAME-Volume I

· W912P420R0004-FIRMNAME-Volume II

· W912P420B0004-FIRMNAME-Volume III

· W912P420R0004-FIRMNAME-Volume IV

· W912P420R0004-FIRMNAME-Volume V

Pre-Proposal Conference: The Buffalo District will conduct a Pre-Proposal Conference at 1:00 pm (1300) E.S.T. 24 Jun 2020. The Pre-Proposal Conference will be conducted virtually. Please contact jeffrey.g.ernest@usace.army.mil for the call-in information no later than 22 Jun 2020.

Proposal Submission Format. Submit proposals in the format indicated below. All digital files must be word searchable in PDF format.

(1) TECHNICAL VOLUMES

Organize the technical proposal in three volumes as described below. Do not provide cost/price information in Volumes I, II, or III.

VOLUME I – Safety Record VOLUME II – Past Performance VOLUME III – Technical Approach

· Submit one PDF file for each volume.

· Use 8 ½” x 11” page size, 1-inch margins, with 12-point or larger font size, single spaced. Each paragraph should be separated by at least one blank line. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required[footnoteRef:1]. [1: The requirement for 1 inch margins excludes content with headers and footers. ]

· Spreadsheets, tables, 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, no less than 10-point.

· Include the following in each volume:

1) A cover page that includes the volume number, solicitation number, firm name and address, business size, CAGE code, and a point of contact for all correspondence related to the proposal (include phone number and email address)

2) Table of Contents

3) List of tables/figures

4) Solicitation number on each page

5) Volume number and page number in the bottom right corner of each page (along with the proposal revision number for the amended page, if amended).

(2) COST/PRICE VOLUME

Organize the cost/price volume as described below.

VOLUME IV – Cost/Price

· Submit one PDF file for this volume and an unlocked Excel file

· Include the following:

1) A cover page that identifies the volume number, solicitation number, firm name and address, business size, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, and a point of contact for all correspondence related to the proposal (include phone number and email address)

2) Table of Contents

3) List of Tables/Figures

4) Solicitation number on each page

5) Volume number and page number in the bottom right corner of each page (along with the proposal revision number for the amended page, if amended)

· Do not include technical information in the cost/price volume.

(3) ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS VOLUME

Organize the administrative requirements volume as described below.

VOLUME V – Administrative Requirements

· Submit one PDF file for this volume.

(4) The following page limits apply to each volume:

I Factor 1

II

Factor 2

III

Factor 3

IV

Factor 4

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. The proposal cover page; table of contents; title page; list of tables/figures, or acronyms; separator tabs; EMR documentation; OSHA 300/A Logs, organizational chart, Past Performance Questionnaires and subcontractor letters of commitment are excluded from the page count.

Offerors shall adhere to the proposal submission formats for Volumes I through III as identified herein. See paragraphs (1) Technical Volumes and (2) Cost/Price Volume above. Headers and footers may be increased to 14-point or reduced to 10-point size. The use of hyperlinks is prohibited.

The offeror must ensure that all files contained therein are readable, complete, and accessible without password. The digital files must be provided in a word searchable PDF format. Pricing worksheets must be submitted in Microsoft Excel, Version 2013 compatible, with formulas accessible. Self-extracting .exe files are not acceptable.

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. Do not include classified information in the proposal.

JOINT VENTURES

Joint ventures must submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities[footnoteRef:2]: [2: Provide this information in Volume V. ]

1. A copy of the duly executed joint venture agreement signed by individuals who are authorized to bind each company[footnoteRef:3]. [3: The Joint Venture Agreement will not be included in the page count. ]

2. A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate.

a. The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

b. The management approach of the joint venture in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise and control the project, have custody and control of the assets of the joint venture, and perform the duties necessary to complete the work.

c. The structure of the joint venture and decision-making responsibilities of the joint venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

d. Identification of key personnel having authority to legally bind the joint venture to subcontract and state who will provide or contract labor and materials for the joint venture.

e. Identification of party maintaining the joint venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the joint venture.

f. Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

g. Identification of party having overall control of the joint venture.

Other sections of the proposal must identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual joint venture parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the joint venture.

SUBCONTRACTORS

If an offeror wishes to receive credit for the past performance of a subcontractor, they must submit a letter of commitment to use the proposed subcontractor on the project, which is signed both by the subcontractor and the offeror. The commitment letter must be submitted even if the subcontractor is in some way affiliated with the offeror (for example, the subcontractor is a subsidiary of a joint venture partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the joint venture partner is also a subsidiary). Include the subcontractor letters of commitment in Volume II, Factor 2, Past Performance (see Attachment 9).

PROPOSAL FILES

(1) VOLUME I (Factor 1) – Safety Record Offerors must demonstrate their commitment to safety by providing past safety performance information. The following information must be submitted for the offeror and all team members identified in the offeror’s proposal:

NOTE: Offerors with the following ratings must provide an explanation for the ratings and must describe corrective actions taken to improve their safety program.

· An EMR value greater than 1.25.

· A RIR value greater than 4.7.

· A DART value greater than 3.4.

· Any fatalities.

(2) VOLUME II (Factor 2) – Past Performance. Provide narrative descriptions of up to five (5) examples of “projects” that present the offeror’s and its team member’s environmental experience in cost-reimbursable and fixed-price construction, service and other types of contracts related to large-scale construction remediation projects (greater than $10 million). An offeror that relies upon the experience and performance history of a team member must provide a letter of commitment signed by all parties (see Attachment 9). A “project” is defined as work performed pursuant to one specific task order of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contract at one site, or multiple sites at a single installation or facility, or work performed pursuant to a site-specific contract for one site, or multiple sites within a single installation or facility. An IDIQ type contract for the performance of work pursuant to multiple task orders of an IDIQ type contract does not represent a “project” within this definition unless the multiple task orders were all for one site or multiple sites at one facility. If the offeror provides a specific task order as its “project”, it must provide the base contract number and the task order number for reference purposes. If the offeror provides a site-specific contract as its “project”, it must provide the base contract number for reference purposes. The projects must be at least 50% complete and the majority of the work must have been performed within the last ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this RFP. Note that all of the projects submitted do not need to be over $10 million. Projects totaling less than $10 million may be determined to be less relevant. Projects that are outside of the ten year range will not be considered. Projects that are not for environmental remediation will not be considered.

The narrative descriptions are limited to two (2) pages for each project, and a total of ten (10) pages for Volume II, which are included in the proposal total page count. The narrative descriptions may be presented on one 11x17 page. However, one 11x17 page will count as two pages. If a project is presented within a table, it is acceptable to utilize Times New Roman 10-point font. The example projects should address the offeror’s and its team member’s past performance in the following areas:

· FUSRAP and/or U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) work and/or commercial projects.

· Large-scale construction remediation (over $10 million) involving multiple activities such as decontamination, shoring, water management and waste water processing, excavation and handling of beryllium, lead, and radionuclide impacted soils and debris.

· Work with federal, state, and local environmental regulatory agencies.

· Work in residential/rural areas.

· Completion of cost-reimbursable contracts.

Beryllium remediation experience may be rated more favorably.

The following information must be provided for each of the projects:

· Name, address, and telephone number of the of client (confidential clients are not acceptable)

· Contract/Task Order number

· Type of contract (firm fixed price [FFP], cost plus fixed fee [CPFF], cost plus award fee [CPAF], or cost plus incentive fee [CPIF])

· Date of award initial contract amount

· Date of completion/final contract amount

· Description of work

· Contract role (prime or subcontractor)

· Percentage of total value of contract performed by offeror (If offeror was the prime, indicate what portion was subcontracted; if offeror was the subcontractor, indicate what percentage of the total project was awarded to the offeror)

· Name, address, and telephone number of the customer (confidential clients are not acceptable)

Past Performance Questionnaires The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in Attachment 10 is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project that is included in their proposal. Ensure that correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided on the PPQ for the client point of contact.

Submit completed PPQs as an appendix to Volume II. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ before the proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the project. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of PPQs. If the client requests, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Jeffrey Ernest via email at Jeffrey.g.ernest@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The only information in the subject line must be the solicitation number W912P4-20-R-0004.

Copies of PPQs prepared by clients for other solicitations can be provided. The Government is not precluded from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in their evaluation.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Although 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.

At no time during this process, during the debriefing, or after award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance be revealed to the offerors or to any other party. If discussions are held, offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references in accordance with guidelines identified in FAR Part 15.306(b)(4). In this case, comments will be extracted and provided to the offeror.

(2) VOLUME III (Factor 3) – Technical Approach. This volume must be organized into the sections described below.

(a) Element A – Staffing Plan. Describe the project staffing structure and discuss the roles of each key project member. Indicate whether the job will be performed by the offeror’s own organization or by a subcontractor. Provide an organizational chart that shows each project member, the lines of authority and communication/reporting, and the organizational position of personnel that are instrumental to contract execution, labor mix, and numbers of personnel. A font size of no less than 8 point is acceptable for the organizational chart. The chart can be presented on an 11x17 page. Describe work that will be performed by subcontractor(s) and other team members. Personnel turnover should be addressed, including a discussion of how personnel turnover will be managed throughout the contract period of performance.

(b) Element B – Transition and Schedule Risk Management Plan. Address the approach for eliminating or minimizing delays in resuming remedial activities for the Luckey Soils Remediation including, but not limited to, ensuring timely completion of the following critical tasks:

1. Employee training and medical monitoring.

2. Mobilization of temporary facilities, equipment, and personnel.

3. Site infrastructure improvements.

4. On-site laboratory accreditation under the Department of Defense (DoD) Environmental Laboratory Program (ELAP) to facilitate rapid turnaround of analytical results associated with contamination control monitoring, industrial hygiene monitoring, waste characterization, and confirmation sampling.

(c) Element C – Performance Based Milestone Schedule. Provide a full P6 schedule with Gantt chart that includes required project activity logic and identifies the critical path and key milestones for all work that will be accomplished in the contract. The chart must clearly identify the proposed period of performance (start date through end date) for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) identified in the solicitation. The maximum period of performance for the contract is ten (10) years from contract award. Tab C is excluded from the page limitation of this volume.

(3) VOLUME IV (Factor 4) – Cost/Price. Certified cost or pricing data is not expected because adequate price competition is anticipated for this requirement. If after receipt of proposals the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions at FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror may be required to submit cost or pricing data. Proposal information included in this volume that is not directly related to cost/price will be disregarded.

Cost/Price Proposal. Provide a cost/price proposal in accordance with the PWS requirements and the offeror’s technical approach. MANDATORY SOLICITATION REQUIREMENT: Assume a funding limitation of no greater than $27 million annually will be available for the contract. Complete the Bid Schedule in Attachment 7. This information will be used by the Government to conduct cost realism analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). Offerors do not have to use Attachment 8, but their cost proposal must be organized in the same manner as Attachment 8. The offeror’s cost proposal must contain labor categories, labor hours per category, labor rates for the prime contractor and each subcontractor (over $250K estimated billing), material, travel, equipment, and other direct costs required to perform the work included in the PWS utilizing the proposed technical approach. A break-out of travel, material, equipment, other direct costs, labor categories descriptions and qualifications, and labor rates must be identified at the lowest level possible. Propose a fixed price per ton for transportation and disposal (T&D) for each of the soil remediation areas in Tab B. The unit prices will be fixed for the duration of the contract.

Organize the cost/price volume in the following tabs:

Tab A – Mobilization Tab B – Soil Remediation

1. Trenches 1 and 2

2. Trench 3 (Option)

3. Trenches 4 and 5 (Option)

4. Storage Area (Option)

5. Under Production Building (Option)

6. Ditch (Option) Tab C – Transportation and Disposal

1. Trenches 1 and 2

2. Trench 3 (Option)

3. Trenches 4 and 5 (Option)

4. Storage Area (Option)

5. Under Production Building (Option)

6. Ditch (Option) Tab D – Demobilization Tab E – Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal (Option) Tab F – Documentation for Accounting System and Earned Value Management System (EVMS)

Use the USACE hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) work breakdown structure (WBS) (identified in Section C) to organize all proposed costs/prices. Provide a Basis of Estimate (BOE) narrative corresponding to each WBS item (lowest level) explaining the cost elements utilized to implement the proposed technical approach. The BOE will explain assumptions made, quantity development, crew compositions, production rates, activity durations, and interrelation between WBS items. The BOE shall not exceed two (2) pages per WBS item (lowest level).

Propose indirect rates according to the offeror’s most current Defense Contract Audit Agency/Defense Contract Management Agency (DCAA/DCMA) approved billing rates and/or forward pricing rate recommendations and/or agreements, if available. If an offeror does not have DCAA/DCMA approved billing rates and/or forward pricing rate recommendations and/or agreements, provide indirect rates generated from their acceptable accounting system. Offerors are strongly advised to provide clear and convincing rationale to support indirect rates not generated from their acceptable accounting system, otherwise the proposed indirect rate may not be considered fair and reasonable and the offeror may not be eligible for award.

The maximum fixed fee under this contract will be no greater than 7% of the probable cost at time of award.

In accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(3), a cost reimbursement contract may be used only when the offeror’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order. In order to be considered for award, each offeror must provide a recent adequacy determination (no older than five years than the due date of proposals) from either a Federal Government Cognizant Audit Agency or any commercially recognized auditing or accounting firm, stating that the offeror’s accounting system is adequate. The adequacy letter must also include a statement confirming that no changes have taken place since the issuance of the determination.

Submit evidence of an EVMS in accordance with the requirements included in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause 252.234-7001, paragraph (a), which is included as part of this solicitation. If the offeror’s EVMS system has not been approved, demonstrate how the system meets EVMS standards.

Upon request of the Contracting Officer, the offeror will be required to submit copies of their most recent annual reports and audited financial statements. This information may be used to establish responsibility in accordance with FAR Part 9.1.

(4) VOLUME V – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

(a) Tab A – SF 33. Provide the completed, signed, and dated SF 33, acknowledging any and all amendments by completion of Block 14, and indicating in Block 12 a proposal acceptance period of at least 180 days.

(b) Tab B – Representations and Certifications. Provide the completed Section K Representations and Certifications, or a copy of all certifications in offeror’s SAM record.

(c) Tab C – Certified Joint Venture Agreement. Provide a copy of the certified Joint Venture Agreement if applicable.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

1.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

RFP Section L describes proposal submission requirements and instructions. RFP Section M outlines the evaluation process and basis for award.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), composed of representatives from the LRB, will evaluate the proposals. The SSEB will utilize technical advisors in the evaluation process, as necessary. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process.

The evaluation process consists of four parts: (1) proposal compliance review; (2) technical proposal evaluations; (3) cost/price analysis; and (4) technical-cost/price trade-off analysis.

(1) Proposal Compliance Review: This review is conducted by the Contracting Office to ensure that all required proposal submission requirements are met in accordance with the RFP.

(2) Technical Proposal Evaluations: Without knowledge of cost/price, the SSEB will evaluate all Volume I (Factor 1)- Safety Record proposals furnished to it by a Source Selection Authority (SSA). After completion of the Volume I (Factor 1) evaluations, the SSEB will evaluate all Volume II (Factor 2) – Past Performance proposals furnished to it by a Source Selection Authority (SSA). After completion of the Volume II (Factor 2) evaluations, the SSEB will evaluate all Volume III (Factor 3) – Technical Approach proposals furnished by the SSA. The rating systems and definitions used for the technical evaluations are included in this section.

(3) Cost/Price Evaluations: A cost/price team will evaluate Volume IV (Factor 4) – Cost/Price proposals furnished by the SSA. Volume IV will be analyzed for cost/price reasonableness and cost realism. Cost is not rated with an adjective rating. Cost/price proposals will not be revealed to the SSEB until it has completed the technical evaluations and ratings of the technical proposal submissions (Factors 1 2, and 3).

(4) Technical-Cost/Price Trade-Off Analysis: Upon completion of its technical evaluations, the SSEB will consider and compare the cost/price in connection with the technical evaluations to determine which proposal offers the most advantage to the Government. If discussions are not necessary, a trade-off analysis will be conducted after the initial offers are evaluated. If discussions are necessary, a trade-off analysis will be conducted upon completion of the technical and cost/price evaluations of final proposal revisions. Offerors are reminded that some trade-off considerations are usually part of the process of determining which firms will be included in the competitive range for discussions, if discussions are necessary.

3.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The evaluation factors that will be considered and how they are weighted are as follows:

Technical Approach Element A: Staffing Plan Element B: Transition and Schedule Risk Management Plan Element C: Performance Based Milestone Schedule

Volume I (Factor 1) – Safety Record This factor evaluates the offeror’s and proposed team member’s safety record to ascertain the Offerors commitment to safety by achieving:

· An EMR value less than or equal to 1.00. Offerors with an exceptionally low EMR (i.e., less than 0.75) may be rated more favorably. Offerors with an EMR value of 1.25 or greater may be rated less favorably.

· An RIR value less than or equal to 4.7. Offerors with an exceptionally low RIR (i.e., less than 3.3) may be rated more favorably. Offerors with an RIR value of 4.8 or greater may be rated less favorably.

· A DART value less than or equal to 3.4. Offerors with an exceptionally low DART (i.e., less than 2.0) may be rated more favorably. Offerors with a DART value of 3.5 or greater may be rated less favorably.

· Zero fatalities. Offerors with fatalities may be rated less favorably.

Offerors that demonstrate that incidents, leading to exceedances of the criteria listed above, were unrelated to employer negligence or unsafe site planning or activities and/or have described sufficient corrective actions taken to improve their safety program may be rated more favorably. Offerors that describe initiatives in pursuit of proactively preventing fatalities, injuries, and illnesses through a system focused on: hazard prevention and control; worksite analysis; training; and management commitment and worker involvement may be rated more favorably.

In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information in order validate the Offeror’s safety record. These may include, but are not limited to, a review of safety violations retrieved through the OSHA records database of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary /affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

Safety/Risk Rating Scheme: In evaluating Factor 1, the SSEB will apply one of the below combined safety/risk ratings to reflect the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum safety commitment and performance requirements through an assessment of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. Factor 1 will receive one of the following adjectival ratings:

Volume II (Factor 2) – Past Performance

This factor evaluates the offeror’s and proposed team member’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts described in the PWS. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's and proposed team member’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying the services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror’s proposed team after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history, or past performance history so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment can reasonably be assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “Neutral Confidence” rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government will evaluate the PPQs submitted with the proposal and received from the offeror’s and its proposed team member’s clients. The Government may contact and interview points of contact on the PPQs to authenticate information that is provided. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed references, if the listed reference is not available.

In addition to the PPQs, the Government may review any other sources of information in order to evaluate past performance. These may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the 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.

The Government will assign a relevancy rating to each submitted project. There is no overall relevancy rating. The ratings are listed below.

After determining the relevancy of each submitted project, the SSEB will review the examples provided 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.

Past performance information demonstrating the following may increase the performance confidence assessment rating:

· Prime/subcontractor or joint ventures successfully working together on projects with hazards/issues with the same size, scope and complexity as the Luckey site may be evaluated more favorably over prime/subcontractor or joint ventures that do not have that experience working together.

· Prime contractor past performance projects may be rated more favorably than team subcontractor projects.

· Offeror’s past performance on projects similar in size and scope that required remediation of beryllium may be rated more favorably.

The overall performance confidence assessment rating reflects the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s probability of satisfying the solicitation requirements. One of the following ratings will be assigned to Factor 2.

Volume III (Factor 3) – Technical Approach

Volume III consists of three elements that are equal in importance and not rated separately.

(1) Element A –Staffing Plan: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative that describes its staffing plan to accomplish its technical approach and the PWS requirements. The Government will assess the extent to which the offeror’s organizational approach and personnel satisfies the PWS requirements. Plans that maximize the use of the offeror's staff for key personnel, may be evaluated more favorably than plans that rely heavily on subcontractor staff.

(2) Element B – Transition and Schedule Risk Management Plan: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative that describes its detailed approach for eliminating or minimizing delays in resuming remedial activities for the project. Plans with realistic approaches to minimizing delays may be rated more favorably.

(3) Element C – Performance Based Milestone Schedule: The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the offeror’s project schedule and milestone chart. Realistic and logical schedules, that don't sacrifice safety, and propose an early completion date may be rated more favorably.

Technical/Risk Rating Scheme: In evaluating Factor 3, the SSEB will apply one of the below combined technical/risk ratings to reflect the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum capabilities and performance requirements through an assessment of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. Factor 3 will receive one of the following technical ratings:

4.0 COST/PRICE PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Volume IV (Factor 4) – Cost/Price

The provisions of FAR 15.404 and subordinate regulations including the DFARS and Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) will be utilized in cost/price analysis, including but not limited to, comparison with the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), comparison of proposed prices received during the competition, comparison with historical pricing, comparison with published price lists, utilization of parametric estimating techniques, and analysis of other than cost and pricing data submitted. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option. The Government will review all proposed burden rates; e.g. profit, general and administrative (G&A), overhead, fringe, etc., for acceptability based upon industry standards or the offeror’s Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA).

The price proposed for this requirement will be evaluated by the Government for completeness, realism and reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the cost realism of each offeror’s proposed costs under the CPFF CLINs. The Government’s cost realism analysis will consist of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate and corresponding BOE narrative to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The cost realism analysis will assess any risk of performance because of unrealistically high or low costs. The assessment of proposed costs for the CPFF CLINs will consider risks identified due to incomplete, unrealistic or unreasonable costs.

The Government will conduct a price analysis on the fixed prices proposed for T&D, mobilization, and demobilization to determine price reasonableness. The cost/price used in the tradeoff analysis will be the sum of the probable cost of the CPFF CLINs and the price of the fixed unit price CLINs.

The Government will ensure that the offeror’s accounting and billing systems are adequate for cost reimbursable type contracts as stated in Section L. Further, the Government will ensure that the EVMS requirements have been met, as stated in Section L.

5.0 NEED FOR DISCUSSIONS

In accordance with solicitation provision FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Any communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to provide their best terms for both cost/price and non-priced technical submission within their initial offers. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary or are otherwise in the Government’s best interest.

If discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will include only those firms deemed to be the most highly rated with a reasonable chance for award. In certain circumstances, the Government may limit offers in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated offers. The Government may exclude an offer if it is so deficient as to require extensive discussions and major revisions such as to allow an offeror an unfair advantage over those having competitive offers.

If discussions are required, offerors included in the competitive range will receive a list of the significant weaknesses and deficiencies found in their proposals. The Contracting Officer will provide offerors an opportunity to respond in writing. Responses, subsequent proposal revisions, and final proposal revisions must be submitted in both electronic and hard copy format. The Contracting Officer will notify all offerors in the competitive range, in writing, how and when interim revisions and final proposal revisions are to be submitted.

If the offeror’s cost/price proposal is revised, all changes in the proposal must be explained, traceable, and understandable.

Upon conclusion of discussions, those offerors still within the competitive range will be afforded an opportunity to submit their final revised proposal.

6.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors: Factor 1 – Safety Record, Factor 2 – Past Performance, Factor 3 – Technical Approach, and Factor 4 – Cost/Price. Factor 1 – Safety Record is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 – Past Performance is more important than Factor 3 – Technical Approach. All technical factors (Factors 1, 2 and 3) when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4 – Cost/Price. The cost/price that is used in the tradeoff will be the sum of the probable cost of the CPFF CLINs and the price of the fixed unit rate CLINs.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for Factor 2 – Past Performance. However, the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff. The Government will conduct a best value trade-off in accordance with FAR 15.101-1.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf