AMENDMENT NO 0007 W912P621R0003 LAKE GEORGE.pdf

W81G6603023956

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

REFERENCE: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. W912P621R0003, LAKE GEORGE CANAL MIDDLE SECTION RESTORATION, LAKE

COUNTY, INDIANA

A. The Proposal Due Date is changed by this Amendment. The proposal due time is unchanged. Therefore, proposals are due prior to 5:00 p.m. (Central Time) on August 6, 2021. -For further details regarding offer and evalutation information, please refer to Solictation Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers.

-- THIS AMENDMENT CONTINUES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES --

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Jul-2021

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912P621R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Jun-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

27-Jul-2021

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, CHICAGO

231 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 1500

CHICAGO IL 60604-1437

W912P6 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912P621R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

B. AMENDED SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following Offer and Evaluation Information at Section 1.2 has been modified to add ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION GUIDANCE through DoD Safe. Accordingly, Contractor’s shall remove and replace the OFFER & EVALUATION INFORMATION with the following modified information:

OFFER & EVALUATION INFORMATION

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

(PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS)

PART I

GENERAL

The procedure for the submission of all proposals shall be furnished as specified in this Section and in accordance with the additional procedures listed below.

1.0 ACQUISITION METHOD

Through use of the best value method of contracting, using the source selection trade off process, the USACE- Chicago District, seeks to acquire the services described in this solicitation and its accompanying documents. This particular acquisition method considers award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. In addition, this process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

1.1 WHO MAY SUBMIT

This acquisition is being competed Full and Open, Unrestricted to business size. The applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is 237990, with a small business size standard in dollars of $39.5M. The intent of this Solicitation is to select one contractor to perform environmental remediation and restoration activities for the Lake George Canal – Middle Section Restoration project. .

Firms organized as construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, or other interested parties, may submit proposals. In the latter case, the association may be a joint venture or a subcontractor. If submitting as a joint venture, ensure that the joint venture business name is registered in like manners in the System for Award Management (SAM) database (visit: http://www.sam.gov/). Note: as mandated by law, this Agency cannot award a contract to a contractor who is not registered in the SAM database. Also note that if joint venturing with a mentor protégé relationship in place, the mentor protégé agreement must be pre-approved by the SBA prior to the joint venture submitting its proposal to his Agency.

1.2 SUBMISSION DEADLINE

Proposals shall be received at the Corps of Engineers, Chicago District Office no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the SF 1442 (page 1) of this solicitation. – ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS SHALL BE SUBMITTED to Ericka Hillard and Misty Bock at ericka.d.hillard@usace.army.mil and misty.d.bock@usace.army.mil.

ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION GUIDANCE

Proposals: ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH DOD SAFE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, DOD

SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil). The DOD SAFE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. There are no user accounts for SAFE. Authentication is handled via email.

Anyone has access to DOD SAFE, and 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 are as follows:

1. Send an email to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist to receive the link to drop off your proposal.

This will need to be completed three (3) business days prior to proposal due date.

a. Ericka Hillard, Contract Specialist at ericka.d.hillard@usace.army.mil

b. Misty Bock, Contracting Officer at misty.d.bock@usace.army.mil

2. You will receive an email with the link to submit your drop-off. The link will be provided no later than two (2) business days prior to the proposal due date.

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

W912P621R0003-FIRMNAME.

4. Click Upload button to send documents.

5. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified.

(Government-issued Common Access Cards (CACs) are not required).

File Size Limitations: Offerors are advised to follow the DOD SAFE instructions for uploading files. DOD SAFE supports delivery up to 8GB. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

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:

W912P621R0003-FIRMNAME-SECTION 1

W912P621R0003-FIRMNAME-SECTION 2

W912P621R0003-FIRMNAME-SECTION 3

W912P621R0003-FIRMNAME-SECTION 4

W912P621R0003-FIRMNAME-SECTION 5

Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm’s name and a brief file description.

Please see examples above.

File Organization: Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 11x17 fold-outs, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the each section for each factor.

Upload Completion & Deadline: Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within DOD SAFE site. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

Electronic Files: Files shall be in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. Text and graphics portfolios of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe applications. Data submitted in a spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel (all cells and formulas should be unlocked).

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2017),” subparagraph (e), that is incorporated by reference into the RFP letter and the full text can be found at https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

1.3 SUBMISSION FORMAT AND NUMBER OF SUBMITTALS

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. Failure to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affect an Offeror’s evaluation. Offeror’s should provide sufficient detail and clearly define all items required in this section.

The Contracting Officer may remove an Offeror from further consideration during any phase of the procurement if the Offeror fails to meet the submittal requirements of the, reference FAR 15.306.

The Offeror shall submit all proposal materials with a Table of Contents and Section dividers. Each Section submitted must be parallel with the submission requirements identified below. All information requested must be submitted for the proposal to be considered responsive to the Solicitation.

SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The Contracting Officer may remove any Offeror from further consideration during any phase of the procurement if the Offeror fails to meet the submittal requirements of the RFP.

Submission Format Requirements Number of Submittals

Section 1

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH AND

MANAGEMENT

1 copy

Section 2

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE 1 copy

Section 3

FACTOR 3: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

AND EXPERIENCE

1 copy

Section 4 FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

PLAN

Section 5

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

SF 1442 (BACK) (signed by Offeror) 1 copy Price Schedule (will serve as the Offeror’s PRICE

PROPOSAL)

1 copy

Representations & Certificates 1 copy

Bid Guarantee AMENDMENTS (if any)

PART II

2.0 GENERAL PROPOSAL INFORMATION

Offerors should limit submissions to the data essential for evaluation so that a minimum of time and funds are spent in preparing the information. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, Offerors must include information that is sufficiently detailed to describe the Offeror’s qualifications and experience, equipment features of the proposal, and management capabilities to successfully complete the project. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposals that meet or exceed these requirements are encouraged, although over-elaboration and irrelevancies are strongly cautioned against.

The Government will not be liable for any costs incurred by the Offeror submitting an offer in response to this Solicitation. The criteria specified in this RFP are binding contract criteria and in cases of any conflict, subsequent to award, between RFP criteria and contractor’s submittals, the RFP criteria shall govern unless there is a written agreement between the Contracting Officer and the contractor on the waiving of a specific requirement.

Clarification of the Provisions of this Request for Proposal: Any explanation desired by an Offeror regarding the meaning or interpretation of the RFP are to be requested in writing to the Contracting Branch, Attention: Ericka Hillard at ericka.d.hillard@usace.army.mil. To avoid the government's inability to timely award this critical project, Contractors are highly encouraged to submit any and all questions to the USACE within ten (10) calendar days prior to the closing date of this RFP.

A SITE VISIT/PRE PROPOSAL MEETING IS TO BE DETERMINED.

For additional information, attendees should contact Ms. Natalie Mills, Project Manager, at (312) 846-5561 or Natalie.R.Mills@usace.army.mil.

BE SURE TO INCLUDE THE SOLICITATION NUMBER AND/OR PROJECT TITLE IN THE SUBJECT

LINE OF YOUR EMAIL.

2.1 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

Evaluation Factors: Offerors are required to address the below technical evaluation factors, which should be included in this RFP document.

2.1.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH AND MANAGEMENT: (FACTOR 1):

The Offeror shall submit its technical approach and management plan describing its ability to install an engineered sediment cap at the Lake George Canal Middle Section which meets the requirements of the plans and specifications. The assessment of the offeror’s technical approach and management of the project will be used as a means of evaluating the offeror’s ability to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

REQUIRED SUBMITTAL FOR EVALUATION OF FACTOR 1: The Offeror is required to submit a detailed plan demonstrating its ability to conduct environmental remediation in accomplishment of the requirements of Specification Sections 35 20 23.50 – ENGINEERED SEDIMENT CAP; 02 61 13 – EXCAVATION AND HANDLING OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS; 31 05 19 – WEST TANK FARM BANK CONTROLS; 31 00 00 – EARTHWORK; 35 21 00 – TEMPORARY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS. The Offeror’s submittal for this factor shall include all the respective plans and schedule delineated at the below paragraphs 1A through 1F:

1A. Capping Plan. The Offeror shall include a plan detailing the Offeror’s proposed construction and management approach for installation of an engineered sediment cap that meets the requirements set forth in the plans and specifications. Provide a summary of sediment cap construction methodologies to be used, including a list of equipment, technologies and/or processes to be used. The proposed methods for placing an evenly distributed cap layer, minimizing oil displacement, minimizing suspension of cap materials or sediment, identifying and removing debris, verifying cap placement extent and layer thickness, sediment pre-consolidation, ensuring even distribution of sorbents, and installing the west tank farm remedy. Explicitly describe how adsorbent materials will be evenly distributed throughout the cap. Proposals that provide higher levels of detail which clearly explain the Offeror’s proposed technical approach and management to provide a fully functional, complete, environmental remedy that meets the requirements set forth in the RFP may receive a higher rating.

1B. Schedule. Provide a draft project schedule that identifies the timeline for major tasks. Major tasks include, but are not limited to, preconstruction submittal development, debris removal, mobilization, site preparation, debris removal, west tank farm bank control installation, sheet pile wall installation, stabilization layer placement and pre-consolidation, engineered sediment cap installation, ecosystem restoration activities, laboratory data submission, data processing, or other critical tasks. The schedule will identify time sensitive actions, critical paths, coordination, and provides sufficient detail and breakdown of tasks to ensure likely success of completion. Provide a narrative description of work sequencing requirements to ensure a complete and functional project. Proposals that include a schedule with the completion of the contract activities (including option work) in less than 54-months will be seen as more favorable to the Government and may receive a higher rating. Proposals the complete engineered sediment cap construction in less than 18-months may receive a higher rating.

1C. Infrastructure Plan – Provide a draft infrastructure coordination plan that includes the processes and equipment to be used for identifying utility infrastructure and coordinating with utility owners.

Include processes for the protection of existing utilities or other infrastructure. Detail equipment and methodologies for installation of the sheet pile wall. Proposals with a technical and management approach which provide complete identification and protection of existing utilities and infrastructure may receive a higher rating.

1D. Temporary Environmental Controls Plan. Provide a plan for minimizing suspension and downstream release of sediment and oil during construction. Include equipment and methods to be used for monitoring, reporting, and addressing floating oil. Describe the equipment and methods to be used in response to the potential release of free product during any phase of work, including the containment and disposal procedures for any oil or oil containing materials. Provide a plan for identifying, removing, storing, and transporting contaminated soils. Provide a plan for in-stream monitoring of suspended sediment. Provide an oil boom and turbidity curtain installation plan, including a description of monitoring frequencies. Include a plan for preventing disturbance to the existing Lake Mary Ecosystem Restoration area. Proposals with a construction and management approach that are able to fully minimize sediment suspension and oil release may receive higher rating. Proposals which demonstrate ability to isolate and address or prevent release of floating oil may receive higher rating.

1E. Verification Plan. Provide a plan for verifying installation of the engineered sediment cap to meet the requirements of the specifications. Include equipment and methods necessary to verify that each cap layer will be accurately installed with the required thickness, extent, and composition. Include descriptions of in-progress verification of individual capping layers and final verification of the constructed cap. Include a draft quality control / quality assurance plan and describe critical quality metrics and team members. Proposals which provide highly accurate and effective methods for verifying each capping layer’s extent, thickness, and composition may receive higher rating.

Minimum verification requirements are described within the plans and specifications, however the offeror may propose innovative or advanced approaches which may receive higher rating.

1F. Coordination Plan. Provide a coordination plan which details critical coordination elements with other entities. Include any partnering meetings for federal or non-federal stakeholders. Describe coordination and safety requirements for working at the BP Whiting Refinery, coordinating work elements with other contractors (as described within the plans and specifications). Provide a storage and staging plan including a draft site layout, that allows for the management of potentially contaminated debris, soils, and sediment for off-site disposal, and that includes temporary facilities to be used by the contractor within the given work limits.

Proposals which provide a management approach that are highly effective at stakeholder partnership with federal and non-federal stakeholders (including USACE, US Environmental Protection Agency, Indiana Dept of Environmental Management, Indiana Dept of Natural Resources, East Chicago Waterway Management District, British Petroleum, other contractors, or others) may receive higher rating. Plans that establish highly effective site layout plans which minimize disturbance of adjacent areas may receive higher rating.

The Offeror in its plan may include work that will be performed by a proposed subcontractor and how the subcontractor will accomplish the work in accordance with the requirements of the contract. Credit for the subcontracted work may be received if satisfying the requirements of this technical evaluation factor. Crediting in this aspect of the proposal does not relieve the Contractor from fully complying with the Contract and FAR Clause, “Limitations on Subcontracting.”

2.1.2 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR 2: (FACTOR 2):

The Offeror may submit with its proposal a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of seven (7) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) in its proposal for this Factor, the form for which is provided in this Solicitation as Attachment A. If the offeror is utilizing subcontractors for placement and construction of the engineered sediment cap, submit a minimum of three (3) additional PPQs for the subcontractor. PPQ’s for a project that is either currently underway or has an “Actual Completion Date” within seven (7) years from the issuance date of this Solicitation will be considered to be recent and will be reviewed for relevancy. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal as required by RFP Section 2.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for– Past Performance.

Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with the proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment A), 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, Ericka D.

Hillard at ericka.d.hillard@usace.army.mil prior to the solicitation’s closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. This does not preclude the Government from using previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. 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.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 5 years (i.e. within 5 years of the solicitation date), such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

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 Systems (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSARS), 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.

The intent of Section 2 of the PPQ is for the Offeror to identify self-performed work that is relevant to this Solicitation. The self-performed work shall be expressed as a percentage of the total contract when compared to the “Final Contract Price”.

The intent of Section 4 of the PPQ is for the Offeror to describe in detail how the self-performed work is relevant to this Solicitation. Such detail should help establish the magnitude and complexity of the past performance and may include, but not be limited to, such items as quantities installed; equipment used, site constraints, and environmental conditions.

If the Offeror is a joint venture (JV), each firm shall only provide information on the PPQ that is relevant to their role on this solicitation. Also, if the JV previously performed work together on a project, the PPQ shall provide information demonstrating relevant experience in the role as a JV and shall indicate the percentage of work the JV completed.

If the Offeror intends to subcontract a particular feature of work, the Offeror is encouraged to submit a PPQ(s) for said subcontractor and specifically identify their role in this Solicitation.

Only complete PPQs shall be included in the proposal and Offerors should follow-up with clients/references prior to the proposal closing date to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal, the entire PPQ (with the unfilled evaluation section), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may choose to, but is not obligated to, contact the client during review of the proposal, so the Offeror should ensure that phone numbers and email addresses are current. Offerors shall not incorporate PPQs into their proposal by referencing previously submitted PPQs for other RFP’s.

2.1.3 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE: (FACTOR 3)

The offeror shall provide the resumes of the key personnel that will oversee and execute the work that may be awarded under this contract. The purpose of this submittal is to identify the personnel possessing relevant expertise available to this contract. The Offeror shall provide an organization chart that lists all key personnel deemed, by the Offeror, critical to the successful completion of the project requirements.

The resumes should clearly display proposed job title, education, special qualifications, and experience record. Experience record should include title, specific duties, and level of responsibility of assignments for at least the last 5 years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. The offerors must include resumes of the following key personnel:

Project Manager

• Site Supervisors

• Industrial Hygienist

• Quality Control Personnel

• Any other personnel deemed critical to performance of the work as identified on the organization chart.

If other key management personnel are required to perform any work under this contract, the contractor will be required to submit their resumes. Key personnel obtained through a subcontract arrangement should be clearly annotated as such.

The resumes shall include the personnel education, licenses, certifications, and any relevant training.

The resumes shall describe the experience that qualifies the relevant personnel for the Solicitation work and specifically identify experience of the individuals on the projects listed in Factor 1.

The identified personnel must be used on the project. Any substitution of these persons will not be permitted without prior approval of the Contracting Officer’s Representative and shall meet the equivalent experience to the original personnel.

The Government will evaluate the qualifications of the key personnel. The minimum qualifications for the Project Manager is below. Personnel exceeding the minimum qualifications may be considered a strength and may result in a higher adjectival rating:

Project Manager:

The Project Manager shall have at least 5 years of experience in environmental remediation, including sediment capping projects.

2.1. 4 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN (SBPP) (FACTOR 4): All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of the proposed acquisition. SBPP will be rated independently using an adjectival-based system as described herein this Solicitation. Offerors shall prepare a Small Business Participation Plan using the below content and format.

The SBPP shall be in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) 215.304. The SBPP will be incorporated into any resultant prime contract as the basis for a formal Small Business Subcontracting Plan the successful Offeror (if a large business) will be required to submit prior to contract award. The Small Business Participation Plan shall be based on the Offeror’s best effort; however, it must meet the minimum total Small Business Participation goal of 34.5% of the total contract value. Offerors unable to meet the minimum overall small business goal of 34.5% shall provide an explanation of why this target cannot be met with their proposal.

Address each of the following areas individually:

The extent in which the small business programs listed in FAR 19 (small business, small disadvantaged business, woman-owned small business, HubZone, service-disabled veteran owned small business, etc.) are specifically identified in the Small Business Participation Plan;

The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition in percentages;

the extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments, i.e. teaming agreements signed, are to be considered more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform on this acquisition; and, The realism of the Small Business Participation Plan, i.e. aggressive goals.

The intent of the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan is for the Offeror to articulate how small businesses will participate in this award performance through small business subcontracting. The SBPP shall be organized as follows:

(1) Prime Contractor type of business (check all that apply):

( ) Large ( ) Small (also check type of small business) ( ) Small Non-Disadvantaged Business ( ) Small Disadvantaged Business ( ) Woman-

Owned Small Business ( ) HUBZone Small Business ( ) Veteran Owned Small Business ( ) Service Disabled, Veteran Owned Small Business

(2) Percentage of your participation as a prime contractor:

(3) Total contract value and percentage of total contract value of subcontracts planned for:

Total Contract Value by Percentage* Total

Contract Value

Large % $

Total Small % $

Small Non-Disadvantaged % $

Small Disadvantaged % $

Small Woman Owned % $

Small HUB Zone % $

Small Veteran Owned % $

Small Service-Disabled Veteran Owned

*Each percentage above shall be accompanied by detailed supporting documentation regarding individual commitments. Please ensure the percentage of contract value corresponds to the total contract value.

NOTE: The sum of the percentages of Small Non- Disadvantaged and Small Disadvantaged should equal the entries for the Total Small; however, the sum of all of the percentages need not equal 100% since the prime is not included and individual subcontractors may be counted towards more than one category.

(4) List principal supplies/services (be specific) to be subcontracted to:

Company Name Type of Service/Supply

Large

Small Non-Disadvantaged

Small Disadvantaged

Small Woman Owned

Small HUB Zone

Small Veteran Owned

Small Service-Disabled Veteran Owned

(5) Prior Performance Information: Provide any information substantiating the Offeror’s track record of utilizing small business on past contracts.

(6) For Large and Small Businesses provide descriptive information for all small business categories. Any information concerning long-term relationships with Small Business subcontractors, such as mentor-protégé relationships, should be provided.

(7) Extent of Commitment: Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize any small business category as defined in FAR Part 19 as subcontractors.

NOTE: A Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be required if the proposal deemed the best value is submitted by a Large Business. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan must contain all of the elements required by FAR Clause

52.219-9, “SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (DEVIATION 2018-

O0013) (APR

2018).” This Plan is submitted separately from the aforementioned Small Business Participation Plan; thus, it shall not be submitted with any offeror’s proposal package. The Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in this source selection but, rather a requirement for award to a Large Business. Once approved, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into any resultant contract.

2.1. 5 PRICING AND OTHER DOCUMENTS (SIGNED PROPOSAL; PROPOSED PRICE,

REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFCATIONS; BID BOND; AND AMENDMENTS:

All documents required by this Section ARE REQUIRED.

SF 1442 (Page 2 of the Solicitation Document): Blocks 14 THROUGH 16 shall be completed by an authorized person from the company or joint venture.

Section 00 10 00 of the Solicitation document (Price Schedule): The Schedule is contained in Section 00 10 00 of this Solicitation and shall serve as the offeror’s Price Proposal.

Section 00 45 00 of the Solicitation document (Representations & Certifications): The offeror must complete and submit the Representations and Certifications contained in Section 00 45 00 of this Solicitation.

Bid Bond: The offeror must submit a Bid Guarantee for this solicitation. Any offeror failing to submit an authentic Bid Guarantee will be considered non-responsive to the solicitation and ineligible for evaluations and award. The Bid Guarantee shall be in the amount of 20 percent of the offeror’s proposed price or $3,000,000.00, whichever is less.

Amendments: Any amendments issued against the solicitation, shall be acknowledged on a copy of the issued amendment or on the SF 1442 itself (page 2).

- END OF INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS –

PROPOSAL EVALUATION SYSTEM

PART I

1.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

An evaluation team will evaluate each eligible proposal in response to this RFP. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein. The technical and non-technical aspects of each proposal will be evaluated.

1.1 EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process essentially consists of the following: 1) proposal compliance review, 2) past performance evaluation, 3) technical evaluation (includes Factor’s 1 & 2), 4) price evaluation, and 5) price technical trade-off analysis.

1.2 PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW

The Source Selection Chairperson will make an initial review of each of the proposals to look for apparent errors, omissions and areas that require clarification. Thereafter, the findings will be submitted to the Contracting Officer for review. This information will state the specific nature of the question and the page and paragraph of the proposal requiring correction or clarification. The Contracting Officer will review the findings and, if considered appropriate, task the Chairperson to submit questions to the Offerors for a quick response to the Contracting Officer. The Chairperson and the Contracting Officer will not cite apparent deficiencies (parts of the proposal that fail to meet the Government’s requirements). The proposals will not be evaluated at that time. The purpose of this preliminary review session is to eliminate minor irregularities or apparent clerical mistakes. This preliminary evaluation will assure that each proposal contains all required proposal submittals and that all required forms and certifications have been fully completed. Thereafter, the evaluation team will evaluate each proposal passing the Proposal Compliance Review using the Evaluation process described below.

1.3 TECHNICAL RATING EVALUATION- Technical approach and management will be rated using the following adjectival rating system.

Adjectival

Rating

Description

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

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

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

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

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

1.4 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Past Performance will be rated as follows:

The Government will consider how well the Offeror has performed in their recent, relevant experience. The adjectival ratings provided by the Client in the submitted PPQ’s will be used and the Government reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with the Client’s identified in the PPQ, and/or to review other recent projects rated in CPARS or other agency performance databases, or to review personal knowledge. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance.

For example, even if all of the Offeror’s PPQ’s are rated as Exceptional, the Performance Confidence Assessment rating may be lowered if the submitted PPQ’s have not been considered to be relevant.

Based on the aforementioned ratings, an overall Performance Assessment Relevancy and Confidence rating for Past Performance (Factor 2) will then be assigned in accordance with the following descriptions.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

PPQ’s for a project that is either currently underway or has an “Actual Completion Date” within seven (7) years from the issuance date of this Solicitation will be considered to be recent and will be reviewed for relevancy.

In its determination of relevancy, the Government will consider the similarity of the scope of work, the complexity of the work, contract value, location of work (e.g. familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions), and degree of subcontracting. Some examples of relevant work to this Solicitation may include:

Placement of active/amended sediment caps (more important than other work factors)

Environmental Remediation (contaminated sediment, PAH contamination, oil control and clean-up)

Active/amended bank controls for groundwater control;

Installation of a geotextile;

In-water sheetpile installation;

Upland and aquatic ecosystem restoration (less important than other work factors);

Work described in Sections 2 or 4 of the PPQ form that is not self-performed may be given a lower relevancy rating. For example, if an Offeror was identified as a prime on a PPQ, but the work described in Sections 2 or 4 was found to have been subcontracted, then the PPQ may be rated lower than if it was self-performed.

When a PPQ is submitted for a subcontractor(s) that is proposed to be part of the Offeror’s team, the Performance Confidence Assessment rating may be higher if the Offeror provides a signed agreement between the Offeror and the subcontractor. Furthermore, the Performance Confidence Assessment rating may be higher if the submitted PPQ, or the signed agreement, provides evidence that the Offeror and subcontractor have experience working together.

If any Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member.

PPQ’s where the client is the Federal Government will NOT be inherently rated higher in the performance confidence assessment rating than non-Federal Government clients.

1.5 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE will be rated using the following adjectival rating system.

requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

1.6 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN - The small business participation goal of this acquisition is for small business, small disadvantage small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran owned small business, HUBZone small business and woman-owned small businesses as identified in FAR Part 19 to have maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance consistent with its efficient performance. In this factor, all offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of the proposed acquisition.

Small Business Participation Plans will be evaluated on the basis of:

a. The extent to which Small Business firms, as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 19 (the FAR can be accessed on line at www.acquisition.gov/far), are specifically identified in the Small Business Participation Plan;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (for example: enforceable commitments, such as letters of commitments, will be weighted more heavily);

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

d. The realism of the Participation Plan;

e. The extent of participation proposed of Small Business firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition;

f. The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation percentages, or lack thereof.

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

Small Business Participation will be rated using the adjectival ratings listed below.

small business objectives.

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

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

1.7 PRICE EVALUATION

The price evaluator will evaluate price proposals independent of the SSEB’s evaluation of the technical evaluation.

The price evaluator will not have knowledge of the technical evaluation ratings. The SSEB will not have knowledge of the price evaluation until after their technical evaluation is complete. In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 15.404-1 (b), the price evaluator will perform a price analysis of the price proposals. The anlaysis will entail evaluating prices for fairness, reasonableness, and examining for material unbalancing.

1.8 PRICE/TECHNICAL TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS

After all evaluations described above are complete, the Source Selection Authority will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices, considering all factors, to determine the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

1.9 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Source Selection Evaluation Board members will rate the Evaluation factors shown below, using the adjective and risk rating system described above.

The relative orders of importance are indicated below.

The evaluation factors are listed in order of importance, with Factor 1 being the most important.

Evaluation Factor Relative Importance Factor 1: Technical Approach and Management Factor 1 is 1st in order of relative importance

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 2 is 2nd in order of relative importance Factor 3: Personnel Qualifications & Experience Factor 3 is the 3rd in order of relative importance

Factor 4: Small Business Participation Plan The Small Business Participation Plan will not be competitively rated but will be evaluated for minimum acceptability as described herein.

-Overall, Factor 1 is the most important factor. All non-priced evaluation factors, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

PART II

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below. - Price is considered separately as discussed in the above paragraph 2.6, “Price Evaluation.”

Proposals will be evaluated on their own merit, independently and objectively. Due to the interrelationships among evaluation criteria, however, final determination of the contract award will be based on the best composite offer, all factors considered.

3.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority determines to conform to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the non-price factors described herein, and price. In order to determine which proposal represents the best overall value, the Government may compare proposals to one another.

The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for each of the Technical Factors.

Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their…