A22W912P918R0019Amendment03.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to provide a revised copy Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and a cleaner copy of Attachment 2.

Also an amendment for the question and answ ers w ill be forth coming w ith a new closing date for the RFP.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Jun-2018

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 W912P918R0019

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-May-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

05-Jun-2018

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY ENGR DIST ST LOUIS

1222 SPRUCE STREET, RM 4.207

ST LOUIS MO 63103-2833

W912P9 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912P918R0019

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD

ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with the FAR, no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective Contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made 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 evaluation factors:

Evaluation of the Cost Proposals: Cost will be evaluated and considered but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. The Government may conduct a Cost reasonableness analysis;

using any combination of techniques outlined in FAR 15.404-1. During the process offerors may have to provide additional information supporting their Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), element, or total Cost. If it is determined that an offeror purposely submitted unbalanced pricing they will no longer be considered for award.

1. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

FACTORS AND RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

FACTOR

NUMBER

FACTOR

RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

Technical Approach

More important than factors 2 or 3

2 Past Performance Equal to Factor 3

Management Approach

Subfactor (A) – Key Personnel Subfactor (B) – Schedule

Equal to Factors 2

Cost Factors 1, 2 and 3 combined are significantly more important than Factor 4

2. EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

Technical Rating Evaluation Processes. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

Definition of Tradeoff Ratings. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1.

TABLE 1. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS (FACTOR 1)

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed technical requirements with the required schedule.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the attached forms and questionnaires.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform twenty (20) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past ten years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 5 6 2 9 1 0 . Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past ten years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past ten years without regard to the contract award date.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past ten years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

e. While the Government will consider past performance information on relevant projects performed for state and local Governments, as well as in the commercial sector, past performance conducted within the DoD will receive greater consideration when assigning a past performance confidence assessment rating than those for work performed for organizations other than the DoD.

f. Relevancy: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The relevancy ratings are defined in Table 2.

TABLE 2. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

Very Relevant

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

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

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

g. Quality Assessment: Assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

h. Performance Confidence Assessment: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included. The confidence ratings are contained in Table 3.

TABLE 3. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

RATING DESCRIPTION

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

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

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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

FACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH:

Subfactor (A) – Key Personnel: The Government will evaluate the offerors Key Personnel experience and qualifications assigning strengths and weaknesses. The Offeror shall discuss the availability, competence and professional qualifications of construction, engineering and other technical abilities of key personnel with at least five years of experience for related to environmental response actions associated with investigation, design, removal and construction and construction activities involving sites contaminated with radiological waste. Emphasis should be placed on personal experience related to this type of remedial work. In addition, the Offeror shall provide resumes of key management personnel and their organizational structure for this contract. The resumes should clearly display job title, education, special qualifications and experience record showing title, specific duties, responsibilities and assignments.

The Offeror shall provide information on his management organization (including subcontractors) and staff.

Offeror shall provide a narrative of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided by the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number.

The proposal should provide a diagrammed organizational chart showing staff and subcontractor’s relationships and lines of authority.

Subfactor (B) – Schedule: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed schedule to show a complete and logical method to completing the proposed required work. The Government will evaluate the proposed schedule:

a. For completeness through inclusion of all major project tasks to include pre-construction, construction, and project closeout activities; and

b. For task sequencing and reasonable durations to show offerors’ understanding of the complexity of work.

TABLE 1. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS (FACTOR 1)

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

FACTOR 4 – Cost Proposal:

FACTOR V – Cost.

1. Section 1 – Fully Burden Contract (Base and all option periods) Labor Rates – Cost Summary Sheet (Attachment 1)

The Government will review the rates proposed for reasonableness. The Offeror shall submit the Fully Burden Labor rate on the cost summary sheets in this section. Offerors will submit loaded labor rates for each of these disciplines. The loaded rates will include basic labor rate, payroll burden and fringes. The contractor will be requested to provide these loaded labor rates for the entire contract period. The loaded labor rates for the sample task order shall be the same loaded rates provided in the base year.

2. Section 2 – Cost Summary Sheet (Attachment 1)

All offeror shall submit on cost summary spreadsheet (attachment 1), the loaded labor rates, materials, and other direct costs, labor overhead, general and administrative overhead and any other costs based on the PWS provided with the seed task order.

(a) The remedial work is based upon radiological remediation operations at the IAAAP St. Louis FUSRAP Site that represents the type of work contemplated for the SATOC. The Offerors will be utilizing the proposed labor rates from their proposed cost summary sheet, referenced above, for home office and field office personnel. Labor rates, materials, other direct costs, labor overhead, general and administrative overhead and any other costs that may be associated with this project will be compared to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and evaluated by a cost evaluation team to determine cost realism, reasonableness and distribution of costs relative to the work to be performed as outlined in the task order.

Section 3: Cost Accounting System

Cost reimbursable task orders will be awarded as a result of this contract. The successful contractor will be required to have a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit. As a result of the DCAA audit, the contractor will have an approved accounting system. This system is required for a contractor to participate in a Federal Government cost reimbursable task order.

To be eligible for award an Offeror shall have an adequate cost accounting system in accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a) (3). The contracting officer will ensure that the contractor’s accounting system will permit timely development of all necessary cost data in the form required by the proposed contract type. Offerors must maintain a cost accounting system determined adequate for determining costs applicable to contract by their cognizant auditing agency. Each Offeror shall complete the SF 1408 Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System form (attachment 2) and Financial Reference Questionnaire (attachment 3).

Section 4: Financial Information

In accordance with FAR 9.103, contracts shall be awarded to responsible prospective contractors only. To be determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. Offerors shall complete the Financial Information Questionnaire (attachment 5) and submit the questionnaire with their proposal. In addition, offerors shall submit a copy of the written letter to their financial institution(s) authorizing the financial institution to discuss the offeror’s financial information with the Contracting Officer or designated representative. Publicly traded companies may submit a copy of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K instead of the document and the letter to the financial institution.

Section 5: Cost Realism Analysis

After evaluating the offerors proposed cost using Cost realism analysis, the Government will then determine the probable cost. Probable cost is the Government’s estimation of the cost of completing the contract using the offeror’s technical and management approaches, adjusted by any additional cost to the Government including use of the Government facilities and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) requirements other than those specified in the PWS.

If the evaluated total cost is less than the proposed, the proposed total cost becomes the recommended probable cost.

In evaluating this area, the following criteria will be used:

(a) The offeror’s proposed rates, factors, and expenses will be examined to substantiate utilization of consistent forward-pricing procedures, i.e., negotiated forward-pricing rates, if applicable, or rates and factors contractors ordinarily utilize in proposals if no negotiated forward-pricing agreement exists.

This includes indirect expense rates, projected rates, and projected expense pools.

(b) The rates and factors shall then be applied to the quantitative and qualitative analyses of the labor hours, travel, and other direct cost factors which shall be proposed to accomplish the required efforts for the base effort and all options.

(c) Probable cost shall include a consideration of the evaluated quantitative and qualitative proposal in relation to the costs proposed against that resource mix. Probable cost shall include a comparison of proposed rates with factors, as determined by the Government to be equitable. These factors shall include wage determinations included in this RFP as well as proposed professional compensation plans and average salary/wage rates. The comparison serves as a basis for determining the amount of risk inherent in an offeror’s proposal.

(d) The offeror shall ensure that a complete breakdown of costs is provided by major subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform twenty

(20) percent or more of the propose effort. A complete evaluation of major subcontractors’ probable cost will be performed in the same manner as the offeror’s as defined in paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and this paragraph.

The Government will evaluate elements of each Offeror's cost proposal to determine whether the estimated proposed costs 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.

END OF SECTION M

(End of Summary of Changes)