A21 Sol W912P924R0010.pdf

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

W912P924R0010 31-Jan-2024

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

314 331-8124

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

10:00 AM 01 Mar 2024

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012)

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

ADDENDA ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

23.

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TELEPHONE NO.

W912P99. ISSUED BY

18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a. UNLESS BLOCK

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

TWILA A HOPKINS

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

0 27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

20.

ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

(BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN

% FOR:SET ASIDE:UNRESTRICTED OR X

SMALL BUSINESSX

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY ENGR DIST ST LOUIS

1222 SPRUCE STREET, RM 4.207

ST LOUIS MO 63103-2833

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

13b. RATING

CODE15. DELIVER TO CODE 16. ADMINISTERED BY

SEE SCHEDULE

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFPX

314 331-8746FAX:

TEL: SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SIZE STANDARD:

$19,000,000

NAICS:

541620

X

OFFER DATED

29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF.

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

EMAIL:

TEL:

31c. DATE SIGNED

SEE SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICESITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

24.22.21.19.

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (WOSB)

ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

EDWOSB

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

PAGE 2 OF140

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f . TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINALPARTIALCOMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT

41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012) BACK

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

SEE SCHEDULE

20.

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

21.

QUANTITY UNIT

22. 23.

UNIT PRICE

24.

AMOUNT

19.

ITEM NO.

W912P924R0010

Section SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Section 00 21 16 – Instruction to Proposers

SECTION L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND

NOTICES TO OFFERORS

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

This solicitation is for Construction Management Services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Mississippi Valley Division (MVD), St. Louis District (MVS).

USACE intends to conduct this acquisition using Competitive Source Selection Procedures in accordance with provisions set forth in the solicitation and FAR Part 15. The Government intends to award a FFP SATOC IDIQ contract for a period of performance of 5 years (1 base year and 4 option years).

This solicitation is for Small Business Set-Aside. The Government intends to award 1 contract to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government, in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and FAR Subpart 15.3.

All solicitation documents and amendments will be made available for viewing in the Beta SAM (https://beta.sam.gov). It shall be the offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any amendments.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541620 for NAICS Environmental Consulting Services with a small business size standard of $19,000,000.00.

This solicitation does not commit the Government to reimburse any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any offeror submitting a proposal in response to the solicitation. Note specifically that the offeror will not be participating in a sealed bid procurement process under this acquisition method. Issuance of this solicitation does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation.

The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

B. DEFINITIONS

1. Offeror – means a company, teaming arrangement, or joint venture (JV) seeking to do business with the Government that submits a proposal in response to this solicitation.

2. Proposal – documentation prepared by the offeror and submitted to the Government for evaluation purposes in response to this solicitation.

3. Government – means the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District.

C. SITE VISIT

No site visit will be scheduled for this requirement.

D. INQUIRIES

Prospective offerors should submit inquiries related to this solicitation in writing no later than:

10:00 AM CST, 9 February 2024.

All questions will be submitted in writing via e-mail to Contract Specialist, Twila Hopkins at twila.a.hopkins2@usace.army.mil. Telephone inquiries will not be accepted.

Please include in the subject line of your inquiry email the solicitation number and project title.

Oral explanations or instructions are not binding. Any information given to an Offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or proposal will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.

As this is a Subjective Best Value Trade-Off Request for Proposal, there is no public bid opening and no information will be given out as to the number of offerors or the results of the competition until award is made.

E. DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS

Only electronic proposals, and their applicable modifications or cancellations, will be accepted.

All proposals must be in the possession of the Contracting Office no later than the date and time specified below. Proposals submitted after the specified date and time will not be evaluated.

Proposals may be withdrawn by email. Any electronic notice to withdraw an offer sent to this office must be received by email designated in the solicitation for receipt of offers no later than the exact date and time set for receipt of proposals.

Solicitation Number: W912P924R0010

Proposal Closing Date: 1 March 2024

Proposal Closing Time: 10:00 AM CST

Proposals shall be submitted electronically, as set forth below. Hand carried proposals will not be accepted due to social distancing protocols for COVID-19. Proposal shall be submitted to Twila Hopkins at twila.a.hopkins2@usace.army.mil.

F. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

a. Submit only the documents specifically required in this section. Do not submit excess information, to include audio-visual materials, electronic media, etc.

b. References to “Confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must be clearly marked in accordance with the instructions at FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors— Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”.

c. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the Scope of Work (SOW) with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

d. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Maximum Pages

Volume I - Technical Factor 1 – Past Performance 20 Factor 2 – Management Approach 20

Volume II - Price Factor 3 – Price N/A

NOTE: Pages of proposals that exceed the maximum page limitations will not be evaluated.

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

e. The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1 (c) (2) Instructions to Offerors and must be submitted by all offerors. The following is the format for the proposal cover sheet:

2. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. Pages shall use the following setup parameters:

i. Margins: Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1”

ii. Gutter: 0”

iii. Header, Footer: 0.5” from edge

iv. Page Size: 8.5” x 11”

v. Font: 12-point minimum font size, and Arial or New Times Roman font.

vi. All pages must be numbered.

vii. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

viii. Spacing: single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line.

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number:

2. The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror (and electronic address if available):

3. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item. NOTE: Any exceptions in the technical or cost/price proposal or exceptions inherent in Offeror’s standard terms and conditions should be resolved with the Government prior to proposal submission.

4. Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if (available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation:

5. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

6. Offeror’s DUNS, CAGE Code and Tax Identification Number

b. Files and Labeling. Each volume shall be submitted in a separate file. Do not mix contents of Volume II (Price) in the same file as Volume 1 (Technical). Each volume shall include, as a minimum, the following:

i. Volume Title Page shall include the volume number, title, and offeror’s identification, and be the first page of each volume;

ii. The prime, consortium, or joint venture’s name, address, telephone number, and email address on the proposal cover, each volume title page, and table of contents;

iii. Table of contents and a cross-reference to the solicitation paragraphs;

iv. List of tables/figures; and

v. Volume number, factor, solicitation number, and date submitted shall appear in the bottom right corner of each page (along with the revision number for the amended page, if applicable).

vi. Proposal volume cover format is at the offeror’s discretion, so long as the information required by this paragraph and subsequent paragraphs are met.

c. Page count. Pages furnished for organizational purposes only, including cover pages, table of contents, title pages, or divider tabs, are not included in the page limitation.

Pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) are not considered in the page limitations.

d. Foldouts (electronic). Do not use foldouts (e.g., 11” x 14” or 11” x 17”)

e. Digital Copy Format. Files shall be in PDF format. Self-extracting .exe files are not acceptable and will not be considered.

f. Content. All proposals shall contain the information stated below. Material not included with the proposal shall NOT be incorporated by reference, and any material incorporated by reference will not be evaluated. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

i. Offerors shall submit their proposals in a format that addresses each identified factor and subfactor individually and in the exact order that the factors are presented in this solicitation.

ii. Offerors must clearly mark as proprietary any data contained in the proposal that it does not want disclosed by the Government. Portions of the selected proposal(s) will be incorporated into the contract and are subject to disclosure notwithstanding restrictive markings.

iii. The offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) separate volumes. Each volume shall be submitted as a separate file. All pages of each volume shall be numbered and identified by the complete name, date, and solicitation number in the header or footer.

iv. The title page of each separate volume/file (Volume I – Technical; Volume II – Price) must be clearly marked to indicate its contents and the identity of the offeror.

v. No dollar amounts from Volume II are to be included in Volume I.

vi. All information intended to be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal must be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal. Do not cross-reference similar material in the Price Proposal, or vice versa. Technical Proposals will not be provided to the price evaluation team, and Price Proposals will not be provided to the technical evaluation team. Therefore, information submitted in the wrong volume could lead to the proposal being determined “unacceptable” if materially incomplete in any aspect.

vii. Do not include links to websites in lieu of incorporating information into your proposal.

viii. Do not attempt to modify the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or past performance proposal or add conditions or qualifications to your proposal. Should the offeror include terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the Solicitation, the proposal will be determined “unacceptable” and thus ineligible for award. Any questions related to specific terms and conditions contained within the solicitation should be resolved prior to submission for the proposal. Notwithstanding the above, the offeror must clearly describe on the Proposal Cover Page submitted with the proposal any modifications to the contractual and/or technical terms and conditions of the solicitation contained in the proposal.

ix. Failure to submit required documents or failure to properly complete documents will result in rejection of the proposal without further evaluation. Therefore, offerors are urged to follow instructions carefully and to speak with the Contracting Officer if the offeror does not understand any part of the solicitation.

x. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experience. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the offeror. The Government will reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration. Complete proposals shall meet the basic requirements identified in the Solicitation.

3. DISCUSSIONS: Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are considered approximately equal to price. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and target to award one (1) IDIQ contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

4. REQUIRED REGISTRATIONS: Offerors must have and maintain an active registration in the following databases:

a. System for Award Management (SAM): Offerors must have and maintain an active registration in the SAM database at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ to be eligible for a Government contract award. If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), the JV entity must have a valid SAM registration in the SAM database representing the JV as one business/firm/entity. If at the time of award an offeror is not actively and successfully registered in the SAM database, the Government reserves the right to award to the next prospective offeror.

b. On-Line Representations & Certifications: Offerors shall complete electronic representations and certifications at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ in conjunction with required registration in the SAM database. Offerors must be represented as a small business.

G. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENTS

1. A Joint Venture (JV) offeror must submit with its technical proposal a copy of the joint venture agreement upon which the JV organization has been informed. The JV Agreement must indicate that the JV is in existence as of the date and time that proposals are due to be submitted; or, alternatively, that the JV will automatically take legal effect immediately upon notification to the JV of contract award.

2. The JV Agreement must be signed by a representative of each Joint Venture partner who has the requisite authority to bind the partner to the agreement, with the chief executive of each entity identified.

3. To be acceptable to the Government, the joint venture agreement must clearly state within its terms that each member of the Joint Venture is jointly and severally liable for all of the obligations of the Joint Venture itself with respect to completion of all work and services under the contract expected to result from the Solicitation.

4. The terms of the Joint Venture must detail, in terms of percentages, where appropriate, the relationship of the Joint Venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

5. Additionally, the joint venture agreement must specify who among the joint venture partners is authorized to sign the Solicitation's Standard Form 1449, acknowledge the amendments to the Solicitation, if any, and bind the entire Joint Venture to its obligations under any contract which may result from the Solicitation.

H. SUB-CONTRACTORS

1. If an offeror wishes to receive credit for the past performance experience of a Sub- Contractor, including a firm that is a proposed Sub-Contractor to the prime Contractor or a Joint Venture partner, the offeror must submit a subcontractor consent, signed by the Sub- Contractor.

2. Include signed subcontractor consent in Volume I, Factor 1 Past Performance.

3. For purposes of this Solicitation, such a Sub-Contractor shall be considered to be a “qualified Sub- Contractor.”

I. TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS

If a contractor wishes to receive credit for the experience or past performance from a teaming arrangement with another small business, provide the complete information on the arrangement, to include any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner.

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

TAB CONTENTS OF VOLUME

Volume Title Page

A Factor 1 – Past Performance

B Factor 2 – Management Approach

Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

Provide descriptions of a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) example contracts performed within the last seven (7) years (from the solicitation issue date) where the interested firm served as the Prime Contractor that are similar to this contract in size and scope. Each project shall include a completed past performance questionnaire. Projects that do not include a past performance questionnaire shall not be considered. If your example contracts include multiple disciplines or were completed simultaneously with other similar projects performed by the same prime contractor, offerors should include that information in the project description. Contracts completed more than seven (7) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar in size and scope. Task orders may not be combined in order for the contract to be considered similar.

Projects considered similar in size are those with a value of at least $100,000.00 for the construction management services contract.

Projects considered similar in scope to this project include those for full or part time on-site construction inspection and oversight services, that include safety oversight, as set forth by OSHA or Corps of Engineers Safety Manual (EM 385-1- 1). The following services are considered to be on-site construction inspection and oversight services:

Review of submittals, safety plans and shop drawings for contract compliance;

Review of actual work performed to evaluate compliance with contract terms, contract schedule and make recommendations for contractor’s monthly earnings;

General office engineering duties such as drafting change documents, preparing cost estimates, reviewing schedules (CPM analysis), drafting correspondence, reviewing contractor proposals, participating in various communications with contractors, customers and internal staff, records establishment and maintenance;

Conducting quality assurance and safety meetings with contractors;

Coordinating work activities with customers and contractors;

Preparing daily quality assurance reports and other incidental reports;

Provide technical expertise related to structural steel erection, painting, masonry, site work, interior finishes, roofing, electrical, mechanical, civil, and examination of welds, NFPA Life Safety Code, testing, Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW), and other expertise/service related to construction for both civil and military projects.

Providing computer expertise in commonly used software for letters, data base, spreadsheet, communications, and other applications as appropriate;

Construction management for over-all surveillance and management of construction projects or offices from conducting preconstruction conferences through final inspection and close-out;

Providing engineering, technical, clerical, and administrative support personnel related to the above services, including contract interpretation and recommendations;

Provide expert testimony or opinions or reports in connection with any of the above in support of change/ claim/ dispute administration;

HTRW certified staff may be required for oversight of hazardous waste removal and disposal.

Additional consideration may be given for projects that contain the following features:

a) Past Performance of CMS for USACE

b) Projects that include multiple disciplines included in the above paragraphs.

The following information shall be provided for each project/contract:

a) Name, Title, Project Role, E-Mail address, and Telephone Number of at least one reference (References may be used to verify project scope, dollar value percentages and quality of performance.)

b) Project Title, Location, and Contract Number/Unique Identifier

c) Contract Award Date and Date of Completion (or date when will be complete)

For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that support past performance on these projects/contracts. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s respective corrective action.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 17a of the Standard Form 1449. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 17a, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture (JV) must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number (formerly known as DUNS) with the JV proposal. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV will not exceed five (5).

Volume I – Factor II: Management Approach

Submission Requirements:

Provide a management plan narrative for the project that describes how your labor, resources, and subcontractors will be managed, supervised, coordinated, and used to ensure successful completion of the contract. Additionally, the Management Approach shall include the following information:

Describe tools/methods used to find qualified CMS personnel across various disciplines, also how you will manage, supervise, and coordinate the performance of work by hired CMS personnel, in the field; and who in the organization will be responsible for this management and coordination.

Discuss which resources are available to support the contract from the home office to include any full-time personnel/Contract Manager.

Discuss how you will leverage communication and the partnering process to assist with risk management/cost control on the contract.

Specifically, address the offeror’s process to administer multiple projects/task orders simultaneously.

Discuss your approach to ensure successful completion of multiple projects/task orders across multiple geographic boundaries.

Discuss your Training processes to include but not limited to HAZWOPER, OSHA, Construction Quality Management, Resident Management System, etc.

NOTE: There is a page limit of twenty (20) pages, using a minimum font size of 12 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides for the Management Approach factor.

VOLUME II – PRICE PROPOSAL & ADMINISTRATIVE SUBMISSION

Page Limits. There are no page limits set for the price proposal. However, limit your response to information required by this solicitation. Excess information will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation.

TAB CONTENTS OF VOLUME

Volume Title Page Factor 1 – Price

A Solicitation, Offer and Award, & Amendments B SAM Representations & Certifications

TAB A: SF 1449 Solicitation, Offer and Award & Acknowledgement of Amendments

The SF 1449, Solicitation, Offer, and Award is to be completed by all Offerors and duly executed with an original signature and date by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with FAR 4.102. Any and all amendments must be acknowledged via signature by all Offerors in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation. In doing so, the offeror agrees to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation.

TAB B: Representations & Certifications

All Offerors must have electronically completed the annual representations and certifications on the “System for Award Management” (SAM.gov) website, in accordance with Section L, E. 4.

above. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that these on-line Representations and Certifications are updated as necessary to reflect changes, but at least annually to ensure that they are kept current, accurate and complete. Additionally, the offeror must also complete and return the “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” included in the solicitation. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, all participants must separately complete both the SAM.gov Representations and Certifications.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with FAR 9.103, 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 9.104-1 requirement that no award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined a responsible contractor, Offerors must meet the following general standards:

a. Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain them.

b. Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule taking into consideration all existing commercial and Governmental business commitments.

c. Have a satisfactory performance record.

d. Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

e. Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them.

f. Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them.

g. Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

B. BASIS OF AWARD

1. Award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., subjective best value trade-off) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Factor 1 – Past Performance, Factor 2

– Management Approach, and Factor 3 – Price.

2. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-cost factors. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not be made to the lowest price offered.

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

3. Award will be made based on Subjective Best Value, using the tradeoff process for proposals in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and FAR subpart 15.3. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and it is reasonably determined that the technical superiority, and/or overall business approach, and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

4. The failure of a proposal to meet any of the two (2) non-cost factors will result in a technically unacceptable rating and preclude award unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with that Offeror and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal.

5. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the solicitation will be considered unacceptable.

6. Offerors may NOT be credited with the past performance of a separate corporation, whether that of a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary, unless the proposal clearly establishes that the resources of those companies will be available for performance on the contract to be awarded.

7. The contracting officer will begin the evaluation process by conducting a proposal compliance review for all timely-received proposals to determine basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators (the Source Selection Evaluation Board).

Failure to provide a complete proposal will result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based up on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors listed below:

Volume I – Factor 1 – Past Performance

Volume I – Factor 2 – Management Approach

Volume II – Factor 3 – Price

2. Volume I, Factor 1 - Past Performance will receive ratings in accordance with the tables below, based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

TABLE 2 - 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.

TABLE 1 - 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.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will 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.

Evaluation Criteria:

The SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to the paragraphs above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past contract is when compared to the scope and size of the solicited contract. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table above.

Projects that include past performance of CMS contracts with USACE and those that include multiple disciplines may be considered more relevant.

The SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government may review past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from 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 SSEB will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience. Firms that demonstrate successful performance of contracts across multiple geographic areas simultaneously may receive a higher confidence rating.

3. Volume I, Factor 2 will receive one of five ratings, in accordance with the following tables.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

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 strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

TABLE 1 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

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

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 contract 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.

TABLE 2 – Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Evaluation Criteria:

Management Approach narratives will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the work and the involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed during the project. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the solicited project may be rated more favorably by the SSEB.

4. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors are 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 solicitation. 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 L) of the solicitation.

b. Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which: 1) the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable, 2) successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques, and 3) the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposal tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

5. DEFINITIONS:

a. Rating – The adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators to the non-cost/price factors and corresponding subfactors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Technical factor and subfactor ratings will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable.

b. 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.

c. Trade-Off 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 the tables above in section C. 2.

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

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

f. Weakness – a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

g. Significant Weakness – a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

i. Uncertainty – any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

j. Adverse Past Performance – past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

D. EVALUATION OF VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 – 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 Scope of Work.

Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider past performance information obtained from other sources, the responsibility of proving past performance information rests with the offeror.

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 ten percent (10%) 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 are reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts within the past seven (7) years in their proposal.

The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant past performance or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. Relevant past performance is performance under contracts or efforts within the past seven years (recency) that is of the same or similar scope, complexity, and magnitude to that which is described in the solicitation. A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) should be submitted for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Past Performance.

Please see Section G Factor 1, Past Performance for additional information on Past Performance Questionnaires.

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 contracts. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past seven (7) years prior to the issue date of the solicitation.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Aspects of Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results are an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

Recency & Relevancy – The first is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. Therefore, the solicitation has established the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement being procured. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement.

Recency – expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The base standard for recent work under this solicitation is considered to be within the last seven (7) years from the issue date of this solicitation.

Relevancy – same or similar scope, complexity, magnitude, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming to that which is described in this solicitation.

Note: providing information in all six relevancy areas will be evaluated as more relevant than proposals that do not provide information in all six areas.

Quality – The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

E. EVALUATION OF VOLUME I – FACTOR 2 – Management Approach

Management Approach narratives will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the work and the involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, staffing, training, control, and coordination of the work performed during the project.

Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the solicited project may be rated more favorably by the SSEB.

F. EVALUATION OF VOLUME II – FACTOR 3 – PRICE (SOLICITATION, OFFER

AND AWARD DOCUMENTS, AMENDMENTS, BID SCHEDULE AND

REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS)

Price analysis will be utilized to determine whether the unit prices on the bid schedule are fair and reasonable. Price reasonableness will be determined in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(c).

Such determination will be made to ensure the offeror’s proposed prices are fair and reasonable considering quality, delivery, and other factors. The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis and will be considered a performance risk.

This source selection will result in award of FFP IDIQ SATOC contract.

Offeror must sign the Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and all amendments.

G. Past Performance Questionnaire

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis District Office

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form…