Am2_SF_30_W912PL19R0064.pdf

(SEE ITEM 13)

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064 Santa Ana River Watershed, Orange and Riverside County, CA

SECTION B PRICE SCHEDULE

CLINS PRICE TOTAL

CLIN 0001 - Literature Review, Plan of Action and Safety Plan

CLIN 0002 - Coordination & Public Outreach

CLIN 0003 - Habitat Restoration and Management

CLIN 0003 AA - Riparian Area Non-Native removal, supplemental planting and irrigation, species monitoring, avian/vegetation surveys and follow-up treatments

CLIN 0003 AB - CSS Area Non-native removal, planting, irrigation, species monitoring, avian/vegetation surveys and follow-up treatments

CLIN 0003 AC - Cowbird Trapping, Species Monitoring and Bird Surveys subtotal

CLIN 0004 - GIS Database

CLIN 0005 - California Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands and Riparian Areas (CRAM Surveys)

CLIN 0006 - Reporting

TOTAL CLINS 0001 - 0006

AMENDMENT 0002

SECTION B - 1

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 1

SECTION L - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

II. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME I):

III. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME II) .. 3

IV. PROPOSAL COVER SHEET:

V. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

VI. SAMPLE COVER LETTER

VII. NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

VIII. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR KEY PERSONNEL (RESUMES) 16

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 2

GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all offers, the Contracting Officer must receive sufficiently detailed information that clearly responds to the technical evaluation factors in Section M.

Each Offeror must submit a Price Proposal, Volume I, and a Technical Proposal, Volume II. The Price Proposal and Technical Proposal must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals.

All information intended by the Offeror to be evaluated must be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal. No proposed price information should be included in the response to the technical evaluation factors.

No dollar amounts or pricing information from the Price Proposal are to be included in the responses to the technical evaluation factors.

I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

All written portions: Use only 8 ½ by 11 inch paper, unless another size is specifically authorized elsewhere in this section for a particular submission. Other than an Organization Chart for Factor 4, do not use 11” X 14” or 11” X 17” size sheets (e.g. fold-outs) unless specifically authorized in this section for a particular submission. Do not use a font size smaller than 10, an unusual font style such as script, or condensed print.

Three-ring binders are preferred. Do not use spring clamps or exceed the recommended capacity of the fastener or binder. Do not use plastic multi-hole/spiral binding systems, heat binding systems, or other systems which do not facilitate the ready insertion of additional pages.

“Confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can nonetheless be provided to the Government as part of the Proposer’s Technical Proposal. Proposers 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 Proposer—Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (3), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”.

The Corps of Engineers recognizes that submittals by the Proposer may contain confidential or proprietary information; however, the Government reserves the right to make inquiries into the information disclosed. The submission of false or misleading information may be grounds for disqualification of the proposal.

**Proposer(s) shall submit their proposal packages to the Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers (COE) in accordance with Section H of the solicitation.**

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 3

II. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME I):

Number of Sets of the Price Proposal: Submit One (1) original and three (3) copy on Compact Disk (CD) using a searchable “.pdf” file format.

Format and Contents of the Price Proposal/List of Tabs:

The Price Proposal shall be appropriately labeled as such and shall be organized as indicated in the following chart.

TAB CONTENTS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

TAB #1

SF 33 Acknowledgement Sheet (Including acknowledgment of all amendments)

TAB #2

Price CLIN Schedule (See Section B) &

Completed Corporate Principal (See Section B)

TAB #3

System for Award Management (SAM) Representations &

Certifications

TAB #4 Joint Venture/Teaming Agreement (If Applicable)

TAB #5 Pre-Award Survey Data Information

Pre-Award Survey Data Information (e.g. Bank and Supplier References)

In accordance with FAR 9.103(a)… contracts shall be awarded to responsible prospective contractors only. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the standards at FAR 9.104 that requires a prospective contractor to have adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain them. As an aid in assessing responsibility, the offeror shall provide a letter from their bank or financial institution that contains the following:

• Name and telephone number of bank and point of contact;

• Number of year’s business has be conducted with each bank;

• Types of open accounts (checking, loans, etc);

• Balance of current accounts (the banks will provide a “range of figures” for this information, such as, medium five figures range);

• Means by which loans are secured and if paid as agreed.

III. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME II)

Number of Sets and Pages of the Technical Proposal: Submit one (1) original sets of the written Technical Proposal. In addition, submit three (3) complete copies of the technical proposal on Compact Disk (CD) using a searchable “.pdf” file format. The Technical Proposals

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 4

shall be in 8 1/2" x 11" format, bound as a single document, with single-sided or double-sided pages being acceptable. Condensed print is not permitted. The Proposals shall be separated with section tabs, and the tabs shall clearly identify the contents of each section. Offeror is allowed to submit the organizational chart for Factor 4 (Management Structure) on an 11x17 size paper to allow for clear and detailed demonstration of key personnel and management structure. The Maximum number of pages for the Technical Proposal is fifty (50) pages single sided or twenty-five (25) pages double sided. The following items will not count against the page count:

Table of Contents, Section Tabs, Letters of Appreciation and similar correspondence, resume for each proposed team member (required from Factor 4) (Up to 2 pages single-sided) of Resumes, CPARS, PARs, CCASS/ACASS, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and subcontractor's consent to release of its past performance information by the Government to the Offeror(s).

Technical Proposals that exceed fifty (50) pages ingle sided or twenty-five (25) pages double sided, will not be evaluated after page fifty (50) or twenty-five respectively. Each page shall be sequentially numbered for that section.

Format and Contents of the Technical Proposal/List of Tabs: The original and all copies of the technical proposal will be appropriately labeled as such. Each set shall be organized using the tabs specified in the chart below. The tabs directly correlate to the evaluation factors identified in Section M.

TAB CONTENTS OF VOLUME II TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

TAB #1 FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR CONTRACTS

TAB #2

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH, METHODS AND

PROCEDURES

TAB #3

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE ON RECENT AND

RELEVANT CONTRACTS

TAB #4 FACTOR 4: MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

Detailed Submission Requirements for the Technical Proposal: Submit detailed responses to the evaluation factors under each of the tabs. Specifics for the required information to be submitted are described in detail in Section M.

FACTOR #1 EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR CONTRACTS

FACTOR #2 TECHNICAL APPROACH, METHODS AND PROCEDURES

FACTOR #3 PAST PERFORMANCE ON RECENT AND RELEVANT CONTRACTS

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 5

FACTOR #4 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

IV. PROPOSAL COVER SHEET:

Format for the Proposal Cover Sheet:

The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1(c) (i)-(v). This provision, titled “Instructions to Proposers—Competitive Acquisition,” has been provided in full text in Section H. The format is as follows:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number: W912PL19R0064

2. The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Proposer 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.

4. Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the Proposer’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.

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 6

V. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

(To be completed by Proposer)

1. Contractor (Firm being evaluated):

Name: Address:

2. Contract Number: Task Order (TO) Number if Applicable:

3. Solicitation Type: Negotiated or Sealed Bid

4. Contract/TO Type: Fixed-Price Cost, Reimbursement, Hybrid (explain)

5. Routine Difficult (low to high) Complexity of Work 1 2 3 4 5

6. Contract/TO Dollar Value:

7. Contract/TO Status: Active Complete Completion Date (w/ extensions):

8. Description, location & relevancy of work:

9. Problems encountered and how resolved:

10. Name, Address, Telephone Number and E-mail of the Procuring Contracting Officer and/or the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) (and other references, e.g., Administrative Contracting Officer, if applicable):

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 7

11. Check one of the following blocks:

A written performance evaluation was received for this project and is attached.

A written performance evaluation was not received for this project. A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) has been sent to the reference(s) listed in

Block 10, with a letter requesting that the completed questionnaire be returned directly to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by the closing date for this solicitation.

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 8

VI. SAMPLE COVER LETTER

Date

SUBJECT: NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire

Name and Address of Reference

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, is conducting a review of our past performance history as part of an upcoming source selection acquisition.

Please complete the attached NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire to aid the Government in its evaluation of our past performance. Provide the requested information by email to ryan.e.rivas@usace.army.mil

The Government is requesting receipt of this information three business days before proposal due date.

You are advised that it is Government policy that the identity of sources providing past performance information will not be released outside the Government.

We appreciate your efforts to help the Government fairly evaluate our record of past performance. Should you have any questions related to this matter, please contact Mr. Ryan Rivas at telephone (213) 452-3310.

Sincerely, Contractor

Attachment mailto:ryan.e.rivas@usace.army.mil

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 9

VII. NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact:

Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 10

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS

QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE PROPOSER. THE

PROPOSER WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH

THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE

SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY

ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE PROPOSER.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE.

PLEASE CONTACT THE PROPOSER FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL

INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 11

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 12

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 13

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E VG S M U

N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U

N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U

N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF

PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U

N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U

N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project?

E VG S M U

N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U

N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U

N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, E VG S M U

N

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 14

and/or labor force?

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort

E VG S M U

N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel

E VG S M U

N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U

N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U

N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 15

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U

N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U

N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U

N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations?

Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below. Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U

N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U

N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U

N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 16

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U

N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary).

VIII. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR KEY PERSONNEL (RESUMES)

1. Name and Job title: (If this job title differs from the one used in the solicitation to designate key personnel but the individual will be performing essentially the same functions, provide a cross-reference to the job title used in the solicitation.)

2. Total cumulative number of years individual has worked in the above position:

3. Individual’s current status: (Current employee of the Offeror, prospective employee of the Offeror, key subcontractor employee, prospective employee of a key subcontractor, etc.).

4. Name and address of individual’s current employer: (If other than the Offeror)

5. Individual’s projected availability to work on the prospective contract: (Estimated percentage of his or her time dedicated to working on the prospective contract.)

6. Individual’s proposed role/assignment on this project: (Briefly describe the authorities, duties, and responsibilities this individual will have on the prospective contract.)

7. Individual’s relevant education: (Degree(s)/Year/Specialization):

8. Individual’s active registration: (If applicable)

State__________ Year__________ Discipline____________________

9. Relevant Specialized Training: (If applicable)

10. Individual’s specific qualifications and experience relevant to this project:

(Provide specific details, not general statements. Explain their relevance. Provide any other information pertaining to the qualifications of this person for this project not specifically addressed above that directly relates to this evaluation subfactor. A complete list of the individual’s prior experience is neither

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION L - 17

required nor desired. Tailor the information provided to this acquisition.)

NOTE: If the proposed person is not currently employed by either the Offeror or a proposed key subcontractor, provide a letter of commitment from the person stating his or her intent to work on this project if the Offeror is awarded the contract. The attachment is not included in the page limitation.

-END OF SECTION-

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

SECTION M

Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104 For Official Use Only

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD

I. GENERAL

II. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

III. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

IV. SOURCE SELECTION USING THE LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY

ACCEPTABLE PROCESS

V. EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING SCHEMES FOR THE TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL (VOLUME II)

VI. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

VII. IINTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSION

VIII. DISCUSSION PROCESS

IX. FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

X. DEBRIEFINGS

XI. BASIS FOR AWARD

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104

GENERAL

a. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel, will evaluate the proposals.

Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of the proposals will be conducted in strict accordance in with the Source Selection Plan (SSP) and with Sections L and M of the solicitation. In addition, technical/quality proposals are first reviewed and rated by the SSEB without knowledge of the price offered. 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 on the factors described herein. The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process will be used for this acquisition. This process allows the Government to select a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. Reference FAR 15.101.2.

b. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), no contract will 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

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104 For Official Use Only contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

In accordance with FAR 1.602-1(b), no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the requirement of FAR 9.103 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 9.104-1 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation in accordance with FAR 9.104-2.

The proposal submission instructions are written to give prospective contractors, where feasible, an indication of the level of detail desired by the Government. The offeror’s failure to include information that the Government has indicated should be included may result in the proposal being downgraded and/or being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided. Material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable. The technical proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the technical specifications and applicable regulations. Non-compliance with the technical specifications and/or applicable regulations will be considered a deficiency. Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail, may be downgraded.

SOURCE SELECTION USING THE LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE

PROCESS

The evaluation process essentially consists of three parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, technical/quality evaluation, and price evaluation.

a. Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review by Contracting Division on the basis of the Request for Proposals (RFP) requirements. This review may eliminate those proposals which fail to provide all required information and documents in the format and detail specified. This review is to ensure that all required forms are complete.

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104 For Official Use Only

b. Technical/Quality Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate those proposals passing the first review, above. Proposals will be evaluated against the RFP requirements. Factors will be rated on an “acceptable or unacceptable” basis.

Technical. The term “technical” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements.

Past Performance. The past performance evaluation is 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 services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

c. Price Evaluation: Cost or price to the Government will be evaluated in every source selection. However, no adjectival ratings shall be utilized for evaluating cost or price.

The Contractual Co-Chair will evaluate the price proposals. All offers with separately priced line items will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced (FAR 15.404-1(g)). Offers may be rejected if the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Price analysis will be used to determine the reasonableness of the total evaluated price to support the selection of the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror. When contracting on a firm-fixed price basis, comparison of the proposed prices will satisfy the price analysis requirement since competition normally establishes price reasonableness, and a cost analysis need not be performed (see FAR 15.303(A)(1)). Prices will not be revealed to any SSEB members until completion of the technical/quality evaluations, including consensus.

The Government will make award to the Offeror submitting the lowest priced technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. The Government will first review non-cost technical proposals to determine which are acceptable to the Government.

Responses that the Offeror understands, or will comply with the specifications, statements paraphrasing the specifications, and general or overly broad responses such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used”, will be rated unacceptable.

The objective of the Government is to award a contract to an Offeror who submits a proposal that when evaluated is determined to meet the acceptability levels established in the solicitation for each non-cost evaluation factor. Each non-cost evaluation factor will receive a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The award will be made to the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated proposed price.

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104 For Official Use Only

EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING SCHEMES FOR THE TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL (VOLUME II)

The Technical Proposal will be evaluated based on the following technical evaluation factors:

FACTOR 1 - EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR CONTRACTS

FACTOR 2 - TECHNICAL APPROACH, METHODS AND PROCEDURES

FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE ON RECENT, RELEVANT CONTRACTS

FACTOR 4 - MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

Rating Schemes:

FACTORS 1, 2, 4, RATING SCHEME

RATING DESCRIPTION

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 3 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, RATING SCHEME

RATING DESCRIPTION

ACCEPTABLE

Based on the offerors’s past performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s past performance is unknown. (See note below)*

UNACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

*NOTE: In case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so spare that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned; the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance.

In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors listed below. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “Acceptable” rating in every non-price factor.

Proposals must be submitted in writing and must meet the following minimum requirements:

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR CONTRACTS

This factor will evaluate the extent of an Offeror’s successful experience and proposed team’s experience (key subcontractors) on projects of similar type, scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the work that is required under this solicitation. The Offeror must include at least one relevant project from the Santa Ana River Watershed.

The following are the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance to demonstrate experience on similar contracts. Offeror shall identify project(s) similar in scope, magnitude and complexity as described in Section C, Scope of Work, the contracts for which are ongoing or which the Offeror has completed as the prime contractor within the past ten (10) years. Provide narrative description of each project, describe its scope of the work, problems encountered, and problem resolution. Descriptions of project experience shall include the following items:

a. Offeror shall describe success criteria for each project and state whether projects were able to meet that criteria or if project status is still pending.

b. Within each listed contract, the Offeror shall provide narratives that address any unusual or challenging problems that occurred during performance.

c. The Offeror shall identify the problems, the sequence of events that led to the problems and the corrective actions taken by the Offeror to resolve the issues.

d. The Offeror shall describe the risks taken to ensure the successful completion of the contracts and why the risks were taken in light of the potential failures that could occur.

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104 For Official Use Only

e. The Offeror shall describe the actions of other parties who were involved in problem resolution and how the Offeror interacted with those parties and ensured that resolution would be achieved. The discussion shall describe the roles of both field personnel and the home office of the Offeror and the level of authority granted to the field to make decisions for resolving problems.

f. The Offeror shall demonstrate experience restoring native riparian and coastal sage scrub vegetation through selective non-native removal and control, planting, and irrigation.

g. The Offeror shall demonstrate knowledge and experience with the vegetation and habitat types within the Santa Ana River watershed including all corresponding fauna, and with the federal and state special status listed species that may occur therein.

h. Offeror shall demonstrate experience with, and applicable permits for surveying for least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, gnatcatcher and other species of concern following accepted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols.

i. Offeror shall demonstrate ability and experience with public outreach and education on ecosystem or environmental issues.

j. Offeror shall demonstrate experience with and applicable permits for setting and maintaining cowbird traps – specifically the ability to maintain a minimum of 15 traps within the mitigation areas and/or watershed throughout the nesting season for each nesting season throughout the duration of the contract.

k. Offeror shall demonstrate knowledge of, certification for, and ability to perform California Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands and Ripairan Areas (CRAM) within the entire restoration area.

The Offeror shall submit information on all contracts completed or ongoing within in the past ten

(10) years that are similar to this solicitation’s work requirements and shall not use any method to exclude information the Government requires for its evaluation. The Government will not evaluate information on work completed longer than ten (10) years ago. The Government will contact selected references submitted by the Offeror and may also check past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. An Offeror with no past performance relevant to specific major features of this solicitation (i.e., upland and riparian Habitat restoration, Habitat evaluation, species surveys, mitigation planning, etc.) must so state.

All relevant facts and circumstances gathered from the Offeror’s listed references and other sources of the information available to the Government will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104 For Official Use Only overall experience and quality of performance. Confidential customers/clients will not be accepted as references. At no time will the names of the individuals providing reference information on the Offeror’s past performance be revealed to the Offeror or to any other party.

For each project identified, the Offeror will indicate the firm’s role in each contract (and percentage of work for which the firm was responsible), whether the Offeror was the prime, in a joint venture or subcontractor. All completed projects submitted shall contain the name and address of the customer; names and current telephone and fax numbers and e-mail addresses of persons in the customer’s office who are familiar with the contract, the contract number, if applicable, or other types of identification; the final contract price; type of contract or subcontract; description of work performed by the Offeror; contract performance period; and percentage of work that was subcontracted out by the Offeror. Offeror will include photos and maps of prior work areas, and provide written explanation of techniques and methodologies used to remove biomass and prevent re-establishment of non-natives. In the case of a federal, state or local government project, provide the name, address, and telephone number of the contracting officer and a technical point of contract.

Standard for Acceptability: This standard is met when the Offeror can establish experience through completed projects that are similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and which meet this Factor 1 requirements.

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH, METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The following are the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance to demonstrate technical approach, methodology, and procedures. Offeror shall describe in narrative form the technical approach, methodology, and procedures it will take to address the unique challenges, opportunities and constraints inherent to the project. Requirements to be evaluated include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Proposals will be evaluated as to the Offeror’s plan to successfully remove and treat non-native vegetation from hundreds of acres while protecting native habitats and species, resulting in re-establishment of riparian/riverine habitat.

b. Proposals will be evaluated as to the Offeror’s approach to successfully restore and create native plant communities and habitat types including non-native vegetation removal and follow-up treatments, habitat planning, development, and restoration planning to include plant palette development, development of irrigation requirements

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104 For Official Use Only and water budgets, grading, invasive species removal, planting, monitoring of sites and development of success criteria.

c. The Offeror must demonstrate knowledge of vegetation types, species and habitats that occur within the Santa Ana River Watershed specifically, and southern California in general.

d. The narrative must include discussion of the restoration process including project siting, objectives and constraints associated with restoration at the site, demonstrated knowledge of and experience with proven, effective techniques for restoring native habitat through removal and control of non-native vegetation, process for ensuring continued compliance with applicable laws and regulations, major components of a monitoring plan for the site, and approach to adaptive management of the habitat restoration over the course of the contract’s period of performance.

Responses to this factor must discuss the Offeror’s technical understanding and their methodology and procedures to accomplish all the work in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

Standard for Acceptability: This standard is met when the Offeror’s narrative addresses all required elements and demonstrates a methodology and technical approach to accomplish all the work in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE ON RECENT, RELEVANT PROJECTS

This factor will assess the Offeror’s past performance, evaluate whether the Offeror’s past performance is relevant or not relevant to that effort to be acquired, and determine contractor capability to successfully perform the proposed effort. The information provided should address both technical and administrative aspects of the contracts, when available. Information should also be provided on the performance of key personnel responsible for technical quality control and quality assurance.

The following are the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance to demonstrate contractor capability to perform the proposed effort. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant and how well the contractor performed on the contracts will be based upon the efforts of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity of projects ongoing or successfully completed within the past ten (10) years (projects identified in Tab #1).

Offeror(s) are encouraged to provide information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104 For Official Use Only aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this solicitation. Also note if key personnel that contributed in past performance have a current relationship with the Offeror and whether they will be available for use under this solicitation. Important Note: See paragraph below regarding required consent for release of subcontractor past performance information. For each project, submit the following information in the formats provided at the end of this Section:

Furnish a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) for each referenced contract.

If an official written performance evaluation/rating was not received, so indicate. A past performance questionnaire must be sent to the reference if a written performance evaluation/rating is not included in the proposal as an attachment to the Performance Assessment Report. The Offeror(s) is also encouraged to submit any letters of appreciation or similar correspondence that the Contractor received from the Owner/Customer at the time of contract performance/completion. However, the Offeror(s) is neither required nor requested to have the Owner/Customer write such a letter for the purpose of this solicitation. Formats for the Contractor Performance Assessment Report have been provided at the end of this Section titled:

Contractor Performance Assessment Report.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1 for PAST PERFORMANCE, where a written performance evaluation/rating (CPAR) is not included in the proposal as an attachment to the performance assessment report. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Complete PPQs must be submitted directly to Mr. Ryan Rivas ryan.e.rivas@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. Offerors must not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. Also include performance recognition documents received within the last ten (10) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) will not be included in the page count limitation. Formats for the Past Sample Cover Letter and Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) has been provided at the end of this Section titled: Sample Cover Letter and Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).

1. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information available 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), included Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS number of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owners representatives(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System mailto:ryan.rivas@usace.army.mil

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104 For Official Use Only

(eSRS), 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.

2. In conducting the performance risk assessment, the government may use data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources, including automated databases, contacting the owner or contracting officer of the project. The “References’ Past Performance/Quality Questionnaire” (Past Performance Reference Check in Section L) is one of the means that may be used by the government to collect past performance information. The Government may contact references other than those identified by the Offeror. The Government may also take into consideration the Offerors performance of contracts with the Agency.

3. The evaluation will take into consideration the Offerors record of conformance to contract specifications and standards of good workmanship; the Offerors safety performance, the Offerors adherence to contract cost, the Offerors adherence to contract schedule, including the administrative aspects of performance; the Offerors history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, commitment to customer satisfaction, and timely award and management of subcontracts;

4. The evaluation will take into account the number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken, and the overall work record.

5. The performance record of proposed major subcontractors and proposed key personnel might also be considered.

6. “Confidential” projects cannot be submitted unless all of the information required for evaluation purposes as specified herein can nonetheless be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror(s) technical proposal. Offeror(s) 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 Offeror(s)—Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”.

Norco Bluffs Toe Protection and Alcoa Dike Mitigation Services W912PL19R0064

Source Selection Information – See FAR 3.104 For Official Use Only

7. Release of Subcontractor Past Performance Information.