Amendment_0002_W912PP18R0029.pdf

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

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

MATOC for Tribal Consultation, Cultural Resources, and Environmental Services to support the USACE Tribal Nations Technical Center of Expertise (TNTCX), Albuquerque District (SPA).

1. This is Amendment No. 0002 to Solicitation No. W912PP18R0029. The following revisions shall be incorporated into the solicitation. All other items shall remain unchanged.

See SF30 Continuation Page.

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALBUQUERQUE

4101 JEFFERSON PLAZA NE

ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109-3435

SEE ITEM 6

W912PP18R0029

09/07/2018

08/13/2018

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

2. Delete the following pages and substitute the pages attached hereto. On the revised pages, for convenience, changes are indicated by Strikethrough for deletions and Green Font for additions from the previous issue. All portions of the revised (or new) pages shall apply whether or not changes have been indicated.

Delete Pages Insert Pages

Page 78 Page 78

Page 82 Page 82

Page 95 Page 95 an Unacceptable rating. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of the requirements described in the PWS and associated documents and the capability to execute the project.

5.0 FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT

Page Limitations for Factor 2: Management is ten (10) pages in count, detailing the proposed Management approach for completing all tasks required by the PWS. Double sided printing will constitute as two (2) pages. Key personnel resumes are not included in the page count for this factor.

a. Title sheets, indices, and tables of contents are EXCLUDED from the page limitation.

b. Management is further divided into the following sub-factors:

Management will be evaluated and adjectivally rated.

Relative Order of Importance:

o Sub-Factor 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are equally important.

Sub-Factor 2.1: Proposed Organization

The Offeror shall provide a narrative description of the corporate organization proposed for execution of the requirements of this solicitation, including how that organization fits into the overall corporate structure of the company (as appropriate). For instance, is the offering entity a division or subsidiary of a larger corporation?, is it a joint venture and if so how does it function relative to the corporate structures of the members, etc… Details on management processes and personnel roles and responsibilities shall be covered in Sub-Factor 2.2: Management Structure below.

Include in this section a company resource chart (or table) with the number of personnel proposed to be committed for the contract by defined labor category. At a minimum, all labor categories in the proposed Pricing Schedule of the solicitation shall be reflected in the resource chart (or table). This requirement is different from the requirement for an organization chart below in Sub-Factor 2.2. If the two are to be provided in one combined chart, the proposal shall clearly state this and the specific requirements of each must be addressed in the combined chart.

Furnish a description of what work will be subcontracted and how subcontracted work will be managed. Provide a brief description on the rationale of how different tiers of subcontracting will be utilized. Provide a minimum of two and not more than three examples of previous projects for requirements similar to the requirements described in this solicitation, which were accomplished using the proposed rationale to show that the rationale provided is real and reasonable.

Sub-Factor 2.2: Management Structure

The Offeror shall describe the management structure proposed for use in performing task orders to be awarded under the contract resulting from this solicitation as well as in administering the contract itself. In developing and describing the proposed management structure, the Offeror shall consider and address the trade-off between the perceived benefits to the government of additional layers of management vs the associated costs represented by those additional layers.

The description shall include the roles and responsibilities of each level of management proposed (site, corporate, and any proposed intermediate levels).

An organization chart shall be provided to show the lines of authority and communication for the management structure proposed (from site to highest applicable corporate level).

W912PP18R0029

6.1.1 Section 1- Relevance of Demonstrated Experience: This section shall list each recent and relevant contract experience of the Offeror (prime contractor, or previous contractor and subcontractor team performance, or as a subcontractor). Information provided on the Contract Description Form provided at the end of this section will be used to evaluate Past Performance. Offerors are invited, but not required, to submit photographs of successful projects in conjunction with this section. This factor is limited to fifteen (15) pages. Past Performance Questionnaires are EXCLUDED from the page limitation of Factor.

6.1.2. Provide five (5) examples of recent and relevant projects performed as the prime contractor to demonstrate relative project experience: Tribal consultation and cultural resources, and environmental support that demonstrate the company’s diversity of effort. A project does not have to be under an IDIQ contract, but where it is, clearly indicate so. The Government will use the relevant company effort and quality of past performance information submitted under this tab to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the scope of work described in this solicitation.

a. Where the word “project(s)” appears it is understood to mean a project(s), contract(s), task order(s), or any other contract document provided for in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR 2.101). An IDIQ or Task Order contract as a whole is not considered a project, although individual delivery or task orders awarded under such a contract would be. Examples of projects submitted by the Offeror shall demonstrate developing and implementing Tribal consultation, cultural resources, and environmental support work practices for a variety of customers including Tribal Nations, Government civil works, and military customers. Examples of projects submitted by the Prime Contractor may be projects performed for a State or Federal Government Agency; or for a commercial or private sector customer.

b. Where the word “recent” appears it is understood to mean projects for which the effort is at least 50% complete (measured by billed percentage) as of the RFP issue closing date of this solicitation or a project that has been completed within five years (5) years of the RFP issue closing date of this solicitation.

Offerors shall indicate the percentage of work that is complete if currently underway. “Relevant” past performance information is one indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully.

c. Where the word “relevant” appears it is understood to mean a project effort that is similar, and that has a logical connection to the context of this solicitation in terms of scope (similar type of work, size, magnitude of effort, complexities and dollar value) as projects described in the PWS of this solicitation.

The Government will only evaluate the past performance information of the Offeror signed on the SF 33.

Accordingly, past performance information of subcontractors to the Offeror, parent or affiliated companies, predecessor companies, etc., or key personnel will not be considered.

6.1.3 Section 2- Quality of Past Performance:

1) For all contracts identified in Section 1, Relevance of Demonstrated Experience, and pertaining to the Offeror only, the Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of their past performance. The Offeror shall provide a completed contractor performance evaluation, whether interim or final, found in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at www.ppirs.gov. If a completed contractor performance evaluation does not exist in PPIRS (example, non-U.S. Government projects) the Offeror shall provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Atta. If, at the time of evaluation, a completed contractor performance evaluation exists in PPIRS that conflicts with a submitted PPQ, the completed contractor performance evaluation in PPIRS will govern. Projects for which a past performance evaluation (either from PPIRS or a PPQ) has not been received (either from the Offeror or directly from the customer) on or before the proposal due date will not be evaluated. Only past performance evaluations of the offer will be reviewed.

Do not provide past performance evaluations for sub-contractors

2) Completed PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection. However, Offerors shall not simply incorporate any those PPQs by reference, but rather provide them with their proposal. Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to consider previously submitted past performance information in this evaluation, and while the Government may elect to differences in price become less distinct, differences in rating and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination.

10.0 EVALUATION

10.1 Each member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will independently consider all information provided in the technical proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the team will meet and determine a rating for each of the evaluation factors by consensus decision. The evaluation team will document strengths (e.g., advantages), weaknesses (e.g., disadvantages), and other comments (e.g., deficiency and/or clarification) to support the rating for each factor, as well as the overall rating. The ratings for Technical Factors will be expressed in an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable.

10.2 The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying construction services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

10.2.1 RECENCY. The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. In this case, Offerors may submit “recent” contracts for the prime Contractor that are at least 50% complete (measured by billed percentage) have successfully been completed or substantially completed (75% of field work complete) as of the RFP closing date. Projects completed more than five (5) years before the RFP closing date will not be considered for evaluation purposes.

10.2.2 RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant. These criteria shall include similarity of service/support effort, scope, complexity, dollar value, contract type and other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements Past Performance Relevancy Ratings are Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, Not Relevant.

10.2.2.1 Relevancy will be rated based on the following Relevancy Matrix. For a project to receive a “relevant” rating, it should include, at a minimum, one out of the five attributes detailed below.