Amendment 0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The follow ing has been added to the evualation criteria:

Past Performance of a First-Tier Subcontractor. If the Offeror is proposing to use the past performance of a First-Tier Subcontractor for evaluation for the Past Performance criteria, then a binding agreement betw een the Prime and the subcontractor, valid for the life of the contract, shall be provided in the proposal. Failure to include a binding agreement valid for the life of the contract may result in the subcontractor's experience to not be evaluated.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912QR24Q0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Nov-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

U0001

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

16-Nov-2023

CODE

U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOUISVILLE

600 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. PLACE

ROOM 821

LOUISVILLE KY 40202-2239

W912QR 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912QR24Q0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors for Contract Award

1. The Government will evaluate the quotes in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror, whose quote conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose quote is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government, all factors considered.

“Offeror Quotes” as referred to in this solicitation shall include the following:

a. Completed Price Breakout Schedule/Price Quote

b. Completed Offeror’s “Project Detail Sheet” forms and Past Performance Questionnaires

The basis of award is the Tradeoff Process. The Contracting Officer will award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Contracting Officer determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: quote compliance review, past performance evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

a. Quote Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that both a technical and price quote were received.

b. Past Performance Evaluation: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate and rate the quotes against the RFQ requirements. Past Performance will be rated based on recency/relevancy and confidence using the adjectival-based system described in the included rating charts.

c. Price Evaluation: The SSEB and Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price quotes independent of the technical evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical evaluation. The base period total, all option period totals, and the sample task order totals will be combined to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price.

d. Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical quotes and compare prices. The Contracting Officer will then consider all factors to select the quote offering the best value to the Government.

2. Evaluation Criteria.

2.1. Content and Rating. Offeror quotes shall be specific and complete in every detail and shall contain the information necessary to properly assess and evaluate the Contractor's capability to perform the specified contract services, based upon the following factors:

a. Past Performance

b. Price

All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined are considered approximately equal to cost or price. In addition to a complete and properly prepared price breakout schedule or price quote, the Contractor shall also complete the “Project Detail Sheet” forms and Past Performance Questionnaires contained in Appendix A. The price breakout schedule and information provided on the forms will be used to evaluate each Offeror’s quote.

Quotes will be evaluated based on the degree to which the quote meets, fails to meet, or usefully exceeds the standards established for individual factors, and compared with acceptable quotes submitted by other Offerors.

Quotes will be evaluated in accordance with the factors contained in the following paragraphs.

3. Past Performance. Offerors shall provide a narrative of:

1) Evidence of experience in dive surveys for mussels in the lower Ohio and Tennessee Rivers;

2) Evidence of experience in preparing reports or data reviewed by Fish and Wildlife Agencies;

3) Resume of Qualifying Malacologist. Previous individual experience working with state Fish and Wildlife agencies in the states of Kentucky and Tennessee may be considered as a strength, and may receive additional consideration.

*** Amendment 0001 ***

Past Performance of a First-Tier Subcontractor. If the Offeror is proposing to use the past performance of a First-Tier Subcontractor for evaluation for the Past Performance criteria, then a binding agreement between the Prime and the subcontractor, valid for the life of the contract, shall be provided in the proposal. Failure to include a binding agreement valid for the life of the contract may result in the subcontractor's experience to not be evaluated.

*** Amendment 0001 ***

Project Detail Sheets shall be used by the Offeror. To determine relevancy, offerors shall provide up to five (5) projects producing data/reports for environmental analysis of mussel life in major rivers where reports/information is reviewed by Federal and/or State Wildlife Agencies. Projects submitted which exceed the limit above will not be evaluated.

To be considered recent, projects shall be substantially complete within the last five (5) years from the solicitation due date. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to complete all components of the project.

Past Performance Questionnaires attached to this document shall be used by the Offeror to provide business references that may be contacted for the purpose of verifying past performance. The Government will consider information in the Past Performance Questionnaires completed by personnel for whom the Offeror has performed work, and any information obtained from other sources. Evaluation of past performance will be based on subjective assessment based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will not be based on absolute standards of acceptable performance. The Government's conclusions about the overall quality of the Offeror's past performance may influence the selection of the quote considered "Best Value to the Government".

4. Price.

4.1. Price. The completed price breakout schedule will be reviewed for completeness and compatibility with the estimated cost to perform the contract services. The reasonableness of the pricing will be evaluated and compared with the Government's cost estimate. The lowest quote shall not by itself determine which Offeror is awarded the Contract. The prices shall demonstrate an understanding of costs to perform the specified contract services. This understanding should be reflected in the Offeror's quoted prices for individual work items. The Offeror's price quote will also be evaluated for proportionality and balance. An Offeror's price quote may be considered unbalanced when it is based on prices significantly less than the estimated cost for some work items and prices which are significantly overstated for other work.

4.2. Overall Price Evaluations. This solicitation will have two (2) sample task order projects as a component of the total evaluated price in order to establish the tradeoff between past performance and price. The sample task order projects WILL NOT be awarded, but will only be used for price evaluation purposes. In addition to the sample projects, offerors will have to submit hourly rates for items specified in the price breakout schedule for the base IDIQ contract. These hourly rates will become binding upon contract award.

The base period total, all option period totals, and the sample task order totals will be combined to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price. The price will be evaluated by the SSEB and Contracting Officer for fair and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. Price will also be checked for unbalancing of line items. Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately. Evaluation of option periods in the selection process will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

4.3. Discounts. Prompt payment discounts will not be considered in the evaluation of quotes. However, any offered discount will form a part of the award, and will be taken if payment is made within the discount period indicated by the Offeror.

5 Evaluation Process.

5.1. Award will be made to the responsive and responsible Offeror, whose quote conforms to the solicitation requirements with acceptable Past Performance/Price as determined by the Contracting Officer, and when compared to other acceptable quotes is determined to be the “Best Value to the Government.”

5.2. The Government may award a contract based on initial offers received, without discussions of such offers.

5.3. 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. The Government will at a minimum review past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including CPARS. The Government may also use other tools such as FAPPIS, Dun & Bradstreet, etc. or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance.

6. Ratings.

6.1 Rating Charts: Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

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

Performance Confidence Assessments

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

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

Technical Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

Acceptable

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

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

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

Proposal is unawardable.

6.2. Definitions.

1. Deficiency. A material failure of a quote to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

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

3. Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ quote 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.

4. Weakness. A flaw in the quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

5. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the quote that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

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

7. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

8. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPIIS.”

Appendix A Project Detail Sheet

Your firm’s name _______________________________________________________________

Name of Project/Location_________________________________________________________

General Scope of Project

Your role (prime, joint venture, subcontractor) and work your company self-performed_______________________________________________________________________

Percentage of Work completed by Prime Contractor Personnel: ___________________________%

Award Date: ____________

Actual Completion: _____________

Extent and type of work you subcontracted out

Owner’s Point of Contact (POC) for reference (name and company and telephone number)

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: Unique Entity Identifier:

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:

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:

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

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.

(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.

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, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

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)

E VG S M U N

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.)

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) E VG S M U N

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.

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):

(End of Summary of Changes)