W912WJ-16-R-0003-0001.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

This amendment is to answ er RFIs. The proposal due date remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Oct-2016

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 W912WJ-16-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Sep-2016

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 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

21-Oct-2016

CODE

U S ARMY ENGR DISTRICT, NEW ENGLAND

696 VIRGINIA RD

CONCORD MA 01742-2751

W912WJ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912WJ-16-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been added by full text:

Replies to Requests for Information

1. Discussions. At the end of Section L, the RFP states: ‘In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed an adequate amount of time to submit Final Proposal Revisions.’ However, in Section M, Evaluation Approach, Item 6 states: ‘The Government intends to award without discussions.’ Please clarify.

Pursuant to FAR 15.306(a)(3), the government intends to award without discussions, but that does not preclude the government from entering into discussions if it is in the government’s best interest.

2. Resumes. Please clarify that Key Team Member Resumes, to be provided in an appendix with a 50 page limit, are not included in the 150 page count for other parts of Volume I.

There is a 50 page limit to the resume appendix. These 50 pages do not count toward the 150 page count for all other components in Volume I.

3. Technical Expertise. In Section M, Factor 2, a, the third bullet reads: ‘Demonstrated knowledge of the Offeror with the resources and environmental conditions of the New England States and the mission areas of the North Atlantic Division area of operations (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut) as related to the tasks outlined in Section C and the Sample Task Order.’

Should we assume that the NAD AOR for the purposes of this solicitation is limited to these six states?

As noted in the solicitation, the location of services shall be primarily in the Northeastern United States and adjacent waters. The mission areas of the North Atlantic Division area of operations include six New England states (ME, MA, NH, RI, VT and CT).

4. Past Performance/Major Subcontractors. Section M, Factor 4 states: ‘The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors.

Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort.’ Is the 10% based on overall contract dollars, task order level efforts, or subcontracted dollars? Does this designation apply to laboratories who might perform 10% of the proposed effort.

The 10% is based on the overall contract price. If laboratories are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort, they will qualify as a major subcontractor. Sections L and M has been updated.

5. Past Performance. Section L states that ‘the Offeror shall submit past performance information on a maximum of five (5) previous or ongoing projects of relevant size and scope.’ However, Section M states that ‘past performance will be reviewed to determine the recency, relevancy and quality of contractor past performance’ and defines recency as ‘work completed in the last three years.’ Please clarify whether project may be ongoing or must be complete.

The project should be completed or more than 50% complete. Sections L and M have been updated.

6. Past Performance. Section M, Factor 4 states: ‘Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP.’

a. Please clarify if the intent is for Offerors to provide a listing of all relevant contracts in addition to the PPQs. Please provide additional detail on what data or information NAE would like provided for each contract.

The government intends to have offerors provide a listing of all relevant, on‐going contracts in addition to the PPQs. Sections L and M have been updated to reflect what information is to be provided.

b. Do ‘contracts’ include task order awards under IDIQ contracts that were awarded more than 3 years prior to the issue date of the RFP, if the work was awarded or in performance within the past 3 years, or would the overall contract listing be sufficient?

The overall contract is sufficient. Task Orders may be used for the PPQs, but they are not required for the on‐going work list.

c. If laboratories are considered major subcontractors, would we be required to submit this information for them as well (this could be an extensive list that may put stress on SB labs to develop).

Major subcontactors are removed as a requirement for the list of on‐going work, but they are required for the completed or more than 50% completed work (see question 4.)

d. If contracts were ‘completed’ within the last 3 years, would they be excluded since they are not ‘in performance’ or ‘awarded’ during the 3 year period.

Completed contracts are not required for this list.

7. Past Performance. Will NAE accept ACASS/CPAR annual contractor performance evaluations in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)?

No, the Government will review both ACASS/CPAR annual contractor performance evaluations and the Past Performance Questionnaire.

8. Section L.2 Proposal Submission Requirements outlines the font size and style and spacing but does not specify that 11X17 size pages are acceptable. Can you confirm 11X17 pages are acceptable?

11X17 pages are acceptable, but one side counts for two pages. Likewise, a double‐sided 11X17 page would count for four pages. Section L has been updated to reflect this change.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L)

1. Introduction: The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copies, as set forth below. The RFP shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal.

The offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes. The Volumes are I – a written Technical Proposal addressing evaluation factors 1 through 4 as well as the Offeror’s planned approach to accomplish the Sample Task Order, and Volume II – a separate price proposal including the Offeror’s labor and equipment rates for the contract base as well as the Sample Task Order pricing, factor 5 submission, and solicitation, offer and award documents and certifications/representations. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2. Proposal Submission Requirements:

a. Each volume shall be submitted in a separate three-ring binder with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer.

b. Printing should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

c. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1”

Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

d. All digital proposal files shall be provided on CDs or DVDs. Flash drives and Zip disks are not permitted. Technical proposal files shall be submitted in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aid in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable. ** If the hard-copy proposal differs from the electronic version, the hard copy will govern.

e. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

VOLUME PRINTED DIGITAL

TITLE COPIES COPIES

I – Technical Proposal Original + 3 1 II – Price Proposal, Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certification/Representations Original + 1 1

& Small Business Participation

NOTE: Required page limitations for Volume I are outlined in Content Requirement section below. Any pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

f. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be of a different color and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated.

Each binder shall be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5).

3. Proposal Content Requirements:

a. Volume I – Technical Proposal

The Technical Proposal shall be well-organized and easy to read and should provide more than a superficial response to the evaluation factors listed in Section M.

Responses should be clear and concise. Should the proposal include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the Solicitation, the proposal may be determined to be non-responsive and thus ineligible for award.

The Technical Proposal Volume I shall contain the following sections:

1. Introduction to the Offeror’s company and proposed team members

2. Evaluation Factor 1 – Personnel Qualifications

3. Evaluation Factor 2 – Technical Expertise

4. Evaluation Factor 3 – Management Capability

5. Evaluation Factor 4 – Past Performance

6. Technical Approach to Perform the Sample Task Order

Specific content requirements and limitations for Volume I include:

The sections covering Personnel Qualifications (Factor 1), Technical

Expertise (Factor 2) and Management Capability (Factor 3) shall specifically address each component of these factors as listed in Section M of the Solicitation.

The Introduction and sections covering Evaluation Factors 1, 2, and 3 combined shall be no longer than one hundred and fifty (150) typed pages, including any executive summary and reference list. Note that a double-sided printed page is considered as two (2) pages. All pages of the Technical and Price Proposals must be numbered.

11X17 pages are acceptable, but one side will count as two (2) pages. A double-sided 11X17 will count as four (4) pages.

Evaluation Factor 4 – Past Performance, the Offeror shall submit past performance information on a maximum of five (5) previous or ongoing projects of relevant size and scope. Past performance information shall be provided using the standard questionnaire included in Appendix A. Past performance will be for completed work or work more than 50% complete. As noted on the questionnaire: 1) the prospective contractor completes Section I and provides the questionnaire to each respondent; 2) the respondent completes Sections II and III, seals the entire survey in an envelope, a representative from the company (not the individual providing the reference) signs the sealed envelope, and returns it to the prospective contractor; and 3) the prospective contractor includes the sealed surveys with the original hardcopy of the proposal (included in a sleeve in the binder in the appropriate section).

There is no set page limit for the Offeror’s “Technical Approach to Perform the Sample Task Order”, but the presented information should be limited to that which directly conveys the Offeror’s understanding of performance of the stated task(s) and the support that the Offeror’s personnel, technical background, and management will bring to the successful execution of the task(s). Offerors should refer to the laws and regulations of the Federal and state agencies' authorities governing the Sample Task Order. The narrative should contain enough detail to convey a full understanding of the overall scope of the work and the steps/logistical planning required for successful implementation (on a task-by-task basis).

Key team member resumés shall be in SF 330 format or similar (containing the information listed in the SF 330 format at a minimum), with a maximum of two (2) pages per résumé and fifty (50) total pages for the entire appendix.

b. Volume II – Small Business Participation/Price Proposal/Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certification/Representations

Small Business Participation Form – See Appendix B, Small Business Participation Plan Evaluation Form.

Certifications and Representations – Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature.

Section A – Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award

Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in Volume II.

The Price Proposal shall contain the following sections at a minimum:

Rates – The Offeror shall complete the rate tables in Figure 1 to the solicitation with prices for the base year and years 1-4. These prices will be binding and incorporated into the successful Offeror’s contract. These tables shall be submitted in both PDF and Excel format.

Sample Task Order Prices – The Offeror shall prepare an estimate of the effort needed to accomplish the tasks in the Sample Task Order using the cost estimate template provided in Figure 5 to the solicitation. Estimates should identify, by task, the line items from the rate sheets in Figure 1 judged necessary to accomplish the work, the amount of line item, and the extended prices for these line items. The Offeror may include price backup documentation from subcontractors as an attachment to the price proposal.

The Offeror shall prepare separate estimates for the Sample Task Order based on the Offeror’s proposed rates. These tables shall be submitted in both PDF and Excel format.

Any narrative providing background on the rates or explaining the price estimate shall be included as part of the Price Proposal.

4. Cost to Prepare Proposals: The Government will not be liable for any costs incurred by the Offeror submitting an offer in response to a Solicitation.

DISCUSSIONS

1. General Information: In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed an adequate amount of time to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the six (6) evaluation factors: (1) Personnel Qualifications, (2) Technical Expertise, (3) Management Capability, (4) Past Performance, (5) Small Business Participation and (6) Price. The Personnel Qualifications, Technical Expertise, and Management Capability are of equal value, and when combined, are significantly more important than Past Performance and Small Business Participation which are equal.

The Past Participation and Small Business Participation Factors are more important than the Price Factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factors 1, 2, 3, and 5 (to include all subfactors). In addition, the offeror’s proposal must receive a relevancy rating of no less than “Relevant” and a performance confidence assessment rating of no less than “Satisfactory Confidence” for the Past Performance Factor 4. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. NOTE: ALL

NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT

THAN PRICE.

FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The factors and subfactors listed here will be used to evaluate each proposal. A detailed explanation of the evaluation approach and rating system is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. An award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the Government based on an integrated assessment of these factors.

Factor 1. Personnel Qualifications: Offerors will be evaluated on the demonstrated professional and educational qualifications, relevant experience (work on projects comparable in scope, size and complexity), and availability of the personnel who are being proposed to execute and manage the work as outlined in Section C and the Sample Task Order of this solicitation to work on this contract (dedicated project role and ability to effectively respond from their location)to the New England (NAE) District Headquarters and various project locations within the North Atlantic Division (NAD) footprint. The evaluation of this Factor will include review of the information presented in the response to the above, the staffing proposed in the approach to performance of the work in Section C and the Sample Task Order, and the resumes. Evaluation considerations include: highest degree; field of degree(s); licenses and registrations relevant to the work in this project; breadth, years and relevance of experience;

specified role in the program; and geographic location of staff relative to NAE Headquarters and various project locations within the NAD footprint.

Factor 2. Technical Expertise: Offerors will be evaluated on their demonstrated capabilities and technical experience in four (4) subfactors including: (a) Field Capability and Experience; (b) Laboratory, Analytical and Technological Facilities; (c) Knowledge of Pertinent Environmental Laws and Regulations; and (d) Report Generation. All subfactors under this factor are of equal value.

a. Field Capability and Experience

Quality, depth and capacity of field capability and expertise available to the

Offeror (including staff numbers/location, vessels, equipment and instrumentation) as presented in the proposal to accomplish the tasks outlined in Section C and demonstrated in its proposed approach to accomplishing the Sample Task Order. Evaluation considerations include: type, amount, and location of related equipment; use of state-of-the-art technology; presentation of techniques and work at conferences and workshops; participation in designing/leading field efforts (as opposed to simply executing a plan).

Experience with environmental data collection as described in the offeror’s proposal to accomplish the tasks outlined in Section C and demonstrated in the Offeror’s approach to accomplishing the Sample Task Order. Evaluation considerations include: breadth, years, and relevance of experience.

Demonstrated knowledge of the Offeror with the resources and environmental conditions of the New England States and the mission areas of the North Atlantic Division area of operations (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut) as related to the tasks outlined in Section C and the Sample Task Order. Evaluation considerations include: completeness of discussion of resources and conditions; and demonstrated understanding of issues surrounding each resource or condition.

b. Laboratory, Analytical, and Technological Capability and Experience

Quality and capacity of laboratories, analytical and technological facilities and expertise available to the Offeror as described in its proposal to accomplish the tasks outlined in Section C, and demonstrated in its approach to accomplishing the Sample Task Order. Evaluation considerations include: depth of capabilities;

capacity (ability to respond to large workloads); proximity, as it affects Offeror’s ability to effectively process and analyze samples within required time frames;

qualifications; and relevance of facilities.

c. Knowledge and Application of Pertinent Environmental Laws and

Regulations

Offeror’s understanding of and demonstrated experience with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) and state environmental laws and regulations of the six New England states with a particular emphasis on dredged material management and disposal issues. Evaluation considerations include: completeness of the listing and summary of laws/regulations; discussion on nuances of how they are applied; and presentation of the offeror’s relevant projects highlighting their practical applications.

d. Report Generation

Offeror’s demonstrated experience and ability in relation to data assessment, interpretation, high-quality report generation and multimedia presentation with a particular focus on multi-disciplinary EA/EIS development, dredged material management and disposal issues, and environmental compliance-driven monitoring efforts. Evaluation considerations include: presentation of objective-driven data flow logic; hardware and software support tools; incorporation of high quality and applicable graphics; breadth of report types; production capabilities;

organization and quality of the proposal.

Factor 3: Management Capability: Offerors will be evaluated on their demonstrated experience and abilities in two (2) subfactors: (a) Project Management and (b) Safety.

All subfactors under this factor are of equal value.

Offerors will be evaluated on the management capabilities in the following areas:

a. Project Management

Offeror's demonstrated experience and ability to manage complex, multi-disciplinary projects and multiple concurrent projects as outlined in Section C and demonstrated in its approach to accomplishing the Sample Task Order.

Offerors will also be evaluated on how they would manage the work required in Section C and the Sample Task Order.

Offeror’s demonstrated ability to manage and execute similar projects as outlined in Section C and the Sample Task Order within both schedule and budgetary requirements.

b. Safety

Offeror's demonstrated experience and ability to develop, implement and enforce a Safety and Health Program as outlined in Section C and demonstrated in its approach to accomplishing the Sample Task Order. Examples of existing company health and safety programs may be submitted to demonstrate experience.

Factor 4. Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine the recency, relevancy and quality of contractor past performance. The past performance will be evaluated based on the information and written feedback received from references provided by the Offeror on past projects. Projects should be recent and relevant to the work under this Solicitation. Areas to be considered as to past performance include technical quality of product/services, cost control (work completed within established budget), timeliness, and customer satisfaction. Instructions for submission of past project performance information are found in Section L, Instruction to Offerors. If an Offeror lacks a relevant record of past performance, or where the information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this factor.

The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed contract price. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (work completed within the past three years or work more than 50% complete from issue date of RFP) in their proposals. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a neutral confidence rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current past performance under Federal, State, or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date. The Government may consider a wide variety of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

Offerors shall also submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror that are currently in performance and, from the issue date of this RFP, were awarded within the past three years. The list should contain the project title, amount, and the award date. Only contracts that are relevant to this RFP are required. If the Offeror has no relevant on-going work, then the offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for this list.

Offerors will be advised that past performance information from other Government sources may be utilized.

Factor 5. Small Business Participation:

All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of the contract (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The Offeror shall articulate within the Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) (Appendix B of this solicitation) how it intends to meet the small business objectives and include information regarding the type of small business or sub-category small business and the services/supplies to be provided by each business.

Offeror’s proposal must meet the minimum mandatory Total Small Business Participation goal of 35% of total contract value (through collective small business participation from any type of small business or sub-category small business). All Offerors, Small or Large Business, shall articulate how small businesses will participate through performance as a Small Business Prime Offeror; or, for Large Businesses, ‘first tier’ small business subcontracting only. Second and third tier small business subcontractors will not be considered towards the Total Small Business Participation percentage in this factor.

The Government will evaluate the following:

a. The extent to which small business firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals to include the company’s name and address along with CAGE Code and DUNS Number, which will be used to check the small business status of each subcontractor listed. If proposed subcontractors do not have a CAGE code and/or DUNS number, the offeror shall indicate that each subcontractor’s small business status has been validated by the offeror.*

*If the Offeror does not provide the information listed above, this may result in a weakness.

b. The extent of commitment to use small business firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones). Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments e.g. mentor protégés, joint ventures, subcontracting or partnership letters of commitment(s), etc. to utilize any Small Business category, as defined in FAR Part 19, as subcontractors. Documentation validating business relationships described must be submitted. Enforceable commitments must be with small businesses, be specific to the subject requirement, and be signed by both parties;

c. The complexity and variety of the work small business firms are to perform (identify and discuss complex work to be performed by small businesses). See item d in the SBPP format below;

d. The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the goals. These goals are a percentage of the total contract value. The goals for this procurement are:

Small Business: {35%} of the total contract value *;

Small Disadvantaged Businesses to include 8(a): {5%} of the total contract value *;

Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {10%} of the total contract value*;

Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) SB: {1%} of the total contract value*;

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB): {1%} of the total contract value*;

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {2%} of the total contract value*.

(Note: For example, a participation plan that reflects {10%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

* If the Offeror is unable to meet the full RFP participation goals for any of the socioeconomic categories (e.g. HUBZone, WOSB, etc.), the Offeror must provide an explanation as to why the goal(s) cannot be met. Not doing so may result in a weakness.

e. Past Performance in Utilizing Small Businesses (Large Business Only): Offeror shall submit detailed documentation that demonstrates small business achievements in three recent and relevant contracts. Submissions may include ISR (Individual Subcontracting Report) or other documentation validating offeror’s small business achievements from local, state or federal agencies. Offeror must indicate small business goals for each project and indicate if the goals were achieved. If small business goals were not achieved, offerors are required to provide an explanation why the goals were not achieved. All information submitted demonstrating an Offeror’s goal/achievements must be verifiable; therefore, provide Government or other Point of Contact information. In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information 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) and eSRS.

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

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

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

2. Ratings for Technical Factors (Other Than Past Performance and Small Business Participation):

Ratings for Factors 1, 2, and 3 of Section M will assess the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. Each factor and subfactor will be assigned a color/rating from Table 1 below to represent how well the offeror’s proposal meets the factor requirements.

3. Ratings for Factor 4. Past Performance:

This evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Past performance considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

a. Recency: The source selection team will first evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is work completed in the last three years. Recency will be used to help establish the relevancy of past performance information.

b. Relevance: Relevancy will be assessed by how relevant efforts accomplished by the offeror are to the efforts to be acquired under this solicitation. The criteria in Table 2 will be used to establish relevancy, which shall include similarity of service, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontracting/teaming.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

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

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

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

TABLE 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

c. Quality: The next aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The source selection team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

Confidence Assessment: The overall past performance assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance, in accordance with Table 3 below:

TABLE 3 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Definition

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4. Ratings for Factor 5. Small Business Participation:

Ratings for Factors 5 of Section M will assess the approach and understanding of the offeror's proposal. Each small business participation plan will be assigned a color/rating from Table 4 below to represent how well the offeror’s proposal meets the factor

All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which small business firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals to include the company’s name and address, along with CAGE

TABLE 4 – SMALL BUSINESS RATING METHOD

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives

Code and DUNS Number, which will be used to check the small business status of each subcontractor listed. If proposed subcontractors do not have a CAGE code and/or DUNS number, the offeror shall indicate that each subcontractor’s small business status has been validated by the offeror.*

*If the Offeror does not provide the information listed above, this may result in a weakness.

b. The extent of commitment to use small business firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones). Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments e.g. mentor protégés, joint ventures, subcontracting or partnership letters of commitment(s), etc. to utilize any Small Business category, as defined in FAR Part 19, as subcontractors. Documentation validating business relationships described must be submitted. Enforceable commitments must be with small businesses, be specific to the subject requirement, and be signed by both parties;

c. The complexity and variety of the work small business firms are to perform (identify and discuss complex work to be performed by small businesses). See item d in the SBPP format below;

d. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals:

Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {35%} of the total contract value;

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): {5%} of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {10%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: {1%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): {1%} of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {2%} of the total contract value.

(Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {10%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

NOTE: Prime Contractors can only get credit for first tier subcontracting. It is important to note this when it comes to submission of the price proposal and how obtaining small business credit is achieved. This information will also flow into the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (www.esrs.gov). This is a requirement of the contract that the prime contractor has to go into this system twice a year to fill out the small business subcontract data on the project.

e. Past Performance in Utilizing Small Businesses (Large Business Only): Offeror shall submit detailed documentation that demonstrates small business achievements in three recent and relevant contracts. Submissions may include ISR (Individual Subcontracting

Report) or other documentation validating offerors small business achievements from local, state or federal agencies. Offeror must indicate small business goals for each project and indicate if the goals were achieved. If small business goals were not achieved, offerors are required to provide an explanation why the goals were not achieved. All information submitted demonstrating an Offeror’s goal/achievements must be verifiable; therefore, provide Government or other Point of Contact information. In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information 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) and eSRS.

5. Evaluation of Factor 6. Price:

The contract will be a firm-fixed-price IDIQ contract. Each offeror’s labor and equipment rates for the contract as well as the proposed pricing to complete the Sample Task will be evaluated against an Independent Government Estimate. The Offeror's proposed price will be considered as a separate and distinct item from the technical evaluation of factors 1 through 5. This evaluation shall take into account the following:

The fairness and reasonableness of the prices;

Whether the prices are realistic for the work to be performed; and Whether the prices reflect the offeror’s understanding of the contract

6. Final Selection:

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from technical and a price standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA later determines them to be necessary. If the SSA determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the SSA may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

The Contracting Officer will award a contract to the responsible Offeror which the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines has conformed to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered.

a. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the Offeror selected in accordance with the above procedures. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is determined to be in the best interest of the Government

b. In the course of evaluating Offerors' proposals, the SST may contact references submitted by the Offerors. The SST may also check past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offerors. All gathered information will be used to evaluate the Offerors’ overall past performance.

c. At no time during this process, or during the debriefing, or after award, will the names of individuals providing reference information about an Offeror's past performance be revealed to the Offerors or to any other party.

(End of Summary of Changes)