Amendment 0002.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 necessary to respond to RFIs and extend the due date. All other aspects remain unchanged. An additional amendment is forthcoming.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Nov-2022

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 W912WJ23R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Oct-2022

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 X is extended, 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.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17-Nov-2022

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:

W912WJ23R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002

Requests for Information

1. Are task orders for terrestrial remote sensing anticipated in addition to underwater remote sensing?

Yes, the Government anticipates that terrestrial remote sensing Task Orders are possible.

2. Please provide clarification on when APPs would require the signature of an experienced Certified Industrial Hygienist even when not involving hazardous waste, remediation, or other risk factors. It appears that some work contemplated in the PWS would not necessarily involve risks that would ordinarily warrant CIH guidance in APP preparation or implementation. How would such a determination regarding CIH involvement be made?

Work that does not involve hazardous waste, remediation, or other risk factors does not warrant CIH guidance in APP preparation or implementation.

3. Please provide clarification on the required credentials for a 'qualified person' for the purposes of APP preparation.

Offerors shall reference EM 385 for the definition of "qualified person."

4. Should prime contractors submit named major subcontractors for the purposes of technical expertise, personnel qualifications, and past performance?

Yes.

5. Can individual key personnel cover more than one required labor category (e.g. PM who is also fisheries biologist)?

Yes.

6. Row 72 of the Wage Rates table in Attachment D states “Engineering (to include civil, environmental, mechanical, electrical, chemical). Does the District expect bidders to propose one engineering rate for all engineering disciplines for a given category (e.g., Senior Engineer)?

Pricing for engineers should be for civil engineer unless coastal engineer is specified. See updated Attachment D.

7. If we can list Historians/Architectural Historians as key staff, can those labor categories be added to the Attachment D-Binding Rates Table? Can Senior Architectural Historian, Architectural Historian, and Junior Architectural Historian be added to the table?

No change to the categories listed, one of which is architectural historian.

8. Should we submit Attachment C (relevant to Factors 1 and 2) as its native Excel file, or incorporate into our PDF response? If incorporated, does this count towards the page count, or can we add as an Appendix?

Incorporate Attachment C spreadsheets into the PDF response. This counts toward the page count.

9. Attachment C was given to us as an Excel file, similar to Attachment E (the pricing template). Should we submit Attachment C as its native Excel file, or incorporate into our PDF response? If incorporated, does this count towards the page count, or can we add as an Appendix?

Please see response to Question 8.

10. Attachment D indicates the rates are to be presented without profit, which will be negotiated later. Is this approach the intention of the District?

This is the intention of the Government.

11. Are we able to add specialties underneath each personnel category, e.g., H&H Engineer, Environmental Engineer, Navigation/Marine Engineer, etc.?

Offerors shall submit proposals using the personnel categories listed within Attachment D.

12. Page 52 of the solicitation identifies key personnel disciplines which are not included on Attachment D:

Wage Rate schedule, including program manager, wetland ecologist, marine/estuarine ecologist, Site Safety and Health Officer, and graphics specialist. Will the District revise the resume requirements and/or the wage rate schedule to align?

Please see updated Attachment D.

13. Are the tables in Attachment C (roughly 18 pages) included in the page limit for Volume I?

Yes.

14. The requirements under Factor 1 on page 51 of the solicitation state “two-page (maximum) descriptions of each of their completed or ongoing projects for each of the types of documents in the bulleted list.” Is this to mean that each project description is limited to two pages (i.e., up to 10 pages of NEPA EIS project experience), or two pages per document type (i.e.., up to 2 pages of NEPA EIS project experience, which may include up to 5 project examples)?

Each project description is limited to two pages.

15. Page 53 of the solicitation states that bidder shall prepare a price estimate for the Sample Task Order “using the cost estimate template provided in Attachment E to the solicitation.” Can the District please provide Attachment E?

See response to Question 6 of Amendment 0001.

16. The SOW says the study (EIS) will consider 5 depth alternatives and various disposal alternatives (salt marsh creation, construction of a CAD cell, and/or use of existing disposal sites). How does NAE anticipate shaping these into specific alternatives? How many specific alternatives will be analyzed in the EIS, including the No Action Alternative? (The SOW identifies that USACE will provide a description of these alternatives).

Refer to Project need in STUDY AREA, PROJECT HISTORY, AND PROJECT NEED of Sample Task Order SOW. Assume the beneficial use is the salt marsh.

17. Can NAE provide a map showing the potential location of a salt marsh restoration?

The location for the sample Task Order is theoretical. Assume the salt marsh area is in the same harbor.

18. Can NAE provide a map of the proposed location of the Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) cell in the inner harbor?

The location for the sample Task Order is theoretical. Assume the CAD cell is located within 100 feet of the channel.

19. Can NAE provide graphics/maps showing the various alternatives under consideration, including the location of the 2 acres of eelgrass?

The location for the sample Task Order is theoretical. Assume eelgrass is located within the project footprint.

20. Can NAE provide a listing of existing relevant documents, including any past NEPA documents (e.g., from the 2014 or 1989 work)?

There are no existing relevant documents available.

21. Can NAE provide a map of the anticipated study area that shows the limits of construction (LOC), and labels its/the Proposed Action’s components?

The location for the sample Task Order is theoretical. The Government is unable to provide a map for the study area.

22. If the map of the LOC is not available, can NAE provide an acreage estimate of the LOC?

Please refer to the Project Need section of STUDY AREA, PROJECT HISTORY, AND PROJECT NEED in the sample Task Order SOW for dimensions.

23. Will Attachment D be revised to include worksheets for analytical and toxicity testing pricing?

No. This contract action is not a vehicle for analytical and toxicity testing. The Contractor may interpret sediment chemstry testing results from work performed by others or, possibly, collect samples to be analyzed by others.

24. Is Attachment E (cost estimate template) required? If so, please post.

See response to Question 6 of Amendment 0001.

25. Should the proposal be submitted via DOD SAFE or PIEE?

See response to Question 5 of Amendment 0001.

26. Please confirm the Volume I page limit is inclusive of both project profiles for all projects listed in Attachment C and all resumes submitted for key personnel.

Confirmed.

27. Will there be an Appendix D released as indicated on page 52, or does Attachment A satisfy that requirement?

Please see revised Factor 4 Submission Requirements.

28. Can you provide the evaluation criteria for the Key Personnel identified on page 52 of 62, Factor 2.

Personnel Qualification Submission Requirements?

Key Personnel will be evaluated according to the considerations outlined in Factor 2: Personnel Qualifications Evaluation Approach of Section M: Evaluation Factors.

29. There is language that describes providing monthly hours reports even though fixed price orders are expected. Does the District expect to receive monthly hours reports for all task orders?

The Government does expect to receive monthly hour reports for all task orders.

30. Page 51 of the solicitation states that bidders can provide “up to 3” NHPA Site Assessment Reports, but the evaluation criteria for Factor 1 on page 60 states “at least five National Historic Preservation Act documents” are required to achieve an acceptable rating. Can the District please clarify the minimum and maximum NHPA reports required under Factor 1?

Please see revised Factor 1 Evaluation Criteria.

31. The solicitation is requesting a total of 53 projects for Factor 1. Assuming there are no duplicative projects across the various disciplines/tables, there is not enough room in the total page count for Volume 1 to include the maximum two-page description per project. The solicitation is additionally requesting 27 resumes, with a maximum of 2 pages for each resume. Can you please confirm the 70-page limit for Volume 1, inclusive of:

Factor 1 (capabilities and approach to sample task order at a page or two each, then 53 projects up to 2 pages each, for a total of 106 pages of projects);

Factor 2 (27 resumes, up to 2 pages each, for a total of 54 pages);

Factor 3 (no set page limit); and Factor 4 (no set page limit; PPQs excluded from page limit)?

Please refer to Table 4 – Page Limit Requirements of Section L, General Requirements, as amended.

32. Given the need for 27 resumes (up to 2 pages each) and 14 technical areas (up to 2 pages each) and a 70-page limit, would NAE consider either excluding resumes from the page count or increasing the page count to at least 100 pages so that offerors can adequately address all the Factors and the Sample TO in the Technical Volume?

See response to Question 31.

33. For Factor 1, are you limiting us to 10, 2-page project descriptions? There is a potential for 53 project descriptions, with a potential for 106 pages of descriptions, which exceeds the total page count for all of Volume 1.

See response to Question 31.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 01-Dec-2022 01:00 PM to 05-Jan-2023 01:00 PM.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1. Instructions for Submitting Electronic Proposals

ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED

ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH PIEE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs, email, or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) (https://piee.eb.mil/). The PIEE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. Information regarding how to set up a vendor registration is included in this link-https://wawf.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/web/homepage/vendorGettingStartedHelp.xhtml

File Size Limitations: Offerors are advised to follow the PIEE instructions for uploading files. PIEE supports delivery up to 1.9 GB per file, with no limit on the number of files, as well as multiple file formats. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

File Naming Convention: To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

W912WJ23R0002-FIRMNAME-VOLUME I: Technical Proposal (Factors 1–4) W912WJ23R0002-FIRMNAME-VOLUME II: Price, SF-1442, Acknowledgement of Amendments, Reps and Certs

Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm’s name and a brief file description. Please see examples above.

Upload Completion and Deadline: Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date and time specified on the solicitation document. The time and date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion/delivery time and date recorded within the PIEE site. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g., 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the PIEE upload confirmation for their record.

Proposals sent through proprietary or third-party File Transfer sites, email, or DoD SAFE WILL NOT be retrieved and evaluated. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to confirm timely receipt of proposals. All proposals received, as confirmed by the date/time recorded within the PIEE site, after the exact time specified for receipt on the solicitation document shall be treated as late submissions and will not be considered.

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS: For the purposes of establishing whether a submission is considered late, the Government considers (the earlier of) the date and time of receipt of the email notification to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer by the website, NOT the date and time of uploading of the submission into the website as the time of submission. For responses larger than the 2GB capacity of the website and which require multiple submissions, the Government will consider (the earlier of) the date and time of receipt of the email notification to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer of the last submission. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases.

The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive responses on its behalf. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that responses are submitted to reach the designated recipient.

Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the response to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

2. General Requirements

The following page limits shall apply:

Table 4 – Page Limit Requirements

VOLUME TITLE DIGITAL COPIES PAGE LIMITS

Volume I: Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 1 170 Volume II: Factor 5 1 None

NOTE: All pages including, but not limited to, cover letters, Table of Contents pages, tables, illustrations, blank pages, and dividers, will be counted in the page calculation.

Pages that exceed the above noted page limitations will be removed, not read, and not evaluated. Agreements or letters of commitment will not be counted toward the page limit and should be included as an appendix. Past Performance Questionnaires or Contractor Performance Assessme nt Reporting Systems (CPARS) reports will not be counted toward the page limit.

Each volume shall be submitted in a digital format. Any pages that are changed (as a result of discussions or proposal revisions) shall be of a different color and shall have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its title.

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

Proposal File Format and Packaging:

a. Format: The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be consecutively numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. MS Word (doc/docx) 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”

NOTE: 11X17 pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations; however, each 11X17 page counts as two pages.

b. File Packaging: All of the proposal electronic files shall be submitted in PDF format, with the exception of the price proposal, and should be uploaded electronically via the PIEE Solicitation module. CDs, DVD, Zip disks or USB drives are not permitted.

**Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.**

Content Requirement: The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner and to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Offerors will be cautioned that “parroting” of the technical requirements of the statement of services 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 should be clearly marked.

For submission requirements designated as “shall” or “must,” failure to provide the requested information will be considered a deficiency and the specified factor will be rated red/“Unacceptable” and the Offer will be considered un-awardable unless revised.

For submission requirements designated as “should,” failure to provide the requested information may result in a lower rating for the specified factor. Offerors are cautioned that award may be made without discussions, and Offerors may not have the opportunity to submit revised proposals.

Offerors are advised that any strengths assigned by the evaluation team will be incorporated into the awardee’s resulting contract. The awardee is expected to perform in accordance with the noted strengths. A strength is defined as an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Submission requirements for all factors are provided below.

Factor 1. Technical Expertise Submission Requirements

The offeror shall submit a description of their overall capabilities related to this factor, a description of their approach to the sample task order, two-page (maximum) descriptions of each of their completed or ongoing projects for each of the types of documents in the bulleted list below, and a completed matrix for each of the document types listed below (Tables 1 through 9). Offerors should include the documents that are the most relevant environmental and cultural resource evaluations related to USACE programs in navigation, coastal storm risk management, flood risk management, aquatic ecosystem restoration, erosion reduction, USACE project operations, building construction, and military planning.

The following documents for which offerors will submit two-page (maximum pages) descriptions and completed matrices are listed below:

NEPA Environmental Impact Statement, up to 5 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 1 (Up to two documents may be state environmental policy act documents (e.g., Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA))

NEPA Environmental Assessment, up to 8 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 1

Federal Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment, up to 5 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 2

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, up to 3 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 3

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Eligibility Determinations, up to 3 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 4

NHPA Site Assessment Reports (Historic and Archaeological), up to 3 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 4

Phase 1, 2, and 3 Archeological Surveys, up to 3 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 4

Remote Sensing Archaeological Surveys (Underwater Sites and Sampling for Submerged Native American sites), up to 3 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 4

Historic American Buildings Survey/ Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) Documentation Reports, up to 3 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 4

Coastal modeling study reports, up to 5 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 5

Ecological risk assessment, up to 3 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 6

Wetland delineation reports, up to 3 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 7

Mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management plans, up to 3 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 8

Clean Air Act emissions studies and conformity analyses, up to 3 documents completed or started after March 31, 2002, Attachment C. Table 9

Factor 2. Personnel Qualifications Submission Requirements

The offeror shall submit up to two-page (maximum) resumes for key personnel to be assigned to this contract for each of the disciplines listed below and summarize the information in matrix format in the Attachment C. Table 10.

Disciplines to be provided (must have a minimum number of personnel in the discipline as shown in parentheses after each discipline): program manager (1), project manager (2), wetland ecologist (2), marine/estuarine ecologist (2), wildlife biologist (2), fish/fisheries biologist (2), archaeologist (3), sociologist (1), coastal engineer (2), civil engineer (2), geologist (1), ecological risk assessor (2), Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) (1), facilitator (1), graphics specialist (1), biological field technician (2).

Factor 3. Management Capability Submission Requirements

Offerors shall submit a description of their demonstrated experience and ability to manage complex, multi-disciplinary projects and multiple concurrent projects as outlined in the Performance Work Statement and their response to the Sample Task Order.

Factor 4. Past Performance Submission Requirements

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 Attachment A.

For each project, Offerors should submit past performance information as follows:

1. For Federal Government projects with a Past Performance Information Retrieval System/Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluation:

provide the contract number, contract place of performance, and DUNS number. In the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Task or Delivery Order Numbers.

2. For non-Federal Government projects, commercial projects, and Federal Government projects without a CPARS Evaluation: provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment A). The Offeror should complete Blocks 1-4 of the PPQ and send it to the non-Federal project client or commercial project client. The client should complete Blocks 5-8 along with the two-page questionnaire. The Offeror should include the PPQ in Volume I of the proposal.

If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit, with the proposal, the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information. The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project to obtain the

PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

Alternatively, Offerors may submit a copy of the client’s signed PPQ for a completed contract or task order. The Offeror may retain PPQs in its files for submission on future procurements. In cases where the validity of the completed PPQ is questioned, contracting personnel may contact the reference for verification or additional information. The standard PPQ for USACE is Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11) provided in the solicitation. USACE does not intend to create or maintain a database of PPQs submitted by Offerors. Therefore, it will be the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the submission of PPQs in its proposal that are relevant to the solicitation. Alternatively, the Offeror may obtain an updated/new PPQ from its client(s) for submission as provided above.

The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal, and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files. The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any source available and has the right to contact customers other than those listed by the Offeror to evaluate past performance.

The Government reserves the right to verify statements the Offeror makes regarding its past performance to determine whether they are substantiated.

New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information on their proposed roles should be included in the project descriptions submitted in response to the solicitation requirements.

Factor 5. Price

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

o Binding Rates – The Offeror shall complete the rate tables in Attachment

D to the solicitation with prices for each year of the five year Period of Performance. These prices will be binding and incorporated into the successful Offeror’s contract. These tables shall be submitted in both PDF and Excel format.

o 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 Attachment E to the solicitation.

Estimates should identify, by task, the line items from the rate sheets in Attachment D 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.

Joint Venture Requirements

If a joint venture is being utilized, a copy of the joint venture agreement is to be included.

The joint venture agreement will be consistent with the attached Joint Venture Procedure (Attachment B). This joint venture agreement will not be included within the page limit stated below. A joint venture Small Business must have the capacity to perform at least 40% of the work performed by the joint venture over the life of the contract.

If you have an approved Mentor-Protégé Program agreement by the U.S. Small Business Administration, please include that in your submission within Part II of the SF 330. This Mentor-Protégé agreement will not be included within the page limit stated below.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience of affiliates, subsidiaries, parent, LLC, LTD member companies (i.e., Offeror’s name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal should clearly demonstrate how that affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract. The relevant consideration is whether the resources of the parent or affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will be provided or relied upon for contract performance, such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. The proposal must demonstrate similarity of the parent or affiliate’s proposed role on this procurement and the parent or affiliate’s proposed role submitted for experience in order to receive credit for the parent or affiliate’s experience.

D. Discussions:

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

Proposals will be analyzed to determine which is most advantageous to the Government based upon information provided in response to evaluation factors.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA later determines them to be necessary. If the SSA determines that a number of the 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 that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If the Government does conduct discussions, these will be done in writing.

The Contracting Officer will award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, as determined by the SSA conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered.

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the firm 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. While evaluating Offerors' proposals, the Source Selection Team (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.

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.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

A. Basis for Award

The award of this IDIQ contract will be made using a best value trade-off process in accordance with FAR Part

15.10. 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 five (5) evaluation factors: (1) Technical Expertise, (2) Personnel Qualifications, (3) Management Capability, (4) Past Performance, and (5) Price. Factors 1, 2, and 3 (Technical Expertise, Personnel Qualifications, and Management Capability) are of equal value and are more important than Factor 4, Past Performance. Factor 5, Price, is significantly less important than Factors 1 through 4. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factors 1, 2, and 3. In addition, the offeror’s proposal must receive a rating of no less than “Neutral Confidence” for Factor 4, Past Performance. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

Note: All non-price factors combined are significantly more important than price.

B. Evaluation Factors

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. During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign a rating for Factors 1 through 4. Factor 5 will be evaluated for price reasonableness. The following factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1 – Technical Expertise Factor 2 – Personnel Qualifications Factor 3 – Management Capability Factor 4 – Past Performance Factor 5 – Price

The evaluation approach for all factors 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 methods. 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.

Factor 1: Technical Expertise Evaluation Approach

Offerors will be evaluated on their demonstrated capabilities and technical experience in the preparation of environmental documents for civil works and military projects in the Northeastern United States as displayed in the information provided in each matrix and supported in each description. Relevance will be evaluated based on similarity with USACE programs in the Northeast in navigation, coastal storm risk management, flood risk management, aquatic ecosystem restoration, erosion reduction, USACE project operations, building construction, and military planning and recency. An acceptable rating is obtained by firms that have an acceptable approach to the performance work statement and sample task order and have completed at least three relevant NEPA compliant Environmental Impact Statements, at least five relevant NEPA compliant Environmental Assessments, at least three relevant Federal Endangered Species Act Biological Assessments, at least three Essential Fish Habitat Assessments, at least three National Historic Preservation Act documents, at least three coastal modeling studies, at least three ecological risk assessments, at least three Federal wetland delineations, at least three coastal modeling studies, at least one mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan, and one Clean Air Act emissions study. Higher ratings may be achieved through demonstrated higher levels of complexity and/or relevance of the documents and capabilities to USACE programs and/or higher numbers of documents prepared.

This factor will be rated using Table 1.

Factor 2: Personnel Qualifications Evaluation Approach

Offerors will be evaluated on their team’s demonstrated professional and educational qualifications and relevant experience (work on projects comparable in scope, size and complexity to USACE projects), and the availability of the personnel who are being proposed to execute and manage the work outlined in the performance work statement and the Sample Task Order 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.

Evaluation considerations include highest degree (up to master’s degree); field of degree(s); breadth, years, and relevance of experience; and geographic proximity of staff relative to NAE Headquarters and the NAD footprint.

The critical staff provided by the offeror will be evaluated based on their anticipated role in supporting work under the contract; field of degree(s); discipline, highest degree; work location; years and relevance of experience; and geographic location of staff relative to NAE Headquarters and, to a lesser extent, various project locations within the NAD footprint.

An acceptable rating is obtained with a bachelor’s degree and at least ten years of experience for at least two staff members (or the number of staff resumes in Section L whichever is less) in each of the disciplines listed in Section L. Higher ratings may be achieved with higher level degrees and/or more than ten years of relevant experience.

This factor will be rated using Table 1.

Factor 3: Management Capability Evaluation Approach

Offerors will be evaluated on their demonstrated ability to manage multiple diverse and complex environmental and cultural resources evaluation projects.

The offeror will be evaluated based on the offeror's demonstrated experience and ability to manage complex, multi-disciplinary projects and multiple concurrent projects or tasks as outlined in the Performance Work Statement and demonstrated in its approach to accomplishing the Sample Task Order.

The offeror will also be evaluated based on the offeror’s demonstrated ability to manage and execute similar projects to those outlined in the Performance Work Statement and the Sample Task Order within both schedule and budgetary requirements.

An acceptable rating may be obtained by demonstrating an organizational structure with an adequate number of professional staff located in one of the New England states and a reasonable number of associated subcontracting firms providing all relevant capabilities. Higher ratings can be achieved by demonstrating greater levels of capability within the New England office of the prime firm.

This factor will be rated using Table 1.

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 an 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 un-awardable.

Factor 4: Past Performance Evaluation Approach

Offerors should submit documentation for a minimum of two and no more than five of the projects completed within the last ten years that they listed in their response for the Technical Expertise factor. 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.

RECENCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recent past performance will be determined by similarity of projects completed within the last ten (10) years.

RELEVANCY: The next 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. The following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of scope, size, complexity, and price of the projects in the past performance information to the effort required by the solicitation. Past performance relevancy ratings are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Adjectival 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.

QUALITY ASSESSMENT: 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. Past performance relevancy ratings are displayed in Table 2.

Table 3 - Performance Confidence Assessment Adjectival 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 5: Price Evaluation Approach

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 Order will be evaluated against an Independent Government Estimate and other offers received. This evaluation shall take into account the following: The Contractor’s proposed price will be considered as a separate and distinct item from the technical evaluation of Factors 1 through 4. The Government will evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of the prices and whether the prices reflect the offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements.

(End of Summary of Changes)