Amendment 0009.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 to add FAR Clause 52.211-11. All other aspects remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 10-Dec-2024

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 W912WJ25R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Oct-2024

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-Dec-2024

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:

W912WJ25R0001

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 0009

Requests for Information

1. (ProjNet Inquiry ID: 11061378) Specs (Section 31 23 00, page 12) require 1 PE sample for PCB Aroclors every two weeks. Is this during soil sampling activities only or the entire duration of the project?

See revised specifications section 31 23 00 provided via Amendment 0006. PE samples are only required when confirmatory soil samples are collected.

2. (ProjNet Inquiry ID: 11063322) Please confirm if Liquidated Damages may be considered if the project experiences delays, and if so, please indicate the expected daily dollar amount.

Liquidated Damages of $2,778 may be considered if the Seed Task Order project experiences delays. See Liquidated Damages provided via Amendment 0009.

3. (ProjNet Inquiry ID: 11083922) If multiple "projects" were performed under a single task order, is it acceptable for the Project Description (and corresponding CPARS or PPQ) to discuss only 1 of the Projects performed, or does the Project Description need to discuss ALL projects performed under the Task Order?

It is acceptable to discuss only one of the projects performed.

4. (ProjNet Inquiry ID: 11072197) Per pages 285-287 of the DOL's Final Rule document on applicability of the Davis Bacon Wages https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/davis-bacon/Final-Rule_Updating-the-Davis- Bacon-Related-Acts.pdf. Please consider stipulating that Construction related activities (excavation, backfill, onsite trucking, by-pass pumping, etc) be governed by the Davis Bacon Wage Act, and that ancillary service type work (sampling, security, etc) be governed by the Service Rate Act. We typically see both Wage Determinations in USACE RFPs for environmental remediation.

The definable features of work on this project are closely intertwined, with tasks taking place concurrently or in close succession, such as consolidating and capping hazardous soils in place. It is infeasible to distinguish distinctly service-related from inherently construction-related tasks on this project. The Government does not intend to include a construction Wage Determination with this solicitation.

5. There’s no line item in the Markups tab for profit, nor is there a formula for yearly escalation. Can we modify the table to add these items/capabilities?

See revised Section M and revised Binding Rates table, provided via this amendment (Amendment 0009), which incorporates a formula for yearly escalation. Please include Seed Task Order profit in your Volume II proposal, separate from your binding rates table.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by full text:

52.211-11 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--SUPPLIES, SERVICES, OR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (SEP 2000)

(a) If the Contractor fails to deliver the supplies or perform the services within the time specified in this contract, the Contractor shall, in place of actual damages, pay to the Government liquidated damages of TBD per TO per calendar day of delay.

(b) If the Government terminates this contract in whole or in part under the Default--Fixed-Price Supply and Service clause, the Contractor is liable for liquidated damages accruing until the Government reasonably obtains delivery or performance of similar supplies or services. These liquidated damages are in addition to excess costs of repurchase under the Termination clause.

(c) The Contractor will not be charged with liquidated damages when the delay in delivery or performance is beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor as defined in the Default--Fixed-Price Supply and Service clause in this contract.

(End of clause)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

BASIS FOR AWARD

The award of the Remediation Services contract will be made using a best value trade-offvprocess in accordance with FAR Part 15, based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government.

Proposal evaluations will be based on two (2) non-price factors: Team Experience and Past Performance (Factor 1), and Seed Task Order Technical Approach (Factor 2); and Price (Factor 3). The non-price factors are of equal importance. ALL EVALUATION FACTORS OTHER THAN PRICE, WHEN COMBINED, ARE

SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

Award will be based on the best overall proposal that is determined to be the best value to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the non-price and price factors. To receive consideration for award, a confidence assessment rating of no less than “Neutral Confidence” must be achieved for Factor 1 and a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factor 2. Offerors should note that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offer.

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign a rating for Factors 1 and 2. Factor 3 (Price) will be evaluated in accordance with Section M. The following factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Volume I, Factor 1: Team Experience and Past Performance Volume I, Factor 2: Seed Task Order Technical Approach

Volume II, Factor 3: Price

The resulting award will be a remediation services Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with firm-fixed price (FFP) contract line items on each Task Order as applicable. In future task orders the Government will evaluate the fixed fee profit to ensure it is fair and reasonable.

EVALUATION APPROACH

The proposals 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 Request for Proposal (RFP). All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) based on the evaluation factors.

NOTE: 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 will result in a lower rating for the specified factor and may result in a deficiency and unacceptable rating. Offerors are cautioned that award may be made without discussions, and Offerors may not have the opportunity to submit revised proposals.

Factor 1 Evaluation Approach

There are three aspects to the Team Experience and Past Performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality of performance which are combined to establish one confidence assessment for each Offeror.

Recency: projects provided must be completed within the past fifteen (15) years, as of the issue date of the RFP, to be considered recent. Projects older than fifteen (15) years will not be considered. Projects will be considered complete if they are at or beyond substantial completion of the field work, i.e., only minor punch list items remain to be completed on that project.

Relevancy will be determined by projects that demonstrate completion of projects similar in scope, complexity, size, and cost or price to the solicitation project. When determining the relevancy of projects submitted for experience, the role performed by the Offeror or its subcontractor will be considered for consistency with the proposed role to be performed by the Offeror or subcontractor under this contract. Failure to provide agreements or letters of commitment, as applicable, may result in a lower rating for this factor.

The Offeror must address each of the three key work functions below which can be demonstrated through individual projects meeting all criteria or multiple projects that each contain at least one of these elements:

1. Construction and quality control for a multi-layer cover system involving ageosynthetic membrane. This includes the appropriate soil amendment, grading, and compaction of subgrade materials and associated site controls, such as management of impacted stormwater and/or groundwater.

2. Manage or divert watercourse flow to remove contaminated sediment material in shallow waters.

3. Environmental remediation of sites with contaminated soils, specifically excavation, transportation, disposal, and site restoration.

Individual projects may be more highly rated for relevancy if they demonstrate any of the following. Projects demonstrating all of the following may be rated higher for relevancy than projects that do not. Proposals that include multiple projects that are highly rated for relevancy may be more highly rated overall than proposals with one or fewer projects that are highly rated for relevancy:

Watercourse remediation and restoration.

Construction and operation of a water treatment system to manage impacted stormwater and/or groundwater.

Sediment and erosion control and stormwater management for contaminated soils near surface water bodies.

Experience with comprehensive air monitoring and multimedia environmental sampling programs.

Uniform Federal Policy (UFP) Quality Assurance Project Plan for a Superfund site.

Remediation activities at a Superfund Site.

The proposal review will only consider the experience/past performance of an Offeror's parent or affiliated companies where the firm's proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliated company will affect the performance of the Offeror. 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 a connection between the affiliate’s proposed role on this IDIQ contract and the role of the affiliate on the experience/past performance submitted in order to receive credit for the affiliate’s experience/past performance. Each project will be evaluated using Table 1.

In addition, Factor 1 will examine the quality of projects reviewed for this factor. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the Team Experience/Past Performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

The Government will evaluate the record of past performance for the Offeror and each proposed Team Member to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the requirements under this solicitation. The Government 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.

The overall performance confidence assessment will be evaluated using Table 2.

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.

Factor 2 Evaluation Approach

The Offeror’s proposed Seed Task Order technical approach will be evaluated forcompleteness, logic, reasonableness, and level of risk to the Government as compared to themajor technical elements of the Seed Task Order. Greater consideration may be given to Offerors that address:

Pre-mobilization submittal requirements.

Site mobilization and site preparation.

Documentation of technical assumptions.

Resources required to perform each task (list of personnel, sub-contractors, equipment, etc. - do not submit resumes).

Identification of complex items that could increase risk and affect project quality, safety, and/or schedule.

Additional or unique approaches to the technical approach to the Seed Task Order that would benefit the Government by reducing schedule,time and/or duration.

Incorporation of green or environmentally sustainable elements to the technical approach.

The overall Seed Task Order Technical Approach will be evaluated using Table 3.

Factor 3 Evaluation Approach

The Offeror’s price proposal shall consist of its proposed Binding Rates Schedule, the Seed Task Order Bid Schedule, and a Seed Task Order Price Proposal Breakdown that shows how the prices presented in the Seed Task Order Bid Schedule were developed. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s entire price proposal to determine whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

The Offeror’s Seed Task Order proposal and Contract Binding Rates will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more-line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Unbalanced offers may be rejected. Profit will be determined for each Task Order and shall not be included in Offerors’ binding rates.

The Task Order Price Proposal Breakdown will be evaluated to confirm that rates in the Binding Rates Schedule were utilized to prepare the Seed Task Order Bid Schedule. Excluding minor clerical errors, proposals that do not utilize the binding rates to calculate the price for the Seed Task Order Bid Schedule will not be considered for award.

The Best Value Trade Off decision will use the total evaluated price of each Offeror’s Seed Task Order Bid Schedule as the basis for trade off with the non-price factor.

FINAL SELECTION

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initialproposal 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 Governmentbased upon information provided in response to evaluation factors.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority(SSA) later determines them to be necessary. If the SSA determines that the number ofproposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at whichan efficient competition can be conducted, the SSA may limit the number of proposalsin the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition amongthe most highly rated proposals. If the Government does conduct discussions, these will bein writing.

The Contracting Officer will award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, asdetermined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) conforms to the solicitation, is fair andreasonable, 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 inaccordance with the above procedures. The Government may reject any or all offers if suchaction is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

In the course of evaluating Offerors' proposals, the Source Selection Team (SST) maycontact references submitted by the Offerors. The SST may also check past performanceinformation obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offerors. All gatheredinformation 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 namesof individuals providing reference information about an Offeror's past performance berevealed to the Offerors or to any other party.

(End of Summary of Changes)