B08.02 W9132T20R00070002.pdf

W81EWF00737563

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

Update Section M - Evaluation for Aw ard 1st Paragraph "Basis for Aw ard" (last sentance): This acquisition w ill be solicited on the basis of aw ards resulting from tradeoffs, w ith the potential for multiple aw ards being dependent on the value of proposals and the availability of funds.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Jul-2020

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 W9132T20R0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Jul-2020

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

22-Jul-2020

CODE

ERDC CONTRACTING OFFICE

CHAMPAIGN OFFICE

P O BOX 9005

CHAMPAIGN IL 61826-9005

W9132T 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9132T20R0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

BASIS FOR AWARD: 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 four (4) evaluation factors: Technical, Corporate Experience, Small Business Participation, and Price. The Technical Approach is more important than Corporate Experience, which is more important than Small Business Participation. All non-price factors are more important than Price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Approach, Corporate Experience, and Small Business Participation factors.

Additionally, any ‘other than small business’ offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.702(a).

Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. This acquisition will be solicited on the basis of awards resulting from tradeoffs, with the potential for multiple awards being dependent on the value of proposals and the availability of funds.

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

Factor 1: Technical Approach will be evaluated as follows:

Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed WTE solution and Performance Work Statement (PWS) demonstrate a clear understanding of the overall research project, and are feasible to achieve the required objectives. The description of barriers, conceivable problems, and associated mitigation plan will be evaluated to assess the degree of risk that the offeror’s approach may cause as it relates to a disruption in schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Minimum Requirements. To meet the minimum requirements for fulfilling the required objectives of this project, the PWS shall include processing of at least the thirteen (13) iterations of the four (4) waste recipes represented by Attachment (C) and the subsequent analysis of economic and operational feasibility. Additionally, the proposal shall identify a proposed WTE solution with the ability to operate economically at a rate of no more than 10 TPD of MSW, as demonstrated by a reasonably justifiable calculated Net Present Value (NPV) greater than zero; ability to process a variety of waste types generated at naval installations including plastics #1-7, metals, organics, and both wet and dry waste; and the ability to produce usable output energy.

Desired Objectives. To meet the requirements for fulfilling the desired objectives of this project, an offeror’s ability to demonstrate a solution that results in economic operational throughput of 1-4 TPD of MSW is significantly more favorable than a solution that results in economic operational throughput greater than 4 TPD but less than or equal to 10 TPD. A proposed WTE solution that does not have anticipated economic operational throughput at less than or equal to 10 TPD, as demonstrated by a reasonably justifiable calculated NPV greater than zero, will render a technical approach unacceptable. A proposed WTE solution that has a higher reasonably justifiable calculated NPV is significantly more favorable than a solution that has a lower NPV.

An offeror’s ability to demonstrate a solution that has the ability to process plastic waste processor disks (PWPs) is significantly more favorable than a solution that cannot process PWPs. If the proposed WTE solution can process the PWPs, this would be in addition to the thirteen (13) waste recipe iterations.

An offeror’s ability to demonstrate a solution that results in electricity as the energy output will be more favorably considered than any other energy output identified.

An offeror’s ability to demonstrate a solution that has the ability to process hazardous materials, tires, and other industrial wastes will be considered more favorably than a solution that cannot process those materials.

An offeror’s ability to demonstrate a solution that has the ability to handle MSW without pre-processing will be considered significantly more favorably than a solution that requires pre-processing for MSW.

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach to achieving the research objectives; meeting all minimally required and a substantial number of desired objectives of the project, and no perceived weaknesses. Degree of risk is low.

Good Proposal indicates a sound approach to achieving the research objectives; meeting all minimally required objectives and some desired objectives of the project.

Nominal weaknesses may be perceived. Degree of risk is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach to achieving the research objectives; meeting all minimally required objectives, but no desired objectives of the project.

Some perceived weaknesses. Degree of risk is moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and thus, contains one or more deficiencies. Degree of risk is unacceptable and proposal is unawardable.

Factor 2: Corporate Experience will be evaluated as follows:

Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed corporate experience demonstrates the knowledge, skills, abilities, and resources to effectively accomplish, administer, and manage the research project to a successful conclusion. As this is an applied research effort, the objectives are directed toward meeting a general military need by determining the feasibility and practicality of proposed solutions and determining their parameters. The Government will assess the information provided to ensure it is relevant to this project, and was performed within the last five (5) years from the date of solicitation. If the projects utilized to demonstrate corporate experience are not relevant and/or are not within the stated window of time, they will not be evaluated further.

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates exceptional experience that directly correlates to the area of research represented by this solicitation. Clear understanding of the operating space; Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal demonstrates ample experience that easily correlates to the area of research represented by this solicitation. Demonstrates an understanding of the operating space; Above average degree of confidence in offeror’s ability to successfully execute. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal demonstrates adequate experience that roughly correlates to the area of research represented by this solicitation. Demonstrates an awareness of the operating space; Risk of unsuccessful performance is low-moderate.

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

Factor 3: Small Business Participation will be evaluated as follows:

Under this factor, the Government will evaluate all Offerors on the extent of proposed participation/commitment to use of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein. Small business prime offerors may achieve small business participation through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses. The following shall be provided, at a minimum as evidence of small business participation:

The extent to which such firms identified in FAR Part 19 are specifically identified by name and socio-economic category in proposals

The extent of commitment to use such firms (Signed commitments will be considered more favorable)

The identification of the complexity and the variety of the work small firms are to perform

Applicable to other than small businesses only: The Government will evaluate the Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW DOD and Army requirements. All mandatory elements shall be present for the plan to be acceptable.

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Factor 4: Cost/Price. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Price proposals.

The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

a. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

b. Overall Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

1) Compliance: The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L- Volume III Price instructions.

2) Errors: The Offeror’s Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The

Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price will be the Offeror’s proposed FFP for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 (if priced).

(End of Summary of Changes)