RAC3 Site-Specific 8(a) for E.P.A. Region IX

8(a) Set-Aside The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires professional architect and engineering services to support remedial planning and oversight activities at the Amco and the San Fernando Valley (Areas 1 - 3) Superfund Sites in Region 9. The list of the Potential Responsible Parties (PRPs) will be posted on EPAs web site, along with the announcement at the web site listed below. The services include site management; remedial investigation feasibility studies; engineering services to design remedial actions; engineering evaluation and cost analysis for non-time critical removal actions; construction management for implementing remedial actions and non-time critical removal actions, including issuing and managing subcontracts for construction of the selected remedy and engineering services in overseeing construction; enforcement support, including oversight of remedial investigations/feasibility studies, remedial design and remedial action, and negotiation support; and other technical assistance, including community relations, sampling and analysis support, and pre-design investigations. Services may include technical and management services supporting EPA's coordination and oversight of remedial actions where they are performed by a state, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or responsible parties identified in enforcement actions. This project is an 8(a) set aside. The North American Industry Classification System Code for this procurement is 562910 with a small business size standard of 500 employees. At least fifty (50) percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the prime contractor. The contract will be firm fixed rate, Indefinite Delivery/ Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) award term contract. The base period of performance will be three (3) years, with three award terms periods, two (2) year, three (3) years and two (2) years, for a potential total period of ten (10) years. Work will be issued by Task Orders. The total estimated amount of this proposed contract, including award terms, is $80,000,000.00. All proposals will be evaluated in an identical manner and in accordance with the specified evaluation criteria. In the event that firms propose under any type of joint venture agreement, each of the joint partner firms must meet the minimum technical qualifications independently and as a whole combined effort representing the joint venture as set forth in this announcement. The joint venture proposal will be noted as a whole. The contract will be awarded in accordance with the Brooks Act Procurement procedures. For this procurement, EPA requires that the offerors organize the information so as to highlight responses to the technical evaluation factors. Firms interested in responding to this announcement are invited to submit completed Standard Form 330 (SF 330) to the office shown below by 2:00pm PST on July 29, 2011. Responses must be received at the designated Region 9 location by the deadline; postmarks will not suffice. Responses to this announcement, including SF 330 and all attachments, shall not exceed twenty-five (25) separate pages, or fifty (50) pages of text. The 50 page limit is inclusive of both Part I, Part II and any and or all attachments. The response should be double-sided with a minimum of 10 point font, on 8.5 X 11 paper only (no other size page(s) will be allowed). This page limit does not include the cover letter, the front and back cover of the SF 330 or the table of contents. There is no page limitation for any individual section or portion of the SF 330 or attachment(s), the only limitation is the overall page limitation stated above. Offerors shall follow the instructions for completing the SF 330. No alterations of the SF 330 are permitted. Offerors whose response exceeds the page limitation and do not comply with instructions provided will be considered non responsive. Submit one (1) original and six (6) copies, a total of seven (7), and one (1) electronic copy on CD ROM of your response to the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, Contracts Section: Attn: Zachary Slater MTS-4-3, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. Pursuant to FAR 36.6, the source selection official has the latitude to consider selection of another of the ranked offerers. Rationale for considering such action could be the Governments goal to provide alternate sources for its requirements, including the mitigation and management of conflict of interest (COI) issues. In the event that firms propose under a joint venture agreement, both firms must demonstrate the ability to implement the requirements of the tasks described in the Statement of Work independently. The EPA Region 9 is not going to hold a pre-proposal conference. This announcement is not a Request for Proposal (RFP). Following EPA's review of the SF 330, a "short list" of the most highly rated firms will be developed. Short-listed firms will be referred to as "selected firms." Selected firms will be invited to participate in oral presentations/ interviews. The specific details on the oral presentations/interviews will only be provided to the selected firms. Oral presentations/interviews will address and augment the firm's technical qualifications. Selected offerors should be aware that their overall rating depends on both written submissions and their oral presentations/interview. Following oral presentations/interviews, the proposals will then be ranked with the most highly rated firm ranked first. The source selection authority will make the final selection from among those firms. The most highly rated firm will be asked to submit a cost proposal, Conflict of Interest Plan, Quality Management Plan and Representations and Certifications. The Offeror shall also be required to have an acceptable accounting system that allows for segregation and tracking of costs. Selection will be based on the following evaluation Factors which are listed in descending order of importance (for those Factors that have sub-factors the sub-factors are equal in value): Factor #1 - TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE (AS PRESENTED IN SECTION E, G, H, AND PART II OF FIRM'S SF 330) Sub-Factor #1 Fund-Lead Site Specific Work Areas Sub-Factor #2 Enforcement Support Site Specific Work Areas Factor #2 - PAST PERFORMANCE (AS ADDRESSED BY THE PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES, SECTION F) Factor #3 - PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS (AS PRESENTED IN SECTIONS E, G, H AND PART II OF FIRM'S SF 330) Sub-Factor #1 Management Personnel Sub-Factor #2 Technical Personnel Factor #4 - CAPACITY TO ACCOMPLISH THE WORK, AND ABILITY TO MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE STAFF PRESENCE IN REGION IX. (AS PRESENTED IN SECTION H AND PART II OF FIRM'S SF 330) FACTOR #1 - TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT ABILITY (AS PRESENTED IN SECTION E, G, H, AND PART II OF FIRM'S SF 330) The offeror shall demonstrate how it will implement the requirements of the following tasks as described in the Statement of Work for multiple, and concurrent projects to meet the projects' time lines. Subfactor #1 - Fund-Lead Site Specific Work Areas - Remedial Design (RD) - Remedial Action (RA) - Construction Support - Long-Term Response Action (LTRA) - Post-Construction Remedial Action Subfactor #2 - Enforcement Support Site Specific Work Areas - Negotiation Support - RD Oversight - RA Oversight - Long-Term Response Oversight - Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Oversight - Post-Construction RA Oversight FACTOR #2 - PAST PERFORMANCE (AS ADDRESSED BY THE PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES, SECTION F) Reported levels of performance on previous similar projects in the areas of: - Quality of service - Timeliness - Health and safety record - Cost control - Business relations - Technical experience with implementation of value engineering on previous projects EPA is not limited to the past performance references submitted by the offeror. EPA may seek information for this criterion from the offeror's clients it identifies through other means. FACTOR #3 - PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS (AS PRESENTED IN SECTIONS E, G, H AND PART II OF FIRM'S SF 330) Subfactor #1 - Management personnel - Education - level and focus of degrees or programs completed that affect the firm's ability to successfully perform the statement of work Subfactor #2 - Technical personnel - Education - level and focus of degrees or program completed that affect the firm's ability to successfully perform the statement of work - Certifications or licenses in the proposed statement of work areas that affect the firm's ability to successfully perform the statement of work, and in accordance with all regulations that apply FACTOR #4 -- CAPACITY TO ACCOMPLISH THE WORK, AND ABILITY TO MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE OFFICE AND STAFF PRESENCE IN REGION IX (AS PRESENTED IN SECTION H AND PART II OF FIRM'S SF 330) The offeror shall demonstrate its ability to provide available, experienced and fully trained personnel at the skill levels, disciplines, and quantities to perform the stated volume of work at the sites. The offeror shall demonstrate how it intends to comply with FAR 52.217-1(b)(1): Services (except construction), at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees for the concern. Factors 1, 3 and 4 will be evaluated using the following rating scheme. Factor 2 will be evaluated through past performance references. Unsatisfactory = The factor is not addressed or is totally deficient and without merit. Poor = The factor is addressed, but contains deficiencies and/or weaknesses that can be corrected only by major or significant changes to relevant portions of the proposal, or the factor is addressed so minimally or vaguely that there are widespread information gaps. In addition, because of the deficiencies, weaknesses, and/or information gaps, serious concerns exist on the part of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) about the offeror's ability to perform the required work. Fair = Information related to the factors is incomplete, unclear, or indicates an inadequate approach to, or understanding of the factor. The TEP believes that there is question as to whether the offer would be able to perform satisfactorily. Good = The response to the factor is adequate. Overall, it meets the specifications and requirements, such that the TEP believes that the offeror could perform to meet the Government's minimum requirements. Excellent = The response to the factor is good with some superior features. Information provided is generally clear, and the approach is acceptable with the possibility of more than adequate performance. Outstanding = The response to the factor is superior in most features. All questions related to this acquisition must be forwarded electronically to contact@example.gov and no later than 2:00pm on July 11, 2011. The EPA will consolidate the questions and post the answers, as well as any additional information for this requirement on EPA's acquisition site at http://www.epa.gov/oam/regions/index.htm#solam. The Placement Contract Specialist for this procurement is Zachary Slater and can be reached at the above email, or +1 (555) 000-0000. The Placement Contracting Officer for this solicitation is Alex Kramer who can be reached at contact@example.gov or +1 (555) 000-0000.