C -- INDEFINITE DELIVERY TYPE CONTRACTS FOR MISCELLANEOUS MILITARY AND CIVIL HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP PROJECTS AND RELATED WORK PRIMARILY ASSIGNED TO THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, KANSAS CITY DISTRICT

Notice Date

July 16, 2001

Contracting Office

USAED, Kansas City, 757 Federal Building, 601 E 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106-2896

ZIP Code

64106-2896

Solicitation Number

DACW41-01-R-0015

Response Due

August 17, 2001

Point of Contact

Ralph Nunn 816-983-3837

E-Mail Address

Ralph Nunn, Contract Specialist, Contracting Division, (robert.r.nunn@usace.army.mil)

Description

C-FOUR INDEFINITE DELIVERY TYPE CONTRACTS FOR MISCELLANEOUS MILITARY AND CIVIL HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP PROJECTS AND RELATED WORK PRIMARILY ASSIGNED TO THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, KANSAS CITY DISTRICT. Solicitation DACW41-01-R-0015 POC: Mr. Ralph Nunn, Contract Specialist, at 816-983-3837. 1. CONTRACT INFORMATION: Selection will be made for up to four contracts. The contracts will be Indefinite Delivery Type Architect-Engineer Services Contracts each having a three-year base period with one two-year option. Individual task orders under the contracts will be of the cost-plus-fixed fee or firm-fixed price type. The Joint Total Acquisition Value (JTAV) for these contracts is $80,000,000.00. Each task order will not be limited to other than the contract value. Each of the contracts will have a guaranteed minimum of 2% of the stated maximum for the base contract period or $500,000, whichever is less, and 1% of the remaining contract capacity or $250,000, whichever is less, for the two-year option period. Task orders will be issued as the need arises during the contract period. If more that one base contract award is made, then multiple award procedures in accordance with FAR 16.505(b) will be utilized to the maximum extent practicable to provide a fair opportunity to be considered for each task order. The following criteria may be used in allocating orders: 1. Performance; 2. Quality of deliverables; 3. Current contract capacity; 4. Specialized experience; and/or, 5. Other related factors. Exceptions to this procedure are found in FAR 16.505(b)(2). It is anticipated the first contract will be awarded not earlier than October 2001. One or more months may elapse between the contract awards. SIC 8711. NAICS 541330. 2. PROJECT INFORMATION: These contracts will include investigations, design, and engineering services during construction activities in support of the Kansas City District's HTRW Program. This program supports various federal, state, and local agencies. Approximately 70% of the workload is projected for Superfund projects in EPA Region II. Each contract will require work to be performed by firms experienced in a broad field of environmental remedial design and investigation and technical/enforcement support for EPA projects. For on-site investigations, firms must provide personnel with current safety training, as required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Companies must also be capable of performing work on a wide variety of sites in a manner that complies with federal, state, and local regulations and laws, and within the time frames required. All chemical sampling and analysis shall be with EPA and Corps of Engineers (CE) methods and the laboratory will be subject to Government inspection and approval. 3. PRIMARY SELECTION CRITERIA: Primary selection criteria are listed below in descending order of importance. a. Specialized experience and technical competence: (FAR36.602-1 (a)(2)). The board will evaluate the specialized experience on similar projects and the technical capabilities of the prime firm and any subcontractors. The effectiveness of the proposed project team (including management structure; coordination of disciplines, offices and/or subcontractors; and prior working relationships) will also be examined. In SF255, Block 8, cite whether the experience is that of the prime (or joint venture), consultant or an individual. Work cited that is experience of prime (or joint venture) from an office other than that identified in SF255, Block 4 shall be so labeled. Specific specialized experience for this project is to be evaluated as follows (All specialized experience factors are listed in descending order of importance): (1) investigation, study, design, and construction phase services for a variety of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste cleanup projects. Experience must demonstrate wide-ranging capabilities for diverse projects with differing contaminants in various media. Demonstrated recent experience of the prime in the EPA Region II geographical jurisdiction will have the greatest weight. Examples of typical projects include, but are not limited to: a) Experience in the investigation and design of mitigation schemes at sites contaminated with radioactive substances. Such sites may be in densely populated communities with strict building codes and other local requirements. Information submitted should reflect both area-wide and long-term experience. b) Experience in the investigation of highly carcinogenic substances such as PCBs, dioxin, etc, in all aqueous (i.e. riverbeds, harbors, wetlands, etc) and non-aqueous environments. Services provided should include, at a minimum, analysis of risk to human health and the environment, analysis of conceptual mitigation schemes and use of computer modeling. c) Experience in long-term community relations, public outreach programs and interaction with public interest groups associated with EPA and Corps environmental programs at the federal, state and local levels. d) Experience in subsurface exploration, and analysis, interpretation, and use of information obtained during such exploration; chemical sampling, testing, and analysis; risk assessments under CERCLA, RCRA, and TSCA; bench scale and pilot scale treatability studies; feasibility and engineering studies and reports; archaeological investigations and mitigation; wetlands determinations and mitigation studies and surveying and mapping. e) Experience in field inspections, oversight of RI, FS, RD, and RA performed by other parties. (2) demonstrated quality management procedures. Include a proposed organizational chart and a narrative description of how the quality management procedures will function in Block 10 of SF 255. (A detailed quality control plan will be submitted by the A-E as part of the negotiations process.) (3) regulations and practices pertaining to hazardous waste sampling, handling, transportation and disposal. Knowledge of local and state environmental regulations within the EPA Region II geographical jurisdiction has the greatest weight. b. Professional Qualifications (FAR 36.602-1(a)(1)). The board will evaluate, as appropriate, the education, training, registration, overall and relevant experience, and longevity with the firm of the key management and technical personnel. This criterion is primarily concerned with the qualifications of the key personnel and not the number of personnel, which is addressed under the capacity criterion. Responding firms should demonstrate the professional qualifications in these primary disciplines, which are listed in descending order of importance. List professional registrations for the disciplines. (1) Environmental engineering (2) Chemical process engineering (3) Industrial hygiene (4) Chemistry (5) Hydrogeology (6) Geotechnical engineering (7) Project/contract management (8) Cost engineering (9) Toxicology (10) Risk Assessment(11) Civil engineering (12) Geology (13) Community relations (14) Health physics (15) Archaeology (16) Mechanical engineering (17) Electrical engineering c. Past Performance (FAR 36.602-1(a)(4)). ACASS is the primary source of information on past performance (DFARS 236.602-1(a)(i)(4). ACASS will be queried for all firms submitting a proposal. When deemed appropriate by the evaluation board, performance evaluations for any significant subcontractors who have previously been prime A-E contractors may also be considered, but the board is not required to seek other information on the past performance of a firm if none is available from ACASS. The board will consider the relevancy of each performance evaluation to the proposed contract, including the type of work, performing office, time period of performance, and whether subsequent evaluations indicate a change in a firm's performance. A firm that has earned excellent evaluations on recent DoD A-E contracts for similar projects will be ranked relatively high on past performance (DFARS 236.602-1(a)(i)(6)(B)). The review of performance evaluations in ACASS satisfies the requirements of FAR 9.104-1(c) for reviewing the responsibility of contractors. In Block 10 of the SF 255, responding firms should list any current claims pending against any Federal agency. List should include date claim submitted, amount and status. d. Capacity (FAR 36.602-1(a)(3)). The board will consider a firm's experience with similar size projects and the available capacity of key disciplines when evaluating the capacity of a firm to perform the work in the required time. Since it may be difficult for a firm to accurately predict required staffing based on the information in this synopsis, a firm will not be disqualified or downgraded because of its proposed number of personnel for a project shown in Block 4 of the SF 255. Instead, the board will consider the total strength of the key disciplines in the prime firm and its consultants in the offices proposed to perform the work in relationship to the firms' current workloads. Greatest weight is on project resources located in EPA Region II. e. Knowledge of the Locality (FAR 36.602-1(a)(5)). A firm may not be located close to a project but still be familiar with certain site conditions. Examples include knowledge of state and local regulatory agencies, geological features, climatic conditions or local construction methods that are unusual or unique. Emphasis is on knowledge of EPA Region II Superfund projects but firms should also demonstrate knowledge of EPA Region VII remediation projects. Work under these contracts may be in a widely dispersed geographic area, therefore, responding firms should demonstrate the extent of their capabilities to serve projects located in the USACE Northwestern Division and projects located in EPA Region II. Greatest weight is on ability to serve projects located in EPA Region II. 4. SECONDARY SELECTION CRITERIA. The following secondary criteria will not be applied by a pre-selection board, and will only be used by a selection board as a "tie-breaker" if necessary, in ranking the most highly qualified firms. The secondary criteria will not be commingled with the primary criteria in any type of scoring or evaluation system. The secondary selection criteria are listed below in descending order of importance. a. SB and SDB Participation (DFARS 236.602-1(a)(i)(6)(C). The extent of participation of SB, SDB, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU), and minority institutions (MI) will be measured as a percentage of the total anticipated contract effort, regardless of whether the SB, SDB, HBCU, or MI is a prime contractor, subcontractor, or joint venture partner; the greater the participation, the greater the consideration. Large businesses will be expected to place subcontracts to the maximum practical extent with Small and Small Disadvantaged firms in accordance with Public Law 95-507. Of the subcontract amount, goals assigned to the KCD are 61.4 % for small business, 9.1 % for small disadvantaged business and 5 % for small women owned business concerns. For informational purposes, the small business size standard for this solicitation is one where the average annual receipts of the concern and its affiliates for the preceding three (3) fiscal years does not exceed $4 million, the NAICS Code 541330. b. Volume of DoD Contract Awards (DFARS 236.602-1(a)(i)(6)(A)). The overall most highly qualified firms will not be rejected solely in the interest of equitable distribution of contracts. In Block 10 of the SF 255, responding firms should cite all contract numbers, award dates and total negotiated fees for any DOD contract awarded within the last 12 months. Please indicate all task orders or modifications awarded your firm by DOD agencies within the last 12 months under an indefinite delivery type contract. Indicate date of task orders and fee for each. 5. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work must submit five copies of SF 255 to the address listed below not later than August 17, 2001, 3:00 p.m. CST. There is a page limit of twenty pages for the information in block 10 of the SF 255. Each firm/consultant listed within the SF255 must have a current SF 254 (submitted within the last 12 months) on file with the Corps of Engineers, or one must be submitted with this package. Solicitation packages are not provided. This is not a request for proposal. Submit responses to: U. S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City, 757 Federal Building, 601 E. 12th Street, ATTN: CENWK-CT-H/Ralph Nunn, Kansas City MO 64106-2896. 6. QUESTIONS: Questions of a technical nature should be addressed to Mr. Ed Bristow, at 816-983-3583 or Ms. Nanci Higginbotham, at 816-983-3359, and those of an administrative nature to Mr. Ralph Nunn, Contract Specialist, at 816-983-3837.

Record

Loren Data Corp. 20010718/CSOL002.HTM (W-197 SN50R999)