06_140R2024R0017_Section_M_0006.pdf

(x)

140R2024R0017 x x

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 electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

Sacramento CA 95825-1898 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1815

R20

Division of Acquisition Services Regional Office Mid-Pacific Region Bureau of Reclamation

01/24/20250006

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers 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

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

11/29/2024

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

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

The purpose of Amendment 06 is for the following:

1) Revise Section M, see strikethrough & highlighted areas.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Matthew T. Byrne

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

X 1

Solicitation/Award No. 140R2024R0017 Arroyo Canal Fish Screen and Sack Dam Bypass Project Central Valley Project, California San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP)

M-1

SECTION M – EVALUATIONS FOR AWARD

WBR 1452.215-80 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION MAR 2021

PROCEDURES - BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION

The Government intends to evaluate proposals submitted under this solicitation and select a source for contract award without discussions (unless the contracting officer later determines discussions to be necessary) in accordance with the following provision: FAR 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors -- Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2017). Source selection shall be in accordance with procedures contained in FAR Part 15, Department of the Interior Acquisition Regulation (DIAR) Part 1415 (48 CFR 1415) and Bureau of Reclamation Acquisition Regulation WBR Part 1415. These procedures are summarized as follows:

(a) Technical evaluation. A Technical Proposal Evaluation Committee has been established to objectively evaluate technical proposals in accordance with the Evaluation Factors for Award -- Bureau of Reclamation provision of this solicitation. Technical proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the Proposal Instructions -- Bureau of Reclamation provision of this solicitation.

(b) Past performance evaluation. In addition to any other past performance information required under the solicitation, the contracting officer shall use past performance information available from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) in the source selection process on offerors competing for awards in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, unless the contracting officer has documented an exception from past performance consideration in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(2)(iv).

(c) Cost or price evaluation. An objective cost or price evaluation of contract pricing proposals will be made in accordance with the Evaluation Factors for Award provision of this solicitation. Pricing proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the Proposal Instructions -- Bureau of Reclamation provision of this solicitation. A cost or price analysis will be performed to determine price reasonableness and any instances of unbalanced pricing, using one or more of the techniques at FAR 15.404-1.

(End of provision)

Central Valley Project, California

M-2

WBR 1452.215-82 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD MAR 2021

QUALITY PREDOMINANCE

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

(a) Award will be made to the responsible offeror submitting a proposal which conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Government considering the factors and any significant subfactors listed in this provision.

(b) In the evaluation of proposals, all evaluation factors (listed in this provision) other than cost or price, when combined, are considered to be significantly more important than cost or price. The relative importance to be placed on the factors in relation to each other is contained in paragraph (e) of this provision. However, the greater the equality of proposals within the non-price factors, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the government. If a proposal is determined by the contracting officer to be "technically unacceptable" as a result of evaluating all factors other than cost or price, the proposal may be rejected from further consideration. The contracting officer reserves the right to make award to other than the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest cost or price proposal if it is determined that the technical benefits of another offeror's proposal justify its higher cost or price. The contracting officer also reserves the right to make award to a lower-priced, lower-scored offeror if it is determined that the cost or price premium involved in awarding to a higher- rated, higher-priced offeror is not justified.

Since technical proposals are being solicited to obtain information to be used in the evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use information outside of the proposal to evaluate the capability of offerors and the value of offers.

(c) Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(l), a cost or price analysis will be performed to determine price reasonableness and any instances of unbalanced pricing, using one or more of the techniques at FAR 15.404-1.

(d) The following factors and significant subfactors (if listed), will be considered in evaluating proposals and making the source selection:

IAW FAR 15.101-1 Tradeoff process to the following are the factors for this solicitation:

Factor 1: Technical Approach

Subfactor 1A: Coordinated Construction Schedule Subfactor 1B: Narrative of Construction Sequence Subfactor 1C: Experience

Factor 2: Past Performance

Central Valley Project, California

M-3

Factor 3: Small Business Participation

Factor 4: Price

The relative importance of the factors and subfactors are identified below:

a) Factor 1, Technical, consists of 3 subfactors. All technical subfactors are equally important. The Government will not roll up the subfactor ratings into an overall factor adjectival rating.

b) Between the non-price factors, Factor 1 is the most important Factor; and Factor 2 is the second most important Factor; and Factor 3 is the least important non-price Factor.

This trade-off evaluation will be performed utilizing each factor adjectival ratings (shown below in each factor). Offerors’ proposals and response to factors will be assessed by the evaluation team. The evaluation team will assign an adjectival rating as identified to each factor and subfactor in order to determine which proposal is most advantageous to the Government.

Offerors’ are reminded that the contracting officer reserves the right to make award to a lower-priced, lower-scored offeror if it is determined that the cost or price premium involved in awarding to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror is not justified.

Factor 1: Technical Approach

The Technical Approach Factor evaluation will assess the offeror’s proposed approach and capabilities, as detailed in their submitted proposal. The assessment will ensure the offeror’s proposal satisfies the Government's requirements. The offeror’s Technical Approach will be evaluated to determine the required elements have been provided or addressed; the work completed within the performance period accomplished in accordance with the solicitation and associated documents with emphasis to Sections F and H; and demonstrated a thorough understanding of the work requirements. The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate Volume II of the Offerors’ proposals to determine technical adjectival rating. No pricing information will be within Volume II – Technical Proposal.

Subfactor 1A - Coordinated Construction Schedule:

1) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s gantt chart schedule for the principal and critical components of work contained in the solicitation to ensure the schedule is shown with sufficient detail and the durations along with the associated production man hour time are reasonable/realistic. The schedule will also be evaluated for detail of information and reasonableness with regard to logical (activity relationships), constraints (including seasonable constraints), specified milestones, sequencing of critical and principal components of work, activity information, format, and other relevant requirements.

Central Valley Project, California

M-4

2) The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the Schedule Organization Statement and the overall format of the schedule based on the requirements listed in accordance with the solicitation.

3) The Government will evaluate the work-breakdown-structure categories, utilized in the schedule, to ensure industry construction standards comply with the statement of work construction sequencing procedures.

Subfactor 1B - Narrative of Construction Sequence:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Narrative of Construction Sequence to determine the required elements have been provided or addressed and that the work is completed within the performance period in accordance with the solicitation and associated documents with emphasis to Sections F and H. The offeror shall demonstrate a thorough understanding of the work requirements and sequence of construction activities. In general, the provided list of resources for the principal components of work, listed in Section L, will be evaluated to determine their reasonableness, reliability, viability to meet the specification requirements.

1)The offeror’s narrative of construction sequence will be evaluated as identified below and is a non-inclusive list of other aspects of the narrative to be evaluated:

i) Equipment evaluation will be analyzed to ensure capacity, size, and production rates are consistent with the solicitation and applicable building codes.

ii) Planned shifts, crew sizes, and man hours will be reviewed to ensure they are accurate to complete the construction requirements.

iii) In River Conceptual Design of Cofferdams and Construction concept level details will be reviewed to ensure constructability and means and methods are compliant with local, state, and federal codes. The review will consist of adequate construction techniques to perform in river cofferdam construction, Fish Screen Construction, earthen berms, O&M building construction and associated features, compliance with environmental permitting.

Subfactor 1C Experience:

The Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s proposed experience will be in correlation with the proposed construction schedule and perceived risk to the Government, previous experience, and demonstration of an understanding of the specification requirements. Failure of the contractor to provide key personnel listed in the proposal, during construction for reasons other than employee leaving the contractors employment or illness may at the Contract Officers determination result in a negative declaration in the contractor performance at the completion of work.

1) The Government will evaluate the experience of the proposed Project Manager, Concrete Superintendent, Earthwork Superintendent, River Diversion System Designer, Professional Land Surveyor, Safety Professional for:

Central Valley Project, California

M-5

a) Experience on projects of similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude to the work required under this solicitation.

b) Experience of projects similar in nature are listed in Section L.

c) Favorable consideration will be given to experience with the simultaneous coordination of multiple subcontractors, consultants, and trades and critical equipment and material integration if the work elements are similar to this project.

d) Experience of work under critical completion timeframes and critical environmental constraints is considered favorable to the Government for work elements that are similar to this project.

e) The Government will utilize information gained from contact references and may utilize information from sources not provided by the offeror.

f) The Government will only evaluate key personnel from other than the Offeror when a Letter of Commitment is provided.

g) The Government will evaluate the involvement of each key personnel for this project.

h) The Government will evaluate the list of alternative personnel sources.

2) The visual organization chart will be reviewed and ensure the proposed management team and identified key personnel are consistent with typical construction organizations to include a review of:

a) The narrative lists each person’s roles and responsibilities contained in the organization chart.

b) Key management positions availability during construction tasks.

c) The Government will assess the offeror's management team approach to maintain control of subcontractors during all phases of task.

3) The Government will analyze the letter of commitment if key personnel is subcontracted to an outside entity.

4) Evaluate the list of alternate personnel sources to be utilized in the event proposed personnel are not available as planned. Resumes will be reviewed to ensure experience levels are adequate for management for this complex requirement.

Factor 1 adjectival ratings:

The Technical Approach shall include a construction schedule, corresponding written narrative of the planned construction sequence, and continuity of operations plan. All three shall be coordinated, support each other and reflect the requirements contained in the Specifications (Section C), Limitation of Funds Clause (if applicable) and Sections F and H. To be deemed technically acceptable, the Offeror’s Technical Approach must meet ALL of the following:

Construction Schedule, Narrative of Construction Sequence and Continuity of Operations Plan to determine that the required elements have been provided or addressed and demonstrate technical acceptance.

Central Valley Project, California

M-6

The evaluation criteria for Factor 1A, 1B and 1C is as follows:

Factor 2 Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. A review of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) will be conducted as stated in WBR 1452.215-82, Evaluation for Award – Quality Predominance – Bureau of Reclamation.

(1) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be determined recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Greatly exceeds the stated requirements.

Exceeds the stated requirements.

Meets the stated requirements.

Fails to clearly meet the stated requirements.

Fails to meet the stated requirements.

Demonstrates an exceptionally thorough approach and fully comprehensive understanding of the requirement.

Demonstrates a thorough approach and comprehensive understanding of the requirement.

Demonstrates an adequate approach and satisfactory understanding of the requirement.

Does not demonstrate an acceptable approach or clear understanding of the requirement.

Fails to demonstrate a minimally acceptable approach or indicates a significant lack of understanding of the requirement.

The approach is in-depth, clear, and uniformly exceptional in quality.

The approach is clear and uniformly high in quality.

The approach is comprehensible and uniformly satisfactory in quality.

The approach is not fully comprehensible or it is less than satisfactory in quality.

The approach is incoherent or it is unsatisfactory in quality.

Central Valley Project, California

M-7 been performed during the past six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. For ongoing projects, the Government will not consider performance on newly awarded contracts that have no documented performance history (in other words, projects that are less than six months under contract or less than 50% complete). Past performance information that fails this condition may not be evaluated.

(2) Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature of work, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

(3) Past performance areas of evaluation include (and will on be performed on the past performance information determined to be recent and relevant):

(a) Workmanship.

(b) Timeliness of Performance.

c) Business Relations.

(d) Subcontractor Compliance, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, under FAR Clause 52.219-8.

(e) Safety.

Factor 2 adjectival ratings:

Factor 3: Small Business Participation

Exceptional Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory

Offeror’s record of relevant past performance and information regarding past performance is very good or better.

Offeror’s record of relevant past performance and information regarding past performance is acceptable.

Offeror does not have a record of relevant past performance or information regarding past performance is not available.

Offeror’s record of relevant past performance and information regarding past performance is marginal to unacceptable.

Central Valley Project, California

M-8

All offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of proposed participation/commitment to use 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 offerors self-certified in SAM.gov will receive the maximum credit for this evaluation factor and do not need to submit any documentation supporting this evaluation factor. For all other offerors the Government will evaluate the following in no order of importance:

1. The extent of identification and participation of small and socio-economic business subcontractors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value)

2. The extent to which offerors met or exceed DOI subcontracting goals for small and socio-economically disadvantaged businesses. Offerors that propose small or socio-economic subcontractors that met or exceed DOI’s prior year subcontracting performance will be evaluated favorably.

Small or Socio-Economic Business Type DOI Subcontract Goal

Small Business 42% Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Small business (SDB)

10%

Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5% Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

5%

Historically Underutilized Business District Small Business (HUBZone)

3%

Indian Small Business Economic Enterprises (ISBEE)

3%

3. The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

4. Identification of the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

5. The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed quantitative participation.

6. The extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine which offeror proposes the best value in

Central Valley Project, California

M-9 terms of Small Business Participation. Offers submitted by a small business prime offeror will also be evaluated and will receive the maximum score for this evaluation criteria.

Factor 3 adjectival ratings:

Factor 4: Price. This requirement has only one price factor:

The price proposals will be evaluated against other price proposal information received. The government estimate will be used as a benchmark for which the price evaluation will be conducted.

The analysis of the variance between the Government’s estimate and each offer will indicate whether further review is necessary to determine if the price is reasonable.

Award will be made on an “all or none” basis. No multiple awards will be made. All proposed prices will be reviewed for price reasonableness and any instance of unbalanced pricing.

Factor 4 evaluation standard

The Offeror’s price shall represent the best price in response to the Request for Proposal. The price shall be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness. The total evaluated price of the offeror will be determined by totaling the proposed prices of all the CLINS.

The government expects that this contract will be awarded based on adequate price competition.

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Proposed goals achieve or exceed all DOI goal targets. Extensive and compelling rational for all proposed goals. Proposed goals are highly realistic.

Strengths far outweigh weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Proposed goals achieve or nearly achieve almost all DOI goal targets.

Substantive rational for proposed goals.

Proposed goals are realistic. Strengths outweigh weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Proposed meaningful goals. Reasonable rational for proposed goals. Proposed goals are somewhat realistic.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Proposed only a few goals. Limited rational for proposed goals.

Proposed goals may not be realistic.

Weaknesses outweigh strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Failed to proposal goals to meet DOI goal targets or failed to provide a completed plan.

Little or no meaningful rational provided for proposed goals. Proposed goals are unrealistic.

Weaknesses far outweigh strengths.

Central Valley Project, California

M-10

However, in order to determine that offered prices are fair and reasonable, the government reserves the right to request that the offeror provide further information in support of proposed prices. Price proposals must adhere to the pricing structure established in Section B of this solicitation (and/or attachment at Section B). The price proposals will be evaluated against the Government Price Estimate, as well as other price proposals received. The estimate will be used as a benchmark for which the price evaluation will be conducted. The analysis of the variance between the Government's estimate and each offer and variance among the offerors will indicate whether further review is necessary in order to determine if the price is fair and reasonable. The Government will only make an award if it can determine the offeror’s price to be fair and reasonable.

(End of provision)