A22_Attachment_0001.pdf

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

A.1 This acquisition is a total small business set-aside, competitive procurement utilizing Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) best value continuum source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2.

A.2 A single Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) task order contract award will be made to the Offeror who provides a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

A.3 Proposed prices will be evaluated but not scored or otherwise combined with the other aspects of the proposal evaluation.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Factor 1: Price Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Plant and Equipment

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). For any Offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive an “Acceptable” rating in every non-price factor. The three non-price factors are Specialized Experience, Past Performance, and Plant and Equipment.

C.1 Factor 1: Price

C.1.1 Price will be evaluated and considered but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. An award will be made to the Offeror with the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal. The lowest price will be determined by adding up all line items.

Offerors shall complete and submit the Schedule of Prices with their proposal and include a price for each line item.

C.1.2 The Source Selection Evaluation Board will evaluate each Offeror’s price and verify that unbalanced pricing is not present. The Contracting Officer will evaluate each Offeror’s price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 to determine price reasonableness. Price reasonableness will be determined by comparing all proposed prices, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), and pricing of previous work that is equivalent or similar to the requirement.

C.1.3 The otherwise technically acceptable, lowest priced Offeror may be required to confirm/validate their offered price. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required;

however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award.

C.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

C.2.1 The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of the past performance provided by Offerors in accordance with FAR 15.305. Evaluations of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan while utilizing the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) and forms in Appendix D, Enclosure 1.

C.2.2 Submission Requirements

a. The offeror will submit a minimum of two (2) and maximum of five (5) contracts that are similar in scope and complexity to the requirement, performed within the past seven (7) years of the issuance date of this solicitation. If more than five (5) contracts are submitted, the 5 most recent contracts will be used. The Government may query the Offeror’s Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to validate past performance ratings on Department of Defense contracts and any other past performance information the Government deems necessary to evaluate an Offeror’s past performance.

b. For each contract submitted that does not have a CPARS evaluation, the Offeror may send a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), which is included in Attachment B, to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each contract the Offeror includes. Ensure the name, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses are provided for the client’s point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. Offerors should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. The Offeror should explain problems encountered and actions taken for any submitted contract. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into its proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors are not to request past performance questionnaires on contracts that have final CPARS evaluation. If a past performance questionnaire is received on a contract where a final CPARS evaluation exists, the CPARS evaluation will serve as the official rating of record for evaluation purposes.

c. The Government may (but will not be obligated to) contact references provided for information regarding the Offeror’s past performance on the contract, and for the purposes of assessing and verifying the scope of work performed. Offerors should provide accurate, current, and complete contact information for references provided in the contract descriptions.

d. The Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), using all CAGE/UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming agreement, or parent company / subsidiary / affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal; inquiries to owners’ representative(s); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS); and any other sources not provided by the Offeror.

e. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

f. Verification. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited contracts or other recent and relevant contracts not submitted by the Offerors by reviewing Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), or other Government appraisal systems, or by contacting owner or references. The Government may verify any or all cited references and supplied information. An Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to reply to or explain adverse past performance information which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to address.

C.2.3 Evaluation Criteria

a. First, an Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant a recent contract is to the requirements of the RFP. The relevancy determination will be based on the submitted contracts. Contracts are considered Relevant if they meet all criteria (1-4) below.

1. The submitted contract (or task order issued under an IDIQ-type contract) was substantially completed within seven (7) years prior to the date this solicitation was issued. Substantially complete as defined for this solicitation is when the project is sufficient for the use of which it is intended, as of the closing date of this solicitation.

2. The Offeror (or the party to the JV, in the case of an Offeror JV) was the prime contractor.

3. The contract was performed using hydraulic dredging from a floating plant.

4. The contract was performed at a minimum production rate of 4,000 cubic yards of channel dredging per day or 20,000 cubic yards per week.

b. If any Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the proposal.

c. In addition to the information provided above, the Government may obtain and evaluate additional past performance information from the Client on the submitted projects, or other relevant projects completed by the Offeror outside the time period of seven (7) years from the date this solicitation was issued. The Government may contact and interview the Client (on a submitted contract) and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed owners or the owner’s representative listed as a reference if the listed reference is not available. The Government may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information that it discovers on predecessor companies. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the submitted example contracts.

d. In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have an Unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability / unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

C.2.4 The Government will use the ratings in Table C-2 below to determine an Offeror’s Past Performance Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Table C-2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note above).

UNACCEPTABLE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

C.3 Factor 3: Technical - Plant and Equipment

C.3.1 The Offeror's Technical proposal serves as evidence to establish that the Offeror has hydraulic dredging equipment and other essential major plant, equipment, support vessels, barges, tugs, etc., required to execute the tasks outlined in this Request for Proposal. The information provided for this Factor must demonstrate the hydraulic dredging equipment has the capacity for a minimum production rate of 4,000 cy/day, or 20,000 cy/week.

C.3.2 The Offeror shall provide documentation for:

1. Equipment proposed for this contract: Identify and describe all major pieces of equipment (dredges, support vessels, barges, tugs, disposal equipment, etc.) that the Offeror proposes to utilize in the performance of this contract. This list will be evaluated for adequacy.

2. Additional available equipment: Identify other major dredging plant and support equipment owned, leased, or otherwise under the Offeror’s control that could be made available in the event of breakdown, schedule acceleration, or other contract needs. This list will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s depth of resources and ability to respond to contingencies.

C.3.3 The Government will evaluate the Technical factor on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis based on the descriptions outlined in Table C-3. Offerors who are determined “Unacceptable” will not be eligible for award.

Table C-3. Technical Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE The Offeror has demonstrated: (1) that they have adequate equipment to hydraulically dredge at least 4,000 cy/day, or 20,000 cy/week, and (2) that they have the depth of resources and ability to respond to contingencies.

UNACCEPTABLE The Offeror has not demonstrated: (1) that they have adequate equipment to hydraulically dredge at least 4,000 cy/day, or 20,000 cy/week, and (2) that they have the depth of resources and ability to respond to contingencies.

C.3.4 The Government reserves the right to inspect the working plant and operating equipment of the apparent lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror. This inspection is to confirm that the equipment aligns with the equipment being proposed and is in good operating condition.

This inspection would be conducted prior to award of the contract.

D. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

D.1 General Instructions to Offerors

This is an all-electronic solicitation release. No hard copies of the solicitation will be mailed.

Notifications and Amendments to the solicitations will be posted to https://sam.gov/. It is the responsibility of each Offeror to review the webpage for notice of amendments, updates, or changes to current information. Responsibility for source selection resides with the Government.

Proprietary information submitted in response to this solicitation will be protected from unauthorized disclosure as required by Subsection 27 of the Office of Procurement Policy Act as amended (41 U.S.C. Sections 2101-2107) and as implemented in the FAR. Proposals shall be unclassified and treated as Source Selection Sensitive Information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.204).

D.2 Proposal Format

D.2.1 File Organization: Each file must be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Text size must be no smaller than what is equivalent to Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 11 point. A page is defined as one 8 ½ x 11-inch paper with printing on one side of the paper. Line spacing settings must be at least one and one-half (1 ½) line spacing. Margins on all four (4) edges of each page must be at least 1-inch. The proposal must be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the volumes. The information presented should be organized to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the volume that the information is presented.

D.2.2 Each Volume must be organized in the following order and submitted as a single file with the expectation of volume attachments and/or size limitations:

a. Cover Sheet. The cover sheet must be clearly marked as to Volume number, title, solicitation identification, and the Offeror’s name. The cover sheet will not count against page counts.

b. Table of Contents. The table of contents must include all charts, illustrations, tables and any attachments for the Volume. The table of contents will not count against page counts.

c. Glossary. The glossary must contain all abbreviations and acronyms used in the volume with an explanation for each. The glossary will not count against page counts.

D.2.3 File Size Limitation: Offerors are advised to limit email attachments to a limit of 10MB in total per email. If needed, Offerors are advised to break files down into smaller sections to ensure file delivery.

D.2.4 File Naming Convention: To ensure an Offeror’s submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties carefully ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

W912EK25RA023-FIRM_NAME_VOL 1

W912EK25RA023-FIRM_NAME_VOL 2

W912EK25RA023-FIRM_NAME_VOL 3

W912EK25RA023-FIRM_NAME_VOL 4

D.2.5 The following Volumes will be submitted and evaluated:

Volume 1: Price (Factor 1)

Volume 2: Past Performance (Factor 2) Volume 3: Plant and Equipment (Factor 3)

D.2.6 Joint Venture Proposal Requirements: When proposing as joint venture, all members of the Joint Venture must sign the SF 1442 and prove bonding capability of both firms, unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. In addition, a copy of the joint venture agreement must be submitted with the proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may result in the joint venture’s proposal being excluded from further consideration for award.

D.3 Proposal Submittals

D.3.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the Offeror’s specialized experience necessary for successful completion of the solicitated project.

Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the Offeror’s proposal being excluded from further consideration for award.

D.3.2 Offerors must submit their proposals electronically via email to Katherine.D.Behrens@usace.army.mil and Jeffrey.R.Voss@usace.army.mil of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contracting Division, Rock Island District no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the Standard Form 1442.

NOTE: The Rock Island District is in the Central Time Zone. No hard copies will be accepted.

D.3.3 Proposal Submission and Deadline: Interested Offerors must submit proposals no later than the time and date specific on the SF 1442. The time and date of proposal receipt will be the delivery time and date recorded upon email receipt. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously; it usually takes at least a few minutes. Large files will take some time to transmit, potentially up to one hour or longer. Offerors should time their submission effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes – this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process and email receipt. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of their submission for their record. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

D.4 Proposal Submission Requirements

D.4.1 Each volume shall be submitted as a separate PDF file. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its title.

Table D-1 illustrates the volumes of material that shall be submitted:

Table D-1: Proposal Submission Requirements

VOLUME TITLE

DIGITAL

COPIES

MAXIMUM

PAGES

Volume 1 - Price 1 N/A

Signed SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments

Schedule of Prices

Representations, Certifications, and other Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents

Bid Guarantee (Bid Bonds)

Joint Venture and/or Articles of Organization for LLC, if applicable

Volume 2 – Past Performance 1 40

Volume 3 – Plant and Equipment 1 20

Note: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government. Pages submitted for organization purpose to include cover sheets, title pages, and indexes do not count toward to page limitations. Past Performance Questionnaires do not count toward page limitations.

D.4.2 Content Organization

All information must be confined to the appropriate file. The Offeror must confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information must be clearly marked. Each volume of the proposal must consist of a Table of Contents, along with the detailed information provided below:

APPENDIX D

Enclosure 1

USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information

Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain)

Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information

Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work: High Med Routine

How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information

Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: USACE requests that the client completes this questionnaire and submits directly back to the Offeror.

The Offeror will submit the completed questionnaire to USACE with their proposal and may duplicate this questionnaire for future submission on USACE solicitations. Clients are highly encouraged to submit questionnaires directly to the Offeror. However, questionnaires may be submitted directly to USACE. Please contact the Offeror for USACE POC information. The Government reserves the right to verify any and all information on this form.

USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR

EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

Form PPQ -0

RATING DEFINITION

NOTE

(E) Exceptional

Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good

Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory

Performance met minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal

Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflected a serious problem for which the contractor did not perform satisfactory corrective actions. The contractor's corrective actions were only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery was not made in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contained serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions, if any, were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING

WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR EVALUATION

OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical work completed E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort

E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control (if applicable) E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple disciplines within the project

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to requested changes

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary)

APPENDIX D

Enclosure 2

EXPERIENCE INFORMATION

(To be completed by Contractor)

If the Offeror is in a Joint Venture, identify which contractor in the Joint Venture Completed the contract.

1. Contractor: Name:

DUNS:

CAGE Code:

2. Contract /Task Order(TO) /Purchase Order (PO) Number:

3. Contract/TO/PO Award Amount:

4. Contract/TO /PO Status: Period of Performance:

Original Completion Date: Percent Complete: %

Actual Completion Date (with time extensions):

Award Date: Final Contract Price: Percent of work performed by Prime:

Contract Title and Location (city, state):

Type of Contract (Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build, Work Plan Construct, Firm Fixed-Price, Cost Plus, etc.):

Contract Description (Narrative Description) -- to include the role of the contractor on the contract and specific responsibilities of the contractor in performance of the effort:

Type / scope of work performed by the Offeror:

Type / scope of work performed by Subcontractors:

Quality Awards, Letters of Appreciation, etc.

7. Project Owner or Project Manager for the Client – provide:

Name:

Telephone Number and E-mail: