A22 W912P920R0003 MATOC.pdf

SOLICITATION, OFFER, 1. SOLICITA TlON NO. 2. TYPE OF SOLICITA TlON 3. DA 1E ISSUED PAGE OF PAGES

AND AWARD □ SEALEDBID (FB) 14-Jul-2020 (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

W912P920R0003

� NEGOTIA 1ED

(RFP)

IMPORTANT-The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offerer.

4. CONTRACT NO. 5. REQUISITlON/PUROiASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

7. ISSUEDBY CODE IW912P9 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7) CODE I

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY ENGR DIST ST LOUIS See Item 7

1222 SPRUCE STREET, RM 4.207

ST LOUIS MO 63103-2833

lEL: FAX: 314 331-8746 lEL: FAX:

9. FOR INFORMI\ TION A.NAIVE B. TB.EPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

CALL: ANGIE L GRl\tES 314 331-8965

SOLICITATION

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMI\NCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCl.M:NTS (Title, identifying no., date):

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (IIM TOC) for MVS Civil Works & Flood Recovery Projects

Work under this solicitation includes providing all plant, labor, materials, equiprrent, and incidentals for the construction of various civil and flood recovery projects w ilhin the St. Louis District (MVS) Area of Responsibility (AOR). Recovery projects include but are not limited to surveying, earthwork operations, borrow operations, lirre-treated embankrrent operations, care of water, various stone surfacing/placerrent, various access road repairs, installation of stone armored protection, installation and rehabilitation of drainage structures and associated apertures, sheet pile construction, concrete repair and rehabilitation, relief well rehabilitation and replacerrent, carrera inspection & slip-lining existing drainage structures, and establishrrent of turf for repairs.

This will be a five (5) year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (IIM TOC).

Disclosure of magnitude will be given during tirre of request for task order proposal.

The assigned NAICS Code is 237990. The total capacity for this (IIM TOC) is $95M.

This requirerrent is Small Business Set-Aside.

11. The Contractor shall begin performance within 10 calendar days and complete ii within calendar days after receiving

Daw ard, 0 notice to proceed. This performance period is � mandatory, D negotiable. (See 52.211-10 .)

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMI\NCEAND PA YM:NT BONDS? 128. CALENDAR DAYS (If "YES," indicate v.nthin how many calendar days after award in Item 128.)

�YES □ NO

13. ADDITlONAL SOLIOTATION REQUIB.ENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and 4 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by 10:00 AM (hour) local tirre 14 Aug 2020 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that tirre. Sealed envelopes containing offers shall be marked to show the offerer's narre and address, the solicitation number, and the date and tirre offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee Dis, � is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) work requirerrents, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than 120

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

calendar days for Governrrent acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.

1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(8)

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job

MVS CIVIL WORK & FLOOD RECOVERY MATOC

FFP

NOTE: The guaranteed minimum is $500.00 FOB: Destination

NET AMT

Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers

SECTIONS L

SECTION III

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1) Awards will be made in accordance with Class Deviation 2018-O0006, Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple Award Task or Delivery Order Contracts, dated December 13, 2017. The Government intends to award a contract to each and all qualifying offerors. A qualifying offeror is an offeror who is determined to be a responsible source; who submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; and whom the Contracting Officer has no reason to believe would likely offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

a. Responsibility: Offerors will be determined to be a responsible source by completing and submitting the responsibility determination included within this procurement. The Contracting Officer will review the information submitted and utilize the information to make a responsibility determination for each offeror.

b. Technical Acceptance: The Contracting Officer will review the technical submissions of each offeror to make a determination as to the technical acceptability of each offeror.

c. Fair and Reasonable Pricing: The Contracting Officer may utilize historical and/or past performance information to make a determination that there is no reason to believe that an offeror will offer other than fair and reasonable pricing

2) The Government intends to make award without holding discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Sources Selection Authority (SSA) determines them to be necessary. Therefore, offerors are encouraged to include their best terms and conditions in the initial offer.

3) The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15, Source Selection procedures (and adhering to the Class Deviation 2018-O0006). Offers will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria listed below in paragraph B. Noncompliance with the solicitation requirements may raise serious questions regarding an offeror’s technical ability or past performance and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract awards. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the solicitation will be considered unacceptable.

4) The Contracting Officer will begin the evaluation process by conducting a proposal compliance review for all timely-received proposals to determine basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators (the Source Selection Team). Failure to provide a complete proposal may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award. Failure to address any factor shall be grounds for elimination from evaluation and consideration for award.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS

1) The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each technical proposal:

FACTOR 1 – Technical Approach

Sub-Factor (a) – Key Personnel

Sub-Factor (b) – Demonstrated Experience

Sub-Factor (c) – Management Approach

FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

2) Factors 1 will receive one of two ratings: Acceptable or Unacceptable. Failure to submit or demonstrate any of the minimum requirements associated with any Sub-Factor shall result in an Unacceptable Technical Rating for Factor 1.

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3) Factor 2 will receive one of two ratings: Acceptable or Unacceptable.

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.

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.

The solicitation evaluation criteria attached in Appendix C describe the details of this source selection’s evaluation factors that offerors must achieve in order to demonstrate a technical proposal that meets the requirements of this solicitation. The offeror’s proposal must receive an Acceptable rating on all factors and sub-factors to be determined technically qualified. Offerors receiving an Unacceptable rating on any single factor or sub-factor will be deemed overall Unacceptable and will not be considered for award.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection procedures (and adhering to the Class Deviation 2018-O0006). Offers will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria as described in the solicitation and this source selection plan.

1. The source selection process will follow the sequence outlined below:

a. Issue Solicitation

b. Receive Proposals

c. Conduct Initial Evaluation

d. Present Findings to SSA

e. Conduct Discussions (if needed)

f. Conduct Interim Evaluation (if discussions conducted)

g. Present Findings to SSA (if discussions conducted)

h. Request and Receive Final Proposal Revisions (if needed)

i. Conduct Final Evaluation (if needed)

j. Present Findings to SSA

k. SSA Decision

2. Evaluation Policies

a. The principal purpose of the evaluation procedure is to provide a sound basis for the SSA to make an informed judgment. The evaluation methodology and techniques employed should enhance the quality, credibility and confidence levels in the adequacy of the evaluation results. The evaluation process, therefore, must be consistent, well thought out, adequately staffed, managed, and carried out in a professional, comprehensive and objective manner. It must frame the elements for the selection decision with sufficient clarity and visibility so that the SSA will be able to make a sound decision within a short time period.

b. Proposal evaluation requires a mixture of fact finding and reporting and the application of professional judgment to provide a comprehensive picture of the adequacy of each proposal. This requires:

a) Examination and judgment of the merits of each proposal as compared to the criteria established for evaluation.

b) Validation of the information, estimates and projections of each offeror as presented in their proposal.

c) Summarization of the detailed evaluation results accompanied by analysis in sufficient depth to give visibility to any significant findings or reservations.

3. Before the evaluation begins, each member of the SSEB will receive a rating package containing the following:

a. This SSP.

b. The RFP.

c. Individual Rating Sheets (Appendix C-1)

d. Consensus Rating Sheets (Appendix C-2)

4. Proposal Evaluation

a. All proposals will be received by the PCO not later than the hour and date given in the RFP. The

SSEB will control all copies of the offerors’ proposals and other associated data.

b. Upon receipt of proposals, evaluators will read their applicable section to gain an understanding of the level of the information and determine if errors, omissions or deficiencies exist. Major problems will be reported to the SSEB Chairperson. The SSEB Chairperson will notify the PCO of any major problems.

c. For each proposal, the SSEB will engage in discussions with the goal of achieving a consensus rating for each factor as set forth above. The SSEB Chairperson will prepare a narrative summary for each factor along with the recommended rating.

d. The SSEB Chairperson will use the narrative summaries and recommended ratings to prepare an overall summary report (the Initial Evaluation Report). The SSEB Chairperson will consolidate the inputs from each of the evaluation teams for presentation to the SSA. The PCO and the SSEB Chairperson shall ensure that proposals are evaluated solely on the evaluation criteria contained in the RFP. All evaluation narratives shall be reviewed by the PCO, Legal Counsel, and the SSEB Chairperson for completeness and compliance with the solicitation. This report will be forwarded to the SSA and shall contain the assessment for each factor and the supporting rationale.

e. Any proposal(s) which the PCO determines, with SSA approval, to not be among the technically acceptable proposals will be eliminated, and the offeror(s) will be so informed.

f. The SSA reserves the right to conduct discussions with each offeror.

g. If discussions are held, the SSEB through the PCO shall indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror the following: (a) any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond, (b) significant weaknesses, and (c) any deficiencies that have been identified during the evaluation. This is accomplished through the release of Evaluation Notices (ENs). ENs are prepared by the SSEB and reviewed by the PCO and Legal Counsel. All ENs shall clearly indicate the type of exchange being conducted (e.g. clarification, communication, etc.). Any EN addressing a proposal deficiency or weakness shall clearly indicate that a deficiency/weakness exists. The PCO may discuss other aspects of the offeror’s proposal that could in the opinion of the PCO be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award. However, the PCO is not required to discuss every area where the proposal could be improved as outlined at FAR 15.306(d) and (e). All discussions shall be documented in writing.

h. The SSEB shall prepare a written narrative report documenting the evaluation results. The report shall be in sufficient detail to serve as a clear and concise record of the source selection decision and shall be included in the contract file. The report must be suitable to serve as the official record of SSEB proceedings in support of source selections. The results of the evaluation shall be presented to the SSA.

i. In the event that there is significant disagreement among the SSEB members regarding the evaluation results that should be presented to the SSA, a minority opinion(s) shall also be presented providing the SSA with sufficient information to fully consider the minority view(s).

5. Source Selection.

a. The SSA shall make the final decision as to whether an Offeror is technically acceptable in accordance with established criteria in Section 00100 of the RFP. This decision shall be based on the SSA’s assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, considering recommendations and minority opinions presented to the SSA. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment.

b. The SSA shall document the supporting rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document. An SSDD shall reflect the SSA's independent, integrated, assessment and decision; and shall be included in the source selection file. The SSDD shall be the single summary document supporting selection of which proposals demonstrate which Offerors are technically acceptable consistent with the stated evaluation criteria; it shall clearly explain the decision and document the reasoning used by the SSA to reach the decision consistent with Class Deviation 2018-O0006, FAR 15.308.

6. Definitions

a. Rating. The Acceptable/Unacceptable rating assigned by the evaluators’ to the Technical Factors represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying how the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

b. Factor Rating Definitions. SSEB will use Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings to evaluate the Technical Factors other than Past Performance. Keep in mind that mere promises to comply with contractual requirements are insufficient basis for a favorable rating; evidence is required in support of any statements relating to promised performance. Also, the chosen rating must be supported by the evaluator’s narrative reason(s) for the choice. The components of each technical factor will be assessed to determine if the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Each factor will be assigned an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating based upon these collective findings. Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the information set forth in the RFP.

7. Findings Definitions.

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear

(e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPPIS.”

8. Announcement of Selection. The PCO will make the announcement of the selection of a successful contractor(s) directly or through his/her designee.

9. Debriefing of Unsuccessful Offerors. The PCO shall ensure offerors are debriefed, if requested, in accordance with FAR 15.505 and FAR 15.506, as applicable. The PCO shall document the debriefing(s) provided to offeror(s). At the request of the PCO, members of the SST shall participate in debriefings to offerors.

SECTION M

APPENDIX C

EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING CRITERIA

GENERAL NOTES:

Note 1: For submission of technical evaluation information based on a Subcontractor, Joint Venture, or Teaming Arrangement please refer to Section L, Paragraph 13, 14, and 15 of the RFP for additional submission requirements to receive credit for experience or past performance of a Sub-Contractor, Joint Venture Partner, or Teaming Arrangement Partner.

(1) TAB A – VOLUME 1, FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

There are three (3) Sub-Factors associated with this evaluation factor. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s submitted information and experience under these Sub-Factors to determine if the contractors indicate technical capability to meet the requirements as specified within the contract specifications to accomplish work. To be considered for technical acceptance the contractor shall submit all required information under each Sub-Factor and such information shall meet the minimum technically acceptable requirements as defined in Section 00 20 00, Section M of the RFP.

i. SUB-FACTOR (a) - KEY PERSONNEL (10 Page Limitation)

A. Submission Requirements

a. The offeror must submit documentation demonstrating availability and employment of personnel that are qualified and experienced to serve as Contract Quality Control (CQC) System Managers:

• Contract Quality Control (CQC) System Manager: CQC System Manager shall be responsible for ensuring the Contractor meets the basic requirements of Quality construction in accordance with the contract requirements on each specific task order.

Submit the following minimum documentation.

i. The Offeror shall submit verification of full time positions employed and staffed with personnel that can serve as Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Managers to demonstrate that the offeror currently employs Qualified and Experienced Personnel that can serve as CQC System. CQC System Managers must be full-time employees of the offeror. A minimum of one individual shall be submitted.

ii. Submit Construction Quality Management for Contractors (CQM) certificates for full time personnel that serve as CQC System Managers to demonstrate that the offeror employs CQC System Managers that have completed the (CQM) course within the past 5 years from date of this RFP. If certificates have expired or have not yet been obtained, the offeror shall submit documentation indicating how the offeror intends to obtain CQM certification within 90 calendar days from award of contract.

iii. Submit experience and documentation for personnel to serve as CQC System Managers demonstrating that the personnel are either a graduate engineer or graduate of construction management, with a minimum of 3 years construction experience on construction similar to this contract or is a construction person with a minimum of 5 years in related work as a construction manager.

B. Evaluation Criteria

Key Personnel Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Acceptable: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. Minimum required documentation included and submitted that demonstrates availability of qualified and experienced Contract Quality Control (CQC) System Managers.

To be rated Technically Acceptable for this factor the contractor must meet the minimum requirements. Failure to submit or demonstrate any of the minimum requirements shall result in an Unacceptable Technical Rating:

a. Contract Quality Control (CQC) System Manager: Minimum requirements for this item to be rated Technically Acceptable include:

i. Submission of verification of full time positions employed and staffed with personnel that can serve as Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Managers.

ii. Submitted proof via certificate that full time personnel to serve as CQC System

Manager has completed the Construction Quality Management for Contractors (CQM) course within the past 5 years from date of this RFP or has provided a plan indicating how designated representatives shall obtain CQM Certification within 90 calendar days from date of award.

iii. Experience and/or education meets requirements and offeror demonstrated that an individual is available and is competent and capable of successfully completing the roles of CQC System Manager in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation. Minimum required documentation is not included for Contract Quality Control (CQC) System Manager and/or documentation provided does not demonstrate acceptable qualifications and experience. Required information for each position is not provided.

ii. SUB-FACTOR (b) – DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE (20 Page Limitation)

The offeror shall submit experience for project requirements specific to this solicitation to demonstrate that the contractor has technical knowledge and capability to ensure work is completed in accordance with the contract specifications. Offeror shall submit for each Work Item identified below the following minimum documentation: (i) minimum of 1 relevant/similar project indicating experience on actual performance of the work item identified. (ii) Name, phone, and email of customer in which projects were performed for. (iii) Description of work performed on the project which demonstrates offeror has experience and capability to perform the specific work item of this solicitation.

Relevant/Similar projects shall be defined as projects that are the same or similar in scope and complexity of the work item specified.

Demonstrated Experience submitted that is to be subcontracted must include a letter of subcontractor commitment signed by both the offeror and the subcontractor.

The offeror shall submit all documentation as identified above for each of the following Work

Items identified below to be considered for evaluation of technical acceptance. Failure to submit minimum required documentation for each item shall result in an Unacceptable Technical Rating:

a. Levee Repair and Rehabilitation

b. Hydrated Lime Treated Embankment Repair

c. Relief Well Installation, Rehabilitation, or Repair

d. Slip Lining of Existing Drainage Pipes

For submission of technical evaluation information or experience based on a Subcontractor, please refer to Section L, Paragraph 14 – Subcontractor Experience/Past Performance.

Experience Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. Minimum required documentation included and submitted for each work item identified and documentation demonstrates that the contractor has capability and experience, to ensure work is completed in accordance with the contract specifications. To be rated Technically Acceptable for this factor the contractor must meet the following minimum requirements for each work item. Failure to submit or demonstrate any of the minimum requirements shall result in an Unacceptable Technical Rating:

a. Levee Repair and Rehabilitation. Minimum requirements for this item to be rated Technically Acceptable include:

i. Submission of a minimum of 1 Levee Repair and Rehabilitation project demonstrating that the offeror or their proposed Subcontractor has experience and has performed the specific work item of this solicitation.

ii. Submission of name, phone, and email of customer in which projects were performed for.

iii. Description of work performed on the project and documentation demonstrates that the contractor has capability and experience to complete levee repair and rehabilitation efforts.

b. Hydrated Lime Treated Embankment Repair. Minimum requirements for this item to be rated

Technically Acceptable include:

i. Submission of a minimum of 1 Hydrated Lime Treated or similar Embankment Repair project demonstrating that the offeror or their proposed Subcontractor has experience and has performed the specific work item of this solicitation.

ii. Submission of name, phone, and email of customer in which projects were performed for.

iii. Description of work performed on the project and documentation demonstrates that the contractor has capability and experience to complete lime treated embankment repairs.

c. Relief Well Installation, Rehabilitation, or Repair. Minimum requirements for this item to be rated Technically Acceptable include:

i. Submission of a minimum of 1 Relief Well Installation, Rehabilitation, or Repair project demonstrating that the offeror or their proposed Subcontractor has experience and has performed the specific work item of this solicitation.

ii. Submission of name, phone, and email of customer in which projects were performed for.

iii. Description of work performed on the project and documentation demonstrates that the contractor has capability and experience to complete relief well installation, rehabilitation, or repair efforts.

d. Slip Lining of Existing Drainage Pipe. Minimum requirements for this item to be rated

Technically Acceptable include:

i. Submission of a minimum of 1 Slip Lining project demonstrating that the offeror or their proposed Subcontractor has experience and has performed the specific work item of this solicitation.

ii. Submission of name, phone, and email of customer in which projects were performed for.

iii. Description of work performed on the project and documentation demonstrates that the contractor has capability and experience to complete slip lining of existing drainage pipes.

documentation is not included demonstrating experience and/or documentation provided, does not demonstrate that the contractor has capability and experience to complete work items. Required information for each work item is not provided.

iii. SUB-FACTOR (c) – MANAGEMENT PLAN (35 Page Limitation)

The offeror shall submit a Management Plan to be utilized on this requirement. For the Management Plan, the offeror shall submit all documentation for each item identified below to be considered for evaluation of technical acceptance, failure to submit minimum required documentation for each item shall result in an Unacceptable Technical Rating:

a. Organizational Structure: Identify the organization structure with respective levels of authority for Management, Project Support, Quality Control, and Safety to be utilized for responding to and managing multiple contract task orders issued simultaneously. In addition to submitting and organization chart, identify capability to manage two or more concurrent task orders and methods to organize and supplement project teams and crews to support two or more concurrent task orders.

b. Work Distribution: The offeror must provide a complete and organized plan, showing what work will be subcontracted and to whom, what work will be done by the offeror’s own forces, and the experience of the company in performing the specific work for the primary definable features of work identified below. Work to be subcontracted must include a letter of subcontractor commitment signed by both the offeror and the subcontractor.

1. Earthwork operations for levee repairs

2. Hydrated Lime-treated embankment treatments

3. Stone surfacing and stone armor protection

4. Installation and rehabilitation of drainage structures

5. Concrete repair and rehabilitation

6. Relief well rehabilitation and replacement

7. Camera inspection & slip-lining existing drainage structures

Management Approach Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. Minimum required documentation included and the submitted documentation demonstrates that the contractor has an acceptable Management Plan.

To be rated Technically Acceptable for this factor the contractor must meet the following minimum requirements for each item identified below. Failure to submit or demonstrate any of the minimum requirements shall result in an Unacceptable Technical Rating:

a. Organizational Structure: Minimum requirements for this item to be rated Technically

Acceptable include:

i. Organizational Structure demonstrates an overall management/ organizational structure and respective levels of authority that will manage projects.

ii. Organizational Structure demonstrates that the offeror has a Quality Control and

Safety Corporate Structure.

iii. Offeror demonstrates they can provide, organize, and coordinate project teams and crews to effectively support two or more concurrent task orders.

b. Work Distribution: Minimum requirement for this item to be rated Technically Acceptable include:

i. Offeror identifies what definable features of work will be performed by the offeror’s own forces and plan demonstrates experience to self-perform.

ii. Offeror identifies what definable features of work will be performed by subcontractors, signed letters of subcontractor commitment are included for all subcontractor efforts, and plan demonstrates experience of subcontractors to perform work.

iii. Documentation identifies who will perform all primary definable features of work as identified below:

1. Earthwork operations for levee repairs

2. Hydrated Lime-treated embankment treatments

3. Stone surfacing and stone armor protection

4. Installation and rehabilitation of drainage structures

5. Concrete repair and rehabilitation

6. Relief well rehabilitation and replacement

7. Camera inspection & slip-lining existing drainage structures documentation is not included for management plan and/or documentation provided, does not demonstrate that the contractor has an acceptable Management Plan. Required information for item is not provided.

(2) TAB B – VOLUME 1, FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE. (25 Page Limitation)

Proposal shall include at least three (3) and up to five (5) projects using the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) forms. The past performance evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent (within the last 10 years) past performance information that pertain to the construction services outlined in this RFP. The Government will also query the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to validate past performance information the Government deems necessary to evaluate a contractor’s past performance. Firms without a history of relevant past performance will be given a “Neutral” rating. Specifically, the offeror shall identify one past performance project for each of the following:

i. Earthwork Operations for Levee Repairs

ii. Relief Well Rehabilitation and Replacement

iii. Slip-Lining Existing Drainage Structures

For submission of Past Performance information based on a Subcontractor, Joint Venture, or Teaming Arrangement please refer to Section L, Paragraph 13, 14, and 15 of the RFP for additional submission requirements to receive credit for experience or past performance of a Sub-Contractor, Joint Venture Partner, or Teaming Arrangement Partner.

The offeror must ensure correct phone and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with the proposals if possible. If the offeror is unable to obtain a PPQ from a client for a project (s) before proposal closing date, the offerors should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (ATTACHMENT 1) which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the clients request, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Angie Grimes via email at: Angie.L.Grimes@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the Government has received a minimum of three (3) questionnaires prior to the date/time listed for receiving proposals or has provided written notification that they have had no previous clients and that the minimum number of questionnaires cannot be provided. Offerors shall submit actual PPQs rather than referencing PPQs submitted previously for other RFPs.

However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

In addition to the above, 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); using all CAGE/DUNS number of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal; inquiries of owner representative(s); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the reference documentation is provided, as the Government may not make additional requests for past performance information from the references. The evaluation form should be provided to the Contract Specialist directly from the reference. The Government may contact references provided as part of the Factor for Experience, for information regarding the offeror’s past performance on the project and for the purposes of assessing and verifying the scope of work performed.

i. The Government will evaluate past performance either as acceptable or unacceptable. The recency and relevancy of the information (as determined by the Government), the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance may be considered.

ii. Past Performance on projects shall be the same or similar in scope and complexity.

iii. For the purpose of the past performance evaluation, offerors shall be defined to include business arrangements and relationships, such as Joint Venture participants, teaming partners, and key subcontractor(s). The past performance record of each firm in the business arrangement may be evaluated by the Government.

To receive credit for past performance by a Sub-Contractor, or work which the prime Contractor previously performed as a Sub-Contractor to another prime, the PPQ must state in detail the nature of the work performed as a Sub-Contractor, the total percentage of the overall contract performed as a Sub-Contractor and the total amount of work performed as a Sub-Contractor.

To receive credit for past performance as a Joint Venture, the PPQ form must state in detail the nature of the work performed by both of the Joint Venture partners, the total percentage of the work performed by both of the Joint Venture partners, and the total amount of work performed by both of the Joint Venture partners.

To receive credit for past performance as a Teaming Arrangement, the PPQ form must state in detail the nature of the work performed by both of the Teaming Partners, the total percentage of the work performed by each partner, and the total amount of the work performed by each partner.

iv. The Performance Assessment Reporting System will be utilized to validate past performance ratings on Department of Defense contracts, as well as any other past performance information the Government has available to evaluate a contractor’s past performance. The Government may contact references provided as part of this factor for the purposes of assessing and verifying the scope of the work performed. Offerors shall provide accurate, current, and complete contact information for references provided in the project descriptions.

Offerors must demonstrate the following acceptability standards to receive an “ACCEPTABLE” rating:

1. Demonstrates that acceptable quality work has been previously delivered on similar project(s).

2. Demonstrates timely completion on previously delivered similar project(s).

3. All past or current references have overall ratings of satisfactory or above.

4. All past or current references indicate that the contractor would be recommended to perform work in the future.

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant 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 unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable

ATTACHMENT 1

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)- Attachment 1 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:

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR

EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE.

E = EXCELLENT, VG = VERY GOOD, S = SATISFACTORY, M = MARGINAL, U =

UNSATISFACTORY, N= NOT APPLICABLE

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts 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 E VG S M U N

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

E

VG

S

M

U

N

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 identified in the contract E VG S M U N

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;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer? E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT PERSONEL/LABOR:

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force. E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control 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 projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

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

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program) E VG S M U N

W912P920R0003

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s) E VG S M U N

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. E VG S M U N

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.

YES NO

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. E VG S M U N

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. E VG S M U N

E = EXCELLENT, VG = VERY GOOD, S = SATISFACTORY, M = MARGINAL,

U = UNSATISFACTORY, N= NOT APPLICABLE

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 (attach additional pages if necessary):

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional

(VG) Very Good

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

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

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 meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the feature or sub- factor contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or 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 does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the feature or sub- factor being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear 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 does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the feature or sub-factor contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or 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.

APPENDIX F

RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION FORM

The following information is provided to assist the Contracting Officer in determining whether or not the proposed contractor meets the general standards of responsibility enumerated at FAR 9.104-1 and DFARS 209.104-1.FAR 9.104-1 General Standards. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must:

a) HAVE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT, OR THEABILITY TO OBTAIN THEM (SEE 9.104-3(b))

Financial Statements

Provide a copy of the latest financial statements (Balance Sheet and Income Statement. If the financial statements are older than one year, furnish a statement as to the current financial status of the company.

Banking References

Provide signed reference on letterhead from financial institution supporting each banking reference.

Bank Name____________________ Address:______________________________ Telephone#:_____________________ POC:________________________________ Title:________________________ Length of time with bank:___________________ Credit Rating________________ Number/type of accounts:____________________ Amount in each account (#of Figures):__________Credit line:___________________ Secured/Unsecured_______________ Outstanding loans:_____________________

Bank Name____________________ Address:______________________________ Telephone#:_____________________ POC:________________________________ Title:________________________ Length of time with bank:___________________ Credit Rating________________ Number/type of accounts:____________________ Amount in each account (#of Figures):__________Credit line:___________________ Secured/Unsecured_______________ Outstanding loans:_____________________

b) HAVE A SATISFACTORY RECORD OF INTEGRITY AND BUSINESS ETHICS

Trade References

1st company:_______________ Telephone #:_______________ Address:________________Name:_________________Title:_______________________

Length of time with company:___________________ Credit line:_______________ Average monthly business:_____________________ High credit: Payment history:___________________ Takes discounts:_____________

2nd company:_______________ Telephone #:_______________ Address:________________Name:_________________Title:_______________________ Length of time with company:___________________ Credit line:_______________ Average monthly business:_____________________ High credit: Payment history:___________________ Takes discounts:_____________

c) HAVE THE NECESSARY ORGANIZATION, EXPERIENCE, ACCOUNTING AND OPERATIONAL

CONTROLS, AND TECHNICAL SKILLS, OR THE ABILITY TO OBTAIN THEM (INCLUDING, AS

APPROPRIATE, SUCH ELEMENTS AS PRODUCTION CONTROL PROCEDURES, PROPERTY

CONTROL SYSTEMS, QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES, AND SAFETY PROGRAMS

APPLICABLE TO MATERIALS TO BE PRODUCED OR SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE

PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTORS) (SEE 9.104-3(b))

Workman's Compensation Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

2016 _____2017_____ 2018___________

Note: An EMR greater than 1.0 must be explained and supported documentation provided.