Continuation Page.pdf

J – Attachments

PWS NIWTP Biosolids Sludge Dryer Alternative M002

IBWC Form 110 Certification of Authority for Signing Bids - Contracts.pdf

IBWC Form 116 Statement of Equipment.pdf

IBWC Form 358 Nondisclosure Agreement.pdf

Sludge Dewatering System-Part 1.pdf

Sludge Dewatering System-Part 2.pdf

Wage Determinations 2015-5481 Rev 26 Dated 12/22/2024

L.2 – Bid Submission

Offerors shall submit their bid package electronically to seone.jones@ibwc.gov, limited to under 24MB per email. As a part of the bid package, please submit the following:

• SF 1442: Offerors shall submit a completed and signed SF 1442 as a part of their bid package, including pricing.

• Amendments: Offerors shall provide acknowledgement of ALL amendments issued against the

Invitation for Bid as a part of their bid package.

• IBWC Form 110: Offerors shall submit a completed IBWC Form 110 as a part of their bid package.

• IBWC Form 116: Offerors shall submit a completed IBWC Form 116 as a part of their bid package.

• IBWC Form 117: Offerors shall submit a completed IBWC Form 117 as a part of their bid package.

• Section K: Offerors shall provide a completed Section K as a part of their bid package. Note: in accordance with the provision at 52.204-8, if the provision at 52.204-7 is included, paragraph (d) of

52.204-8 applies. Offerors shall check the appropriate box for the provision at 52.209-7 as part of their submission.

• Submit any advertisements, materials, product documentation and specifications of proposed equipment.

• Statement of Qualifications: Offerors shall provide a Statement of Qualifications in accordance with

Subsection L.04 as a part of their bid package.

• Subsection L.05: Offerors shall provide the Contractor’s Contract Administrator as a part of their bid package. Failure to provide any of the information as requested above will result in the Offeror being found nonresponsive.

L.4 Qualifications of Bidders

(a) Each bidder shall furnish with his bid a Statement of Equipment, IBWC Form 116 and a Statement of

Qualifications setting forth the following information:

1. Location and description of the Bidder's permanent place of business.

2. List of similar projects, with contract amounts, completed by the Bidder.

3. List of work Bidder currently has under contract.

4. For items 2 and 3 above, Bidder shall include the names, email addresses, and current telephone numbers of individuals employed by the owner of the project who can provide information regarding the quality, timeliness and financial aspects of the project.

5. Recent Financial Statement to include any audits or reviews.

6. Any additional information required to show that the Bidder is adequately prepared to fulfill the contract.

mailto:seone.jones@ibwc.gov

(b) The Bidder's statement and supporting documentation shall be submitted in a separately sealed envelope enclosed in the sealed envelope containing the bid. The envelope containing the Bidder's statement shall be plainly marked as follows:

Statement of Qualifications of

(Name of Bidder)

(c) The statement will be returned to the Bidder unopened unless it is necessary to open the envelope for the purpose of determining the award. The statement submitted by the successful Bidder will be retained.

Failure to enclose the Bidder's statement with the bid will constitute basis for the rejection of the bid.

(d) No bid will be accepted if the bidder answers "NO" to any of the minimum qualification questions in the "Minimum Qualifications Questionnaire (Attachment J.16)". If the bidder answers "YES" to all questions, however after bid opening, evidence can substantiate that the answer to any individual question or multiple questions is "NO", the bid shall be rejected consistent with FAR14.404-2.

L.5 - Contractor's Contract Administrator

Bidder/Offeror is requested to delegate a person to be contacted for prompt contract administration.

Name:____________________________________________

Address:___________________________________________

Telephone:________________________ Mobile: __________________

Fax: ___________________________

E-mail: _______________________________

L.7 - PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR

L.7.A. The Offeror's team (per L.03.D.2.b.), their employees, and their representatives shall conduct themselves in a professional manner.

L.7.A.1. Any entry onto USIBWC's property to perform pre-proposal site visits shall not cause damage to said property nor interfere with any USIBWC, DHS, or authorized contract operations.

L.7.A.2. Offerors shall identify any conflicts of interest with USIBWC and/or proposed work.

L.7.A.3. Communications to USIBWC in regards to this RFP shall only be with the Contracting Officer and shall only be via email.

L.7.A.4. Offeror's team, their employees, and their representatives shall only call the Contracting Officer in case of emergencies.

L.7.A.5. Entry onto USIBWC's secured property to perform pre-proposal site visits shall only be allowed during the scheduled site visit listed in the Solicitation.

L.7.B. If the Contracting Officer finds evidence of failure to perform in a professional manner, the details will be reported to the Technical Proposal Evaluation Committee. This information will be considered as part of the Offeror's Past Performance (per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) as data "from any other sources").

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Provision Title Fill-ins

52.217-5 Evaluation of Options (July 1990)

M.1 - BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.A. The evaluation will result in identifying the most highly qualified Offerors AND will identify the

Offeror to receive award.

M.1.B. 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.

M.1.C. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to make award to either a lower cost/price, lower-scored Offeror or a higher-rated, higher-cost/price Offeror based on a rational tradeoff between evaluation factors 'other than cost or price' and 'cost or price.' 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 for the past performance of Offerors, capability of Offerors, and the value of offers to be used in the evaluation process.

M.1.D. Pursuant to FAR 15.305, a cost or price evaluation may be performed to determine the reasonableness of costs/prices proposed and the Offeror's understanding of, and ability to perform, the prospective contract.

M.2 - SCORING ADJECTIVES AND DEFINITIONS

M.2.A. Technical Scoring Adjectives. The following adjectives will be used in evaluating all the technical factors and subfactors, except for past performance, and for the technical proposal as a whole:

Exceptional: Exceeds the solicitation requirements and exemplifies a thorough understanding of all aspects of the requirements to the extent that timeliness and the highest quality performance is anticipated. Contains strengths, exceptional features, or innovations that should substantially benefit the project. There are no deficiencies and one or more significant strengths. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is extremely low.

Very Good: Demonstrates good understanding of requirements that is anticipated to result in a high level of efficiency, productivity, or quality. May have one of more strengths. Strengths outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Satisfactory: Demonstrates adequate understanding of solicitation requirements. Proposal complies with the requirements of the solicitation. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Marginal: Demonstrates superficial or vague understanding of the solicitation requirements. Proposal lacks full compliance to the requirements of the solicitation. Has weaknesses that are not offset by strengths. Only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal, but acceptable, contract performance. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is moderate.

Unsatisfactory: Does not meet the solicitation requirements. There is at least one significant weakness and/or deficiency which indicates a failure to understand the solicitation requirements. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

M.3 - SCORING ADJECTIVES AND DEFINITIONS

M.3.A. Technical Scoring Adjectives. The following adjectives will be used in evaluating all the technical factors and subfactors, except for past performance, and for the technical proposal as a whole:

Exceptional: Exceeds the solicitation requirements and exemplifies a thorough understanding of all aspects of the requirements to the extent that timeliness and the highest quality performance is anticipated. Contains strengths, exceptional features, or innovations that should substantially benefit the project. There are no deficiencies and one or more significant strengths. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is extremely low.

Very Good: Demonstrates good understanding of requirements that is anticipated to result in a high level of efficiency, productivity, or quality. May have one of more strengths. Strengths outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Satisfactory: Demonstrates adequate understanding of solicitation requirements. Proposal complies with the requirements of the solicitation. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Marginal: Demonstrates superficial or vague understanding of the solicitation requirements. Proposal lacks full compliance to the requirements of the solicitation. Has weaknesses that are not offset by strengths. Only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal, but acceptable, contract performance. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is moderate.

Unsatisfactory: Does not meet the solicitation requirements. There is at least one significant weakness and/or deficiency which indicates a failure to understand the solicitation requirements. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

M.3.B. Past Performance Scoring Adjectives. The following adjectives will only be used in evaluating past performance:

Exceptional: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. The Government has a high degree of confidence and no doubt that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements of the solicitation.

Past performance exceeds "Very Good."

Very Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

The Government has a high degree of confidence that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements of the solicitation. Past performance exceeds "Satisfactory. "Satisfactory: Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were, or appear to be, satisfactory. The Government has reasonable confidence that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements of the solicitation.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. The Government is not confident that the Offeror can meet the requirements of the solicitation. Past performance is less than "Satisfactory."

Unsatisfactory: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements, and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were, or appear to be, ineffective. The Government has no confidence that the Offeror can meet the requirements of the solicitation. Past performance is less than

"Marginal."

Neutral: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

M.03.C. Definitions.

"Significant Strength" is an aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

"Strength" is an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(Simple adherence to the requirements of the solicitation is compliance and shall not be listed as a strength.) "Deficiency" is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

"Weakness" means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(Failure to provide items listed in respective proposal instructions will be considered a weakness.)

"Significant Weakness" is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (Failure to provide items listed in respective proposal instructions that results in an inability to evaluate factors and/or subfactors will be considered a significant weakness.)

"Magnitude" is the dollar amount of work performed. Similar in magnitude refers to projects priced at

50% to 125% of the estimated project cost.

"Scope" is the technical requirements of work performed. Similar in scope refers to the same type of work with comparable or greater quantities.

"Size" is the wastewater treatment plant capacity. For this procurement, similar in size refers to construction of wastewater treatment plant projects of 10 million gallons per day or greater.

"Complexity" is the difficulty of performing work due to many varied interrelated parts.

"Cost of Work" is the direct and indirect costs necessarily incurred by the Builder in the proper performance of the construction work. The cost of the work includes direct labor costs, subcontract costs, costs of materials and equipment incorporated in the completed construction, costs of other materials and equipment used in the performance of the work, costs of establishing temporary facilities and controls, project related permit and license fees, cost of materials testing and related items, and the cost of consultants required for any delegated construction. The cost of the work will cover all work required in the construction documents including the work shown on drawings and the work specified in the specifications. The cost of the work also includes indirect costs for the Builder’s General Conditions costs, overhead, applicable taxes, bonds, insurance costs, etc. The cost of work does not include the

Builder’s profit.

"Indicative Construction Ceiling Price" means the initial estimated amount proposed for the construction scope of work before contract award and completion of any construction work. This term may also be referred to as the Initial Ceiling Price.

"Indicative Cost of Work" means the Offeror’s initial estimated amount proposed for the construction work exclusive of profit. This term may also be referred to as the Initial Target Cost.

"Firm Profit" means the fee percentage applied to the cost of construction work. The fee is proposed by the Offeror and negotiated for Contract award and represents a reasonable profit for the construction envisioned under the contract. The percentage is converted to an amount by multiplying the established percentage times the Cost of Work, excluding bonds and insurance (for construction and all early work items).

"Construction Contract Ceiling Price" means the maximum amount that may be paid to the contractor for the construction scope of work.

"Cost of Work" means the Contractor’s cost for the construction work, exclusive of profit, that is further developed and refined as the construction progresses. This term may also be referred to as the Target

Cost. "Final Construction Price" means the final established firm fixed price for the construction option or early work item and is composed of the total Final Cost of Work and Firm Profit fee on Cost of Work.

This amount is awarded and incorporated into the Contract by modification. This term may also be referred to as the Project Ceiling Price or Total Final Price.

M.4 - SOURCE EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCEDURES

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. Source selection shall be in accordance with procedures contained in FAR Part

15. These procedures are summarized as follows:

M.04.A. Technical Evaluation. Technical proposals are being requested in order to obtain information to be used in the evaluation process. A Technical Proposal Evaluation Committee has been established to objectively evaluate technical proposals in accordance with the Evaluation Factors of this Solicitation.

Technical proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the Technical Proposal Instructions provision in Part IV, Section L of this Solicitation.

M.04.B. Past Performance Evaluation. In addition to the past performance information required under the

Solicitation and information gathered from any other sources per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Contracting

Officer shall use past performance information available from the Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (www.cpars.gov) in the source selection process on Offerors competing for awards in excess of $250,000, unless the Contracting Officer has documented an exception from past performance consideration in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii).

M.04.C. Clarifications. Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror's past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

M.04.D. Communications. Communications are exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. Communications may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals, allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal, or facilitate the Government's evaluation process. Such communications may not be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal. Communications are for the purpose of addressing issues that must be explored to determine whether a proposal should be placed in the competitive range. They shall not provide an opportunity for the Offeror to revise its proposal but may address ambiguities in the proposal or other concerns and information relating to past performance.

M.04.E. Competitive Range. If discussions are to be conducted, the Contracting Officer shall establish the competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. The competitive range shall comprise all the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. The Contracting Officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The Contracting Officer may then limit the number of proposals in the range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If, after discussions have begun (see paragraph G. below), an Offeror originally in the competitive range is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated Offerors being considered for award, that Offeror may be eliminated from the range whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or whether or not the Offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit a proposal revision.

M.04.F. Preaward Debriefing of Offerors. Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from further consideration prior to the final source selection decision may request a debriefing before award. The process for requesting and conducting preaward debriefings may be found at FAR

15.505.

M.04.G. Discussions. Discussions are exchanges between the Government and Offerors, after establishment of the competitive range, that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal. These discussions may include bargaining, including persuasion, alteration of assumptions and positions, give-and-take, and may apply to price, schedule, technical requirements, type of contract, or other terms of a proposed contract. Discussions are tailored to each Offeror's proposal and shall be conducted by the Contracting Officer with each Offeror within the competitive range. The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the Government's ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the Solicitation.

M.04.H. Proposal Revisions. The Contracting Officer may request or allow proposal revisions to Clarify and document understandings reached during negotiations. At the conclusion of discussions, each

Offeror in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. The

Contracting Officer is required to establish a common cut-off date only for receipt of final proposal revisions. Requests for final proposal revisions shall advise Offerors that the final proposal revisions shall be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.

M.04.I. Preaward Survey. A Government survey activity may contact an Offeror, or visit its facility, to obtain information for determining its financial resources and/or its technical capabilities to perform the work when available information is not sufficient for the Contracting Officer to make a determination regarding Offeror responsibility as required by FAR Subpart 9.1. Current financial statements and other information required to make this determination shall be made available to the survey activity.

Information provided shall be protected from release or disclosure outside the Government, except as provided in FAR Subpart 24.2, Freedom of Information Act.