Riis_Phase Two Factors 09OCT2025.pdf

SOLICITATION SECTION 00 22 20

PHASE TWO OF A TWO-PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 NOTICE TO OFFERORS

2.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 VOLUME I PROPOSAL (FACTORS)

4.0 VOLUME II PRICE PROPOSAL

5.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

6.0 BASIS OF AWARD

1.0 NOTICE TO OFFERORS

This is the second Phase of a Two Phase solicitation, in accordance with (IAW) FAR 36.3, for all work described in this solicitation. Only Offerors who were determined to be among the up to five (5) Most Highly Qualified firms from Phase One are invited to submit Phase Two proposals. The Government will evaluate Phase Two proposals IAW the criteria described herein and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror, whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is the Best Value Trade Off to the Government from both the Phase One and Phase Two proposal evaluations.

For purposes of trade-off, the Phase One Factor 1 and Factor 2 ratings and supporting rationale will be carried over to Phase Two. Offerors should not provide any Factor 1 or Factor 2 information in their Phase Two proposal submission. For purposes of trade-off all non-price Factors 1 through 5 when combined are approximately equal in importance to price. Factor 2, Past Performance, is the most important non-price factor. Technical Factors 1, 3 and 4 are of equal importance to each other and are less important than Factor 2. Factor 5 is the least important non-price factor. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best value for the Government. After the SSEB members individually evaluate and rate each proposal, the Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value to the Government.

This project is being procured on an unrestricted, full and open competitive basis, with HubZone price preference. The price used in the trade-off analysis shall be the Offeror’s total amount for the base items and optional items. The trade-off analysis will be conducted based on an evaluation of all factors, including price, and a best value proposal will be determined. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced conforming offer(s), the Source Selection Authority (SSA) must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal (within an acceptable range) would justify award to that Offeror.

Who May Submit – Phase Two is limited to those Offerors determined to be the up to five (5) Most Highly Qualified firms from the Phase One proposal evaluations.

Written questions must be received by this office not later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of offers. TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Oral explanations or instructions are not binding. Any information given to an Offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.

As this is a competitive negotiated acquisition, there is no public proposal opening and no information will be given out as to the number of Offerors or the results of the competition until award is made.

PAGE LIMIT AND SIZE OF PRINTED MATERIALS

Volume Tab Title Maximum Pages

1 A Factor 3: Technical Approach and Concept Design

1 B Factor 4: Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing and Summary Schedule

1 C Factor 5: Small Business Participation Plan

2 A Price (Standard Form 1442 & Contract Line Item

Schedule) No Page Limit

2 B Bid Guarantee No Page Limit 2 C Self-Performed Work No Page Limit 2 D Required Pre-Award Information No Page Limit 2 E Representations & Certifications No Page Limit

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer/PCO must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below. Pages containing text shall be submitted electronically on standard 8-1/2 x 11-inch size paper. Schedules, Drawings and/or sketches may be submitted electronically on paper not exceeding 11 x 17-inch paper, (each 11 x 17 counts as two pages). Use of 'TAB' pages are encouraged to identify each section of the proposal and shall not count against proposal's total page count. Each page of text shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one- inch margins all around. Any sheet with printed material (text or graphics) shall be considered a page, excluding dividers, cover sheets, letters of commitment, team agreements, and/or Joint Venture agreements. Each page of Volume I shall be numbered sequentially.

JOINT VENTURES

When an Offeror is submitting a proposal as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture must sign the SF 1442 and any financial surety instrument that is required, unless a written agreement by all members of the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the legal authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. Signatures on the written agreement designating one member of the joint venture as having legal authority to bind all other members of the joint venture must be executed by the duly authorized representatives of the respective joint venture members. All joint venture members will remain jointly and severally liable for all actions, representations, and other activities by the joint venture and by other joint venture members in connection with this solicitation and subsequent contract. A copy of the joint venture agreement and agreement providing evidence of the authority to legally bind all other members of the joint venture must be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

2.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION

Do not submit any material not required by this solicitation (such as company or system brochures).

Offerors must meet all technical portions (design-build construction criteria) of the RFP. The fact that the technical specifications and the drawings are not evaluated factors during solicitation does not relieve the Offerors from meeting all technical, or other, requirements of the RFP.

The Government will not make assumptions concerning the intent, capabilities, or experiences of the Offerors. Clear identification of proposal details shall rest as sole responsibility of the Offeror.

Therefore, the proposal shall meet the following basic requirements:

1. Proposals shall be typed and easy to read. Margins (1-inch) shall be clean and clear.

2. Proposals shall be organized, concise, and submitted in the volumes and in the order indicated herein.

Volumes shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

3. Proposals must be sent in two separate volumes. Each volume shall be contained within a separate binder. Each volume shall be identified by the solicitation number, volume number, and name, address, and telephone number of the prime Offeror on the cover. Each volume shall contain a Table of Contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the volume and page number

4. Offerors shall submit the Price Schedule in Volume II, which shall be completed in full including all options. Offerors may be required to provide complete cost and pricing data and certification or information other than cost or pricing data at a later date if needed to adequately evaluate price proposals.

5. Offerors shall submit a signed Offer (Standard Form 1442) in Volume II for this solicitation including verification of all amendments received.

6. Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, and the like are not necessary. However, proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation.

7. Failing to submit attachments or failing to properly complete the proposal, may result in rejection of the Offer without further evaluation. Therefore, Offerors are urged to follow instructions and contact the Contract Specialist if instructions are not understood.

WHERE TO SUBMIT

Offers are to be sent via Monica.n.coniglio@usace.army.mil and nicholas.p.emanuel@usace.army.mil

Phase Two proposals may be withdrawn in writing via email to Monica.N.Coniglio@usace.army.mil at any time up to the point of award.

Include the solicitation number, and project title with any questions/clarifications. Any written notice to withdraw an offer sent to this office must be received in the office designated in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for receipt of offers not later than the point of award.

SUBMISSION DEADLINE

The USACE must receive proposals not later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that its proposal arrives by the designated date and time.

INCURRING COSTS

The Government is not liable for any costs incurred by the Offerors submitting an offer in response to this solicitation.

FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

If there is a discrepancy between the original or copies, the original will control. All proposals shall contain the volume number and the name, address and telephone number of the Prime and Key Subcontractors, Joint Venture, or other entity identified on the cover. The original proposal must be clearly marked as “ORIGINAL” and the original signatures must be in blue or black ink. Copies of the proposals must also be clearly marked as “COPY x of y (i.e. COPY 1 of 5)”. Proposal clarity and material organization in each volume are mandatory. No material shall be incorporated by reference.

Each volume will be submitted separately bound.

The information will be used by the Source Selection Board to evaluate each proposal. Offerors are advised that conciseness and relevance of the proposal is important and unrelated information will not be evaluated. Proposals that provide only superficial coverage of the information required below may not receive additional consideration and may be excluded from the competition. Additionally, should the proposal include any terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the proposal may be determined to be "Unacceptable" and thus ineligible for award.

3.0 VOLUME I PROPOSAL (FACTORS)

PHASE TWO FACTORS FOR EVALUATION

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

TAB A FACTOR 1 Relevant Specialized Experience

Submitted in Phase One. Factors 1, 3 and 4 are of equal importance, and each is less important than Factor 2

TAB B FACTOR 2 Past Performance Submitted in Phase One. Factor 2 is the most important non-price factor.

TAB C FACTOR 3 Technical Approach and Concept Design

Factors 1, 3 and 4 are of equal importance, and each is less important than Factor 2.

TAB D FACTOR 4 Contract Duration, Phasing, and Summary Schedule

Factors 1, 3 and 4 are of equal importance, and each is less important than Factor 2.

TAB D FACTOR 5 Small Business Participation Plan

Factor 5 is the least important non-price factor.

FACTOR 3 -

TECHNICAL APPROACH AND CONCEPT DESIGN

Submission Requirements

GENERAL: The Government’s concept design included in this solicitation is For Information Only. The Offeror is under no obligation to limit their approach to that concept. The Offeror should use its specialized experience, technical competence, and professional qualifications to design a bulkhead that meets the Government’s minimum requirements with an emphasis on reducing costs and achieving an aggressive schedule. The Technical Approach and Concept Design factor consists of conceptual level presentation drawings, technical approach narrative including information regarding material and system quality. It must clearly define the proposed scope and quality levels that the design-build team is offering to the Government in enough detail for the Government to evaluate and determine whether or not the proposal meets or exceeds the minimum solicitation requirements. Fully developed drawings, details, or specifications are not desired or required.

The Offeror’s concept design may be similar to the Government’s concept, or may differ from the

Government’s concept. If it differs, the Offeror’s concept will be binding. The length of the schedule associated with the Offeror’s concept design (see FACTOR 4 below) can match the proposed contract duration but not exceed it. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it is binding.

Submit conceptual level presentation drawings:

Submit plan and cross-section drawings in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the design meets the minimum solicitation requirements. The conceptual level presentation drawings shall be prepared by the design firm on the team listed in response to Factors 1 and 2 with input from the construction firm.

Submit a narrative discussing the Offeror’s technical approach for design and construction:

Describe the technical approach to design and construction of the project in accordance with the criteria in the RFP. Include any considerations of fast-tracking design and construction. Include the technical approach for obtaining all Federal, State, local or other permits required for the work. The Government is looking for ways to streamline construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and achieve an aggressive schedule. Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design. Discuss how the configuration management system will track and control design evolution and changes during design for quality control and to facilitate quicker Government reviews.

Include a table of contents listing the technical specifications that will be prepared for the design.

Describe the role of the construction team members during design. Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction, addressing, as a minimum, maintaining configuration management of the design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design; requests for information; shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals;

progress meetings; site visits, if any; contract completion, closeout, as-built, completion documentation and quality control.

Describe quality control procedures during both design and construction. Include description of internal technical review (ITR) plan.

Evaluation Criteria

The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall technical approach of this design-build project and its capability to execute a contract with a cohesive and collaborative team effort and design excellence.

The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the conceptual level drawings focused on the probability that the Offeror’s concept will achieve the innovation, purpose, and vision indicative of a quality design project. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of the Government’s minimum requirements and the capability to execute the project as presented in the conceptual level drawings.

The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the narrative focused on reducing costs and achieving an aggressive schedule. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for fast-tracking design and construction, as well as its approach for obtaining all required permits. The Government will evaluate integration of the design and construction firms and the staff during design and construction. The constructor must be actively involved in the design process, not just leaving it up to the designer. The offeror must have an effective configuration management system to control and track revisions to the design. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record and the Government reviewers. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction.

The government will evaluate the proposed plan for quality control during both the design and construction phases.

A technical approach that reduces costs and achieves an aggressive schedule may receive additional consideration.

Rating Guidelines for Factor 3

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Technical Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating in this factor.

FACTOR 4 -

PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION, PHASING, AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

Submission Requirements

The contract duration included in this solicitation is based on the Government’s concept design, e.g., sheet piles, included in the solicitation. The Offeror is under no obligation to approach the contract duration included in the solicitation. The Offeror should use its specialized experience, technical competence, and professional qualifications to schedule a contract duration that meets the Government’s minimum requirements with an emphasis on reducing costs and achieving an aggressive schedule.

Submit a summary level schedule for the Jacob Riis Park, Beach Channel Drive Bulkhead replacement. The schedule must be task oriented, indicating number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Schedule pages must be legible on 11x17 sheets of paper. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 3201.00 10: Project Schedule. The length of the schedule can match the proposed contract duration but not exceed it. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it is binding. The schedule at a minimum shall include the following activities.

1. Preconstruction Submittals

2. Onsite Mobilization

3. Site surveying and existing conditions field investigations and documentation

4. Obtaining all State and Federal Permits

5. Shop drawing completion

6. Material and equipment fabrication and procurement

7. Material and equipment delivery to project site

8. Excavation and Subgrade work

9. Bulkhead construction

10. Bulkhead tie in to existing structures

11. Concrete work

12. Utility path work

13. Drainage work

14. Path paving

15. Landscaping and site reestablishment

16. Commissioning

17. Facility turnover to Government

18. Contract Closeout

Schedule submission shall include the following for each activity: activity duration, early start, early finish, late start and late finish, float, predecessors, and successors. This information can be provided in table format or graphically.

Schedule shall show inspection and turnover activities. The time to complete the project and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor's CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor- Government turnover inspection.

Submit a narrative discussing the project’s critical path. The critical path must be shown on the summary level schedule. Discuss critical path activities that have the greatest risk to project delivery. Discuss how your schedule mitigates those risks and what measures you will take to ensure the project is delivered on time. Submit a narrative discussing submittal procedures and linkage of submittal register to scheduled activities. In the narrative, discuss how the schedule accounts for management of the submittal process and lead time is reflected in the submittal register to meet activity early start date. Discuss internal procedures for preventing late submittal submission to minimize time growth. Identify any constraints on the schedule presented (e.g., labor or material availability, weather, permits, etc.). Consider seasonal constraints for certain work activities (such as environmental windows for in water work). Identify the potential long lead material procurement items.

Describe the time control capabilities and systems to be used to plan the project and how the schedule will be used to manage construction from notice to proceed to completion. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize time growth.

The narrative and summary schedule must also discuss the preconstruction activities, long lead material procurement durations, anticipated durations of utility shut-downs, anticipated closures of roadways and parking.

The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the narrative focused on logic, task duration and critical path. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding and the capability to execute the project as presented in the narrative required in the submission.

The Government will evaluate the summary schedule for new construction and demolition. The length of the schedule can match the proposed contract duration but not exceed it. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it is binding. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g., long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of all elements required in the submission and the offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction may receive additional consideration.

Rating Guidelines for Factor 4

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Technical Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating in this factor.

FACTOR 5 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

Small Business Participation Proposal (Format)

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Proposal. Offerors should propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this area.

(a) Check the applicable size and categories for the PRIME offeror only -- Check all applicable boxes:

{ } Large Prime { } Historically Black Colleges or Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU) or

{ } Small Business Prime; also categorized as a { } Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) { } Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) { } Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business { } Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) { } Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

(b) Submit the total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors):

Example: If Prime proposes a price of $1,000,000 (including all options), and small business(es) will provide $250,000 in services/supplies as a prime or subcontractor, the % planned for small businesses is 25%; and 75% for large business equaling 100%.

Total Percentage planned for Large Business(es) _______% = $ _______

Total Percentage planned for Small Business(es) _______% = $ _______

100%

(c) Please indicate the total percentage of participation to be performed by each type of subcategory small business. The percentage of work performed by Small Businesses that qualify in multiple small business categories may be counted in each category:

Example: Victory Prop Mgt (WOSB and SDVOSB) performing 2%; and Williams Group (SDB, HubZ and WOSB) performing 3%. Results equate to: SDB 3%; HubZone 3%; WOSB 5%; SDVOSB 2%;

VOSB 2%;). SDVOSBs are also VOSBs automatically; however VOSBs are not automatically SDVOSBs.

Small Disadvantaged Business _________% HUB Zone Small Business _________% Woman Owned Small Business _________% Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB _________% Veteran Owned Small Business _________%

HBCU /MI _________%

(d) List principle supplies/services to be performed by Small Businesses:

Example: If a Small Business qualifies also as a WOSB and a SDVOSB, and you can add them to each category below in which they qualify.

Name of Company Identify Type of Service/Supply

Small Business (SB):

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB):

Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB):

Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone):

Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB):

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVO):

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI):

(e) Describe the extent of commitment to use small businesses (for example, what types of commitments if any are in place for this specific acquisition either – small business prime, written contract, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, joint venturing, mentor-protégé, etc.)

Additional Important Note for Other Than U.S. Small Businesses ONLY. Small Business Subcontracting Plan is Required (FAR 52.219-9)

Separate from Small Business Participation Plan, other than U.S. Small Business offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan). Other than U.S. Small Businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan.

Small Business Participation Plan Rating Method Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

The government will not award a contract to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating in this factor.

4.0 VOLUME II PRICE PROPOSAL

Submit the Pro Forma information in a separate envelope labeled: “Volume 2 - Pro Forma Requirements.”

TAB A - PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE)

Submission Requirements Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing. The base contract price plus option items price will be the total evaluated price (TEP). This price will be used for the purpose of tradeoff.

Supplemental Cost Breakdown. Submit a cost breakdown of the contract line items in a sealed envelope marked “Cost Breakdown Information,” in Excel format. The Government will provide details for the preparation of the cost breakdown. This information is required for the initial proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

Price will not be rated or scored but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness using one or more of the price analysis techniques identified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.404-1. If approved by the Contracting Officer, the price evaluators may coordinate with the non-price factor/Functional Team Leads as necessary to ensure consistency between the proposed prices and other portions of the proposal. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations.

TAB B - SELF-PERFORMED WORK

Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall confirm that it understands and that it shall perform the amount of work required to be self-performed.

Evaluation Criteria

This item is not rated. In order to assure adequate interest in and supervision of all work, the Contractor shall be required to perform a significant part of the contract with its own forces. This public policy is expressed in various Statutes, as well as in the Federal Acquisition Regulations and in the Small Business Administration Code of Federal Regulations. The Offeror must confirm that it understands the amount of work performed, based on the status of the Offeror, and that it will self-perform the required amount of work with its own forces. For purposes of these clauses, work that is performed off-site, such as factory fabrication or factory assembly of modules, or direct design work, may also be taken into account as self- performed work.

TAB C - REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

Submission Requirements

Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

(1) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

(2) A certified statement listing; (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three (3) month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three (3) year period not already physically completed and exceeding $3,500,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

(3) If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

One copy of the following information shall be provided:

(4) Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities)

(5) Number of years the firm has been in business

(6) Name, address and telephone number of firm’s bank,

(7) Information showing Offeror’s Letter of Assurance and Bank Letter Guaranty.

(8) Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references.

(9) Verification the business is registered in the United States; and

The registered address of the business in United States; and

A signed letter from an officer of a bank within the United States verifying that the company conducts business with that institution.

The information submitted under this tab and other information submitted in the proposal will be used by the Contracting Officer to determine an Offeror’s responsibility as required by FAR Subpart 9.1.

TAB D – REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS

Submission Requirements:

Confirm that the Offeror’s representations and certifications have been completed and also include hard copies under this Tab.

Evaluation Criteria

The representations and certifications submitted under this tab and online will be reviewed to ensure the Offeror’s representations are consistent, accurate, and in accordance with regulation. It will not be rated.

In addition to the other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

5 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

SOURCE SELECTION TEAM (SST)

The SST, which consist of both the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB), SBPP Board, and Price Evaluation Board (PEB), will be established to conduct the evaluation of Phase Two proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions required, as well as information obtained from other sources,. The SST will not consider any information incorporated by reference.

EVALUATION

The SST will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor.

The Government intends to award without discussions. A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that discussions with Offerors are required or considered to be in the Government’s best interests. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with each Offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it. The Government may conduct written discussions.

Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

DEFINITIONS

Deficiency: 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. A proposal containing a “deficiency” is un-awardable.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Denoted with an (S).

Strength: Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance. Denoted with and (S).

Deviation: Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The Offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government's attention. A deviation is a deficiency.

The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor response or proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the response or proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

6 BASIS OF AWARD

This is a Best Value Tradeoff procurement where the Source Selection Authority will award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority has determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price.

For purposes of trade-off all non-price Factors 1 through 5 when combined are approximately equal in importance to price. Factor 2, Past Performance, is the most important non-price factor. Technical Factors 1, 3 and 4 are of equal importance to each other and are less important than Factor 2. Factor 5 is the least important non-price factor. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best value for the Government. After the SSEB members individually evaluate and rate each proposal, the Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency. Should the proposals include any terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions set forth in the solicitation, the proposals may be determined to be Unacceptable. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Source Selection Authority must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify award to that Offeror.