Solicitation Pkg. for GROUP1-18-R-J015.pdf

Jacksonville District

GROUP1-18-R-J015

Coastal Storm Risk Management Project South Ponte Vedra and Vilano Beach

St. Johns County, Florida

Construction Solicitation and Specifications

TASK ORDER

21 APRIL 2020

GROUP1-18-R-J015 1

ADDENDUM TO THE STANDARD FORM 1442

Coastal Storm Risk Management Project, South Ponte Vedra and Vilano Beach, St. Johns County, Florida

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ORDER: THIS OPPORTUNITY IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO

THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTORS AWARDED A CONTRACT UNDER

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912EP18R0029, GROUP 1 - UNRESTRICTED:

Callan Marine, Ltd. (W912EP19D0023); Cashman Dredging & Marine Contracting Co., LLC (W912EP19D0024); Cavache Inc. (W912EPD0025); Continental Heavy Civil Corp (CHC) (W912EP19D0026); Cottrell Contracting Corporation (W912EP19D0027); Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC (W912EP19D0028); J.T. Cleary Inc. (W912EP19D0029);

Manson Construction Co. (W912EP19D0030); Marinex Construction, Inc.

(W912EP19D0031); Norfolk Dredging Company (W912EP19D0032); Orion Marine Construction, Inc. (W912EP19D0033); Southern Dredging Co., Inc.

(W912EP19D0034); The Dutra Group (W912EP19D0035); Waterfront Property Services, LLC dba Gator Dredging (W912EP19D0036); Weeks Marine, Inc.

(W912EP19D0037).

PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FROM ANY ENTITY OTHER THAN THE

PREVIOUSLY LISTED FIRMS INCLUDED IN THE GROUP 1 - UNRESTRICTED

DREDGING MATOC POOL.

A Virtual Site Visit will take place via Webinar on 7 May 2020 @ 10:00 am, Local Time. The webinar address is:

https://usace.webex.com/meet/jason.s.harrah

The Participant Audio Conference Access Information is:

USA Toll-Free: (877) 336-1280 USA Caller Paid/International Toll: (404) 443-6393 Access Code: 7256138

A Pre-Proposal Conference will be held on 12 May 2020 @ 10:00 am, Local Time via teleconference. The call-in number is: 877-336-1839, the Access Code is: 7686743, and the Security Code is: 1234. It is requested that an email be sent to brian.j.kilpatrick@usace.army.mil to confirm attendance by your organization.

EVALUATION: The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: Technical Merit, Past Performance and Price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than mailto:brian.j.kilpatrick@usace.army.mil

GROUP1-18-R-J015 2

"Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical Merit Factor and Past Performance Factor. Offerors are cautioned that award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror or the highest technically rated offeror.

FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

FACTOR 2 - Past performance

FACTOR 3 – Price

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

See Section 00100A -- Solicitation Provisions, for detailed submission requirements.

THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THIS TASK ORDER:

Block 7. ISSUED BY:

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE CONTRACTING DIVISION

701 SAN MARCO BLVD JACKSONVILLE FL 32207-8175

Block 9 -- For additional information contact:

A. Name: Brian Kilpatrick

B. Email Address: brian.j.kilpatrick@usace.army.mil

C. Telephone No.: (904) 232-1792

Block 10 – THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK

DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS:

The work includes nourishing approximately 3.0 miles of shoreline along a portion of South Ponte Vedra and Vilano Beach in St. Johns County, Florida, between FDEP Range Monuments R-102.5 and R-117.5. The northernmost and southernmost approximate 1,000 feet of the fill area includes a taper transitioning the berm template back to the existing shoreline. The project includes construction of both a dune and beach berm. The landward portion of the beach berm will be flat and has a berm elevation of +8.0 feet North Atlantic Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). The seaward 80 feet of the berm will have a seaward slope of 1V:40H to an elevation of +6.0 NAVD88. The foreshore slope of the berm will be 1V:10H until it ties into existing grade. The width of the berm varies from the Construction Baseline as shown on the drawings. The dune crest varies in height between +15.0 feet and +18.0 feet NAVD88, as shown on the drawings reflecting the average elevation of the natural dune. The slope of the seaward face of the dune is 1V:3H. Planting of dune vegetation will take place following completion of constructed segments.

mailto:brian.j.kilpatrick@usace.army.mil

GROUP1-18-R-J015 3

Sand for the project will be dredged from the Flood Shoal Complex. Project work also includes, but is not limited to, beach tilling/vibration, monitoring, turbidity monitoring, and environmental species monitoring.

DESCRIPTON OF WORK: Refer to Section 01 11 00 for complete description.

MAGNITUDE OF CONSTRUCTION: Between $20,000,000 and $30,000,000.

THIS SOLICITATION IS FOR GROUP 1 – UNRESTRICTED MATOC POOL

You must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) in order to receive an award from this Notice of Intent. The SAM website is located at www.sam.gov.

The NAICS Code for this Notice of Intent is: 237990 and the Small Business Size Standard is: $27.5 million.

Block 11 -- The Contractor shall begin performance within 60 calendar days and complete it within 310 calendar days after receiving notice to proceed. This performance period is mandatory. (See FAR Clause 52.210.11 in Section 00700).

Block 12A. The Contractor must furnish any required Performance and Payment

Bonds: Yes

Block 12B. Performance and Payment Bonds are due within 10 calendar days after award.

Block 13 ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Offers to perform the required work are due electronically at the following email address by 2:00 PM, local time on May 27, 2020:

brian.j.kilpatrick@usace.army.mil and a carbon copy (cc) shall be sent to tedra.n.thompson@usace.army.mil and griselle.gonzalez@usace.army.mil

B. An offer guarantee is required. An electronic copy of the bid guarantee shall be submitted with the offer while the Original must be received within two calendar days of the proposal submission date.

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

D. Offers providing less than 60 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.

NOTICE TO OFFERORS: Offerors are to complete Blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20A- 20D below:

Block 14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR (including Zip Code) http://www.sam.gov/ mailto:brian.j.kilpatrick@usace.army.mil mailto:tedra.n.thompson@usace.army.mil mailto:griselle.gonzalez@usace.army.mil

GROUP1-18-R-J015 4

DUNS: CAGE:

Block 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code):

Block 16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS: (Include only if different than Item 14)

Block 17. The offeror agrees to perform the work required at the prices specified below in strict accordance with the terms of this Notice of Intent, if this offer is accepted by the Government in writing within 60 calendar days after the date offers are due.

Block 18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

Block 19. Acknowledgment of Revisions

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of revisions to the notice of intent -- give number and date of each)

REVISION

NO.

DATE

GROUP1-18-R-J015 5

Block 20A.

NAME AND TITLE OF

PERSON

AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

Block 20B.

EMAIL ADDRESS

Block 20C.

SIGNATURE

Block 20D.

OFFER DATE

Block 26 --This Task Order will be administered by:

North Florida Area Office

Block 27 -- Payment will be made by:

USACE Finance Center 5722 Integrity Drive

ATTN: CEFC-AO-P

Millington, TN 38054-5005

SECTION 00010A

LINE ITEMS AND PRICING SCHEDULE

COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT,

SOUTH PONTE VEDRA AND VILANO BEACH

ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA

LINE ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL

0001 MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION

BEACH FILL (ESTIMATED QUANTITY)

BEACH TILLING (ESTIMATED QUANTITY)

COASTAL VEGETATION (ESTIMATED QUANTITY)

SCREENING OF UNACCEPTABLE MATERIAL

(ESTIMATED QUANTITY)

TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF

UNACCEPTABLE MATERIAL (EST. QUANTITY)

BLENDING OF NONCOMPLIANT MATERIAL

(ESTIMATED QUANTITY)

CONSTRUCTION/VIBRATION CONTROLS AND

MONITORING

ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIES MONITORING

TURBIDITY MONITORING

STANDBY TIME (SEE NOTE 4)

PARTNERING REGROUP

JOB

0002 1,310,000 CUBIC YARD $ $

0003 57 ACRE $ $

0004 390,000 EACH $ $

0005 500 CUBIC YARD $ $

CUBIC YARD

ACRE

0011 72 HOUR $ $

0012 1 EACH $ $

TOTAL BID (LINE ITEMS 0001 THROUGH 0012)

NOTES: (1) SEE SECTION 00100, "INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS".

(2) OFFER MUST PRICE ALL LINE ITEMS.

(3) ALL SPECIFICATION REFERENCES TO LUMP SUM SHALL APPLY TO LINE ITEMS INDICATING "JOB" AS THEUNIT.

(4) STANDBY TIME IS DEFINED AS WHEN THE PLANT AND EQUIPMENT IS NOT IN OPERATION AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICER. STANDBY TIME SHALL BE UTILIZED ONLY DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE OPERATIONS, DIFFERING SITE CONDITIONS, SECURITY OPERATIONS OR OTHER CONDITIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.

STANDBY TIME IS NOT AFFORDED FOR DELAYS CAUSED BY ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS. PAYMENT WILL ONLY BE MADE FOR ACTUAL STANDBY TIME REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. SEE SECTION 01 22 00 MEASUREMENT

AND PAYMENT AND SECTION 01 57 20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00010A-1

SECTION 00010A, Attachment A

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TECHNICAL INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at (https://www.projnet.org) No Later Than (NLT) 14 May 2020, End of Day. To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective vendor who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email, followed by an answer to the comment/question after it has been processed by our technical team.

The Solicitation Number is: GROUP1-18-R-J015

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 2NZJWK-AYV3MH

Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access from ProjNet home page:

1. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

2. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

5. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret

Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

6. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access from ProjNet home page:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

6. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00010A-2

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-1

Section 00100A – ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION/SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors:

Technical Merit, Past Performance and Price. The Contracting Officer will use a trade-off process to determine which offer represents the best value to the Government. This process allows the Contracting Officer to consider making award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical Merit Factor and Past Performance Factor. Offerors are cautioned that award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror or the highest technically rated offeror.

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are slightly more important than cost or price.

Note: A rating of Unacceptable for any individual sub-factor will result in an overall rating of unacceptable for the entire factor.

Limitations on Substitutions for Certain Items of Work, Positions, and/or Subcontractors: Certain items of work are considered particularly critical to successful completion of the project and may be completed by subcontractors. The Government will consider the qualifications of these subcontractors during its evaluation of the offeror’s proposal.* In accordance with the Limitations On Substitutions For Certain Positions, Subcontractors, and/or Equipment paragraph in Section 00800 of this solicitation, if the offeror is awarded a contract the offeror will not be permitted to make substitutions without the approval of the Contracting Officer or Administrative Contracting Officer. If the offeror does not name a subcontractor for any identified item of work, the Government will assume the offeror intends to perform the work with its own resources and, if the offeror receives the contract, no substitutions will be allowed without prior approval of the Contracting Officer.

*See “Proposal Submission” for specific requirements regarding subcontractors.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

Factor 1 – Technical Merit Sub-Factor 1 – Demonstrated Corporate Technical Experience Sub-Factor 2 – Technical Approach Plan Sub-Factor 3 – Construction Schedule

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Price

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

Factor 1 – Technical Merit: Technical Merit is slightly more important than Past Performance.

Under Technical Merit, Sub- Factor 1 is considered slightly more important than Sub-Factor 2 and Sub- Factor 2 is slightly more important than Sub- Factor 3.

Factor 2 – Past Performance: Past Performance is slightly less important than Technical Merit.

Factor 3 – Price: Price is not rated. It is evaluated for fair and reasonable prices. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are slightly more important than price.

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-2

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government evaluators. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the factors stated in the solicitation to select the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government. Offerors are required to submit proposals with the content specified herein. Proposals without the specified content may be determined Unacceptable, and removed from the competition. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities or experiences.

Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the offeror. All responsible offerors whose proposals are among the most highly rated may be included in the competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c) (1) & (2). However, the Government reserves the right to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. By submitting an offer in response to this solicitation, offerors are agreeing to comply with all terms and conditions contained in the solicitation. Unless the solicitation specifically invites the offeror to submit exceptions, the Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer may reject any offer that contains exceptions and or qualifying language. In this solicitation, the words “offer” and “proposal” are used interchangeably. (See definition of “offer” at FAR 2.101.) Except for any portions of the offeror’s proposal incorporated into the resulting contract by specific reference, the terms and conditions included in the solicitation, including any amendments, shall take precedence over the offeror’s proposal.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

The Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will make the source selection decision based on the proposal that represents the best value to the Government. The Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer will not receive a recommendation from any individual or body as to which offeror should receive the award and will not receive a rank order or order of merit list pertaining to the offers being evaluated.

FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

In responding to this factor, the objective should be to instill confidence that the offeror thoroughly understands the requirements of the solicitation, has the expertise and experience required to successfully satisfy or exceed the solicitation requirements within the required period of performance (See Section 00700, FAR Clause 52.211- 10).

In accordance with the Limitations on Substitutions For Certain Items of Work, Positions and/or Subcontractors paragraph in Section 00800 of this solicitation, a letter of commitment must be provided for any proposed major subcontractor for the following positions or items of work:

(1) Dredging and/or,

(2) Placement, rough grading, and/or fine grading of beach/dune fill.

A major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor whose experience will be submitted by the offeror for evaluation under Factor 1, Sub-Factor 1 – Demonstrated Corporate Technical Experience.

A letter of commitment is defined as a letter from the major subcontractor on official company letterhead

(1) addressed to the offeror (prime contractor), (2) identifying the work they intend to perform, and (3) stating that they are willing to be bound to perform the identified work if the offeror is awarded a contract. A letter of commitment simply stating that a major subcontractor commits to submit pricing to the offeror does not satisfy this requirement. Failure to provide a letter of commitment from a proposed major subcontractor or key personnel will be noted as a deficiency.

Once the Ratings have been assigned for Sub-Factor 1, Sub-Factor 2, and Sub-Factor 3, an overall rating will be assigned for Factor 1 – Technical Merit. A rating of Unacceptable for anyindividual Sub-Factor will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable for the entire Factor. See “Technical Merit Ratings” below.

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-3

Sub-Factor 1 – Demonstrated Corporate Technical Experience

Offerors shall complete a Company Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 1) for each demonstrated experience. Failure to utilize the Company Specialized Experience Form will be noted as deficiency. The offeror shall ensure that all information required by the Project Information Sheet is provided and all descriptions and explanations are in great detail to provide the technical evaluation team with a clear understanding of the work completed and how it is relevant to this project. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration.

Any demonstrated experience (to include subcontractors) provided for consideration in this Sub-Factor shall also have a corresponding submission under Factor 2 - Past Performance. If Past Performance information is not provided for a demonstrated experience, that demonstrated experience will not be evaluated and it will be noted as a deficiency.

If any portion of the work provided as demonstrated experience is subcontracted, clearly identify that work as such and provide the required experience of that subcontractor as it relates to work the subcontractor will be performing for this requirement. Using Attachment 2 - Letter of Commitment for Key Subcontractor or Key Personnel, provide a letter of commitment, as defined above, from all subcontractors proposed under Factor 1, Sub-Factor 1.

It is not necessary that all demonstrated experiences required under this Sub-Factor be performed on the same project; however, demonstrated experiences that include all the elements being accomplished on the same project will carry more weight when being evaluated.

Projects submitted in response to Sub-Factor 1, Demonstrated Corporate Technical Experience, must be completed project or a close to completed project. A completed project is defined as work performed under a “project” that was physically completed within the last ten (10) years preceding the date of this solicitation and has been accepted by the customer. A close to complete project is defined as work performed under a “project” that is over 75% physically complete.

Submission Requirements

Using Attachment 1 - Company Specialized Experience Form, offerors are required to provide at least two

(2) but not more than five (5) examples of completed project, which demonstrate that they and/or their proposed major subcontractors (if applicable) have experience accomplishing the following:

Successful execution of beach nourishment projects involving the following:

a. Transportation of the beach fill material out of an inlet with strong currents, highly variable sea conditions, and along a section of heavily utilized and highly populated, significantly eroded beach that will not be receiving any fill material.

b. Placement of beach fill on a significantly eroded beach and construction of dune features adjacent to, under and over numerous privately and publically owned structures such as seawalls, beach access walkovers, and other miscellaneous publically and privately owned property improvements.

c. Procuring, transporting, sustaining, planting and successfully establishing native dune vegetation on constructed dune features for beach projects.

Note: All experience required for this Sub-Factor listed as elements (a through c), can be submitted under one project or any combination of projects. All elements need not have been performed on the same project(s). A maximum of five projects may be submitted, only the first five projects submitted in

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-4

the offeror’s proposal will be reviewed and any additional projects will not be evaluated. The offeror must have been the Prime contractor on at least one (1) of the projects submitted under Sub-Factor 1.

Evaluation Method

Demonstrated experiences submitted under Sub-Factor 1 that mirror the specifications in relation to scope, complexity and dollar value will carry more weight when being evaluated than demonstrated experience that is only similar in some areas.

In responding to this Sub-Factor, the objective should be to demonstrate to the technical evaluators that the offeror clearly has the capability to successfully accomplish the solicitation requirements by explaining in detail how the provided demonstrated experiences are similar to the work described in the solicitation. See “Technical Merit Ratings” below.

Sub-Factor 2 – Technical Approach Plan

In a narrative format, the offeror shall describe the proposed Technical Approach Plan regarding how the offeror intends to execute the work from start to completion. The selected technical approach plan, construction schedule E, and equipment may be incorporated in whole or in part into the contract. The plan should include a description of related activities to include coordination with major subcontractors, types of equipment to be utilized and any other means and methods the offeror feels will give the Government confidence the offeror will successfully complete the project. Offerors should also identify potential risks and plans for mitigating those risks.

At a minimum the Technical Approach Plan should:

a. Provide a letter on company letterhead identifying the dredge(s) proposed to do the work and the current location of the dredge(s).

b. Provide a list of plant, equipment, materials and labor mix required to dredge, transport, and place beach fill and construct dune features adjacent to, under and over privately owned structures such as seawalls, beach access walkovers, and other publically and privately owned property improvements.

c. Provide a detailed description for the process of conveying and placing the beach fill on a significantly eroded beach and construction of dune features, adjacent to, under and overprivately owned seawalls, beach access walkovers, and other publically and privately owned property improvements, to include potential tools, equipment, labor mix and fill placement methodology burying seawalls in the project footprint.

d. Provide a detailed description of proposed means and methods to prevent and minimized damages to privately owned seawalls, beach access walkovers, and other publically and privately owned property improvements. Descriptions shall at a minimum address methodology to identify and track damage, measures to address potential damage due lateral loading by equipment and/or material; and impacts associated with burying structures and equipment operation over such buried structures.

e. Provide a detailed explanation of how the offeror will ensure quality control including a description of proposed quality control measures.

f. Identify potential impediment to executing the work and how the offeror will overcome/mitigate these impediments.

g. Provide a detailed description of proposed means and methods to procure, transport, sustain, plant and establish native dune vegetation on the constructed dune features. Descriptions shall at a minimum address plant source, planting time line relative to completion of dune features, sustainment measures and establishment methods.

h. Provide basis for proposed timeframes for required work items proposed in Sub-Factor 3, Construction

Schedule, including all assumed contingencies (i.e. adverse weather, mechanical shut-down, environmental issues, additional permits etc.).

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-5

The Technical Approach Plan evaluation determines the degree to which the offeror’s proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation as well as the feasibility of the proposed approach. The feasibility of the proposed technical approach will measure how well the means and methods proposed provide the Government with confidence of successful project completion in accordance with the solicitation requirements and within the required contract schedule.

All work items listed in the Technical Approach Plan should be included in the Construction Schedule and the timeframes given for work items in the Construction Schedule. This example is given for clarity and is not the only corroboration that will be made between the Technical Approach Plan and Construction Schedule. The overall rating given for this Sub-Factor 2 will take into consideration the individual ratings as well as how well the Technical Approach Plan and Construction Schedule support one another. Any conflicts between Sub-Factor 2 and Sub-Factor 3 may be noted as a weakness.

Sub-Factor 3 – Construction Schedule

Provide a schedule of construction within the period of performance provided in Section 00700, FAR Clause 52.211-10, in the formant of a Gantt, Pert, or similar graphical timeline, showing the start and completion dates, interdependence of activities and other relative scheduling factors for all the items of work listed in Sub-Factor 2 above. This schedule maybe incorporated into the contract and only be changed as approved by the Contracting Officer. At a minimum the schedule should show start and completion dates for:

a. Mobilization and Demobilization of all work items

b. Submittals

c. Dune planting and establishment

d. Interdependence of activities (i.e. schedule logic)

e. Stand-by time

f. Contingency time (e.g. float)

h. Work items discussed under Sub-Factor 2, Technical Approach Plan

The work items for all activities should be clearly identified to ensure a delineation of any concurrent work.

Basis for proposed timeframes should be supported in the Technical Approach Plan.

The Construction Schedule evaluation determines the degree to which the offeror’s proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation as well as the feasibility of the proposed schedule.

All work items listed in the Technical Approach Plan should be included in the Construction Schedule and the timeframes given for work items in the Construction Schedule. This example is given for clarity and is not the only corroboration that will be made between the Technical Approach Plan and Construction Schedule. The overall rating given for this Sub-Factor will take into consideration the individual ratings as well as how well the Technical Approach Plan and Construction Schedule support one another. Any conflicts between Sub-Factor 2 and Sub-Factor 3 may be noted as a weakness.

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-6

Technical Evaluation Rating System

General: Each member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will individually rate each proposal against the evaluation criteria set forth in the Solicitation. The SSEB will reach consensus on the final rating assigned to ensure that it reflects the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risks of a proposal and provide findings in writing to the SSA. The Source Selection Authority will determine which offeror represent the best value to the Government.

Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor and sub-factor to reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

Technical Merit Ratings

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.

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.

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.

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.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The offeror’s technical solution will consist of a combined rating.

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

(See Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method below).

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-7

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Adjectival Rating

Description

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red 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.

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-8

Factor 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors shall submit one NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3), completed and signed by an Owner of the Project (Client) or point of contact (POC) for each of the projects submitted under Sub- Factor 2 – Demonstrated Corporate Technical Experience. If a project submitted under Sub-Factor 2 was completed by the offeror’s major subcontractor, the offeror is responsible for coordinating with their major subcontractor and submitting a completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire on their major subcontractor’s behalf. All pages of each NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire must be initialed and dated on the bottom right-hand corner by the POC. Failure to provide a completed and signed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire for each project as described above may be noted as a deficiency. If a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record or official performance evaluation from a non- federal entity is available for any of the projects submitted under Sub-Factor 1- Demonstrated Corporate Technical Experience, the CPARS record or official performance evaluation from a non-Federal entity may be submitted in lieu of the completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire.

The Owner of the Project (Client) or “POC” is defined as the entity that took ownership of the project after construction was complete.

If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire from the Owner of the Project (Client), before the proposal due date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the questionnaire (Blocks 1 – 7) that contains contract and client information for the submitted project. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the client’s point of contact information is current and correct. The client point of contact reflected in Blocks 1 – 7 should also be familiar with the past performance they are being asked to verify and informed that they will be contacted by the Government to verify past performance.

The Government reserves the right to review all CCASS/CPARS records contained in the US Army Corps of Engineers CCASS/CPARS database for the offeror or offeror’s major subcontractors.

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The assessment considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant past performance in supplying services that meet the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation.

The first aspect of the past performance evaluates how relevant the offeror’s past performance is to the effort to be acquired. The technical evaluation team will evaluate the demonstrated experiences provided by the offeror under Sub- Factor 1 above. Relevancy will be determined based on the timeframe for project completion given under Sub-Factor 1 and the level of similarity between the offeror provided demonstrated experiences and the solicitation requirements. For example, a demonstrated experience provided under Sub-Factor 1 that was completed within the last five (5) years (measured from the date of the solicitation) that involves essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires will most likely be given a relevancy rating of Very Relevant (see Relevance Rating Definitions below).

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed a demonstrated experience submitted in Sub-Factor 1. This will be determined by utilizing the completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaires, CPARS record or official performance evaluation from a non-Federal entity. The POC noted on each NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire will be contacted to verify the past performance ratings provided. If the POC cannot be contacted, the past performance rating will be noted as Unknown (Neutral). It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the POC’s contact information is current (i.e. names, addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses).

The POC should be familiar with the performance they are to verify and be aware that they will be contacted by the Government.

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-9

Once the Relevancy Ratings are assigned and Past Performance Ratings are verified, the Government will conclude with a performance confidence assessment based on the results. This performance confidence is the level of risk associated with the offeror as it relates to the probability that the offeror will successfully complete this project (see Performance Confidence Assessments Definitions below).

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence

Assessments Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-10

Factor 3 – Price

Price is not rated. It will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The Contracting Officer will conduct the price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The price analysis will also check for the appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Additionally, offerors’ price proposals maybe evaluated for price realism to determine if there are proposals that are unrealistic low in terms of overall price or reflective of an inherent lack of management and/or technical competence or comprehension of the requirements. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are slightly more important than price.

The offeror shall submit the following price and price related information:

a. Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 4)

b. Fully completed Section 00010A Line Items and Pricing Schedule.

c. Bid Guarantee, an original bid guarantee shall be submitted with each offer. An electronic copy of the bid guarantee shall be submitted with the offer while the Original must be received within two calendar days of the proposal submission date.

d. Determination of Responsibility Form (Attachment 5)

e. Addendum to Standard Form 1442, completed Blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20A thru 20 D with the latest revision.

EVALUATION METHOD

The Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 4) is not considered for evaluation but is required as part of the Offeror’s proposal.

The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine whether proposed prices are reasonable and balanced.

Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and any other pricing tools necessary, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Additionally, all offers will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

The Bid Guarantee will be reviewed for acceptability. Any offeror whose bid guarantee is unacceptable, will be eliminated without further consideration unless the Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer later determines that discussions are necessary and decides that the offeror’s proposal should be included in the competitive range.

The Determination of Responsibility Form (Attachment 5) is not considered for evaluation, but is required as part of the offeror’s proposal. In addition to other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use the information provided in the Determination of Responsibility Form in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

D. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

As stated in Block 13 of the Addendum to the Standard Form 1442, proposals are to be submitted electronically. The proposal shall be divided into volumes as indicated below. Each volume shall be provided in a separate pdf file and labeled with the offeror’s name, the solicitation number, and the volume number.

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-11

Offeror is responsible for providing a clear, well organized proposal. All proposals shall contain the evaluation requirements stated herein and every volume shall also contain: Proposal Format cover sheet provided in Attachment 6, Table of Contents, List of Tables (if required), List of Figures (if required), List of Appendixes, and Name/Address/Telephone Number/e-mail address of the offeror. Proposal clarity and organization is very important to ensure that there are no hindrances for reviewers. No information may be incorporated into the proposal by reference; however, one volume within the proposal may cross-reference another volume within the proposal. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration. No material (information not part of the proposal) shall be incorporated by reference. The offeror shall submit in the proposal the requested information specified herein.

VOLUME ONE: Factor 1 - Technical Merit Package

Do not include pricing information in the technical merit proposal

VOLUME TWO: Factor 2 - Past Performance Package

Do not include pricing information in the technical merit proposal

VOLUME THREE: Factor 3 - Price and Related Information

E. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1- Company Specialized Experience Form (The space provided may not be sufficient. If this is the case, offerors are encouraged to provide additional information on supplemental pages attached to the collection sheet.)

Attachment 2- Letter of Commitment for Key Subcontractor or Key Personnel

Attachment 3 – NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment 4 – Proposal Data Sheet

Attachment 5 – Determination of Responsibility

Form Attachment 6 – Proposal Format

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-12

ATTACHMENT 1 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE FORM

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company or subcontractors constructed within the last ten (10) years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project. NOTE: Use additional pages as necessary to provide the information requested.

1. Type of Project Represented

2. Your Firm’s Name

3. Project Name and Contract Number

4. Location of Project and Conditions. Also, provide duration, any unusual coordination requirements, and any innovative ideas that were required duringconstruction.

5. Owner

6. General Scope of Construction Project

7. Describe how this project is relevant to the elements of the Coastal Storm Risk Management Project at South Ponte Vedra and Vilano Beach, St. Johns County, Florida. . Use additional pages as necessary to provide this information.

A narrative must be provided that explains in detail how each provided demonstrated experience is similar to the work described in the solicitation and how a project experience is relevant to this project. This narrative should demonstrate that the offeror clearly has the capability to successfully complete the project. .

8. Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self-

Performed :

9. Construction Cost:

10. Extent and Type of Work You SubcontractedOut

11. Dates Construction: Began_ Completed

12. Your Performance Evaluation by Owner and Awards and Recognitions (if any)

13. Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages? (If either is “Yes”, attach an Explanation)

14. Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company). Also, provide address, office and cell telephone numbers, as well as e-mail address.

15. Current Telephone Number and email of Owner Reference

16. Any unusual conditions requirements

17. Any innovative ideas that were required during construction

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-13

ATTACHMENT 2 - LETTER OF COMMITMENT OF KEY SUBCONTRACTOR OR KEY PERSONNEL

(USE SUBCONTRACTOR’S COMPANY LETTERHEAD)

TO: Name of Company to whom commitment is made.

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Contract for

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby make the unequivocal commitment that, in the event of an award of a contract to (Fill in name of Proposer), that (insert name of firm) will fulfill the duties of (state role on a project)

Sincerely, (Authorized Subcontractor Official)

Date:

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-14

ATTACHMENT 3 - NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

NAVFAC/ USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

CONTRACT INFORMATION

1. Contractor Information Firm Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

CAGE Code:

DUNs Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Percent of project work performed:

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

Sub-Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain)

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:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-15

PLEASE PROVIDE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WH I C H B ES T REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

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 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 to accomplish tasks 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/ PERSONNEL/ LAB OR

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

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

GROUP1-18-R-J015 00100A-16

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

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to…