W51DQV25RA004 0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the site visit sign-in sheets and Pow erPoint slides, and to update the Instructions to Offerors in accordance w ith the questions received via Projnet.

The proposals are now due NLT 12:00PM ET, July 7, 2025.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 27

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W51DQV25R0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Apr-2025

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

U0003

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

05-Jun-2025

CODE

TF VIPR

383 FRANKLIN D ROOSEVELT AVENUE

SAN JUAN PR 00918

W51DQV 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 17-Jun-2025 02:00 PM to 07-Jul-7025 12:00 PM.

The contractor period of performance begin date has increased by 30 days from 1 days to 31 days.

The required performance has changed from PROJECT TITLE: CANO MARTIN PENA ECOSYSTEM

RESTORATION PROJECT (CMP-ERP) CONTRACT 3 PHASE 1, EXCAVATION AND STABILIZATION,

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO.MAGNITUDE OF CONSTRUCTION IS BETWEEN $25,000,000.00 -

$100,000,000.00.THIS SOLICITATION IS UNRESTRICTED, THE NAICS CODE FOR THIS PROJECT IS 237990 AND THE SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD IS $45 MILLION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH IAW FAR CLAUSE 52.236-27 ALT I, AN ORGANIZED SITE VISIT HAS BEEN SCHEDULED.NOTE: BID BONDS

ARE REQUIRED IAW FAR 52.228-1. ADDITIONALLY, THE AWARDED CONTRACTOR WILL BE

REQUIRED TO PROVIDE INSURANCE AND PERFORMANCE & PAYMENT BONDS IAW FAR 52.228-

15.FOR INFORMATION CONTACT SAMUELA ADAMS; SAMUELA.Y.ADAMS@USACE.ARMY.MIL

to PROJECT TITLE: CANO MARTIN PENA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (CMP-ERP) CONTRACT 3 PHASE 1, EXCAVATION AND STABILIZATION, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO.MAGNITUDE

OF CONSTRUCTION IS BETWEEN $25,000,000.00 - $100,000,000.00.THIS SOLICITATION IS

UNRESTRICTED, THE NAICS CODE FOR THIS PROJECT IS 237990 AND THE SMALL BUSINESS SIZE

STANDARD IS $45 MILLION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH IAW FAR CLAUSE 52.236-27 ALT I, AN

ORGANIZED SITE VISIT HAS BEEN SCHEDULED.NOTE: BID BONDS ARE REQUIRED IAW FAR 52.228-

1. ADDITIONALLY, THE AWARDED CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE INSURANCE

AND PERFORMANCE & PAYMENT BONDS IAW FAR 52.228-15.FOR INFORMATION CONTACT ANIKA

HILLAIRE, ANIKA.C.HILLAIRE@USACE.ARMY.MIL.

CLIN 0001 The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Contractor to provide all labor, materials, equipment, and supervision for construction service per the Specs, Drawings and this Solicitaiton.

To:

Contractor to provide all labor, materials, equipment, and supervision for construction service per the Specs, Drawings and this Solicitation.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEP 2006)

(a) Protests, as defined in section 33.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Caribbean District 383 Franklin D. Roosevelt Ave (Attn: CESAA-CT) San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918 Email: katrina.l.chapman@usace.army.mil CC: anika.c.hillaire@usace.army.mil

(b) The copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one day of filing a protest with the GAO.

(End of provision)

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically, as described below. The use of hyperlinks in the proposal is prohibited. The proposal due date is anticipated by no later than 2:00 PM, local time on 02 July 2025.

All questions and/or comments are to be submitted via ProjNet at http://www.projnet.org/projnet. To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system. To self-register go to web page, click BID tab select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter Key for this solicitation listed below, and your e-mail address, click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that information on next screen is correct and click continue. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add inquiry. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

The solicitation Number is: W51DQV25RA004

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 6RHUMS-BJWU6S

Last Day to submit ProjNet questions is seven (7) calendar days prior to bid closure date in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry. The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Standard Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS:

The only authorized transmission method of proposals in response to this solicitation is electronically via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website at the following link:

https://piee.eb.mil

No other transmission methods, such as email, facsimile, hand-carried, proprietary or DOD SAFE submissions, or proposal submitted by mail, will be accepted. Offers submitted via any other transmission method other than the PIEE website will not be evaluated.

For instructions on how to establish an account in PIEE, please refer to the Vendor User Registration guide in the link below:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/portal/portal/Vendor_Registration.pdf

Government Administrators cannot help vendors with their accounts. For issues with vendors account, please use the Vendor Customer Support link to submit an issue or contact the help desk.

Vendor Customer Support link:

https://piee.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/web/homepage/vendorCustomerSupport.xhtml

Help Desk: 866-618-5988

Email: disa.global.servicedesk.mbx.eb-ticket-requests@mail.mil

Fax: 801-605-7453

Help Desk Hours

Monday - Friday, 06:30 – 24:00 ET

For instructions on how to post an offer, please refer to the Posting Offer demo:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf

In the unlikely event the PIEE system is not operational, or an Offeror is temporarily unable to access or use the system, experiences technical difficulties, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer and carbon copy (CC) the Contract Specialist via email.

This notification to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist must occur at least 24 hours prior to the proposal submission deadline. Offeror notification shall be in writing and may be in conjunction with verbal notification, but verbal notification alone shall not be sufficient. In the event that the Offeror alleges technical difficulties and does not notify the Contracting Officer and provide a proposal until after the closing date and time, the Contracting Officer will follow the procedures identified in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and then make a determination if the Offeror’s late proposal submission is accepted. Screen shots of the submission should be taken to validate a submission was accepted in the PIEE system.

You are limited to five (5) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 1.9GB). FILE

DESCRIPTION:

To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention. Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number, W51DQV25RA004, followed by the word “RESPONSE”, your firm’s name and finally a brief file description.

EXAMPLES:

(1) W51DQV25RA004 RESPONSE Firm Name Volume I.pdf

(2) W51DQV25RA004 RESPONSE Firm Name Volume II.pdf

(3) W51DQV25RA004 RESPONSE Firm Name Volume III.pdf

File Organization, Formatting and other instructions:

Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled.

Font size shall be 10 or larger. Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language.

Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors.

Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in each section for each factor. Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

NOTE: Pages larger than 8.5 x 11 inches shall be counted as 2 pages. Upload Completion and Deadline:

Interested parties shall submit responses no later than 2:00 PM AST, June 17, 2025. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process.

Submissions after the deadline may still be uploaded to the PIEE Solicitation Module but be advised, they will be considered late and as such, will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. Receipt of Submission:

For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the Government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the PIEE website. For multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the PIEE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases.

The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that offers are submitted to reach the designated recipient. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the offer to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

Offers providing less than 120 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected. 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. The Government reserves the right to reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration.

All proposals shall contain the evaluation requirements stated herein and each volume shall also contain: Table of Contents, List of Tables, List of Figures, List of Appendixes, and Name/Address/Telephone Number/e-mail address of the Offeror. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. No material (information not part of proposal) shall be incorporated by reference. The offeror shall submit in the proposal the requested information specified herein. Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted are current, correct, and complete, including names of points of contact, email addresses, and telephone numbers. The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified. Elaborately prepared proposals are not required, and any material more than what is requested, such as corporate marketing information, will not be considered. Failing to submit or completely fill out attachments properly may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation.

Therefore, Offerors are urged to follow instructions and raise questions through inquiries if instructions are not understood. Do not include references to material or information not found within its respective volumes. Information submitted in the wrong volumes could lead to an Offeror’s proposal being determined “Unacceptable” if materially incomplete in any aspect.

The proposal shall be divided into three (3) volumes as indicated below. Each volume shall be marked with the Offeror´s name, the solicitation number, and the volume number.

Volume Title Maximum Pages

Notes

I Factor I: Technical Approach 20 Do Not include pricing information in this volume

II Factor II: Past Performance 50 Do Not include pricing information in this volume

III Factor III: Price Proposal No Page Limit

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

Proposal Files

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter–0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11” The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e., doc, xls, ppt, etc., and provided on CDs or DVDs. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aide in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file.

The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

1. VOLUME I / FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

1.1 Technical approach must describe key oversight, communication, equipment and quality control procedures established to comply with the requirements established in the solicitation. In addition to those key quality control and equipment criteria, submission should also include a demonstrated understanding of the following requirements outlined in the solicitation:

Mechanical dredging, dredged material management, and disposal.

Approach to meeting environmental and safety requirements (e.g. turbidity curtains, water quality monitoring per Water Quality Certification, protected species monitoring protocols, managing runoff, dust control, safety protocols, etc.).

On-water and on-land piles installation.

Sheet piles installation.

Riprap revetment installation under water.

Factor 1 will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis.

In responding to Factor 1, the objective is to demonstrate in a narrative format that the proposed approach will is viable for successful completion of the work. The plan must include an adequate description of the intended means, methods and equipment necessary to establish a likelihood that approach will be successful and compliant with all contract requirements.

1.2 Evaluation Method

Ratings for this factor is defined below:

PASS – Proposal meets minimum requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

FAIL – Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of at least one of the minimum requirements.

2. VOLUME II/FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

2.1 The submitted material must be organized sequentially under tabs for each numbered section to facilitate evaluation. All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate recency and relevancy.

The offeror will demonstrate experience by the successful and contractual completion of applicable projects under Factor 1. The information that is required to be supplied is identified on the form provided, entitled “COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE FORM” (Attachment 1). Offerors are not required to use the form itself as part of their proposal, but the information requested on the form must be in the offeror’s proposal. Each project description must include all information included on Attachment 1. Offerors may expand the form as necessary to accommodate the required project information.

2.2 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE: Using the Company Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 1), offerors shall provide no more than six (6) examples of completed projects, which demonstrate the offerors recent and relevant experience.

If any portion of the work provided as demonstrated experience was subcontracted, clearly identify that work as it relates to this project. This Subcontractor is also required to be identified as the subcontractor performing this effort as such and provide the required experience of that subcontractor as it relates to work the subcontractor is performing on this project.

Recent means completed, or currently in progress with at least 80% construction completed, within the past ten (10) years.

Relevant means that is similar in scope (type and size) to the project type described in this solicitation. For a project to be assessed any degree of “relevancy” it must reflect performance of construction requirements as described by this solicitation.

Required:

1. Mechanical dredging conducted in a body of water.

2. Dredged material management to remove solid waste from sediment. Solid waste includes, but is not limited to, concrete debris, and domestic waste.

3. Environmental monitoring and mitigation during mechanical dredging operations.

4. Piles installation (on-water and on-land).

5. Sheet piles installation.

6. Riprap revetment installation.

NOTE: Individual projects need not reflect all required criteria to be considered relevant.

However, to receive an overall confidence rating of Satisfactory Confidence or better, all six (6) required criteria must be identified through a combination of projects.

NOTE: Do not submit more than six (6) projects in response to this factor. If any offeror provides more than six (6) projects, only the first six (6) projects submitted in order of submission will be evaluated; no additional consideration or evaluation will be given for the remaining submissions.

Projects submitted must be completed or 80% physically completed with the last ten

(10) years from the date of submission of proposal. Offeror may submit, as a Prime Contractor or Subcontractor, a relevant completed portion of a larger project IF that portion of work has been accepted by the customer and the offeror provides evidence of completion and acceptance as well as the corresponding Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). The Government will only consider those portions of work specifically identified as complete/accepted.

If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. If submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, the experience of each partner can be submitted for the Joint Venture entity. These projects will be evaluated separately; however, confidence will be rated for the Joint Venture as a whole. Contractors submitting an offer as a Joint Venture must provide the agreement with the proposal. The Joint Venture agreement must be signed by both parties and approved by the Small Business Administration. I it is an 8(a) or HUBZone joint venture, it shall ensure that it complies with the applicable requirements of 3 CFR Part 124 and 13 CFR Part 126, respectively. In addition, the Joint Venture must be registered and active in the System for Award Management website (SAM.gov) as a Joint Venture at the time of receipt of proposal for the firm to be eligible for award.

2.3 For each of the projects submitted in response to paragraph 2.3.2 above, provide a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, if available. If an interim or final CPARS evaluation is available, a PPQ is not required to be submitted. If an interim or final CPARS evaluation is not available, a PPQ for the reference project is to be submitted with your proposal. The PPQ shall be completed by a representative of the owner that provides the owner’s opinion of the Offeror’s past performance for the project. The PPQ included in the solicitation (Attachment 3) is provided for the offeror to submit to the owner for each project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the owner’s point of contact. Organize all past performance information in the same order to which the projects are submitted.

If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from an owner for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). At the owner’s discretion, PPQ’s may be submitted directly to the Governments point of contact listed above, via email prior to proposal closing date.

Previously completed PPQ’s may be submitted, provided that the documents do not reference any other solicitation. Submitted PPQ’s must only reference this solicitation.

Submit copies of Federal/DoD/Navy/Army performance reviews even if they may be in the agency’s databases or likely within the agency’s army’s reach, i.e. Contractor’s copy of CPARS evaluation for each of the projects submitted, to ensure the agency has all relevant past performance information.

Provide the UIE number and Cage codes for the prime contractor and all teaming partners, e.g.

design firms, key subcontractors, Joint Venture partners, whose experience is included in this Factor. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

The Government plans to contact and interview the owner’s representative identified on the PPQ’s and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the owner’s representative, if the owner’s representative is not available. In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, CPARS. Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, interviews with owners, Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

At no time during this process, or during any debriefing, or after any award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an Offeror’s past performance be revealed to the Offerors or to any other party. If discussions are held, Offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references in accordance with guidelines identified in FAR Part 15.3. In this case, relevant comments will be extracted and provided to the Offeror.

3. VOLUME III/FACTOR 3 – PRICE PROPOSAL

3.1 Offerors shall fill-in the Pricing Schedule in Section 00 10 00, Line Items and Bid Schedule of the SF 1442.

3.2 Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the solicitation. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1442, all amendments to the solicitation and all certification requiring original signature. A .pdf file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

a. SF 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award);

b. Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 4);

c. Section 00 45 00 00101, Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors;

d. In accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, an electronic copy of the bid guarantee shall be submitted with the offer. The electronic copy must be signed and legible;

e. Determination of Responsibility Form (Attachment 5) along with a copy of your latest financial statements (Balance Sheet and Income Statement). Note for Joint Ventures (JV) only one Attachment 5 form must be submitted by the JV. However, if the JV is a new partnership (about less than 3 years old), then each member must submit an Attachment 5 form to determine responsibility of the JV. The Determination of Responsibility Form 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.

f. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) for Large Businesses Only.

3.3 Compliance: Failure to comply with the solicitation for Price information may result in an adverse assessment of an offeror’s proposal and reduce or eliminate its chance of being selected for award. Each Offeror shall ensure that the information is consistent and correlates with the information in the other Factors. Also, the offeror shall ensure that the information submitted is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF 1449 and continuation sheets.

3.4 General Instructions: In accordance with FAR 15.402 and 15.403-1, certified cost or pricing data are not required because adequate competition is expected for this procurement.

Information other than certified cost or pricing data may be provided in contractor format, providing that sufficient information is made available. Information submitted shall be prepared following the instruction in FAR 15.403-5. If after receipt of proposal, the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exception at FAR 15.403-1 apply, the Offeror may be required to submit cost or pricing data. Additionally, in the event that adequate competition is not obtained, the Contracting Officer may incorporate FAR 52.215-20 entitled “Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data, into the solicitation and request a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Proposal information included that is not directly related to Price will be disregarded.

Government’s Minimum Acceptance Period.

The minimum period for acceptance of offers is 120 calendar days after the date specified for receipt of proposals, or date of final proposal revisions (if requested), whichever is later.

Offerors providing for less than 120 calendar days for government acceptance after the date specified will be rejected without consideration.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to three (3) evaluation factors: Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price. The Contracting Officer will use a trade-off process to determine which offers represent the best value to the Government. This process allows the Contracting Officer to consider making award to other than the lowest priced offerors.

After evaluation of all factors, a tradeoff will be conducted between factors 2 and 3 among offeror receiving a rating of “Pass” for factor 1. Non-price factors will be evaluated by the source selection evaluation board. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these specifications concerning the method of award, the best value tradeoff process will be used in this acquisition with award made, as a whole, to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and has been evaluated as most advantageous to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors. Offeror will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror. Past Performance is more important than price.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor in the event that Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

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

FACTOR I – Technical Approach FACTOR II – Past Performance FACTOR III – Price

FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL APROACH EVALUATION SYSTEM

General: Each member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will individually rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria 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 and provide findings in writing to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SSA will determine which offeror represents the best value to the Government.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of Pass must be achieved for Factor 1, Technical Approach.

FACTOR 2 PAST PERFORMANCE RATING DEFINITIONS

The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 2) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 1 - 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.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(iv) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 2 below) will be used to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror.

TABLE 2 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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.

Neutral Confidence 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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Using the information contained in the Company Experience Form (Attachment 4), the technical evaluation team will review the projects submitted in response to Factor 2 – Past Performance for recency and relevancy.

Using the information from the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 3), the technical evaluation team will determine how well the contractor performed the experience submitted. 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”. 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.

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.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “Neutral Confidence”) past performance, having no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation.

FACTOR 3 - PRICE

The Price Factor is not rated. It is evaluated for reasonableness. A price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

a. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

b. Overall Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

1) Compliance: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L instructions.

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404- 1(g)(3)).

3) Errors: The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

4) The offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated to ensure proposed prices are fair and reasonable.

D. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussin sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 15 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. In discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified at least three (3) business days prior to their discussion session. The discussion sessions will take place virtually via Microsoft Office Teams.

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. Projects submitted must be completed or 70 80% physically completed. 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 during construction.

5. Owner

6. General Scope

7. Describe how this project is relevant to the elements of the solicited project. 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. This narrative should demonstrate that the offeror clearly has the capability to successfully complete the project. (Relevancy is defined in the DoD Source Selection Guide for collection and use of past performance as “information that has a logical connection with the matter under consideration and applicable time span.). Offerors should be as specific as possible when explaining how a project experience is relevant to this project. Provide information on problems encountered on identified contracts and the corrective action taken.

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

9. Contract Cost:

10. Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out

11. Dates: Began-Completed

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

13. Were You Terminated? (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 email address.

15. Current Telephone Number and email of Owner Reference

16. Any unusual conditions requirements

17. Any other comments

ATTACHMENT 3

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

FOR CMP CNT 3 PHASE I

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE

QUESTIONNAIRE

CONTRACT INFORMATION

1. Contractor Information Firm Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

Email

CAGE Code:

Unique Entity

ID (UEI):

2. Work Performed as:

Prime Contractor/ Sub Contractor/ Joint Venture/Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy): Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy): Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work: High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

5. Client Information Name : Title:

Phone Number:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

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/ LABOR

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved

E VG S M U N

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

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

Yes

No

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

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

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

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

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

7. GENERAL

END OF QUESTIONNAIRE

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE requests that the client completes this questionnaire and submits directly back to the offeror. The offeror will submit the completed questionnaire to USACE with their proposal, and may duplicate this questionnaire for future submission on USACE solicitations. Clients are highly encouraged to submit questionnaires directly to the offeror. However, questionnaires may be submitted directly to USACE. Please contact the offeror for USACE POC information. The Government reserves the right to verify any and all information on this form.

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

Yes No

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

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

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

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

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

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

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

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the…