21R0002 ANC029 Amendment 3.pdf

W911KB21R0002

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

Reference Project Title and Location: 2021-2023 Maintenance Dredging, Anchorage, Alaska

a. The above numbered solicitation is hereby amended to update the solicitation. See Summary of

Changes for further details on page 2.

b. The date/time for receipt of offers remains unchanged at 8 December 2020 at 2:00 P.M. Alaska

Time.

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS AMENDMENT ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE SF1442.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 3

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Dec-2020

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 W911KB21R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Oct-2020

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 is extended, X 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 1 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.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

02-Dec-2020

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, AK

CEPOA-CT (W911KB)

PO BOX 6898

JBER AK 99506-0898

W911KB 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 SF 30 - BLOCK 14 MODIFICATION CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT #0003

SUMMARY OF

CHANGES

AMENDMENT #0003

The following drawings are substituted for the superseded drawings:

NONE

The following revised documents are substituted for the superseded documents. The identifier “AM#3” appears before and after new and/or revised material and replacement pages are provided, except as noted:

SECTION 00 22 11 is replaced in its entirety. Paragraphs 4.0, 11.1.3, 11.1.4, 11.2 and Attachment 5 are revised for updated Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements.

The following documents/drawings are deleted:

The following documents are added:

ANC029 Bidder Inquiry Report

The following revisions are incorporated:

Other:

NONE.

(End of Summary of Changes)

AM#3

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD ONE

STEP - - BEST VALUE

(SINGLE AWARD)

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

5.0 VOLUME 1, TAB A - FACTOR 1: PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

6.0 VOLUME 1, TAB B - FACTOR 2: EXPERIENCE

7.0 VOLUME 1, TAB C – FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT)

8.0 VOLUME 2, TAB A – FACTOR 4: EXTENT OF SMALLBUSINESS PARTICIPATION

9.0 VOLUME 2, TAB B – FACTOR 5: STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET, AND

CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE

10.0 VOLUME 2, TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

11.0 VOLUME 2, TAB D - SMALLBUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

12.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

ATTACHMENTS

1 –PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

2 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

4 – EXTENT OF SMALLBUSINESS PARTICIPATION FORMAT

5 – SMALLBUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN FORMAT

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. Interested firms (here after referred to as Offerors) shall submit proposals demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the construction contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

1.2 This is a “Best Value” solicitation for 2021-2023 Anchorage Harbor Maintenance Dredging in Anchorage, Alaska. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government utilizing the trade-off process described in FAR 15.101-1.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1 The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority has determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are considered significantly more important than price, however the contract award may not exceed the cost magnitude described in Section 00 21 00 for this project. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within the cost magnitude. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offerors. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Official must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify award to that offeror.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

3.2 Submit a proposal in tabbed, three-ring binders in accordance with Section 00 21 00. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, indicated in the solicitation.

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Volume 1, Tab A Factor 1 Performance Capability Most Important Factor

Volume 1, Tab B Factor 2 Experience 2nd Most Important Factor (slightly less important than

Factor 1) Volume 1, Tab C Factor 3 Past Performance 3rd Most Important Factor

(slightly less important than Factors 2)

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Volume 2, Tab A Factor 4 Extent of Participation of Small Businesses

4th Most Important Factor (less important than Factor 3)

Volume 2, Tab B Factor 5 Price (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet Contract Line Item Schedule) Significantly less important than

Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 combined

Volume 2 TAB C N/A Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

Volume 2 TAB D N/A Small Business Subcontracting Plan AM#3…Not Rated…AM#3

5.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB A - FACTOR 1: PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Provide a proposal with the following:

a. Identify the equipment type, size, capability, operating condition and production rates proposed to meet the maintenance dredging requirements for the removal of shoal material from Anchorage Harbor and transportation of that dredged material to the open water placement site. Indicate whether the equipment is owned or subcontracted and describe the availability of the equipment to be on site for the entire dredge season. Describe how the equipment will be able to successfully remove material to within five feet of the dock face. Address plan for equipment to be Dredge Quality Management System compliant (Reference specification 35 20 23.13 or 35 20 23.23 as applicable).

b. Provide a brief survey plan including the independent survey firm name, qualifications, equipment, and strategy to meet the survey requirements of the solicitation and ensure accurate and timely submittal of the results.

5.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the proposed equipment to determine how well it can dredge the materials identified for Anchorage Harbor in SECTION 35 30 24.00 29 and how well its production rates meet the dredging requirements for the removal of shoal maintenance material.

5.1.2.2 If the equipment proposed is not on hand or not manufactured, the Government will evaluate the Contractor’s plan to build or obtain the equipment in the timeframes available to start dredging on schedule and dredge the entire season. Greater consideration will be given to equipment currently manufactured.

5.1.2.3 The Government places a higher value on equipment that can dredge between 3,000 and 12,000 cubic yards of shoal material per day. The Government will evaluate the size and operating limits of the equipment to determine if it meets the requirements of SECTION 35 30 24.00 29 to dredge within 5 feet of the dock. The Government places a higher value on hopper dredges which are capable of meeting this requirement as well as being maneuverable and able to easily relocate to accommodate Port vessel traffic. Equipment which is not as maneuverable as a hopper dredge will be given a lower rating.

5.1.2.4 The Government will evaluate the survey plan to determine if it meets the contract requirements of SECTION 31 09 13.00 29 and the requirement to provide surveys within the time periods indicated. A higher rating will be given to plans that provide the names and qualifications of the independent surveyor.

6.0 VOLUME 1- TAB B - FACTOR 2: EXPERIENCE

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 The prime contractor shall submit two (2) projects which demonstrate experience relevant to their role on this project on similar, relevant projects. The projects must demonstrate a record of recent, relevant experience dredging 500,000 cubic yards or more of shoal material during a dredging season of six(6) months or less and transporting and placing the dredge material within open-water placement site boundaries. Utilize the COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE FORM (Attachment 2) at the end of the section. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If the offeror is a newly formed joint venture without any previous experience as the joint venture, each joint venture partner shall provide information demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Submit projects that are currently well underway (at least 50% completed) or completed and turned over no longer than six(6) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Project examples should be limited to those projects performed by the firm submitting the offer. Offerors who submit experience information of a parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company must describe what involvement such company will have on the contract resulting from this acquisition. The proposal should clearly and specifically indicate how the resources of the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will be provided or relied upon for contract performance. The Contracting Officer may discount experience of a parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company unless the prime contractor clearly provides, in its proposal, evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company. If there is no contractual arrangement between the prime contractor and the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company, provide a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter including the following:

1. Clear and legal identification of the meaningful relationship between the Offeror and entity identified.

2. A statement of commitment as to the performance and utilization of the identified entity’s resources on this project.

3. Signatures of both the Offeror and Meaningful Relationship Entity.

A firm may receive credit for relevant experience under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example); if the firm demonstrates that their role on the project submitted for Specialized Experience is relevant to their anticipated role on this project. Clearly identify the role and responsibilities of each joint venture partner.

6.1.2 Provide a supplemental narrative, not to exceed two (2)pages, to address any of the following that are applicable. The information shall be limited to projects that are well underway (at least 50% completed) or have been completed and turned over.

(a) If submitting projects performed under a prior business arrangement (joint venture for example) for

Specialized Experience, address why that experience is relevant to the experience of the firm submitting the offer. Clearly identify the role and responsibilities of each joint venture partner.

(b) Describe any previous teaming experience between proposed team members, if not described on the specialized experience forms. Identify specific projects.

6.2. Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror has demonstrated a record of recent, related experience for dredging 500,000cubic yards or more of shoal material during a dredging season. Experience may include similar state or local government or private counterparts. Recent experience includes projects well underway (at least 50% completed) or those completed within six(6) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

6.2.2. The Government will evaluate the extent of similar, related experience of the prime contractor as relevant to their role on this project. The Government may place greater importance on dredging projects which exceed the minimum experience requirement of 500,000 cubic yards of shoaled material per season. For the prime contractor, the Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor rather than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience. In assessing relevancy of Specialized Experience, the relevancy ratings included under the Past Performance evaluation factor will be utilized.

6.2.3. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System(CPARS),other DoD or Government appraisal systems or by interviewing owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

6.2.4. To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the prime contractor shall demonstrate a history of similar, relevant experience. Experience of a parent, affiliate or separate division will not be considered if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon for this project or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company. Experience under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the firm’s role on the submitted project is not considered relevant to their anticipated role on this project.

6.2.5. The Government will consider the extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience to this project. Some examples of relevancy to this project may include:

(a) Size, type and complexity of the work;

(b) Location of work and similarity to the type of equipment proposed to dredge this project; and

(c) Firm's role and extent of work self-performed (brokering out all work on a cited project is an example of less relevant experience)

6.2.6. The Government may consider previous recent teaming experience among the team members as value added, even if on different types of construction projects than this project. The more relevant the experience, the more credit will be given.

7.0 VOLUME 1, TAB C - FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT)

7.1. Submission Requirements:

7.1.1. Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner's perspective. Past performance evaluations or questionnaires shall be provided for all projects submitted under Tab B. For Federal projects submitted under Specialized Experience (Tab B), the offeror may rely on finalized CCASS or CPARS reports, otherwise the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror to submit to the client for each project. Previously completed PPQ’s may be submitted however ensure a current phone number and email address is provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal and may be duplicated for submission on future solicitations.

If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first 2 pages of the PPQ (Attachment 3), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Christine Dale, via email at christine.a.dale@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Projects cited shall be currently well underway (at least 50% progress completed) or completed within six(6) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System(PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System(FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System(eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

An offeror will not receive credit for past performance of a parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon for this project or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company. An offeror may receive credit for relevant past performance under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example) if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the submitted project is relevant to their role on this project.

7.2. Evaluation Criteria:

7.2.1. The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope of this contract for overall application to the performance confidence assessment ratings described hereinafter. The projects will include those submitted under the Specialized Experience Factor as well as from other sources described above. This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance relevancy ratings are described below:

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.

7.2.2 The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. An offeror may receive credit for relevant past performance under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example); if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the project submitted is relevant to their role on this project. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control and customer satisfaction. The Government places a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, such as CPARS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is as follows:

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 be able to 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.

7.2.3 Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance. Past performance of a parent, affiliate or separate division will not be considered if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon for this project or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company. Past performance under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the offeror’s role on the project is not considered relevant. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance confidence assessment will be considered “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”.

8.0 VOLUME 2, TAB A – FACTOR 4 EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES

8.1 Submission Requirements:

8.1.1 All offerors shall identify the extent to which Small Businesses (SBs),Veteran -Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs),HUBZone Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), Woman-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) and Historically Black Colleges/Universities or Minority Institutions(HBCU/MIs)would be utilized in the performance of this proposed contract. For small businesses, as defined by the North American Industry Classification System(NAICS) Code applicable to this solicitation, the offeror shall identify their own participation as a SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZONE SB, SDB, WOSB, or HBCU/MI, and it will be considered in evaluating the proposed extent of participation of small businesses (use Attachment 4 – Extent of Participation of Small Businesses Format).

8.1.2 Offerors must propose goals for Small Business Participation. Small business participation goals are to be an estimated percentage of total contract dollars (total proposed amount including options). Provide an overall goal to be accomplished through collective small business participation from any type of small business, to include all small business programs, and propose individual goals foreach small business program. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will be included the offeror’s Small Business Participation goal.

8.1.3 This factor includes a minimum Total Small Business Participation goal(for all types of small business combined) of 20% of total contract dollars including all options for this acquisition.

8.1.4 Separate and distinct from the Extent of Participation of Small Business, large business offerors must also submit a Subcontracting Plan, as required by FAR 52.219-9, under Volume 2, Tab D. Large businesses will not be eligible for award if they fail to submit an acceptable Subcontracting Plan. The Subcontracting Plan will be based on subcontracted dollars rather than total contract dollars but shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments to small business firms outlined in the Extent of Participation of Small Business (i.e., dollars shown for each type of small business in each of the plans should match)

8.2 Evaluation Criteria:

8.2.1 All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of the acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein.

8.2.2 A small business offeror also receives credit for their small business participation as a Prime Contractor and can apply their dollar value for this prime performance when calculating percentages in all the applicable small business categories.

8.2.3 Higher goals will be considered more favorable during evaluation for this factor.

8.2.4 The government will evaluate:

(a) The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

(b) The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

(c) The identified complexity and variety of the work small business firms are to perform;

(d) The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition;

(e) The past performance of the offerors in complying with requirement of the clauses at FAR52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (applicable to both small and large businesses), and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (applicable to large businesses only); and

(f) The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals based on the total contract value. Goals for this procurement are:

Small Business (all types of small business combined) Minimum of: 20% Small Disadvantaged Business Minimum of: 5% Woman Owned Small Business: 3% HUBZone Small Business: Best Effort Veteran Owned Small Business: 2% Service-Disabled Veteran Owners: 1%

(Note: A proposed Extent of Participation of Small Businesses that reflects a percentage of the contract for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and the percentages for SDVOSB also count towards

VOSB).

8.2.5 Adjectival Rating System Specific to this Factor: After listing this Factor’s proposal strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies, the Government will assign an adjectival rating of “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable” for this Factor, which reflects the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s approach and understanding of the small business objectives of this acquisition as demonstrated in its proposal for this Factor. The adjectival ratings criteria for this Factor are defined as follows:

Outstanding: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

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

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

Marginal: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives. Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

9.0 VOLUME 2, TAB B – FACTOR 5: STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET, AND

CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE

9.1. Submission Requirements:

9.1.1. Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors.” Submit the Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 1).

9.1.2 HUBZONE CONTRACTORS: This RFP includes Contract Clause52.219-4 regarding a 10% price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns. Those HUBZone small business concerns electing to waive the evaluation preference shall submit a copy of Clause 52.219-4 indicating such. HUBZone small business concerns not waiving the evaluation preference shall submit a copy of their SBA certification letter under this tab.

9.1.3. Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government will request a price breakdown of the Contract Line items in a sealed envelope marked “Price Breakdown Information,” in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown.

This information will not be needed sooner than three(3)working days after the proposal submission due date.

This information may be required for the initial proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

9.2 Evaluation Criteria:

9.2.1 Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis which will consist of a comparison of proposed prices to the Independent Government Estimate and other offers received. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc., and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

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

9.2.3 Award may not be made for total project cost exceeding the contract cost magnitude described herein.

10.0 VOLUME 2, TAB C - REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

10.1. Submission Requirements:

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

(a) Joint Venture Agreement or Limited Liability Company Certificate of Organization, Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement, if applicable.

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

(c) A certified statement listing: (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three (3) month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three (3)year period not already physically completed and exceeding$5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract. If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification

(d) Competed Representations and Certifications included by full text in Section 00 45 00. List any changes to SAM (System for Award Management) in 52.204-8 for FAR Clauses and 252.204-7007 for DFAR clauses. Provide for any certification where the offeror indicated in SAM that certification would be provided with specific offer.

(e) One copy of the following information shall be provided:

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

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

(3) Name, address and telephone number of firm’s bonding company

(4) Information showing offeror’s bondability for this project. Submit a letter from the prime contractor’s bonding company indicating the offeror’s ability to obtain performance and payment bonds in the full amount of their proposal price.

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

10.1.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

11.0 VOLUME 2, TAB D – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTINGPLAN

11.1 Submission Requirements: (This requirement applies to large businesses only)

11.1.1 Separate and distinct from the Small Business Participation Plan, large business offerors must also submit a Subcontracting Plan, as required by FAR 52.219-9, under Volume 2, Tab D. Large businesses will not be eligible for award if they fail to submit an acceptable Subcontracting Plan. The Subcontracting Plan will be based on subcontracted dollars rather than total contract dollars but shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments to small business firms outlined in the Small Business Participation Plan.

11.1.2 If the Offeror proposing on this solicitation is a large business concern, in accordance with the definition as identified in FAR Clause 52.219-1, “SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REPRESENTATION”, the firm must submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN and DFARS 252.219-7003, “SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN” (see Section 00 72 00 of this solicitation).

11.1.3 The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be thorough, complete, and in accordance with AM#3…AFARS Appendix DD and …AM#3 FAR Clause 52.219-9, as it will be incorporated into the contract upon award upon final approval of the Contracting Officer. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan format at Attachment 5 AM#3…must…AM#3 be utilized.

11.1.4 The Plan shall include a description of the types of services the firm proposes to subcontract with small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB) (to include historically black colleges and universities/minority institutions (HBCU/MI)), woman-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone business, veteran-owned small business(VOSB) and service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), along with the proposed dollars and percentages AM#3…of their participation, to demonstrate a plan to meet the subcontracting goals that will apply to this contract. The Offeror shall provide specific information on proposed subcontracted effort for this project.

11.2 Assessment Criteria:

The Government will assess the Plan in accordance with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9 and the DoD checklist for reviewing subcontracting plans:

(https://business.defense.gov/Portals/57/Documents/Checklist%20for%20Reviewing%20Subk%20Plans.pdf?v er=2019-12-02-110744-540)

Offerors are encouraged to review the DoD checklist for how the subcontracting plan will be assessed. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Extent of Participation of Small Businesses. In accordance with DFARS 215.304 (c), when an evaluation assesses the extent that small businesses and HBCUs are specifically identified in proposals, the small businesses and HBCUs considered in the evaluation shall be listed in any subcontracting plan submitted.

As part of the subcontracting plan assessment, the Government will also review information submitted or obtained for Volume 2, Tab A, Extent of Participation of Small Businesses, to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance in establishing realistic yet challenging goals, and in achieving them. …AM#3

12.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

12.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

12.1.1. The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions required, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

12.2. EVALUATION

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

12.2.2. The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best-efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it.

12.2.3. A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event the Government decides that discussions with offerors are required or are considered to be in the Government’s best interests. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

12.2.4. If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with those offerors in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

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

12.3. DEFINITIONS

12.3.1. 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.

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

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

12.3.4. 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.

12.3.5. Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

12.3.6. 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.

12.4 EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

12.4.1 General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements.

Proposals will not be compared at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which offeror provides the best value to the Government.

12.4.2 Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

12.4.3 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 (except the Past Performance Factor) and for the overall technical proposal. The ratings reflect the Government’s confidence in each offeror's 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:

12.4.3.1 Outstanding: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

12.4.3.2 Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

12.4.3.3 Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

12.4.3.4 Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

12.4.3.5 Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposals unawardable.

12.5 PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

12.5.1 Performance Confidence Assessment: Performance Confidence Assessments will assess each offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the offeror's demonstrated performance on recent contracts and the relevance to the effort required under this solicitation. SSEB members and the Source Selection Authority may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given an “unknown” performance confidence assessment.

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN SAMPLE FORMAT – ATTACHMENT 5

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

FOR [INSERT SOLICITATION NUMBER/CONTRACT NUMBER]

[INSERT APPLICABLE “BRIEF” PROJECT TITLE/PROJECT CODE]

FIRM: [INSERT COMPANY NAME]

GOVERNMENT REVIEW:

[INSERT KO NAME IN ALL CAPS]

Contracting Officer

[INSERT SMALL BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL NAME IN ALL CAPS]

USACE Alaska District Small Business Professional

[INSERT SBA PCR NAME IN ALL CAPS]

Alaska SBA Procurement Center Representative

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

FOR [INSERT SOLICITATION NUMBER/CONTRACT NUMBER]

[INSERT APPLICABLE “BRIEF” PROJECT TITLE/PROJECT CODE]

FIRM: [INSERT COMPANY NAME]

ADDRESS: [INSERT COMPANY ADDRESS]

NAME OF COMPANY OFFICE ADMINISTERING CONTRACT: [INSERT NAME OF COMPANY OFFICE

ADMINISTERING CONTRACT]

RESPONSIBLE CONTRACT SPECIALIST: [INSERT NAME OF CONTRACT SPECIALIST], (907) 753-XXXX RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTING OFFICER: [INSERT NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER], (907) 753-XXXX

1. POLICY STATEMENT OR EVIDENCE OF INTERNAL GUIDANCE TO COMPANY BUYERS THAT

INDICATES COMMITMENT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT (PUBLIC LAW 99-661

§1207 AND PUBLIC LAW 100-180): [INSERT COMPANY RESPONSE/INPUT]

2. SEPARATE PERCENTAGE GOALS IDENTIFIED FOR UTILIZING SMALL BUSINESSES (INCLUDING

ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATIONS (ANCS) AND INDIAN TRIBES), VETERAN-OWNED SMALL

BUSINESSES (VOSB), SERVICE-DISABLED VETERAN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES (SDVOSB),

HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESS ZONE SMALL BUSINESSES (HUBZONE), SMALL

DISADVANTAGED BUSINESSES (SDB), WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES (WOSB), AND WHERE

APPLICABLE, FOR DEFENSE RESEARCH PROGRAMS, HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND

UNIVERSITIES AND MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTIONS (Note 1: Negotiated subcontracting goals must correlate with percentages of small business utilization identified in the Offeror’s small business participation plan and/or the minimum targets identified in the solicitation or contract modification - (Expressed in terms of percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars) (Note 2: Plan must include a separate goal for the basic contract and, if applicable, each option):

[INSERT COMPANY RESPONSE/INPUT – INSERT INPUT AS A TABLE/CHART SIMILAR TO FOLLOWING

EXAMPLE]

Base Options

a. Percentage of contract to be subcontracted ______________% _____________%

b. Percentage of subcontracting dollars to be subcontracted to SB Concerns ______________% ______________%

c. Percentage of subcontracting dollars to be subcontracted to SDB Concerns (to include HBCU/MI Concerns, where applicable) ______________% ______________%

d. Percentage of subcontracting dollars to be subcontracted to WOSB Concerns ______________% ______________%

e. Percentage of subcontracting dollars to be subcontracted to HUBZone SB Concerns ______________% ______________%

f. Percentage of subcontracting dollars to be subcontracted to VOSB Concerns ______________% ______________%

g. Percentage of subcontracting dollars to be subcontracted SDVOSB Concerns ______________% ______________%

3. TOTAL DOLLARS PLANNED AND IDENTIFIED TO BE SUBCONTRACTED AND SEPARATE STATEMENT

INCLUDED OF THE TOTAL DOLLARS PLANNED TO BE SUBCONTRACTED TO SMALL BUSINESS

(INCLUDES ANCS AND INDIAN TRIBES), VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZONE, SDB, AND WOSB CONCERNS) (Note:

Plan must include a separate goal for the basic contract and, if applicable, each option):

[INSERT COMPANY RESPONSE/INPUT – INSERT INPUT AS A TABLE/CHART SIMILAR TO FOLLOWING EXAMPLE – MAY BE TWO TABLES FOR THE TWO ITEMS REQURIED TO BE ADDRESSED UNDER THIS

PARAGRAPH]

Base Options

Total amount of contract $ _____________ $ __________________

Total estimated amount of planned subcontracting dollars (includes all items $______________ $ __________________ listed below in this paragraph)

Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to SB Concerns $ _____________ $ __________________

Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to SDB Concerns (to include, where $ _____________ $ __________________ applicable, HBCU/MI)

Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to WOSB Concerns $ _____________ $ __________________

Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to HUB-Zone SB Concerns $ _____________ $ __________________

Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to VOSB Concerns $ _____________ $ __________________

Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to SDVOSB Concerns) $______________ $ __________________

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRINCIPAL TYPES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES TO BE SUBCONTRACTED AND

SPECIFIC IDENTIFICATION OF TYPES PLANNED FOR SUBCONTRACTING TO SMALL BUSINESS

(INCLUDING ANCS AND INDIAN TRIBES), VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZONE, SDB AND WOSB CONCERNS:

[INSERT COMPANY RESPONSE/INPUT]

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD USED TO DEVELOP THE SUBCONTRACTING GOALS: [INSERT

COMPANY RESPONSE/INPUT]

6. DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD USED TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR SOLICITATION

PURPOSES: [INSERT COMPANY RESPONSE/INPUT]

7. STATEMENT OF…