W911KB25R0018-0002.pdf

W911KB25R0018

KET005

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 incorporate the follow ing changes:

1. Extend Proposal Due Date.

2. Provide Notes from Preproposal Conference Call.

3. Update Section 00 22 11 Section 6, and Attachment 2.

3. Update the follow ing provisions and clauses: Remove 52.222-21, 52.222-23, 52.222-26, and 52.222-27; Update 52.204-8, 52.222-9, and 52.244-6.

4. Update Section 01 33 91.00 29, Design Submission Requirements, paragraph 1.1.1.

5. Attach Bar Point Harbor Trip Report from 11 Apr 2016.

The point of contact for this amendment is Jennifer Gosh at Jennifer.Gosh@usace.army.mil.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 32

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Mar-2025

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 W911KB25R0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Feb-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 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

11-Mar-2025

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, AK

CEPOA-CT (W911KB)

2204 TALLEY AVENUE

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 00 11 00 - STANDARD FORM (SF) 1442

The required response date/time has changed from 01-Apr-2025 02:00 PM to 22-Apr-2025 02:00 PM.

The following have been added by full text:

Ketchikan Bar Point Harbor Breakwater Replacement at Ketchikan, Alaska

W911KB25R0018

Pre-proposal Conference Call Date: 11 March 2025 at 10:00 AM

Location: MS Teams

Meeting opened at 1001.

Good morning, my name is Jennifer Gosh and I am the Contract Specialist for this requirement. Let’s start with a quick roll call. We’ll start with the USACE team, and then move on to our A-E firm, Tetra Tech. I’ll then call out either the name or last 2 digits of the phone number for each person logged in to the call on Teams. If you could please state your first and last name and the company that you represent.

The following attendees were present:

Name Company Jennifer Gosh USACE Jeremy Allen USACE Carly Lynch USACE James Costello Tetra Tech Mauricio Posada Tetra Tech Al Dunn J.F. Brennan Mike Marczewski Bobcat of Ketchikan Chris Lundfelt Derian-Pacific Dan Jankelson TRANSPAC Marinas Erich Poch Leisnoi Grant Soper J.F. Brennan Hannah Norris Pacific Pile Merril Collins J.F. Brennan Julian Koerner Western Marine Katie LaBorde Derian-Pacific Nicole Egli Derian-Pacific Pat McAnally PCM Derrick Jensen Derian Pacific Kodi SGH Emily McCarthy SGH Ali Naeem SGH Tanya Whye Leisnoi Matt Schubert PCCI

Thank you! Again, my name is Jennifer Gosh and I am the Contract Specialist for this requirement. This is the Pre-proposal Conference Call for Solicitation Number W911KB25R0018, project titled Ketchikan Bar Point Harbor Breakwater Replacement at Ketchikan, Alaska.

Anything said during this teleconference does not change the official solicitation. If the solicitation is changed, it will be done by formal amendment.

This solicitation is a "Total Small Business Set Aside” procurement. The NAICS code is 237990 and the small business size standard is $45 Million. The proposed contract is a firm fixed price contract consisting of five base items. Construction Wage Rates do apply.

I will now review some of the points in the Section 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS found on PDF page 10 of the solicitation package.

1. The Contract Construction Cost Magnitude for this project is approximately $25,000,000 to $100,000,000.

2. The solicitation is available for download on the PIEE Solicitation Module at https://piee.eb.mil/sol/xhtml/unauth/index.xhtml via Solicitation Number Search for

W911KB25R0018.

3. Please direct any questions to the Bidder Inquiry system. Detailed instructions are found on PDF page 12 of the solicitation. Please note that all questions must be received no later than 10 calendar days prior to the bid submission date.

4. Offerors must submit their proposals to be received no later than the time stated on the SF 1442 or subsequent amendment. Offerors shall submit proposals electronically via the PIEE Solicitation Module. Quick note- there is an upcoming Amendment- Amendment 0002 that should be posted today to extend the proposal due date out three (3) weeks.

5. There are specific instructions about the format of proposals. They should be 8 ½” x 11” format, using 10 point or larger font size. Narrative information must be provided in a searchable format, preferably PDF. All price breakdown information to aide in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Excel format. The proposal shall be submitted in two volumes. Any arithmetic discrepancies will be handled in the manner listed on PDF page 14.

6. Performance and Payment bonds are required and shall be 100% of the value of the contract. If there are any modifications that increase the price, additional bond protection will be requested.

An Offer Guarantee is not required. Instead of submitting an Offer Guarantee, Offerors are to submit a letter from their bonding company indicating the Offerors ability to obtain performance and payment bonds in the amount of their proposal price.

7. Your attention is invited to Provision 52.225-12, Notice of Buy American Act Requirement-

Construction Materials and FAR Clause 52.225-11. You are responsible for notifying any subcontractors or suppliers of the Buy American Act requirements.

I will now review some of the points in the Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Requirements. This section will be updated in upcoming Amendment 0002 which will be available for download on PIEE-hopefully later on this afternoon.

1. This is a “Best Value” solicitation. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described in Section 00 22 11, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government utilizing the trade-off process described in FAR 15.101-1.

2. 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 in Section 00 22 11, 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 funds available 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 Authority must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify award to that offeror.

3. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions.

However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms the offeror can submit to the Government. Do not assume offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experience. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the offeror. The Government may reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration. Complete proposals shall meet the basic requirements identified in the RFP.

4. The following factors will be evaluated to determine the best value to the Government:

Technical Approach is Factor 1 and is the Most Important Factor. Factor 2 is Past Performance (Confidence Assessment) which is the 2nd Most Important Factor (slightly less important than Factor 1) and Price is Factor 3 and is significantly less important than Factors 1-2 combined)

5. Please read the detailed instructions in 00 22 11 for detailed Submission Instructions and the Evaluation Criteria for each Factor. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask via the Bidder Inquiry system.

Please ensure I receive all the requirement documents prior to the time period stated on the SF 1442. Do not submit your proposal to any person other than those identified in this solicitation.

One final reminder, anything said during this teleconference does not change the official solicitation. If the solicitation is changed, it will be done by formal amendment.

This concludes the contracting portion of the briefing and now I will hand it over to Jeremy Allen, USACE Project Manager.

Jeremy- Introduced A-E designed Tetra Tech. Maricio provided slideshow presentation

Please see attached Slide Show.

This concludes the technical review of the plans and specifications. One final reminder, anything said during this teleconference does not change the official solicitation. When the solicitation is changed, it will be done by formal amendment. Did anyone have any questions? Anything that was not asked in ProjNet?

(No questions)

This concludes the pre-proposal conference. Thank you all for attending.

The pre-proposal conference call concluded at 10:27.

SECTION 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (ONE STEP, DB)

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 11

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD ONE

STEP - - BEST VALUE

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

5.0 VOLUME 1, TAB A – FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.0 VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

7.0 VOLUME 2, TAB A – FACTOR 3 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET,

AND PRICE PROPOSAL SCHEDULE)

8.0 VOLUME 2, TAB B - REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

9.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

9.2 EVALUATION

9.3 DEFINITIONS

9.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

9.5 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING AND PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENT

SECTION 00 22 11 ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – OFFEROR EXPERIENCE FORM

3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 Interested firms (here after referred to as Offerors) shall submit proposal 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 replacement of two floating breakwaters at Bar Point Harbor located in Ketchikan, Alaska. 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 and award a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal 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 OF AWARD

2.1 The Contracting Officer will award a FFP contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority has determined conforms to the solicitation 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 funds available for this project. 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, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) must determine the added value of the more expensive proposal that would justify award to that offeror.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 Proposals should be submitted initially in the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint.

Do not assume offerors will be contacted or awarded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal.

3.2 The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experience. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the offeror. The Government may reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration. Complete proposals shall meet the basic requirements identified in the RFP.

3.3 Submit proposal in as specified in Section 00 21 00. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, indicated in the sections below.

4.0 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Vol 1, Tab A

Factor 1 Technical Approach Most Important Factor

Vol 1, Tab B

Factor 2 Past Performance (Confidence Assessment)

2nd Most Important Factor

(Slightly Less Important Than Factor 1, Slightly More Important than Factor 3)

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Vol 2, Tab A

Factor 3 Price

(Standard Form 1442 and Price Proposal Schedule)

Least Important Factor

(Significantly Less Important Than Factors 1 & 2 Combined)

Vol 2, Tab B

N/A Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

5.0 VOLUME 1, TAB A – FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 The Technical Approach factor consists of technical approach narratives and information regarding materials and construction details for replacement of the floating breakwaters in Bar Point Harbor. The Technical Approach narrative must clearly define the means and methods of floating breakwater construction in enough detail for the Government to understand whether the proposal meets or exceeds the minimum solicitation requirements. The intent during the proposal submission and review process is not to require detailed design effort or to perform a detailed design engineering review but to focus on the proposed procedures for constructing the floating breakwaters. If the Government evaluators have actual knowledge or strong suspicion that a proposed construction method is inappropriate, being used in the wrong application or otherwise does not meet the contract requirements, the Government will inform the Offeror in the event that discussions are conducted with the firm. The Government is not asking for design analysis in the proposal and is not obligated to perform an engineering design review at this stage.

5.1.2 Provide a detailed description of the Offeror’s Technical Approach for completing fabrication and construction of new floating breakwaters for Bar Point Harbor and include completion of all aspects of work with, at a minimum, a detailed narrative and concept drawings, as applicable, for the following:

• Floating Breakwater Structure – Describe the proposed means and methods for designing and fabricating the floating breakwater structures for Bar Point Harbor to meet the specified performance criteria and required design life. Include a description and concept drawings for the following:

o Proposed breakwater modules including design details and dimensions.

o Proposed module-to-module connections.

o Proposed module-to-anchor chain connections.

• Breakwater Demolition – Describe the proposed sequencing of demolition and construction to ensure the integrity of Bar Point Harbor is maintained at all times.

• Breakwater Construction – Describe methods to transport the breakwater modules to Ketchikan, Alaska and construct the breakwaters on site. Include proposed equipment, the proposed extent of dive operations and work constraints related to weather, tides, waves, wind, or other environmental conditions.

• Future Maintenance – Describe the anticipated future maintenance requirements for the proposed breakwater design. Include the anticipated maintenance tasks and maintenance frequency for the breakwater modules and all connections.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 The Government will evaluate the proposed means and methods submitted under this factor to assess the offeror’s understanding of the scope of the project. Lack of detail or of a demonstrated understanding may result in the proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The Government places greater importance on a technical approach that will successfully meet the requirements of this solicitation while minimizing construction and maintenance impacts including, but not limited to, proven module designs and module connection methods that meet the specified performance criteria of the solicitation and achieve the required design life, protection of the harbor during breakwater demolition and construction, and protection of the modules during transportation to the site.

5.2.2 The narrative provided by the Offeror describing its Technical Approach for completing the Bar Point Harbor Floating Breakwater Replacement is expected to be comprehensive. Proposals that may be viewed more favorably are those that:

• Demonstrate a thorough understanding of all aspects of work and the conditions under which the work will be performed and meet all requirements in the specifications.

• Propose proven designs and construction methods or techniques that will be used in existing site conditions and minimize/ease long term maintenance requirements.

• Proposals will be viewed more favorably that propose construction methods that maintain the protection of the existing harbor during demolition and construction.

6.0 VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 2 –PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT)

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1 The offeror must provide demonstrated experience for their proposed method(s) of floating breakwater construction and fabrication. In responding to this factor, the objective is to demonstrate to the technical evaluators that the offeror clearly has the capability to successfully complete all aspects of the project by explaining in detail how the projects submitted for specialized experience are similar to the work described in the solicitation.

6.1.2 Submit two (2) project descriptions for the offeror documenting previous experience as the Prime Contractor or Sub-Contractor on construction projects similar to the Bar Point Harbor Floating Breakwater Replacement. Utilize the AM02… OFFEROR EXPERIENCE FORM …AM02 at the end of this section or an equivalent form. Projects must be at least 50% complete or completed within ten (10) years prior to the issue date of this solicitation. Past experience construction projects should clearly demonstrate the offeror’s capability to successfully complete the project and should include:

(a) Successful construction of floating breakwaters similar to those required for Bar Point

Harbor.

(b) Specific requirements and conditions of past experiences as they relate to this project.

Discuss any problems encountered and corrective actions taken to ensure project completion.

In addition, include a description of the following:

• The type of equipment used to construct the project.

• The environmental conditions (wind, weather, tides) experienced.

• The transportation of floating breakwater structures from point of manufacture to the project location.

• Each project identified must reference a contract number and point of contact (POC), inclusive of their name, telephone number and email address.

6.1.3 Submit two (2) project descriptions for the breakwater fabrication contractor demonstrating previous experience designing and fabricating floating breakwater modules similar to those required for this project. Utilize the AM02… OFFEROR EXPERIENCE FORM …AM02 at the end of this section or an equivalent form. Projects must be at least 50% complete or completed within ten (10) years prior to the issue date of this solicitation. Past experience breakwater design and fabrication projects should clearly demonstrate how the past projects are similar to the Bar Point Harbor Breakwater Replacement project. The offeror must clearly indicate if the same AM02… OFFEROR EXPERIENCE FORM …AM02 will be used to satisfy the requirement in paragraph 6.1.2 and 6.1.3.

6.1.4 Failure to provide sufficient detail explaining how each provided past experience project is similar to the work described in the solicitation may be noted as a deficiency. The offeror should clearly demonstrate it has the capability to successfully complete the project. Offerors should presume that the technical evaluators are unfamiliar with the provided demonstrated experience and are responsible for providing detailed explanations regarding the work and how said work is similar to that described in the solicitation.

6.1.5 If any portion of work provided as demonstrated experience is from a parent, sister, predecessor or affiliated company, clearly identify that work as it relates to this project. The proposal must clearly and specifically indicate how the resources of the parent, sister, predecessor, or affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, equipment or other resources – will be provided and relied upon for contract performance. The Contracting Officer may discount experience of a parent, sister, predecessor or affiliated company unless the Offeror clearly provides evidence of a commitment as to the utilization of the identified entity’s resources in the performance of this project.

6.1.6 If any portion of work provided as demonstrated experience is subcontracted, clearly identify that work as such and provide the required experience of that subcontractor as it relates to the work the subcontractor will be performing on this project.

6.1.7 For each project submitted, the offeror shall provide:

• Project description and information using “Offeror Experience Form” (Attachment 2). The offeror must address all items included on Attachment 2 (no more than two (2) pages per project). The “Offeror Experience Form” may also be used for key subcontractor experience if included as part of the team. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are like the requirements of this solicitation.

• If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, submit it with the proposal.

• If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3) for the project. Offerors are advised to ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the Client point of contact. (Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is available).

o If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with proposal the first page of the PPQ, 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, Jennifer Gosh by email at Jennifer.Gosh@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

o PPQs are source selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an email confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is the offeror’s responsibility to follow up to ensure the Government has received the information.

o Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other procurements. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

o Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

• In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the CPARS, using all CAGE/UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), System for Award Management (SAM.gov), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

6.1.8 A firm will not receive credit under this factor for past performance of key personnel proposed for this project. An offeror may receive credit for relevant experience under a previous business arrangement

(ex. joint venture) if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the submitted project is relevant to their proposed role on this project. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm of the joint venture shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this requirement. Clearly identify the role and responsibilities of each joint venture partner. Offerors who submit experience information of a parent, sister or other affiliated company must describe what involvement such company will have on the instant acquisition. The offeror shall provide a one (1) page narrative that clearly and specifically indicates what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will be provided or relied upon for contract performance. The Government may discount the experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company unless the prime contractor clearly provides evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the parent, sister or other affiliated company or provides a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter including the following:

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

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

6.1.9 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.

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1 The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying construction services that meet the contract’s requirements. The evaluation method that the Government will use with respect to Factor 2 – Past Performance is detailed below.

6.2.2 There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

6.2.2.1 The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. For this solicitation, recent projects are those completed or substantially completed (at least 50% complete) within ten (10) years of the date that proposals are due.

mailto:Jennifer.Gosh@usace.army.mil

6.2.2.2 The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the work required by this solicitation. The projects will include those submitted as well as from other sources described above. This relevancy rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. 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. There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description

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.

NOTE: Magnitude is defined as projects with a construction cost between $25M to $100M.

In determining the relevancy of each submitted project, the Government will consider the following in scope features, complexity, and magnitude:

• Size, type of work, and complexity of the work to include previous similar floating breakwater projects

• Location of work and similarity to the climate and environmental conditions of Ketchikan, Alaska

• Dates (Projects must be at least 50% complete or completed within ten (10) years prior to the issue date of this solicitation)

• Firm's role and extent of work self-performed.

6.2.2.3 The third aspect of the past performance evaluation, quality, is to determine how well the offeror performed on its past performance projects. 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.

The entity will be rated on its own 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. The Government may ask Owners/References and will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such things as As-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government places a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to CPARS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge.

6.2.4 A final Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be given for this factor based on the assessment of recent and relevant past performance information and the assessment of the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts. The Government will review the past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the Table below.

Performance Confidence Assessments

RATING DESCRIPTION

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

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

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 factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will be able to 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.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror may receive a Neutral Confidence rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).); it is considered “Neutral.” However, the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

7.0 VOLUME 2 – TAB A – FACTOR 3 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PRICE PROPOSAL

SCHEDULE)

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

7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

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).

7.1.1 Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Contracting Officer may request a detailed price breakdown of the Contract Line items 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 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.

7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

7.2.1 Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. 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.

7.2.2 If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be requested and used to assist the

Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

7.2.3 Award may not be made for project cost for construction exceeding the contract cost limitation described in UAI 5136.205-100 Statutory cost limitations – Civil Works contracts. IAW 33 U.S.C. 624, no Civil Works construction shall be done by private contract if the contract price exceeds the Government estimate by more than 25%.

8.0 VOLUME 2 - TAB B – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

8.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

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

8.1.2 Joint Venture agreement or Limited Liability Company Certificate of Organization, Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement, if applicable.

8.1.3 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.

8.1.4 A certified statement listing; (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three 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 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.

8.1.5 Completed Representations and Certifications included by full text in Section 00 45 00. List any changes to Online Representations and Certifications in 52.204-8 for FAR Clauses and 252.204-7007 for DFAR clauses. Provide any certifications where vendor indicated in www.SAM.gov that certification would be provided with specific offer.

8.1.6 One copy of the following information shall be provided:

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

• Number of years the firm has been in business.

• Name, address and telephone number of firm’s bonding company.

• 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 amount of their proposal price.

• Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references.

8.2 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.

9.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

9.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

9.1.1 The Source Selection Evaluation Board (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, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information.

The SSEB will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

9.2 EVALUATION:

9.2.1 The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor, except that performance confidence ratings are assigned to past performance (see below).

9.2.2 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.

9.2.3 A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that 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.

9.2.4 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.

9.2.5 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.

9.3 DEFINITIONS

9.3.1 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.

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

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

9.3.4 Strength: An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

9.3.5 Significant Strength: An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

9.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

9.4.1 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.

They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative strengths and weaknesses of proposals against each other in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified.

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

9.4.3 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, addressed in 11.5, below), which 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:

9.4.3.1 Outstanding: Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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

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

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

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

9.5 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING AND PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENT

9.5.1 Past Performance Relevancy Rating: Offeror past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant recent contracts performed by the offeror are to the effort required under this solicitation. (See explanation of relevancy under the Factor “Past Performance”). A past performance relevancy rating will be assigned using the following criteria and will be considered in determining the offeror’s Performance Confidence Assessment rating:

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

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

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

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

9.5.2 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 SSA 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. The performance confidence assessment shall be assigned using the following criteria:

9.5.2.1 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.

9.5.2.2 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.

9.5.2.3 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.

9.5.2.4 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.

9.5.2.5 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.

SECTION 00 22 11 - ATTACHMENT 1

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

(1) Name of Solicitation: Floating Breakwater Replacement, Bar Point Harbor, Ketchikan, Alaska

(2) Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

UEI # (used for accessing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Database.

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the CPARS databases. If a separate UEI has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted. Provide a UEI number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide UEI for each.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

(3) AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

[List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.] Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

SECTION 00 22 11 - ATTACHMENT 2

OFFEROR EXPERIENCE FORM

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last AM02… ten …AM02 years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.

a. Type of Project Represented

b. Your…