W911XK21R0001 Amendment 0003.pdf

W56MES91578281

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

PROJECT TITLE: New Lock at the Soo, (New Third Lock) Sault Ste. Marie, MI.

This amendment is issued to:

- Revise Section 00 21 16 as outlined in Section SF 30 - Block 14, Continuation Page

- Revise the Proposal Due Date to August 30, 2021

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 40

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-Aug-2021

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 W911XK21R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Jul-2021

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

24-Aug-2021

CODE

U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, DETROIT

477 MICHIGAN AVENUE, 7TH FLOOR

DETROIT MI 48226-4523

W911XK 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911XK21R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0003

This amendment is issued to revise Section 00 21 16 – Instruction to Proposers as follows:

Paragraph 2.4: Replace “Volume II – Tab A – Standard Form 1442” with “Volume II – Tab A – Standard Form 1442, Acknowledged Amendments and Proposal Data Sheet”

Paragraph 2.5: Replace “Volume II – Table A – Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule” with “Volume II – Tab A – Standard Form 1442, Acknowledged Amendments, and Final Pricing Schedule”

Paragraph 4.3: Replace “Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule” with “Tab A Standard Form 1442, Acknowledge Amendments, Pricing Schedule, and Proposal Data Sheet”

Paragraph 5.1.1: Replace the entire paragraph with the following:

“MANAGEMENT TEAM: Describe in detail how the contractor’s management team will be structured and the approach to working multiple areas and shifts. Provide an organization chart of the key personnel (as a minimum) to include Project Manager, Superintendent, CQC Systems Manager, Site Safety Health Officer as defined in the specifications. The organization chart shall also include the Quality Control and Safety Teams including their relationship and reporting within the overall organization. The chart can be provided on a 11” X 17” size paper and will not be counted with the combined page limit. Contractor should also provide here any agreements or procedures in place to ensure an adequate labor force, if any (project labor agreements, existing available labor pools, etc…).”

Paragraph 9.1: Replace the entire paragraph with the following:

“Tab A - Standard Form 1442, All Amendments, Proposal Data Sheet, and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.”

Paragraph 9.1.1. Replace the entire paragraph with the following:

“9.1.1. Submission Requirement:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet (in the format at the end of this section), and Section 00 10 00: Pricing Schedule. If any amendments are issued against this Solicitation, the Offeror shall include its acknowledgement of those Amendments by returning the signed amendments with its proposal and/or filling in Block 14 of the SF1442 and submitting the signed document with its proposal. The SF1442, block numbers 16, 17, and 18 must be completed by an authorized person from the company.

*NOTE: The Pricing Schedule being issued with Stagger 1 is intended FOR INFORMATION ONLY and is subject to change. The price proposal will only be a required to be a submission of Stagger 2. For Stagger 2 Proposal, the Offeror must enter a price for each item listed in the Final Pricing Schedule.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 25-Aug-2021 02:00 PM to 30-Aug-2021 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL CONTENT & EVALUATION

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. The proposals that will be required to be submitted and evaluated is Technical Management, Technical Approach, Past Performance, Small Business Participation Proposal and Price. The proposals will be evaluated as described in Subsection C, Evaluation Approach and Proposal Submission.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

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

Factor I: Technical Management: Each Offeror’s technical management will be reviewed to determine the risk associated with the team, the quality control measures and the safety program along with the structure of the organization.

Factor II: Technical Approach: Each Offeror’s technical approach will be reviewed to determine a clear understanding of key technical complexities and constraints of the requirement, including schedule, site plan, concrete work, and water diversion, and how that Offeror intends on managing those during contract performance.

Factor III: Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine the level of confidence the Government has in the Offeror completing the solicited work.

Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan: Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure proper utilization of small business concerns during the course of contract performance

Factor V: Price: The resulting award will be a FFP contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the FFP effort.

A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each offeror’s past performance and technical factors an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one (1) contractor for the construction of the New 3rd Soo Lock located in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The basis of award is the Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) Request for Proposal (RFP) Process. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein. The Contracting Officer will award one (1) firm fixed price construction contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

1.2 Bifurcated Request for Proposal (RFP) Procurement Process: The acquisition approach for this project will be a Bifurcated or otherwise known as a Staggered Best Value RFP following FAR Part 15. The initial solicitation (Stagger One) will include a draft bid schedule (for information purposes) draft (95% completed) Plans and Specifications. As the result of the solicitation, the contractor will be required to provide the Stagger One proposal, as described below. There will be no discussions following the Stagger One proposals. While that proposal is being evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), an amendment will be issued only to the contractors that have provided a Stagger One proposal. The amendment will consist of the final bid schedule, the 100% certified Plans and Specification and will provide instructions along with approximately an additional 40 calendar days for the offerors to submit the Stagger Two proposals. The Government will utilize both Stagger One and Stagger Two submission to arrive at the proposal/offeror that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project will be encouraged to limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the Offeror's technical management, technical approach, past performance, and small business participation plan necessary for successful completion of the project.

Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums. Innovative, creative or cost-saving proposals that meet or exceed the requirements are encouraged and will be rated accordingly.

2.2 The Offerors will be required to submit their proposal electronically to Detroit District. The RFP will provide proposal submission instructions and receipt date for proposal submittal. The Offeror’s proposal shall not contain classified data. For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the Government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals. Offerors will be responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided. The Government shall not reimburse any costs related to proposal preparation.

NOTE: The only authorized transmission method for proposals in response to this solicitation is electronically via SAFE online submission. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHODS (EMAIL, FACSIMILE, REGULAR MAIL, HAND CARRIED, ETC.) WILL BE ACCEPTED.

The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the Government by the date/time specified in the solicitation.

Offerors shall email their proposals through the DoD SAFE site using the following link:

https://safe.apps.mil/

Please send proposals using the link above to Contract Specialist, Sandra M. Kenzie, at Sandra.M.Kenzie@usace.army.mil, Contracting Officer Travis Specht at Travis.J.Specht@usace.army.mil AND to LRE-Proposal@usace.army.mil. Only proposals submitted via the above link will be considered for award.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS:

Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. You are limited to twenty-five (25) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 8GB). If you have a large number of files, recommend that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading to the SAFE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE: Offerors must email Contract Specialist, Sandra M. Kenzie, at Sandra.M.Kenzie@usace.army.mil, Contracting Officer Travis Specht at Travis.J.Specht@usace.army.mil AND to LRE-Proposal@usace.army.mil no later than five (5) working days prior to the proposal due date to receive a request code which will allow for file uploads via the SAFE site. Offerors that fail to email for request a code five (5) working days before proposal submission date may not be able to receive a request code in time to upload their submission. THIS MUST BE DONE FOR THIS PROCUREMENT.

FILE DESCRIPTION: Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW ON THE SAFE WEBSITE:

Once at the SAFE website select the “Drop-off” icon. This allows users without a Common Access Card (CAC) or users whose computer is not configured to read a CAC the option to access the SAFE site as a guest.

After selecting the “Click Here” link you will be prompted to add your personal information, file information, recipient (Government representative) information and email settings.

When completing your file information for transmittal via the SAFE website, you will be required to enter the email address for all recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients are the Contract Specialist, Sandra M. Kenzie, at Sandra.M.Kenzie@usace.army.mil, Contracting Officer Travis Specht at Travis.J.Specht@usace.army.mil AND to LRE-Proposal@usace.army.mil. The email address of the government employee who initiated the request code will be automatically entered. The Offeror must enter the email address for both the Contract Specialist and the Contracting Group Email. The Offeror can enter an additional email address if desired. After entering the email address, click the ADD button to add the person(s) email to the “Recipients List” of your response. When your proposal is submitted, a notification will be sent to the recipients you added.

NOTE: Do NOT send the SAFE site packages to group email accounts.

Even if you successfully upload your proposal to the SAFE site, notification will not be sent to the government recipients until you verify your email address. Entering an incorrect email may result in the rejection of your submission for lateness. An Offeror can confirm proper submission by the ‘Drop-Off Completed” screen which generates based on proper file submission.

NOTE: It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the SAFE website when using a Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that Offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS:

For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the Government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. For proposals larger than the 8GB capacity of the SAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or, in some cases, hours.

The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided. The Government shall not reimburse any costs related to proposal preparation.

2.3 Since Detroit District is utilizing the staggered receipt of proposal method for this project, the initial proposal submission will be based on 95% plans and specification and offerors will only be required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraph 2.4. The amendment for the Stagger Two will only be issued to all responsive offerors who submitted a proposal by the due date and time required for the initial receipt of proposal. This amendment will provide additional instruction for the submission of the required information as identified in paragraph 2.5. All proposal materials, submitted via the SAFE website, will be required to conform to the solicitation requirements.

2.4 The initial proposal submissions will include the following:

Volume I – Factor I – Technical Management Volume I – Factor II – Technical Approach Volume I – Factor III – Past Performance Volume II – Tab A – Standard Form 1442, Acknowledged Amendments, aand Proposal Data

Sheet ScheduleVolume II – Tab B- Joint Venture Agreements Volume II – Tab D – Pre-Award Information

2.5 The amendment will include a due date and time for submission of the following:

Volume I – Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan Volume II – Tab A – Standard Form 1442, Acknowledged Amendments, and Final Pricing

Schedule Volume II – Tab C- Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Capability Volume II – Tab E – Small Business Subcontracting Plan

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) consisting of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel, will evaluate and rate the proposals in strict confidence. The proposals of the non-price factors (technical, past performance and small business participation) will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is the Best Value Tradeoff Process.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of four (4) parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, non-price factors evaluation, price evaluation, and cost/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that both a technical and proposal were received.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the technical proposals (technical management and approach) against the RFP requirements. The technical will be rated using the combined technical/risk rating adjectival-based system as defined below.

3.2.3 Past Performance Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate relevancy and confidence of the Past Performance using the definitions that are described in the two tables below.

3.2.4 Small Business Participation Evaluation: The Small Business Participation Proposal, which will be submitted as part of the Stagger Two Proposal, will be evaluated by the SSEB with assistance from advisors in Contracting and the Detroit District’s Small Business Deputy and will be evaluated using an acceptable/unacceptable rating.

3.2.5 Price Evaluation: The SSEB, Cost Engineering, and Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical/quality evaluation in accordance with FAR 15.305. The Government may use any price evaluation techniques identified in FAR Part 15 determined to be appropriate. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical/quality and past performance evaluation.

3.2.6 Best Value Decision: After all of the above evaluations are complete, the SSA will compare the strengths, weaknesses, and the cost/price of the competing proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Relative Importance of Factors: Small Business is evaluated on a Acceptable/Unacceptable basis while Technical Management, Technical Approach and Past Performance are each equal to each other. All Evaluation Factors other than price, when combined, are considered approximately equal to cost or price. Offerors will be reminded to include their best proposals in their initial offers (Stagger One and Stagger Two Offers) since the Government intends to make award of a conforming proposal without discussions.

4.2 Volume I – Non-Price Proposal

4.2.1 Volume I – Factor I Technical Management

4.2.2 Volume I – Factor II Technical Approach

4.2.3 Volume I – Factor III – Past Performance

4.2.4 Volume I – Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan

4.3. Volume II – Price and Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442, Acknowledge Amendments, Not Rated Pricing Schedule, and Proposal Data Sheet Tab B Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable Not Rated Tab C Evidence to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Not Rated Capability Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated Tab E Small Business Subcontracting Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable

4.4 NOTE: Offeror is responsible for ensuring the SAFE site documents submitted are consistent throughout the proposal.

4.5 Ratings

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Color Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offerors 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 successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

Small Business Participation Plan Ratings

Acceptable

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

4.6 Definitions

1. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “CPARS” or

“FAPIIS.”

2. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

3. Communications. Exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

4. Competitive Range. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the contracting officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is reduced for purposes of efficiency. See FAR 15.306(c)

5. 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. See FAR 15.001.

6. Discussions. Negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

7. Evaluation Notice (EN). A written notification to the Offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

8. Performance Confidence Assessment. An evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

9. Recency. As it pertains to Past Performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

10. Relevancy. As it pertains to Past Performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

11. Risk. As it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost of degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

12. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

13. 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.

14. 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).

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

FAR 15.001.

5.0 Volume I – Factor I – Technical Management

5.1 Submission Requirements:

There is a combined page limit for Factors I and II of fifty (50) single sided, 8.5” x 11” pages (except when other page sizes are specified), using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides for the Technical factors. Drawings, sketches, charts or tables do not count in the 50-page count.

50 pages is the total limitation for both factors and information provided after the fiftieth page will not be considered for evaluation.

5.1.1 MANAGEMENT TEAM: Describe in detail how the contractor’s management team will be structured and the approach to working multiple areas and shifts. Provide an organization chart of the key personnel (as a minimum) to include Project Manager, Superintendent, CQC Systems Manager, Site Safety Health Officer as defined in the specifications. The organization chart shall also include the Quality Control and Safety Teams including their relationship and reporting within the overall organization. The chart can be provided on a 11” X 17” size paper and will not be counted with the combined page limit.

Contractor should also provide here any agreements or procedures in place to ensure an adequate labor force, if any (project labor agreements, existing available labor pools, etc…).

5.1.2 QUALITY CONTROL: Describe your ability to control quality throughout the construction process including testing and inspection. Provide an overview of your plan for quality control during this project.

At a minimum this overview shall include:

• A narrative explaining the testing and inspection process utilizing three-phase inspection system

• Concrete testing

5.1.3 SAFETY: Describe how you will manage your on-site safety program for this project. Provide an overview of your plan for the safety program during this project. At a minimum this overview shall include:

• An explanation of how high hazard activities will be completed in a safe manner. This narrative shall encompass both the Contractor Work Limit (CWL) and Limited Work Limit (LWL). At a minimum the high hazards to be addressed will include:

o Electrical o Diving o Load handling o Fall protection o Blasting o Confined Space o Concrete Delivery o Adverse Weather (EM 385-1-1 section 06.J.04 and section B)

5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 The contractor’s management team will be evaluated on its structure and approach to meet project requirements. The organization chart will be evaluated on project requirements and relationship to other entities within the management team. Organizational charts must demonstrate clear and effective lines of internal and external communication and authority among key personnel and subcontractors. Offerors who propose a work approach/shift work that demonstrate a strong likelihood for overcoming the environmental/geographic constraints associated with the work site, including space and weather limitations, may receive additional consideration. Offers that include a thorough approach to ensuring a consistent and stable labor force may also receive additional consideration.

5.2.2 The offeror’s quality control plan will be evaluated on the ability to control quality throughout construction and understanding of the quality control requirements for the project. Proposals must demonstrate an understanding of the three-phase inspection system. Offerors that demonstrate past experience with the three-phase inspection system may receive additional consideration.

5.2.3 The offeror’s safety plan will be evaluated based on overall approach and proposed implementation of the safety program. Offerors that demonstrate past experience in the use of EM-385-1-1 may also receive additional consideration.

6.0 Volume I – Factor II – Technical Approach

6.1 Submission Requirements:

There is a combined page limit for Factors I and II of fifty (50) single sided, 8.5” x 11” pages (except when other page sizes are specified), using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides for the Technical factors. Drawings, sketches, or tables do not count in the 50-page count. 50 pages is the total limitation for both factors and information provided after the fiftieth page will not be considered for evaluation.

6.1.1 SCHEDULE: Provide a brief narrative (maximum 5 pages) that describes your ability to create, implement and maintain a project schedule. Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedule presented (e.g.: labor or material, weather, etc.) .

Provide a schedule for this project that consists of a Gantt chart on a single American National Standard Institute (ANSI) D sheet. Font size shall be a minimum of 8 and legible. The proposed schedule shall include all major milestones as listed below and must provide a logical, reasonable, and well thought out plan on how to execute the project within that schedule.

The layout of the schedule shall include the following columns on the left side of the Gantt Chart:

• Activity ID

• Activity Name

• Original Duration

• Total Float

The schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days after Notice to Proceed (NTP), that each milestone will be achieved. Offeror shall clearly show/highlight the critical path and the schedules shall be graphically represented. The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration. The proposed schedule shall include at least 75 activities and should not include more than 150 activities. The schedule must, at a minimum, include the following construction activities and milestones. When considering options assume the latest date for exercising of that option listed in the Contract (reference specifically clause 52.217-7 (Option For Increased Quantity)) . (dates below are provided for planning purposes and do not necessary reflect contractual requirements):

• Contract Award Date (28 Feb 2022)

• Notice To Proceed - Base (21 Mar 2022)

• Options (See 52.217-7)

• Pre-Construction Submittals

• Mobilization

• Start and completion of Shaft 6

• Start and Completion of Unit 10 Relocation

• Start and Completion of NPP Bridge

• Damming Surface Complete

• Start of Dewatering Sabin and Davis Locks

• New Pumpwell Operational

• In the Dry Commissioning

• Lock Chamber Operational (ready to receive vessels)

• Demobilization

• Construction Completion Date

6.1.2 SITE CONSTRAINTS: Describe your approach for accessing the work site with personnel, equipment, materials, etc. Address any constraints such as existing Contractors on-site, security, and crossing two active

Locks (Poe and MacArthur). If the approach includes transportation over water, describe access during the harsh winter months when ice is on the St. Mary’s River. In addition, describe your proposed utilization of the site to accomplish the work. Include proposed office facilities, carpenter shop, equipment maintenance shop, form and miscellaneous metals laydown area, employee parking, batch plant and any other proposed plant and facilities. Provide a site plan drawing (22”x34”maximum).

6.1.3 CONCRETE: Describe how concrete production and delivery will be developed and implemented in order to meet the project schedule. Proposals shall, at a minimum, address aggregate delivery and handling, batch plant location, method of delivery (to include rational for selection of delivery method), and any measures for hot and cold weather placement. Offerors should include a description of any past experience with mass concrete production and placement.

6.1.4 DIVERSION AND CARE OF WATER: Describe the plan for diversion and care of water.

• The Offeror shall describe the details of how water will be controlled from the following sources:

o surface water, o groundwater, o point source (ex. Rock joints), o Lock Drainage Tunnels – Poe, MacArthur, Crossover, Sabin, Davis o Pumpwell Discharge Pipes

• These details shall include how the Contractor intends to discharge controlled and contained water into the St.

Mary’s River. Ensure that the narrative includes how water will be controlled during the winter.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1 The schedule will be evaluated based on the understanding of contract requirements, work site geography, and events identified in paragraph 6.1.1 above and the offeror’s capability to complete the schedule within the contract duration as well as the Offeror’s consideration for seasonal/weather limitations. The schedule must also show reasonable and logical relationship between activities. The SSEB will evaluate the offeror’s schedule using calendar days, not dates.

6.2.2 The offeror’s site plan drawing will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of requirements to complete the work, site organization, conditions and constraints, and workflow. Novel or innovative approaches to bypass or mitigate site constraints may be a basis for additional consideration.

6.2.3 Concrete will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of contract requirements and overall approach concerning producing, delivering, and placing concrete. Demonstrated past experience with mass concrete may receive additional consideration.

6.2.4 Diversion and Care of Water will be evaluated on the overall approach to control water throughout the construction of the project, including adjustments based on fluctuating seasonal and site conditions as well as the interaction of various excavation and placement activities as well as contract requirements for discharge of water into the St. Mary’s river. Plans that demonstrate methodologies to minimize the amount of water requiring diversion may receive additional consideration. Additionally, plans that identify means to minimize discharge and/or environmental impact of water may receive additional consideration.

7.0 Volume I – Factor III – Past Performance

7.1 Submission Requirements:

Each Offeror shall provide descriptions of at least two (2) but no more than five (5), of their past or current construction projects completed, or substantially complete (50% or more), within the last fifteen (15) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in scope. Detailed project information shall be provided using the Project Detail Sheet format described at the end of this section. Ensure the proposal is clear which work the Offeror and the subcontractors performed.

Projects must meet a minimum of three (3) of the following criteria to be considered similar in scope.

o Experience with bedrock removal in the wet and in the dry around existing infrastructure o Work experience with installation of cellular sheet pile cofferdams o Construction with the use of mass concrete o Experience in marine construction o Installation of hydraulic steel structures that are similar in nature (size, complexity, and purpose) to what is required in these plans and specifications o Installation, integration, and commissioning of mechanical and electrical systems to include power, controls, lighting, hydraulically operated machinery that is similar in nature (size, complexity, and purpose) to what is required in these plans and specifications

Projects shall be at least $75 Million to be considered relevant.

Format for Project Details are included at the end of this section. Use as many forms as necessary to meet the criteria. If you elect not to use the formats, all information identified on the formats is still required for evaluation of this item.

If no past performance questionnaire or CPARs is available for any project, provide two (2) references, one reference must be an Owner’s representative and the second reference may be one of the following: Project Manager, Resident Engineer, Project Engineer, or equivalent. Reference information must include project name, location, owner’s name, point of contact, telephone number, and email address. In addition, submit any ratings, letters, awards, etc. which support past performance on these projects. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is included in the solicitation. USACE requests the Offeror’s client completes this questionnaire and submits it directly back to the Offeror. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. Offerors must provide all PPQs for consideration with their proposal. The Government will not accept PPQs submitted solely through reference to a previous RFP as part of the Offeror’s submission. However, this does not preclude the Government from using previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors may submit CPARS in lieu of past performance references, if applicable.

In addition to the above, the Government is required to use CPARS as a source for past performance, when available. If not available and when necessary, the Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner and engineer satisfaction regarding qualifications and past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, 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. The Government may not contact all of the identified client references/points of contact. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the supplies outlined in the solicitation requirements. If the firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work. Information gathered from these sources, if any, must evidence at least “Satisfactory” performance in the past fifteen (15) years.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier (formerly DUNS) number with the JV proposal. If the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a joint venture for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the joint venture may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the joint venture will not exceed five (5). Past performance for projects completed more than 15 years ago, that project will not be evaluated.

7.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The SSEB will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of the Offeror’s experience as described in the proposal and assign a single confidence rating based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified. Well-documented performance and completion, or significant completion (50% or more complete), of projects within the past five (5) years from issuance of the solicitation, as opposed to the required fifteen (15) years, that are similar in scope and magnitude to this project may receive additional consideration. Any one project demonstrating experience in more than three (3) of the key scope areas referenced in paragraph 7.1 may be given additional consideration by the Government. If it can be demonstrated that the project was completed on time the project may receive additional consideration. Submitted projects must have been performed by the Offeror as either the prime contractor or major subcontractor (completing 25% or more of any single project) to be considered relevant. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. Projects that more closely reflect the full project scope in complexity and value, to include projects with considerably higher dollar values, projects that reflect more considerable effort in more than three of the 6 criteria above, or projects that considerably complex experience with those factors may receive additional consideration.

If the Offeror proposes the combining of two (2) or more companies, known as a Joint Venture (JV), for the purpose of this RFP, the JV will be evaluated as a single Offeror. The experience of each JV partner will be evaluated based on each partner’s role in cited past work and in the proposed JV role for this project.

The SSEB will assign a confidence rating to each Offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 7.1. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. The Government may also use other tools such as CPARS, FAPIIS, Dun & Bradstreet, etc. or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance.

The SSEB will evaluate recent and relevant past performance to assess the degree of performance risk involved in accepting each Offeror’s proposal. If the firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work.

NOTE: Project Descriptions, shall be limited to no more than Three (3) pages, 8-1/2” by 11”. Charts, tables, drawings, and illustrations should be limited to no larger than 11” by 17”. Pages should have a one-inch margin on all sides. Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman. (Captions for drawings and tables may be 10-point) Any Past Performance Questionnaires or Evaluations will not be counted toward the page limit. Pages exceeding the page limits will be removed and not evaluated.

8.0 Volume 1 – Factor IV – Small Business Participation

8.1 Submission Requirements:

All Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) 215.304. The SBPP will be incorporated into any resultant prime contract as the basis for a formal Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The successful Offeror (if a large business) will be required to submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan upon contract award. The Small Business Participation Plan shall be based on the Offeror’s best effort; however, it must meet the minimum total Small Business Participation goal of 15% of the total contract value. Offerors unable to meet the minimum overall small business goal of 15% shall provide an explanation of why this target cannot be met with their proposal.

ALL OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN. The Small Business Participation Plan shall be based on the offeror’s best effort and is required to address each of the following areas individually:

• The extent to which the small business programs listed in FAR 19 (small business, small disadvantaged business, woman-owned small business, HubZone, service-disabled veteran owned small business, etc.) are specifically identified in the Small Business Participation Plan;

• The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition in %’s for the base year and for each individual option year; the extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments, i.e., teaming agreements signed, are to be considered more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

• The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform on this acquisition;

• The practicality of the Small Business Participation Plan, i.e., aggressive goals.

The Small Business Participation Plan shall be organized as follows:

(1) Prime Contractor type of business (check all that apply):

( ) Large ( ) Small (also check type of small business) ( ) Small Non-Disadvantaged Business ( ) Small Disadvantaged Business ( ) Woman-Owned Small Business ( ) HUBZone Small Business ( ) Veteran Owned Small Business ( ) Service Disabled, Veteran Owned Small Business

(2) Percentage of your participation as a prime contractor:…