W9123620R4000 Solicitation.pdf

Construction of an Energetic Waste Incinerator and Contaminated Waste Processor (EWI/CWP) at Radford Army Ammunition Plant in Radford, VA

a) This acquisition is solicited as an unrestricted procurement using the Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection Process utilizing Tw o-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures in accordance w ith FAR 15.101-1 and 36.3.

b) NAICS Code: 236210-Institutional Building Construction

c) Small Business Size Standard: $39.5 Million

d) Magnitude of Construction: betw een $100,000,000 and $250,000,000.

e) The site visit is highly encouraged and w ill be provided during Phase Tw o of this procurement. Requests for a site visit during Phase One w ill not be accommodated.

PHILIP D MATHEWS 757-201-7292

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

25-Sep-2020

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________710 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________26 Oct 2020 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

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

D. Offers providing less than _______180 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

USACE, NORFOLK DISTRICT OFFICE

CONTRACTING OFFICE

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

W91236

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

757-201-7183FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W9123620R4000 74

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

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

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

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

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job W91236-20-R-4000

FFP

Total cost for construction of a new Energetic Waste Incinerator/ Contaminated Waste Processor (EWI/CWP) at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RFAAP) in Radford, Virginia. Pricing will be requested with Phase Two proposals. DO NOT submit any pricing information with Phase One submittal.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

0001 710 dys. ANP 1 N/A

FOB: Destination

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

RFAAP is a Government-owned, Contractor-operated (GOCO) energetic materials manufacturing facility located in Radford, Virginia, established in 1941. RFAAP is the only producer of nitrocellulose (NC) in the National Technology and Industrial Base (NTIB), and the only domestic source of NC propellant used in the manufacture of ammunition and missiles. The manufacturing processes from production of NC propellants for small, medium, large caliber and MK90 ammunition generates multiple types of energetic waste that need to be treated on-site.

The construction of the new EWI/CWP will replace the current aged EWI facilities, relocate the waste treatment and decontamination activities into one centralized facility, and reduce/eliminate open burning conducted at RFAAP.

The new EWI/CWP will treat at a minimum, 95 percent of all hazardous energetic waste streams from RFAAP, in an efficient, emission controlled thermal treatment facility that is compliant with the plant operating permits and Army policy. The Assistant Secretary of the Army issued a Memorandum for Open Burning (OB) of Certain Waste Material dated 26 November 2019. The memo provides Army policy concerning the use of OB and requires that a new contained technology should be in place and operational no later than 01 October 2026. The construction of the new EWI/CWP facility addressed by this plan will meet this requirement.

The new EWI/CWP will be able to process Energetic Waste classified as 1.1 explosives on-site. The EWI/CWP will process all of the production wastes and a minimum of 95 percent of wastes currently treated at the open-burning grounds (OBG). There are two types of wastes, Energetic Waste (EW) and Energetic Contaminated Waste

(ECW).

EW generated at RFAAP comes from multiple sources, such as process waste (shavings), rejected material, pit waste, and other direct process sources. EW typically meets one of several hazardous waste classifications under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Currently, all EW generated at the RFAAP is either destroyed in one of two Energetic Waste Incinerators (EWIs) or at the open-burning grounds (OBG). Both of these facilities are permitted under the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hazardous waste program.

ECW is generated from material handling sources, such as pallets, filters, hoses, pipes, gloves, etc., that are slightly contaminated with energetics, but are not classified as a RCRA hazardous waste. ECW can be either combustible solid waste (fiber drums, plastic drums, and plastic bags) or non-combustible contaminated metals.

The EWI/CWP major systems include the Grinder for EW (nitrocellulose), a Contaminated Waste Feed System for combustible ECW, two Rotary Kiln Incinerators for EW and ECW (slurry and solids) with Air Pollution Control systems, a Contained Burn Chamber for non-grindable EW and combustible ECW, and a Car Bottom Decontamination Oven for non-combustible ECW (flue gas exhausts through an afterburner into one of the two Air Pollution Control systems). The major systems are supported by the operations control center, motor control center, and maintenance and storage.

Site layout has already been determined based on Quantity Distance (QD) Arcs.

No demolition is required for this project and a timber harvest has already been completed.

B. OFFEROR’S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

NOTE: All questions and/or comments should reach the above referenced Contracting Office via ProjNet no later than 10 days prior to proposal submission due date, in order that they may be given consideration or actions taken prior to receipt of offers.

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

The Solicitation Number is: W91236-20-R-4000 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: P29B9N-CI6EE2

The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries 10 days prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry. The call center operates weekdays from 8am to 5pm U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

1.0 OVERVIEW

This solicitation will be conducted via Best Value Tradeoff Process, as authorized by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1, utilizing Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures in accordance with FAR 36.3.

The award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value and has been determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. The Government has the right to accept other than the lowest offer or other than the highest technically rated offer. This acquisition will result in a firm fixed price contract for Design- Build construction services. In accordance with DFAR 236.204 the magnitude of construction cost for the EWI/CWP Facility is between $100,000,000 and $250,000,000.

The Government will conduct a Best Value Tradeoff selection process based on the evaluation of five factors. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. Factors 1 and 2 will be evaluated during Phase One.

Factor 1 will only be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for Phase Two. Factor 1 will not be considered in Phase Two. Factor 2 will move forward and will be considered in Phase Two. A maximum of five (5) highest rated proposals will be selected to proceed to Phase Two and will be requested to submit Phase Two proposals. Phase Two will require Offerors to submit responses to evaluation Factors 3 and 4 as well as Factor 5.

Phase One Factors:

Factor 1 – Management Approach Factor 2 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance

Phase Two Factors:

Factor 3 – Technical Approach Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Plan Factor 5 – Price

The relative order of importance of evaluation factors is Factor 2 and 3 are of approximately equal importance to each other; Factor 4 is less important than either Factor 2 or 3. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole (Factors 2- 5), the non-price factors (2, 3, and 4), when combined are approximately equal to price (Factor 5).

The Government will select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation criteria and basis of award stated in the solicitation. If award is not made on initial offers, the Government will determine the competitive range, authorize discussions with only those Offerors determined to be in the competitive range and documents the decision through approval of the Competitive Range Decision Document (CRDD).

Upon completion of the evaluation of final proposal revisions submitted by the Offerors in the competitive range, or if award is made on initial offers, the Government will select the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government. This decision will be documented to include the rationale for any business judgments and trade-offs made or relied on and the benefits associated with additional costs in the Source Selection Decision Document

(SSDD).

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Any legally organized Offeror who agrees to follow the conditions of the RFP may submit a proposal.

2.2 Do not submit any materials not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures, etc.).

2.3 The Government is not liable for any costs incurred by the Offerors submitting an offer in response to this solicitation.

2.4 Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of their proposal. Failure to provide sufficient detail may result in an unacceptable rating. Proposals received will be considered proprietary information and shall be clearly marked as such by the Offeror.

2.5 Proposal Submission Requirements:

2.5.1 Proposals shall be submitted to: Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, hand carrying of proposals will not be accepted.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS

Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, all proposals shall be submitted electronically through the DoD SAFE website. Offerors are limited to five (5) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 2GB). If an offeror attempts to transmit a large number of files, recommend that combining or ZIP files before uploading to the DODSAFE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission. It is offerors’ responsibility to check with DOD Safe to ensure successful submission.

Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

Accordingly, the Norfolk District will NOT accept proposals by mail, hand-carry, or commercial courier (that is, no physical proposals will be accepted in response to this solicitation). All proposals must be submitted by electronic commerce only (that is, by submission through DoD SAFE, as discussed below, only).

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

Electronic Proposal Submission in DoD SAFE

In accordance with FAR 15.203(c), Electronic commerce may be used to issue RFPs and to receive proposals, modifications, and revisions when contracting by negotiation. Proposals will be submitted through DoD Secure Access File Exchange (DoD SAFE) (https://safe.apps.mil/). All proposals must be uploaded into DoD SAFE infrastructure not earlier than October 23, 2020, and not later than (NLT) October 26, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).

Request for Upload Code

Offerors will require a unique “request code” to upload proposals into DoD SAFE, which shall be obtained only by email to POC: Philip Mathews at philip.d.mathews@usace.army.mil, and cc:

PPMDContracts@usace.army.mil. The email request for the “request code” must be emailed to the POC NLT October 22, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. EST.

The OFFEROR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for ensuring that the entire proposal has been received into DoD SAFE with a timestamp NLT 2:00 p.m. EST on October 26, 2020.

Electronic Proposal Organization and Format

The Offeror shall organize the proposal as set forth in details of the solicitation. The titles and contents of the volumes, as well as the page limitations and number of required copies must be submitted as specified in the solicitation. In the event that solicitation conflicts with the detailed instructions in the paragraphs that follow, the detailed instructions shall take precedence.

The Offeror shall address the factors, sub factors and their related elements as provided in the solicitation. Be clear, concise, and include detailed explanations for substantiating the validity of stated assertions. Extraneous, repetitious, or wordy submissions are not desired and could result in lower ratings. Elaborate brochures or documentation, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. No models, mockups, or videos will be accepted. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to obtain written confirmation of receipt of all electronic files of the full proposal submitted into DoD SAFE. Please forward a copy of this confirmation of receipt to POC:

Philip Mathews at philip.d.mathews@usace.army.mil, and cc: PPMDContracts@usace.army.mil

Electronic files shall be clearly identified for each volume, section, and item. Title the file(s) in the following format:

W9123620R4000_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I A

W9123620R4000_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I B

W9123620R4000_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

The Offeror's proposal, which consist of two volumes, (i.e., Volume I A – Factors 1, and 2, during Phase One and Volume I B – Factors 3 and 4 and Volume II – Factor 5, during Phase Two), shall be submitted during the appropriate phase. Volumes and Factors will be bifurcated appropriately based on the appropriate phase. Any questions regarding electronic proposal submission should be directed to Mr. Philip Mathews in ProjNet.

NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII) in the File Description.)

Offerors are STRONGLY encouraged to avoid waiting until the last minute to attempt to transmit their proposals.

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 in the DODSAFE website. For proposals larger than the 2GB capacity of the DODSAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded in to the DODSAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. The electronic proposal submittal contents shall conform to the details of the solicitation and subsequent amendments.

SPECIAL PROVISION IN RESPONSE TO CORONOVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID19) ON

ACCEPTANCE OF BONDS AND OTHER FINANCIAL PROTECTIONS

Please be advised that in accordance with FAR Deviation 2020-o0016, Class Deviation – Original Documents, Signatures, Seals And Notarizations, Electronic signatures and electronic, mechanically-applied or printed dates may be used and shall be considered original signatures and dates, without regard to the order in which they are affixed for all of part 28, as required by the solicitation.

2.5.2 Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted electronically as detailed above. Offers received by telegraph, modifications thereto, or cancellations of offers will not be accepted.

2.5.3 Facsimile offers, modifications thereto, or cancellations of offers will not be accepted.

2.5.4 Offers received by email, modifications thereto, or cancellations of offers will not be accepted.

2.5.5 The proposal shall be submitted in an 8-½ inch x 11inch format (except that tables and graphic representations may be submitted on Z-folded 11inch x 17inch pages). Pages shall be numbered. Text shall have a minimum eleven

(11) point Arial or Times New Roman font. No proposal information may be included by reference. Proposals shall adhere to the allowable number of pages specified under each evaluation factor. If a proposal submission exceeds the page number limits reflected throughout the Solicitation, the Government will not consider the matters submitted within the pages that exceed the limits. Text printed on two sides of a page will be counted as two (2) pages.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring electronic copies are virus-free and shall run an anti-virus scan before upload into DoD SAFE.

2.5.6 Any information that is changed as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions shall be of a different color and clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated.

2.5.7 All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete project name, installation name, solicitation number, and the Offeror’s name in the header and/or footer. Each volume shall have a Table of Contents and use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

NOTE: 11inch X 17inch Z-folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations and will be counted as one page.

The following additional restrictions apply:

a. File Packaging. Electronic copies of each volume shall be compatible with the following software products:

Adobe Acrobat Reader 11 and Microsoft Office Suite (Excel and Project) 2010. The electronic copy shall be in Adobe Acrobat (except for Microsoft Excel documents) portable document file (pdf) searchable text format. PDF Files shall be submitted in read-only format. All price breakdown information shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel 2013 Excel Workbook (*.xlsx) format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2013 to aide in the cost/price evaluation.

b. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner and to permit a complete and accurate evaluation.

2.5.8 All constituent members of the Offeror, if applicable, MUST sign the SF1442 and the bid bond unless a written agreement executed by all team members is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other members. Failure to comply with this requirement WILL eliminate the proposal from further consideration. The proposal must comply with any additional instructions in FAR clause 52.215-1 incorporated into this solicitation.

2.5.9 Any deviation and/or exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

3.0 BASIS OF AWARD

It is intended that this RFP will result in a Firm Fixed-Price contract. The Contracting Officer will award this contract to that responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the best overall value to the Government. After the evaluation team evaluates and rates each proposal, the 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 or the highest rated technical offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001 unless corrected through discussions, should the Government decide to conduct discussions. Furthermore, the Government will not make an award based on a proposal that received less than an acceptable rating in Factor 3, Factor 4, or Factor 5 or a limited or no confidence assessment rating in Specialized Experience/Past Performance Factor (Factor 2).

The best value tradeoff decision and the determination for award will be based on Factor 2, Factor 3, Factor 4 and Factor 5.

INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS: Proposals must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this Request for Proposal (including attachments). The penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions, clarifications, or any contact concerning the proposals received; therefore, each initial proposal should be submitted on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

Discussions may be held in Phase One or Phase Two or both, if determined to be in the Government’s best interests.

Offerors should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

This RFP does not commit the Government to reimburse any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation. Note specifically that the offeror will not be participating in a sealed bid procurement process under this acquisition method. Issuance of this RFP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

4.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS

4.1 VOLUME I (A) - PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

Factor Location Description Relative Importance TAB A SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet (Included at Attachment 1, Section 00 22 20) Contractor Team Arrangements, e.g., JV Agreement/LLC, Letter of Commitment (if applicable)

N/A

Factor 1 TAB B Management Approach N/A Factor 2 TAB C Specialized Experience/Past Performance Factor 2 is of approximately equal importance to Factor 3 and is more important than Factor 4.

4.2 VOLUME I (B) – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

Factor 3 TAB D Technical Approach Factor 3 is of approximately equal importance to Factor

2 and is more important than Factor 4.

Factor 4 TAB E Small Business Participation Plan Factor 4 is less important than Factor 2 or Factor 3.

Note: Only those Offerors who have been notified by the Contracting officer to be included in Phase Two will be requested to submit VOLUME I (B).

4.3 PHASE TWO: VOLUME II –PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor 5 TAB A Price (Contract Line Item Schedule and supporting detailed pricing data) Factor 5 is approximately equal in importance to Factors 2, 3 and 4 combined.

TAB B Bid Guarantee Not Rated TAB C Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

Note: Only those Offerors who have been notified by the Contracting officer to be included in Phase Two will be requested to submit VOLUME II.

4.4 EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS

4.4.1 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will ensure that the evaluation of all Factors has been conducted in accordance with the Solicitation and all applicable acquisition laws and regulations.

4.4.2 Factor 1 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 5.2.2 by the Technical Evaluation Team (TET).

4.4.3 Factor 2 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 5.3.2 by the TET

4.4.4 Factor 3 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 6.1.2 by the TET

4.4.5 Factor 4 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 6.2.2 by the Small Business Evaluation Team.

4.4.6 Factor 5 will be evaluated by the Price Evaluation Team (PET) in accordance with paragraph 7.1.2. Proposals will be evaluated using price analysis techniques and will be evaluated for price fairness and reasonableness. Price will not be rated or scored.

4.4.7 The Government will evaluate and rate the proposals against the specified evaluation criteria in the solicitation requirements for each non-price evaluation factor. Proposals will not be compared at this time. After all proposals are evaluated and rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against one another in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified.

4.4.8 Rating Definitions for Factor 1 – Management Approach:

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

Unacceptable (U): 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 un-awardable.

4.4.9 Rating Definitions for Factor 2 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance:

4.4.9.1 The definitions for a strength, weakness, significant weakness, and deficiency which apply to all factors are as follows:

Strength – Is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness – Is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness – Is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency – Is 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.

4.4.9.2 Specialized Experience/ Past Performance. The Government will first evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s Specialized Experience/Past Performance as defined in paragraph 5.3.2 below.

4.4.9.3 Specialized Experience/ Past Performance. The Government will next rate the relevancy of recent projects submitted in accordance with the definitions of "Very Relevant," "Relevant," "Somewhat Relevant," and "Not Relevant" as presented below. The relevancy rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating. The past performance relevancy rating is as follows:

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 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 and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.4.9.4 Specialized Experience/ Past Performance will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is as follows:

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 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 Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4.4.10 Rating Definitions for Factor 3 – Technical Approach

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

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

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

Marginal (M): proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (U): 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 un-awardable.

4.4.11 Rating Definitions for Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Plan

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

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

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

Marginal (M): Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable (U): Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

5.0 PHASE ONE: VOLUME I (A) – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY (TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PHASE

ONE PROPOSAL) – PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1 TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Submit the SF 1442, and all amendments completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. Include the completed Proposal Data Sheet provided as Attachment 1.

5.1.1 TAB A – Contractor Team Arrangements, if applicable – If an Offeror submits as a team, include a copy of the teaming agreement in Volume I (A), TAB A of its proposal. Teaming agreements must be signed by all partners and clearly indicate the percentages of the teaming partners, in particular the percent of the controlling party, and a clear delineation of responsibilities and authorities between the partners. If the Offeror is a Limited Liability Company, include a copy of the Articles of Organization in Volume I (A), TAB A

5.1.2 TAB A – Letter of Commitment if applicable shall be provided using the format provided as Attachment 5 and shall be signed by all parties.

5.2 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

5.2.1 Submission Requirements

The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Management Approach in accordance with Paragraph 5.2.2.

The composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build (DB) team for this contract will be evaluated under this factor. Each Offeror shall provide the following:

a) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm(s) and primary design firm(s) for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the roles, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). The narrative shall include sufficient information to enable the Government’s evaluation regarding offeror’s organization, teaming with subcontractors or

Joint Ventures, as applicable. The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart, and matrix of roles and responsibilities that clearly identifies the lines of authority between entities. If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the narrative and organizational chart.

b) In addition to the narrative, if applicable the Offeror shall provide a signed copy of the Joint Venture agreement, Teaming Agreement, partnership agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement, or a Letter of Commitment from each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture member, the Designer of Record (DOR), partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.).

Page Limit: The management approach narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages including the organizational chart. The information requested in item b) is not included in this page limitation.

5.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

This factor will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror has assembled a comprehensive team to complete the design and perform construction of this project. The Government will also evaluate the organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the offeror. The Government will evaluate the submitted narrative and organizational chart and offeror’s explanation of the roles and responsibilities of the team members and lines of authorities among team members prime construction contractor has assembled. This factor will be rated on Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. A failure of the offeror to provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms and primary design firms for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement, providing the role, responsibilities and contractual relationships between the various firms, providing an organizational chart or providing a joint venture agreement (if applicable) will be rated Unacceptable.

The Government will assign a rating to this factor in accordance with paragraph 4.4.8. A proposal receiving an unacceptable rating in Factor 1 will not be eligible for Phase Two.

5.3 TAB C – FACTOR 2 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE/PAST PERFORMANCE

5.3.1 Submission Requirements

The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Specialized Experience/Past Performance in accordance with Paragraph 5.3.2.

Offerors shall demonstrate recent and relevant design and construction experience on submitted projects by providing the information requested on the Company Specialized Experience form, Attachment 2. Offerors may provide this information in the format shown on this form or in another format so long as the information is clearly presented.

Recent. For a submitted construction project to be considered “recent,” a project must at a minimum be seventy-five percent (75%) completed or have been completed no more than ten (10) years immediately preceding the issuance of this Solicitation. For a submitted design project to be considered “recent,” a design shall be 100% completed no more than ten (10) years immediately preceding the issuance of this Solicitation. For design-build projects, the design portion shall have been completed no more than ten (10) years immediately preceding the issuance of this Solicitation. The Government will evaluate the recency of a submitted project and will deem a more recently completed project more advantageous than an earlier completed project or a not fully completed project. It is the Offeror’s ultimate responsibility to clearly identify percent complete and date of completion for each project submitted.

Relevant. The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Specialized Experience/Past Performance record to assess the extent to which it clearly demonstrates similar experience with projects involving design and construction of an energetic waste incinerator or contaminated waste processor with a magnitude of $50 million (construction cost) or greater.

If the Government is unable to determine the nature or extent of experience based on a submitted project, the project may be considered not relevant. Offerors may not submit classified information in their proposals.

If the Offeror is comprised of more than one member via a teaming agreement, joint venture (JV) agreement, or other appropriate instrument, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Offeror as the proposed collective. If the JV does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the constituent members. In this event, the Offeror should indicate what role(s) the member actually performed on the submitted project and what role is proposed for that member for this project if it is awarded the contract.

There are two aspects to this Factor: specialized experience and past performance record. Please read carefully to ensure all elements are addressed in your submission.

The Offeror must submit a minimum of one (1) and may submit up to a maximum of five (5) projects to demonstrate design experience and a minimum of one (1) and may submit up to a maximum of five (5) projects to demonstrate construction experience that best demonstrate experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity. The Design Experience shall be demonstrated for the proposed Designer of Record that will perform this function in this acquisition. The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor. These documents shall be submitted in accordance with Factor 1.

If the offeror submits a project demonstrating both design and construction experience, the offeror shall CLEARLY IDENTIFY which type of experience for which the project is submitted and provide the appropriate data sheet. If that project is submitted to demonstrate both the design and construction experience, the Offeror shall submit a separate Construction Data sheet and Design Data sheet. In this event, the Offeror should note that it will count as the maximum possible submitted projects for both design and construction. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for construction and five (5) for design will not be considered. Submit example projects that best demonstrate the Offeror’s experience on recent and relevant projects, as these terms are defined in the Evaluation Criteria.

The Government will evaluate only the maximum of five (5) projects for design and five (5) projects for construction submitted, inclusive of any projects submitted demonstrating experience of an Offeror member or proposed subcontractor. Any projects submitted beyond this limit will not be considered. If an Offeror submits a project demonstrating experience for both design and construction, the Government will evaluate the first five (5) projects that are submitted for design and the first five (5) projects submitted for construction, even if this means that the Government would review a single project “twice,” i.e., once for the design experience and once for the construction experience. This may result in the Government not considering all possible projects submitted.

A project submitted to demonstrate construction experience is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. A project submitted to demonstrate design experience is defined as a complete, cumulative design effort performed under single task order or contract or related contract actions issued for the same design.

For task order and/or indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contracts, the contract as a whole should not be submitted as a project and will NOT be considered by the Government; rather, Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

Offerors may submit projects that involve contracts with private concerns, local or state governments, or the Federal Government in the U.S. or acceptable foreign countries.

For each example design and construction project submitted, Offerors should provide a project narrative to assist the Government in identifying project relevancy as defined in the evaluation criteria with paragraph 5.3.2.

The narrative shall clearly describe the scope of work performed by the Offeror, team member, or proposed subcontractor, as applicable, and the relevancy to the proposed role for this project (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods).

Offerors must limit each example project submission to two pages, inclusive of the Specialized Experience Form if used. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider any pages in excess of this limitation; only the first two pages will be evaluated. The page limit does not include any documentation submitted in accordance with paragraph 5.3.2.

Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how each project demonstrates the Offeror’s experience in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the information included on the Company Specialized Experience form clearly describes this experience.

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

2) In addition, the Offeror should provide documentation of performance evaluations for each example projects submitted under Factor 2 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance. Past Performance addresses the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance or how well the Offeror performed recent, relevant projects from the owner's/client’s perspective. If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation then submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3) for each of the example projects submitted under Factor 2 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance in order for the Government to obtain those owner’s/client’s observations on the Offeror’s past performance.

The PPQ, along with the instructions for completing the questionnaire, is provided as Attachment 3. If the Offeror (including teaming partner/s, if applicable) is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make, but is under no obligation to the Offeror to do so, reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the following email: Philip Mathews, Philip.D.Mathews@usace.army.mil, with a copy furnished to Ekaterina Oxley, Ekaterina.Oxley@usace.army.mil.

If past performance information is submitted directly by a client/reference, the Offeror must instruct the submitter to include the words “Past Performance Information” and the solicitation number in the subject line of the email. The Government will not be responsible for evaluating email submissions that fail to comply with these requirements.

Offerors are encouraged to require their clients/references to maintain proof of delivery of email submissions, but the Offeror shall be solely responsible for ensuring timely delivery of the past performance submissions in accordance with proposal submission requirements defined on the Standard Form 1442.

In addition to the information outlined above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluation of past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS number of team members (Partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.