W9123621R40020001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

W9123621R4002 Construction of a new Explosive Decomposition Chamber (EDC) Facility at Holston Army Ammunition Plant (HSAAP) in Kingsport, TN

See Continuation Page for Amendment Details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 29

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Sep-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 W9123621R4002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Sep-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

28-Sep-2021

CODE

USACE NORFOLK DISTRICT OFFICE

CONTRACTING OFFICE

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

W91236 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9123621R4002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 05-Oct-2021 02:00 PM to 08-Oct-2021 02:00 PM.

The Issued By organization has changed from

USACE, NORFOLK DISTRICT OFFICE

CONTRACTING OFFICE

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

to

USACE NORFOLK DISTRICT OFFICE

CONTRACTING OFFICE

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 01

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Revise Section 2.5.5 Proposal Submission Requirements;

2. Revise Section 5.3.1 Submission Requirements for Factor 2;

3. Extend the Proposal Due Date;

4. Distribute the site Visit Attendance Sheet;

5. Incorporate the ProNet inquiries and answers into the solicitation

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged

NOTICE TO OFFERORS

1. Revise Section 2.5.5 Proposal Submission Requirements:

Refer to changes provided with this amendment.

2. Revise Section 5.3.1 Submission Requirements for Factor 2:

Refer to changes provided with this amendment.

3. The Proposal due date is extended to 8 Oct 2021 at 2:00PM EDT.

4. The attendance sheet from the 9/16/2021 site visit is provided with this amendment as Attachment 13.

5. ProjNet Questions and Answers

ID 9410272

Page 14 of 79 of the RFP, Part 5.3.1, regarding Factor 2 Specialized Experience / Past Performance states in part "...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..."

And continues in part to define relevant as

"Relevant. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, 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 thermal destruction and /or thermal decontamination and/or explosive operations process and handling facilities with a magnitude of $35 million (construction cost) or greater."

Page 5 of 79 of the RFP, Part 1.0 states in part

"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 and the overall determination for award. Factor 2 will move forward and will be considered in Phase Two and the overall determination for award."

1 – Given that project experience is to be evaluated, and will not be rated as "Acceptable or Unacceptable", please confirm that should the Offeror not be able to clearly demonstrate experience which explicitly meets the definition of part 5.3.1, the offered experience may still be evaluated, with a lower evaluation. Specifically, should the Offeror offer demonstrate experience with projects involving design and construction of thermal destruction and /or thermal decontamination and/or explosive operations process and handling facilities but whose magnitude is less than the specified $35 million, these projects may still be evaluated.

2 – Should the Offeror demonstrate experience with processing facilities delivered via the Design-Build Method, whose magnitude far exceeds the minimum $35million, e.g.> $50 million, please confirm that these projects may still be evaluated.

Government Response

1. Solicitation requirements remain unchanged. If an example project does not meet the relevancy definition as specified in the 5.3.1, the project will be considered not relevant. No additional considerations may be received on a not relevant or not recent project.

2. As stated in the solicitation the relevancy will assess extent of which offerors example projects clearly demonstrate similar experience with projects involving design and construction of thermal destruction and/or thermal decontamination and/or explosive operations process and handling facilities with a magnitude of $35M (construction cost) or greater.

ID 9410273

Regarding Part 5.3.1, regarding Factor 2 Specialized Experience / Past Performance, please confirm that "explosive operations process and handling facilities" construction projects shall include any expansion, renovation or new construction at the Holston Army Ammunition Plant or the Radford Army Ammunition Plant of any materials handling systems (raw or finished), explosive manufacturing, product assembly, waste streams conveyance, or waste streams processing facilities.

Government Response

Recency and Relevancy for Factor 2 are outlined in section 5.3.1, to be evaluated per section 5.3.2. Solicitation remains unchanged.

ID 9410274

Regarding Part 5.3.1, regarding Factor 2 Specialized Experience / Past Performance, the criteria states that "The Offeror may submit a maximum of five (5) projects for design and a maximum of five (5) projects for construction".

The relevancy for these projects is further defines as having a magnitude of $35 million (construction cost) or greater. Given the uniqueness of this type of work, consider reducing the minimum project magnitude to $7.5 million.

Government Response

Solicitation requirements remain unchanged.

ID 9410275

Regarding Part 5.3.1, regarding Factor 2 Specialized Experience / Past Performance, please confirm that "explosive operations process and handling facilities" construction projects shall include any expansion, renovation or new construction of facilities involving the conveyance, handling, processing, or disposal of materials which may be considered as flammable or explosive under normal operating conditions and pressures.

Government Response

Solicitation requirements remain unchanged. In addition to the requirements of 5.3.1, the greater the degree to which a single project demonstrates multiple aspects defined in criteria A through H as provided in 5.3.2, or the collection of submitted projects demonstrate multiple aspects defined in criteria A through H, the more favorable the Government will deem the proposal.

ID 9410382

Can USACE please advise of the Government approved and allocated budget is for the project?

Government Response

USACE is unable to release an approved and allocated budget for this project. In accordance with DFARS 236.204, the Magnitude of Construction cost is provided in the solicitation.

ID 9421258

Will the Government allow font smaller than 11 pt in tables, graphics, and other visuals?

Government Response

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. The Government will allow a minimum of 8-point font for graphics and tables, as long as the text is readable without a manifying glass.

ID 9421267

00 21 00 - Instructions/3.0 Can the price evaluation preference for HUBZone be removed? Or please explain what is the weight of the preference HUBzone small business concerns would receive.

Government Response

Solicitation requirements remain unchanged, this solicitation will include price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns in accordance with FAR 19.1307.

ID 9421270

For Project Experience examples, can the magnitude of value be lowered to $25 million construction cost?

Solicitation requirements remain unchanged.

ID 9421272

00 21 00 52.204-24 In regards to Reps and Certs: should these be included in VOLUME I (A) – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY before or after the Teaming Agreements, etc? And should be they be included in both PH 1 and PH 2?

Government Response

The Government intends to review the representations and certifications provided in Beta.Sam. If a provision is not completed in the system, but is required by this solicitation, the offeror shall submit with the proposal. For Phase One, submit after Teaming Agreements. See changes provided by this amendment.

ID 9421273

Will the Government accept PPQs that were completed for previous proposals, utilizing the 'NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)' format?

Refer to changes provided by this amendment.

ID 9421278

The RFP states that "Offerors are required to submit a Letter of Commitment ... if applicable for any other subcontractor deemed appropriate for the project". What constitutes a subcontractor being applicable or deemed appropriate?

Since there is no scope of work or technical information provided at this stage of the solicitation, it is premature for Offerors' subcontractors to be selected and have commitments in place. Does this requirement only apply for Offerors who are submitting as a team?

Government Response

At a minimum, please provide a letter of commitment from the proposed DOR and Sole Source equipment provider, refer to criteria 5.2.2. If Subcontractor experience is utilized to demonstrate either Construction or Design experience under Factor 2, a letter of commitment shall be provided to satisfy the requirements of Factor 1.

Also, Section 5.3.1 has been revised. Refer to changes provided in this amendment.

ID 9421860

The RFP states that "this factor will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror has assembled a comprehensive team to complete the design, and perform construction and commissioning of the project".

Since no scope of work, drawings, or technical information have been provided at this stage of the solicitation, it is unrealistic for a contractor to have already assembled a comprehensive team of subcontractors. Subcontractor selection will be subject to final scope documents, schedule milestones, and a price evaluation process to ensure availability and best value to the Government.

Will the Government consider changing the criteria to evaluate the processes by which the Offeror selects and manages subcontractors, rather than whether a comprehensive team has already been assembled at this stage?

Government Response

Solicitation requirements remain unchanged.

At a minimum, please provide a letter of commitment from the proposed DOR and Sole Source equipment provider, refer to criteria 5.2.2. If Subcontractor experience is utilized to demonstrate either Construction or Design experience under Factor 2, a letter of commitment shall be provided to satisfy the requirements of Factor 1.

ID 9423530

Will the Government please consider extending the Phase I proposal due date to Oct 8 2021 as indicated in the draft RFP to allow adequate time for teaming discussions?

Proposal due date is extended to 8 Oct 2021 at 2:00PM EDT.

ID 9423994

3.0 Basis of Award (pg. 9)

Factor 2 is to be submitted in Phase I and is one of the highest factors in the Phase II evaluation. The Phase II submission will be due approximately 4 to 6 months after the Phase I submission is due to USACE. Will the shortlisted teams have the opportunity to revise Factor 2 for the Phase II submission with projects that will be completed between the Phase I and Phase II submission?

The Government does not intend to allow for resubmissions for Factor 2 at this time. Submit your best proposal that demonstrates experience/past performance record in response to the stated solicitation requirements.

ID 9423996

As a sole source selected vendor, will DynaSafe be providing the same pricing for equipment and labor regarding the SDC & APC systems to all offerors?

DynaSafe is committed to providing comparable pricing to all offerors however the final price will be dependent upon each prime contractor’s specific agreements with DynaSafe based on the covered scope.

ID 9423997

Can you please provide the sign-in sheet from the 9/16/21 site visit?

Govt Response

The attendance sheet from the 9/16/2021 site visit is provided with this amendment as Attachment 13.

ID 9424004

C. Source Selection Procedures, 1.0 Overview (pg. 5)

Please consider a maximum of three (3) Phase I proposals be selected for Phase II consideration per DBIA best management practices.

Government Response

Solicitation requirements remain unchanged, 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.

ID 9426289

Specific to Section 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications – 1) are Reps & Certs (Section 00 45 00) required as part of the Phase I submission? 2) If so, in which proposal section?

Government Response

The Government intends to review the representations and certifications provided in Beta.Sam. If a provision is not completed in the system, but is required by this solicitation, the offeror shall submit with the proposal. For Phase One, submit after Teaming Agreements. See changes provided by this amendment.

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

HSAAP is a Government-owned, Contractor-operated (GOCO) explosives materials manufacturing facility located in Kingsport, Tennessee. The facility generates explosives waste which has historically been open burned since the 1940s, and is currently open burned in pans operating under the existing HSAAP Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subpart X permit (TNHW-148) and Area B Clean Air Act Title V Air permit (568188).

HSAAP embarked on a four-phase approach beginning in 2014 to evaluate alternatives to open burning. The Phase 1 and 2 studies completed in 2019 identified the waste streams and alternative technologies for the disposal of explosive waste. The Phase 2 Study Final Report titled ‘Thermal/Non-Thermal Solutions to Open Burning Holston Army Ammunition Plant’ was sent to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) in March 2019. This report detailed the specific technologies available for disposing of explosive waste. The design and construction will utilize the Dynasafe - Static Detonation Chamber (SDC) and Air Pollution Control System (APC). This technology was chosen by the Government as documented and approved under Justification and Approval Document (J&A) # CENAO-CT-20-013 on 1 September 2020. The J&A is provided as Attachment 8.

The new EDC Facility, utilizing Dynasafe’s SDC and APC, will satisfy the Government’s requirements to safely and effectively treat the bulk explosive waste at HSAAP and meet the Army’s mission for Government installations to move away from the current open burning explosive waste treatment process and begin utilizing proven environmental treatment technology alternatives.

The EDC Facility resulting from this solicitation will be able to process the explosive waste generated at HSAAP in an efficient, emissions controlled thermal treatment system, that is compliant with plant operating permits and Army policy and will ultimately reduce/eliminate the open burning conducted at HSAAP. The EDC Facility will be comprised of multiple Dynasafe – SDCs with APC units, a central material handling building, and a central control room/building. The SDCs and other components will work together to treat the hazardous explosive waste streams from HSAAP.

Early Draft Site Layout and Environmental Assessment will be provided with the Phase One solicitation to assist offerors with assessing the general scope of the project. The DB RFP technical package will be released with the Phase Two amendment.

Initial Permit Packages for Air and RCRA are anticipated to be submitted by the facility to TDEC for review at the 65% design level in parallel with this acquisition and will be provided with the Phase Two amendment.

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 calendar 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: W91236-21-R-4002 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: ZRU9R8-HNYDAY

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.

C. SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

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 DFARs 236.204, the magnitude of construction cost for the EWI/CWP Facility is between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000. Funds are not presently available for this acquisition.

No contract award will be made until appropriated funds are made available.

The Government will conduct a Best Value Tradeoff selection process based on the evaluation of five (5) 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 and the overall determination for award. Factor 2 will move forward and will be considered in Phase Two and the overall determination for award. 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 7, 2021, and not later than (NLT) October 8, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

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 7, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. EDT.

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. EDT on October 8, 2021.

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:

W9123621R4002_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I A

W9123621R4002_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I B

W9123621R4002_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 corresponding phase. Any questions regarding electronic proposal submission shall 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. The DoD safe code can only be utilized once. If an upload is unsuccessful, an offeror will be required to request another code for the upload of its proposal.

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. The Government will allow a minimum of 8-point font for graphics and tables as long as the text is readable when printed, without a magnifying glass. 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. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the terms and conditions of the solicitation, provides the best overall value, and is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the five (5) evaluation factors: Management Approach, Specialized Experience/Past Performance, Technical Approach, Small Business Participation Plan, and Price. Factor 1 – Management Approach, will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable and only considered during Phase One to determine the highest rated proposals that are selected to proceed to Phase Two. The remaining factors, Factor 2 through 5 will be used in the Phase Two best value tradeoff decision with the following relative weights: Factor 2 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance and Factor 3 – Technical Approach are approximately equal in importance to one another, and each is more important than Factor 4

– Small Business Participation Plan. All non-price factors combined are approximately equal to Factor 5 – Price.

To receive consideration for award in Phase Two, a rating of no less than “Limited Confidence” must be achieved for Factor 2 and “Acceptable” for Factors 3 and 4. Additionally, any “other than small business” offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.702(a). Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offer or to the highest rated technical offer and that the Government reserves the right to reject all offers. The best value tradeoff decision and the determination for award will be based on Factor 2, Factor 3, Factor 4 and Factor 5.

This solicitation will include price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns. Refer to 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns.

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)

SF1442 and all attachments, signed

Contractor Team Arrangements, e.g., JV Agreement/LLC, Letter of Commitment (if applicable)

Reps and Certs, as 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

N/A TAB D Teaming Agreement with DynaSafe N/A Factor 3 TAB E Technical Approach Factor 3 is approximately equal importance to Factor 2 and is more important than Factor 4.

Factor 4 TAB F 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 SF1442, and all amendments signed TAB B 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 C Bid Guarantee Not Rated TAB D Required Pre-Award Information

Reps and Certs, as applicable 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 5.3.1 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 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.

Teaming Agreement with Sole Source Technology Provider Dynasafe is not required for Phase One submittal but will be required for those Offerors who will be selected to proceed to Phase Two. Dynasafe will not provide exclusive teaming agreements with any offerors.

5.1.2 TAB A – Letter of Commitment shall be provided using the format provided as Attachment 5 and shall be signed by all parties. Offerors are required to submit a Letter of Commitment for Dynasafe and if applicable for any other subcontractor deemed appropriate for this project. Note, a Teaming Agreement with Dynasafe will be required to be submitted with Phase Two proposal.

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, and include the Sole Source Technology Provider for the project. 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.

Offerors are also required to provide the rationale for proposing this arrangement providing the roles, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms, providing an organizational chart and providing a joint venture agreement (if applicable).

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.). A Letter of Commitment from Dynasafe is required to be submitted. A teaming agreement with Dynasafe will only be requested from those offerors who will be selected to proceed to Phase Two.

Page Limit: The management approach narrative shall be limited to three (3) 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 and commissioning of this project.