B.08.03 W9123722R0003 0002.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

The above referenced contract for LRD Land Based Constrution Contract, Rivers District of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division is hereby AMENDED as f ollow s:

1. Section 01 10 00 Solicitation/Price Breakout Schedule is hereby deleted in it's entirety and replaced w ith REV Price Breakout Schedule

2. Section 00 21 16 Instructions to Proposers/Instruction to Off eors is hereby deleted in it's entirety and replaced w ith REV Instruction to Offerors.

3. Section 00 22 00 Supplementary Instructions/Evaluation Criteria is hereby deleted in it's entirety and replaced w ith REV Evaluation Critera.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. Proposal due date is 2 pm ET June 2, 2022.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-May-2022

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 W9123722R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Mar-2022

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

18-May-2022

CODE

USACE, CONTRACTING DIVISION

KAREN SIMMONS, 502 8TH STREET

HUNTINGTON WV 25701

W91237 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9123722R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The following have been added by full text:

REV PRICE BREAKOUT SCHEDULE

PRICE BREAKOUT SCHEDULE – BINDING RATES

Provide the fully burdened binding contract rates for each Discipline then multiply by the estimated hours. These rates must be utilized for all task orders awarded under the MATOC. Show that you have used the fully burdened binding rates from the Base and all Options under this MATOC in establishing the price to complete the Price Breakout Schedule.

Provide the binding contract rates and hours below, if applicable, included in Job prices.

BASE PERIOD

Discipline Binding Rate Unit Estimated Units TOTAL

Project Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Superintendent ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

CQC Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Site Safety Health Officer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Design Project Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Architect ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Civil Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Structural Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Mechanical Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Electrical Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

BASE TOTAL $___________________

OPTION PERIOD 1

Discipline Unit Estimated Units TOTAL

Project Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Superintendent ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

CQC Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Site Safety Health Officer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Design Project Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Architect ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Civil Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Structural Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Mechanical Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Electrical Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

OPTION PERIOD 1

TOTAL $___________________

OPTION PERIOD 2

Discipline Unit Estimated Units TOTAL

Project Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Superintendent ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

CQC Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Site Safety Health Officer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Design Project Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Architect ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Civil Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Structural Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Mechanical Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Electrical Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

OPTION PERIOD 2

TOTAL $___________________

OPTION PERIOD 3

Discipline Unit Estimated Units TOTAL

Project Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Superintendent ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

CQC Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Site Safety Health Officer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Design Project Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Architect ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Civil Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Structural Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Mechanical Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Electrical Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

OPTION PERIOD 3

TOTAL $___________________

OPTION PERIOD 4

Discipline Unit Estimated Units TOTAL

Project Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Superintendent ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

CQC Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Site Safety Health Officer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Design Project Manager ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Architect ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Civil Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Structural Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Mechanical Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

Electrical Engineer ___________ hours 4,000 = $___________________

OPTION PERIOD 4

TOTAL $___________________

TOTAL ESTIMATED MATOC PRICE (Base plus all option periods) $___________________

NOTES:

Note No. 1: The hourly rate proposed on this Price Breakout Schedule will become binding upon award for the life of the MATOC Contract and must be used on each subsequent task order. Adherence to these rates will be reviewed through submittal of supporting documentation with each task order proposal. All rates will be reviewed to ensure fair and reasonable pricing.

Note No. 2: The number of hours for each Discipline are estimated based on past experience and are only used to approximate the Total Estimated MATOC Price. Rates will not be re-negotiated should the level of effort exceed or not reach these estimated quantities.

Note No. 3: The hourly rates shall include direct cost, fringe benefits, and overhead, but excludes profit.

Note No. 4: The Total Evaluated Price to be used for evaluation purposes will be determined by adding the Total Estimated MATOC Price (Base plus Options)

The following have been deleted:

PRICE BREAKOUT SCHEDULE

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following were previously included by reference and are now included by full text:

52.204-7 SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (OCT 2018)

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision--

Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) indicator means a four-character suffix to the unique entity identifier. The suffix is assigned at the discretion of the commercial, nonprofit, or Government entity to establish additional System for Award Management records for identifying alternative EFT accounts (see subpart 32.11) for the same entity.

Registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) means that--

(1) The Offeror has entered all mandatory information, including the unique entity identifier and the EFT indicator, if applicable, the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, as well as data required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (see subpart 4.14) into SAM;

(2) The offeror has completed the Core, Assertions, and Representations and Certifications, and Points of Contact sections of the registration in SAM;

(3) The Government has validated all mandatory data fields, to include validation of the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The offeror will be required to provide consent for TIN validation to the Government as a part of the SAM registration process; and

(4) The Government has marked the record ``Active''.

Unique entity identifier means a number or other identifier used to identify a specific commercial, nonprofit, or Government entity. See www.sam.gov for the designated entity for establishing unique entity identifiers.

(b)(1) An Offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation, and shall continue to be registered until time of award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract, basic agreement, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchasing agreement resulting from this solicitation.

(2) The Offeror shall enter, in the block with its name and address on the cover page of its offer, the annotation ``Unique Entity Identifier'' followed by the unique entity identifier that identifies the Offeror's name and address exactly as stated in the offer. The Offeror also shall enter its EFT indicator, if applicable. The unique entity identifier will be used by the Contracting Officer to verify that the Offeror is registered in SAM.

(c) If the Offeror does not have a unique entity identifier, it should contact the entity designated at www.sam.gov for establishment of the unique entity identifier directly to obtain one. The Offeror should be prepared to provide the following information:

(1) Company legal business name.

(2) Tradestyle, doing business, or other name by which your entity is commonly recognized.

(3) Company physical street address, city, state, and Zip Code.

(4) Company mailing address, city, state and Zip Code (if separate from physical).

(5) Company telephone number.

(6) Date the company was started.

(7) Number of employees at your location.

(8) Chief executive officer/key manager.

(9) Line of business (industry).

(10) Company headquarters name and address (reporting relationship within your entity).

(d) Processing time should be taken into consideration when registering. Offerors who are not registered in SAM should consider applying for registration immediately upon receipt of this solicitation. See https://www.sam.gov for information on registration.

(End of Provision)

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been added by full text:

REV INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. INTRODUCTION. ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL

BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH DOD SAFE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs for facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic proposal submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, DOD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil). There are no user accounts for SAFE. Authentication is handled via email. All perspective offerors have access to DOD SAFE, and the application is available for use by all perspective offerors. The SAFE “Getting Started Guide” has information on how to utilize the system (https://safe.apps.mil/about.php). Instructions for uploading are as follows:

a. Send an email to the Contracting Officer AND Contract Specialist to receive the link to drop off your proposal. This will need to be completed no more than five (5) business days and no less than two (2) business days prior to the solicitation due date. Offerors that fail to email to request a code no less than two (2) business days prior to the bid due date accept the risk in not receiving a request code in time for upload to the DOD SAFE.

Contracting Officer, Samantha Stiles: Samantha.l.stiles@usace.army.mil Contract Specialist, Karen L. Simmons: karen.l.simmons@usace.army.mil

b. You will receive an email with the link to submit your drop-off.

c. Short Note to the Recipients: Click the Add Files or Drag and Drop your files. For the file description, enter W9123722R0003 – FIRM NAME.

d. Click Upload button to send documents.

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS: For the purposed of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website.

Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases.

2. PROPOSAL FORMAT REQUIREMENTS.

a. All documents SHALL BE IN read-only format, using PDF files.

b. The offeror’s proposal shall consist of three (3) separate volumes. The Volumes are:

I – Technical (Factors 1 – 5) II – Cost/Price (Factor 6) III - Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations.

c. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the solicitation 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 each proposal.

Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

d. It is the offeror's responsibility to ensure the completeness of the proposal. The evaluation panel for the Government may evaluate solely on the information provided in the proposal and will not assume that an offeror possesses any capability unless specified in the proposal.

e. Printing should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 10-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

f. There are no maximum page limits.

g. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created follow the general structure detailed below. (See 3. Content Requirement)

DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussion will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions with a common cutoff date.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will select the method by which discussions will be conducted. Should face-to-face discussions be selected, each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least three (3) business days prior to their discussion session. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place at a facility of the Government’s choosing.

The following have been deleted:

REVISED INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

REV EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. BASIS FOR AWARD. (Evaluation Factors for Award Section 00 22 00). Notwithstanding any other provisions of these specifications concerning the method of award, award will be made as a whole to the offeror(s) who’s proposal conforms to the solicitation and is within a Technical/Price competitive range, if established, as determined by the Contracting Officer, and has been evaluated as most advantageous to the Government. It is contemplated that discussions will not be conducted. The Government may award a contract(s), based on initial offers received, without discussions of such offers. Accordingly, each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms which the offeror can submit to the Government.

The award(s) will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the six (6) evaluation factors: Past

Performance, Technical Capability and Specialized Experience, Equipment, Management and Administration, Small Business Participation Plan, and Cost/Price.

The intent of this solicitation is to select three unrestricted contractor(s) and small business reserve with target of three for Design Bid Build Land Based Construction Projects assigned to the River Districts of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. The basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off process. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein. The Contracting Officer will award up to six firm fixed price contracts to the responsible offerors whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO COST/PRICE. Thus, price is not expected to be the controlling factor in the selection of the Contractors for this solicitation. However, as the evaluated merit of competing technical proposals becomes more equal, total price and other price factors will become more important in the selection. Total price and other price factors could become the deciding factor for selection, depending upon whether the most acceptable technical proposal is determined to be worth the cost differential, if any. Non-price factors will be evaluated by source selection evaluation board prior to review of price factors by Contracting Officer.

2. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. Awards will be made to the offerors whose proposals are most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described herein. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 2: Technical Capability and Specialized Experience: During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign this factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 3: Equipment: During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign this factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 4: Management and Administration: Each offeror’s personnel and administration, quality control, safety and home and branch offices proposed will be reviewed and evaluated to determine relevancy to the contract.

Factor 5: Small Business Participation Plan: During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign this factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative on the contractor proposed level of participation of Small Business (as a Prime and/or small business subcontractors) reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 6: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be Firm-Fixed Price. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each factor as it applies to the requirements of the solicitation. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach” below.

3. EVALUATION APPROACH. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

i) Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal.

ii) Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Price Evaluation board will conduct evaluation of the price. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical proposals (Volume I) will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility review, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance/Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that both a technical and price proposal were received, and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 and 2 below. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II – Technical Approach will be rated using Table 3 below. Factor III – Small Business Participation Plan will be rated using Table 4 below, this Factor only applies to Unrestricted Businesses. Factor 1 is equal to Factor2, Factor 2 is equal to Factor 3, Factor 3 is equal to Factor 4 and Factor 4 is equal to factor 5.

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The Price Evaluation Board will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical evaluation.

3.2.4 Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

a. Factor 1 (Past Performance): The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the solicitation.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past five years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 237990. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall include similar work prior to the issue date of the RFP.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded prior from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

(1) Relevancy: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

Table 1

(2) Performance Confidence Assessment: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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

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

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Table 2

(a) Quality Assessment: Assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

b. FACTOR 2 (Technical Capability and Specialized Experience). This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed capability to perform specific tasks that may be required for the basic contract period and all option years. Marginal levels of overall demonstrated ability to perform these tasks could indicate either a lack of ability to perform or lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on the offerors:

i) Offeror demonstrated ability to perform the following tasks which are listed in order of importance (the Government will give greater weight in the evaluation of proposals that demonstrate the capacity and experience to perform the more important tasks):

(1) Mobilization of experienced sizeable construction crews to multiple sites (capable of running 3 sites) Offerors will describe their maximum capability to handle projects such as, but not limited to: major project/area cleanup; and repairs/modifications/strengthening required of existing dams, levees, and locks in support of Flood Damage Reduction (FDR), and/or Interim Risk Reduction Measures (IRRM). Offerors should address their capability to respond to situations to a single (or multiple) work site(s) within the geographic boundaries of the River Districts of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division

(LRD).

(2) Mobilization of experienced construction crews (including professional surveying services) capable to support the above with various sized equipment including, but not limited to, dozer(s), end loader(s), dump trucks, etc. intended for use in Dam and Levee Safety.

(3) Other nonemergency work on and around Levees, Locks and Dams.

(4) Land-based stream bank protection and excavation site work.

(5) Construction or remodeling of small to large buildings.

(6) Small bridge construction.

(7) Demolition of small to large structures.

ii) Offerors will be required to provide a list of relevant projects (not to exceed 10 projects) to accompany their narrative for the above tasks, current or completed in the past six years from the date of the solicitation that best demonstrates their ability to perform this type of work. For each project provided the offeror must address the following:

- Company name

- Name of project and location

- Contract number (if applicable)

- Detailed description as to how the work in the project relates to the specified task.

- Company role (prime, joint venture, subcontractor) and work self-performed.

- Construction cost at award and final cost.

- Reason for cost growth.

- Award date.

- Scheduled completion.

- Actual completion.

- Reason for time growth.

- Extent and type of work subcontracted out.

- Owner’s POC for reference (Name, company, phone and email)

iii) Offerors are to provide a letter from a surety which demonstrates their ability to provide bonding for at least three (3) concurrent running jobs in excess of $10,000,000.00 each ($1,000,000 for SB Reserves).

c. Factor 3 (Equipment). This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed capability to provide equipment that the offeror owns, has at their disposal, or can otherwise readily acquire in sufficient amounts and in such a condition to accomplish work in a timely, efficient and professional manner. The evaluation will focus on:

i) Certification that all equipment complies with the current USACE Safety and Health Requirements Manual, EM 385-1-1;

ii) List of equipment, and its availability, proposed for use on the contract. This list will include the minimum the number of pieces of each type equipment and name, manufacturer, model, age (include date acquired and miles or hours of use) and condition of each piece of equipment, and a plan for its immediate availability;

iii) Preventative and breakdown maintenance program and plan of operation in the event of equipment failure.

d. Factor 4 (Management and Administration): This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed capability to manage and administer required tasks. The Offeror will furnish a plan that will ensure the proper level of effort is directed toward each aspect of the task required; that the offeror has at their disposal the organization and personnel required by the specification of the contract; and assure that all work will be performed safely and as specified. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

i) Personnel and Organization - This evaluates the offerors proposed organizational structure and personnel provided for overall management of the work associated with this contract. The evaluation will focus on:

- Person(s) provided who will be the on-site Contractor Representative(s);

- Technical trades personnel to be utilized to perform the work with focus on their education, background, experiences, licenses, certificates, or other information evidencing their qualifications.

- Organizational placement of personnel and whether such individuals are current on the offeror’s payroll or have been personally committed for employment on this contract.

- Proposed subcontractors and their role in the contract’

- Personnel management policies regarding standards of conduct and disciplinary practices.

- Strike Contingency Plan.

- Administrative procedures to assure availability of key management personnel to be contacted as the need arises.

ii) Quality Control - This evaluates the offerors ability to provide a Quality Control Program to ensure total compliance with the contract requirements and a high-quality product for the Government. The evaluation will focus on:

- Inspection system covering all the tasks identified under Factor 1.

- Method of identifying deficiencies in the quality of work performed before the level of performance is unacceptable.

- Filing system of all inspections conducted by the Contractor and the corrective action taken.

- Method insuring that employees have full knowledge of assignments and that appropriate technical expertise is utilized with each work assignment.

iii) Safety – This evaluates the offerors ability to perform work associated with this contract safely and in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. The evaluation will focus on:

- Safety policy and safety plan proposed for use under this contract.

- Ability to conduct job hazard analysis, their employee responsibilities and safety training; and policies/procedures to ensure public safety.

- Knowledge of USACE Safety Program and OSHA requirements.

iv) Home and Branch Offices Proposed for Use in this Contract – This evaluates the offerors ability in providing the required services within the geographical boundaries of the contract. The Government will evaluate how the location, number, and capabilities/roles of these offices throughout the specified boundaries. Offerors will provide the location of home and any branch offices along with a narrative describing how these offices will be utilized in performance of work under the contract. This evaluation will focus on:

- Location of these offices and their proximity to the River Districts’ Offices for coordination of work.

- The impact of these locations as it relates to the ability and cost of mobilizing/demobilizing personnel and equipment.

- Capability to provide these services based on the number of offices, their role in performance of the work, and their location(s) within the geographical boundaries of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division.

e. Factor 5 (Small Business Participation Plan) This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed level of participation of Small Business (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractor) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals listed below:

Applicable size of Prime Contractor and Socio-Economic Category (if applies).

Total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors).

The total percentage of participation to be performed by each type of small business sub-category, if applicable. (If a small business qualifies in multiple categories, include it in multiple categories).

The principal supplies/services to be provided/performed by Small Businesses.

The extent of commitment to use small businesses in this procurement (for example: small business prime, written contract, verbal agreement, joint venture arrangement, mentor-protégé business relationship, etc.).

Small Business Participation Plans (from large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the basis of:

(1) The extent of participation of small businesses in terms of the value of the total acquisition and the extent of which the proposals meet and/or exceed small business participation goals for this acquisition.

(2) Past performance of the offerors (large businesses only) in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

(3) The extent to which small businesses are specifically identified by name in proposals.

(4) The extent of commitment to small businesses (for example, enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones); and

(5) The complexity and variety of the work small businesses are to perform.

f. Factors 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be evaluated using the combined technical/risk rating methodology as described below using the adjectival ratings in Table 3.

TABLE 3 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

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

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

Factor 6 (Cost/Price): The contract(s) will be Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) award(s). The Government will evaluate proposals for the purpose of determining the reasonableness and completeness of the prices offered. Price proposals will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing as a part of the Government’s reasonableness determination.

Completeness includes review of Proposal Schedules. Unreasonably high or low prices as determined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA), through the use of price analysis techniques under FAR 15.404-1(b), may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competitive range, if one is established; based upon the assessment that the offeror does not understand the requirement, or the offeror has made an unreasonable proposal.

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

i) Arithmetic Discrepancies. For the purpose of initial evaluation of proposals the following will be utilized in resolving arithmetic discrepancies found on the face of the Price Breakout Schedule as submitted by the Offerors:

- Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected;

- In case of discrepancy between unit price and extended price, the unit price will govern;

- Apparent errors in extension of unit prices will be corrected;

- Apparent errors in addition of lump sum and extended price will be corrected.

ii) For the purpose of proposal evaluation, the Government will proceed on the assumption that the Offeror intends their proposal to be evaluated on the basis of unit prices, extensions, and totals arrived at by resolution of arithmetic discrepancies as provided above.

4. CONTENT REQUIREMENT. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

VOLUME I – Technical. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

a. Section 1 – Factor 1. The offeror’s past performance. The contractor will provide the following:

- The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to their client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2 - Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

- Offerors are encouraged to provide at least two points of contact (POCs) for each contract. If different from the client point of contact, also include the name and phone number of the Contracting Officer. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal.

- If the offeror has a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) for a project provided under Factor 1, it may be submitted in lieu of the PPQ.

- Offerors should submit at least one Past Performance Questionnaire for each project submitted under Factor 1 (Technical Capability and Specialized Experience). If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

- If the client requests, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Contract Specialist, Karen Simmons, via email at karen.l.simmons@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

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

- Performance recognition documents received within the last six years, from the solicitation due date, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. Offerors may also provide details on past performance problems reflected in the PPQ and the corrective action taken.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), including Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

Past performance provided will be evaluated on the relevancy of this information for the same or similar items specified for the project in this solicitation. Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the construction effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements contained in this solicitation. Block 4 (Project Description) of the PPQ is where the offeror provides information on how the project provided for past performance is relevant to the project contained in the solicitation.

Offerors are advised that, while they may submit past performance information on relevant efforts under subcontracts, the Government may be unable to obtain any qualitative information due to the Government’s lack of privity with subcontractors. The Government may not obtain information on all of the listed contract references and/or may not contact all of the identified POCs.

Past performance information provided should be limited to the segment of the firm (e.g. division, group, or unit) that is submitting a proposal. When an offeror or team member’s firm is divided into severable groups (e.g.

division, group, or unit); the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work. If an offeror has no recent/relevant performance record or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, it will receive a rating of “Neutral” for the factor.

b. Section 2 – Factor 2. he offeror’s proposed technical capability and specialized experience. This section of the proposal shall address the following as a minimum:

- Describe your specialized experience as it pertains to the following listed tasks and provide information on how to accomplish the tasks. List the amount and type of owned equipment that will be used in performing each work order under this contract. The following tasks are listed in descending order of importance, with 1 being the most important task, and 7 the least important.

(1) Emergency mobilization (within 24 hours) of experienced construction crews capable of handling immediate response to natural disasters or other catastrophic events. Offerors will describe their maximum capability to handle emergency projects such as, but not limited to: major project/area cleanup; and repairs/modification/strengthening required of existing dams, levees, and locks in support of Flood Damage Reduction (FDR), and/or Interim Risk Reduction Measures (IRRM). Offerors should address their capability to respond to situations to a single (or multiple) work site(s) within the geographic boundaries of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (LRD).

(2) Emergency mobilization (within 24 hours) of experienced construction crews (including professional surveying services) capable to support the above with various sized equipment including, but not limited to, dozer(s), end loader(s), dump trucks, etc. intended for use in Dam and Levee Safety.

(3) Other nonemergency work on and around Levees, Locks and Dams.

(4) Land-based stream bank protection and excavation site work.

(5) Construction or remodeling of small to large buildings.

(6) Small bridge construction.

(7) Demolition of small to large structures.

- Provide up to ten…