Amendment 0002 W91238-11-R-0017.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 purpose of this amendment for Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) for Dam Maintenance and Repairs is to correct the first paragraph on page 30 of the amended conformed solicitation to read "Your response to this solicitation is limited to 20 8.5x11 pages for the Technical Volume, w ith the font size no smaller than 10pt."

All others terms and conditions remain unchanged. The proposal due date of 30 August 2011, 1:00 pm local time remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Aug-2011

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 W91238-11-R-0017

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Jul-2011

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 is extended, X 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

04-Aug-2011

CODE

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTS DIVISION

1325 J ST

SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

W91238 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91238-11-R-0017

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00111

1 EVALUATION CRITERIA OVERVIEW

This is a "Best Value" solicitation to cover the a wide range of repairs and replacement of components on all facets of dams owned by the Sacramento District of the US Army Corps of Engineers (SPK), California. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity contract to that responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determine conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price.

This is a Request for Proposal (RFP). Proposals will be evaluated by a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers. Award will be made to that offeror, who can accomplish the requirements set forth in the RFP in a manner most advantageous to the Government considering both cost and non-cost factors. The Government reserves the right to award this Contract to other than the lowest price offeror after consideration of all factors.

The work to be performed under this contract will be in high security areas. All contractors and contract employees shall undergo a background investigation before being allowed to work in the secured areas.

In accordance with the requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

1.1 SOURCE SELECTION USING THE TRADE-OFF PROCESS

The Government will select the offer that represents the best value to the Government by using the trade-off process described in FAR Part 15. This process permits tradeoffs between price and technical merit/quality (“non-cost”) factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer or other than the highest technically rated offer. The award decision will be based on a comparative analysis and an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

1.2 GENERAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF FACTORS CRITERIA

a. In accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should be contain the technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

b. In accordance with FAR 15.304, the following factors will be considered in evaluating the non-cost and cost aspects of the proposals;

Non-Cost Factors:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Key Personnel Factor 3: Past Performance; Sub-factor: (a) Capabilities

Cost Factors:

Factor 4: Price

1.2.1 RELATIVE WEIGHTING OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The Technical Evaluation Factors are listed below in descending order of importance, as follows:

Non-cost factors 1, 2, and 3 are listed in the order of importance, and are not comparatively equal. Factor 4 is less significant than factors 1, 2 and 3.

1.3 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PRICE TO THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION

FACTORS

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between technical merit (“quality”) and cost to the Government (i.e., the price). The degree of importance of price could become greater depending upon the equality of the technical proposals. If competing technical proposals are determined to be essentially equal, price could become the controlling factor.

1.4 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL APPROACH EVALUATION:

1. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s technical proposal based on how well the proposal addresses each of the evaluation factors/sub-factors, further described in paragraph 1.2, and on how well the offeror has performed on related projects through the evaluation of the past performance information provided from references or obtained from other sources. Each of the evaluation factors without sub-factors will be evaluated by the Government and an adjectival rating and risk rating or confidence assessment will be determined by consensus of the Government evaluation board.

2. The evaluation factors correlate directly to the main organizational tabs identified in the proposal submission instructions in Factor 4 below. However, any information contained in the technical proposal can nonetheless be considered by the Government in its evaluation under any factor or sub-factor.

3. The offeror’s conformance with the specified format and submission requirements will be considered during the technical evaluation. Failure to comply with the formatting and/or submission requirements may be seen as indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during contract performance. Lack of conformance could therefore result in a higher risk assessment, in addition to any other impacts on the evaluation. Material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable. However, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals. For example, a failure by a proposed key subcontractor to submit a properly executed letter of commitment may be considered as increasing risk, but will not be considered a proposal deficiency.

4. Technical proposals which do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions may be downgraded. The Government is under no obligation to search for information that is not in the specified location. The offerors’ technical approach narrative shall describe the proposed level of prime performed work and major subcontractor activity. Offerors’ technical approach narrative shall describe the proposed level of prime performed work and major subcontractor activity.

5. Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail may be downgraded. The proposal submission instructions are written to give prospective contractors, where feasible, an indication of the level of detail desired by the Government. The offeror’s failure to include information that the Government has indicated should be included may result in the proposal being downgraded and/or being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided.

6. Any prescribed page and formatting limitations will be strictly adhered to and enforced by the Government. The Government will not evaluate any excess information resulting from the offeror’s failure to comply with the submission instructions. Examples: If an offeror were to submit three pages in response to an item with a two page limitation, the information on the first two pages would be evaluated but the information on the third page would not be evaluated. If an offeror were to submit a fold-out sheet (e.g. 11”x17”) in response to a one-page limitation where fold-out sheets were not authorized, only the information that could reasonably have been submitted on one 8-1/2 x 11 inch sheet would be evaluated. If an offeror were to submit three 8- 1/2 x 11 inch pages in response to a one not-to-exceed 11 x 17 inch page limitation, only the information that could reasonably have been submitted on one 11 x 17 inch sheet would be evaluated. If an offeror submitted alternates that were not requested (e.g. past performance outside of the timeframe requested), the information will not be evaluated.

7. The degree of risk to the Government inherent in the offeror’s technical proposal will be a consideration under every evaluation factor/sub-factor.

8. A “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. “Weakness” means a flaw in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” is a proposal flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. The Government cannot accept an offer with a deficiency in its technical proposal. The term “acceptable” is therefore used in this context to describe a technical proposal that does not contain a deficiency and thus could be accepted by the Government, notwithstanding any weaknesses or significant weaknesses in the proposal.

9. The Government cannot make award based on a deficient offer. Therefore, a rating of “Unacceptable” or “Fail” under any factor or sub-factor will render the offer ineligible for award, unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with that offeror and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal.

10. Failure of a proposed key person or subcontractor to furnish authorization for the Government to discuss its past performance with the offeror will not be considered a proposal deficiency. However, the Government will not be able to disclose to the offeror any details pertaining to their performance problems.

11. Offerors shall include a detailed technical approach to executing the construction portions of the task orders. Offerors shall describe the technical approach for construction of this project and discuss how they propose to manage labor and other resource constraints to achieve an aggressive schedule in a narrative submittal. The narrative should include the Offeror’s proposed measures to make up schedule in the event that they fall behind. The schedule shall be supported by listing the crew sizes and equipment required for each major component of the work. The schedule shall include the contractor's construction procedure and phasing plan. The average number of hours worked per crew per week shall be furnished. Schedules shall be furnished in primavera or equivalent scheduling software. Proposed innovations that gain schedule are a plus;

however, the innovations must be proven on past projects and must meet the constraints described within the plans and specifications. Offerors shall identify specific areas that will be self performed and areas that will be constructed by subcontractors.

(1) Offerors will be evaluated on the quality of similar work performed within the last FIVE (5) YEARS using the evidence provided by the Offeror and other sources.

Offerors shall submit at a minimum ONE (1) example of comparable work performed for each of the following:

a. Babbitt Seal work that should include the handling of molten metals and familiarity with the properties and finishing of Babbitt metal.

b. Vertical and overhead welding in a confined space.

c. Painting in wet, humid, confined spaces.

d. Sandblasting in confined spaces.

e. Concrete repair work to cavitations and/or ASR related damage.

f. Slide gate repairs.

Proposals shall be submitted in a Technical Volume. Each offeror is required to submit his original proposal and 10 copies of Technical Volume. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the Offeror's technical approach and past performance to successfully complete the project. All proposals shall be tabbed for each of the evaluation factors. Your response to this solicitation is limited to 20 8.5x11 pages for the Technical Volume, with the font size no smaller than 10pt. Drawings or other graphics shall be reduced only to the extent legibility is not lost. A page printed on both sides will be counted as two pages.

Pages shall be consecutively numbered.

The Technical Volume shall include:

Submittals as stated in this section for the Non-Cost Factors.

Items that must be included with the Technical Volume but are EXCLUDED from the page limitation are:

i. title sheets and indices

ii. tables of contents

iii. CCASS and CPARS and other agency evaluation forms

iv. OSHA forms

v. resumes of key personnel

vi. schedule (additionally Schedules/Gantt Charts are not subject to the 8.5x11 size requirement).

FACTORS 1 - TECHNICAL/RISK RATING FOR OTHER THAN PAST

PERFORMANCE:

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.

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.

FACTOR 2 - KEY PERSONNEL TECHNICAL EVALUATION:

1. Qualifications and capabilities for key personnel that will be utilized for construction shall be provided. Personnel listed shall include both Prime Contractor personnel and any contemplated major subcontractor personnel. Major subcontractor information submitted shall be with firms with whom the contractor has had successful prime/sub relationships in the past or with whom the Offeror intends to use on this project.

2. Offerors shall provide the qualifications and experience of key personnel, project managers, superintendents, and safety and quality control officers identified for participation on projects under this contract.

3. Offerors shall include resumes that include each individual’s years of experience in position;

experience in projects of similar scope, magnitude, complexity, and schedule.

FACTOR 2 - EVALUATION AND RATING GUIDELINES:

Thorough, detailed and complete narratives will be rated more highly than those not providing sufficient detail or discussion of the proposed approach. Omission of requested information will result in lower ratings than those who provide all the information identified. Offerors will be evaluated on the quality, education, and experience possessed to meet or provide the expertise requirements of proposed work under the contract. The Offeror shall demonstrate that it has the necessary structure, experience, and qualified resources within its proposed organization to effectively manage, control, administer and execute the integrated design and construction operations, safety and quality control program, and subcontracts. Offerors with key personnel that have worked on projects of the scope, magnitude, and complexity of this project will be rated more favorably than key personnel without such experience. Offerors with key personnel with more experience in the proposed position will be rated more favorably than key personnel with less experience.

FACTORS 2 - TECHNICAL/RISK RATING FOR OTHER THAN PAST

PERFORMANCE:

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.

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.

FACTOR 3 – Past Performance Information:

For this factor, it is recommended that 5 past performance evaluations with the Contractor’s proposal. And the Contractor’s proposal shall include as a minimum the following for each of the past performance examples:

(a) A narrative that describes the Contractor’s past performance and that demonstrates that the cited work is relevant to the scope and magnitude of this project. (See capabilities in paragraph (b) Sub-factor above.

(b) The contract’s established completion date and the actual completion date, and an explanation for any delay in completion. Include a description of any modifications changing the delivery date.

(c) The contract price at award and the completed contract price, including any change orders or modifications affecting price.

(d) A listing of the major subcontractors utilized for each contract, especially for complex projects completed in abbreviated timelines. List the percentage of the project self performed and that percentage performed by the major subcontractors.

(e) List points of contact with telephone and other contact information for each contract experience included in the proposal.

(f) A listing of the number of crews and subcontractors utilized for each contract, especially for complex projects completed in abbreviated timelines.

(g) Offerors shall provide a listing of all exposure and accident experiences incidental to work for the past two years (as a minimum these records shall include exposure work hours and a log of occupational injuries and illnesses). Safety Submittal: OSHA Form 300 or equivalent as prescribed by 29 CFR 1904.

(h) Recommended Items:

(1) For Corps of Engineers contracts, provide a copy of the signed Construction Contract Administration Support System (CCASS) and/or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation issued at the completion of the project. For non-Corps of Engineers contracts, provide a copy of the performance rating issued by the contracting agent.

OR:

(2) For all cited past performance in your proposal, the Government strongly encourages offerors to include a past performance survey. The template for this survey is provided in this solicitation. The past performance survey should be filled out by the reference and include the individual’s point of contact information. The Government may verify all past performance submitted as part of your offer and failure to include valid contact information will prevent that verification.

6. Evaluation and Rating Guidelines: Past Performance will be evaluated based on the results of work performed that is determined to be relevant to this requirement. Offerors will be evaluated on the quality of similar work performed as a prime contractor or a significant subcontractor within the last FIVE (5) years, using the evidence provided by the Offeror. The information evaluated may include predecessor companies. Higher evaluation ratings will be given for past performance on those projects that are similar in scope and complexity to this project and clearly demonstrate a Contractor’s capabilities to successfully construct a similar project with similar schedule. Offerors with past performance in the capabilities listed under this factor will be rated higher than those without. An Offeror’s past performance as a prime, self performing Contractor will be evaluated more favorably than that for which the Offeror acted as a subcontractor.

Offerors with a higher percentage of self performed construction work will be rated higher than those with a lower percentage. Projects that are not yet complete may be rated lower than those that are complete. Offerors that demonstrate that they provided schedule advancement during previous projects will be rated higher than those that did not. Offerors with a lower experience modifier rate will be rated more favorably than those with a higher rate. Offerors with no relevant performance history will be rated as “Unknown” in this factor.

FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

1. Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

2. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate 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. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The Government will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

(a) Factor 3 -Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

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

(b) Factor 3 - Past Performance Confidence Assessments - In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the table below:

RATING DESCRIPTION

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

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.

3. The emphasis for all categories above should be on the capability and performance of construction, and should include project delivery under aggressive schedules, ability to adapt to changing requirements and conditions, and specific examples of challenges faced and solutions proposed and executed. The Offeror should include the percentage of the final contract amount that was self-performed work along with a description of that self performed work. Offerors should provide their safety record, including their current experience modifier rate, along with documentation on lost time accidents for each project. For each project, the Offerors proposal should describe the quality of product/service provided for each project in narrative form and describe ultimate customer satisfaction with the product/service. The Offeror should also include any documentation from the customer stating their satisfaction (i.e., letters of recommendation, commendations, ratings, etc.).

4. The information evaluated may include parent or affiliated companies. If past performance information provided is from a parent or affiliated company, the proposal must contain a letter from the parent or affiliated company identifying which of their resources will be available to the Offeror for the proposed work. The letter must also identify what role the parent or affiliated company will have in performance of the proposed work.

Relevant past performance of a parent or affiliate will be evaluated on the same basis as relevant past performance of an individual Offeror, provided that sufficient information is supplied to establish the parent or affiliate's role in the contract work as well as the resources available for such work.

An Offeror relying on the past performance record of a parent or affiliate will not be penalized for that fact. However, such offerors proposal must demonstrate there is a reasonable basis for such reliance; otherwise there will be no basis for crediting the Offeror with the past performance of the parent or affiliate.

5. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. Past performance information may be obtained from other than the sources identified by the Offeror, to include past performance evaluations in the Construction Contracts Appraisal Support System (CCASS). In addition references indicated on the overall project list may be contacted.

The Government may also use any other past performance information, from other sources, outside of the Offerors proposal in their evaluation. The Government may also use other tools to gather information regarding an Offerors qualifications and past performance. The Offeror should provide information on any problems encountered on the identified contracts and the corrective actions taken. Offerors shall provide a listing of all exposure and accident experience incidental to work for the past two years (as a minimum these records shall include exposure work-hours and a log of occupational injuries and illnesses).

FACTOR 4 - PRICE PROPOSAL EVALUATION:

1. Price or cost to the Government will be evaluated and considered but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. The proposed price will be analyzed for reasonableness. It may also be analyzed to determine whether it is realistic for the work to be performed; reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and is consistent with the offeror’s Technical Proposal.

2. Information required to be submitted in the Price Proposal volume in addition to the executed SF 1442 with acknowledgement of amendments and the completed pricing schedule will be used to determine the offeror’s eligibility for contract award. (for example, the offeror’s representations and certifications; the price proposal; and the offeror’s pre-award survey information.) The Government may enter into exchanges with offerors about such information without it constituting discussions, subject to applicable FAR limitations, including FAR 15.306, Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.

PRICE PROPOSAL RISK EVALUATION:

Each proposal will receive a Proposal Risk rating. Risk is not a separate non-cost evaluation factor, but will be evaluated based upon the likelihood that an offeror's proposal will meet the requirements of the solicitation. Proposal Risk will be evaluated as follows:

Low Risk= Proposal weaknesses have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably minimize any difficulties.

Moderate Risk= Approach has weaknesses that can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increasing in cost, or degradation of performance. However, special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably minimize difficulties.

High Risk = Approach has weaknesses that have the potential to cause serious disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. Proposal contains statements regarding indemnification.

PRICE PROPOSAL VOLUME:

NUMBER OF SETS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL.

Submit the original and 4 copies of the price proposal volume.

FORMAT, CONTENTS, AND LIST OF TABS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL:

Use only 8-1/2” x 11” pages. There are no page limits for the price proposal; however, limit responses to required information. Excess information will not be evaluated. Organize your price proposal as indicated below. If a tab is not applicable to your proposal, omit that tab but do not renumber the subsequent tabs.

PRICE PROPOSAL VOLUME

TAB CONTENTS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

1 Proposal Cover Sheet 2 SF 1442; Acknowledgement of Amendments; Joint Venture Agreement 3 Pricing Schedule 4 Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors 5 Pre-Award Survey Information

DETAILED SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL:

Tab 1 of the Price Proposal: Proposal Cover Sheet.

The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1 (c)(2), the provision, titled “Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition”. The format and content for the proposal cover sheet follows:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number:

2. The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror.

3. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the Solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item.

4. Names, titles , e-mail address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation:

5. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

(End of Proposal Cover Sheet)

Tab 2 of the Price Proposal: SF 1442; Acknowledgement of Amendments; Joint Venture Agreement.

The Standard Form (SF) 1442 must be completed by the offeror and duly executed with an original signature by the official(s) identified in the proposal cover sheet as authorized to bind the offeror in accordance with FAR 4.102, which includes specific instructions pertaining to individuals, partnerships, corporations, Joint Venture participants, and agents. Include the offeror’s DUNS number in block 14 of the SF 1442, along with the offeror’s address. All amendments must be acknowledged in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment. If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), include a copy of the JV agreement and indicate its status. (Note: Please use a document protector in lieu of punching holes in the original SF 1442.)

Tab 3 of the Price Proposal: Pricing Schedule.

Submit the completed Pricing Schedule with the offeror’s proposed contract prices inserted in the appropriate spaces. Prices must be proposed for all contract line items. Unit prices must be extended to the actual “dollar and cents” amounts (i.e., to two decimal places). Do not round off the extended prices to the nearest dollar. Check your pricing submission very carefully for mathematical and clerical errors prior to submission. Any qualification of pricing may render the proposal unacceptable and therefore not eligible for award. (Note: Please use document protectors in lieu of punching holes in the completed “original” pricing schedule.)

Tab 4 of the Price Proposal: Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors.

The offeror must have electronically completed the annual representations and certifications on the “Online Representations and Certifications Application” (ORCA) website in accordance with FAR 52.204-8 (provided in full text in Section 00600. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that these on-line Representations and Certifications are updated as necessary to reflect changes, but at least annually to ensure that they are kept current, accurate and complete. Additionally, the offeror must also complete and return the “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” included in Section 00600 of the solicitation. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, all participants must separately complete both the ORCA Representations and Certifications and Section 00600.

Tab 5 of the Price Proposal: Pre-Award Survey Information.

a. The contracting officer is required to make an affirmative pre-award determination of the prospective contractor’s responsibility in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and its supplements. The contracting officer must have sufficient information available to determine that a prospective contractor meets these minimum standards. Therefore, the offeror is requested to provide the pre-award survey information described below with its price proposal:

1. The completed Construction Contractor Data Form with Supplemental Schedules A-C (see format which follows). If the offeror is a large multi-segmented business concerns, the data provided on the supplemental schedules may be limited to information that directly pertains to the specific segment of the business concern (i.e., the division, group, unit, etc.) proposed to perform work under the prospective contract with its own work force. If the offer is being submitted by a Joint Venture, submit a separate form for each Joint Venture participant. The offeror may submit pre-award survey information in another format, provided that the information furnished is substantially the same as that which would be furnished on the Construction Contractor Data Form and its supplemental schedules.

2. Current financial statements. If the financial statement is more than 60 days old, submit a certificate stating that the firm's financial condition is substantially the same, or, if not the same, state the changes that have taken place. If a Joint Venture, provide this information for each participant in the Joint Venture.

3. Banking information. Provide letters from banks or other financial institutions with which the contractor conducts business. The letters should contain information about your firm's accounts, loans, lines of credit, etc. The Government is interested in financial stability, timely payments, the length and nature of the relationship between the firm and the financial institution, and the firm's financial ability to perform the contract. The letters should also provide the name and telephone number of the bank representative the Government may contact. If a Joint Venture, provide this information for each Joint Venture participant.

b. The Government will treat the pre-award survey information submitted by the offeror as proprietary.

(Tab 5 of the Price Proposal: Pre-Award Survey Information)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA DATE:

Firm Name and Telephone Number Main Office Address (Street, City, and State)

Branch Offices Services Rendered Construction Design Consultant

Organization Individual Joint Venture Partnership Corporation

Date Organized Date Incorporated:

State:

Names of Officers and Other Key Personnel

I – PRESENT PAYROLL PERSONNEL (List Number of Each Category Below)

Remainder: Partners:

Officers:

Other Key:

Total:

Subtotal Permanent:

Maximum Personnel at Any Time:

Date:

II—EQUIPMENT OWNED III—FINANCIAL DATA AS OF

(DATE): Present Value ($) Current Assets:

Current Liabilities: Acquisition Cost ($) Net Worth:

IV—TOTAL VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION AND

DEMOLITION WORK IN PAST 6 YRS EXCLUSIVE OF

JOINT VENTURE (LIST MOST RECENT FIRST)

V—LARGEST JOB EVER

CONTRACTED

(If Other Than in Past Six Years)

$ LARGEST JOB IN PAST 6

YRS

Contract Amount:

Date:

Description:

Contract Amount:

Date:

Description:

Avg. Annual Income

Owner:

Owner:

VI—TYPE OF WORK IN WHICH FIRM SPECIALIZES

NAME AND POSITION/TITLE OF PERSON

SIGNING

SIGNATURE

See attachment for explanations or detailed description of item(s) reported above.

(Tab 5 of the Price Proposal: Pre-Award Survey Information)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA – SCHEDULE A – EXISTING COMMITMENTS

List below the construction projects your firm currently has under way, including recent awards.

Also list construction projects for which your firm is the apparent successful offeror/bidder, but for which a contract has not yet been awarded. If not applicable, please indicate in the “contract number” space below, “N/A”.

CONTRACT

NUMBER

AMOUNT

DESCRIPTION/

LOCATION

ORGANIZATION/

CONTACT PERSON/

PHONE NUMBER

PERCENT

COMPLETE

(Tab 5 of the Price Proposal: Pre-Award Survey Information)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA – SCHEDULE B – COMPLETED PROJECTS

List below the principal construction projects your firm has completed within the past 5 years, including all DoD contracts with a total value exceeding $3,750,000.00 (75+% of project value)__.

NUMBER

AMOUNT

DESCRIPTION/

LOCATION

ORGANIZATION/

CONTACT PERSON/

PHONE NUMBER

PERCENT

SUBLET

(End of Summary of Changes)