W91238-13-R-0041-0002.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 purpose of this amendment is to incoporate the follow ing:

A. Correct items under the Evaluation Factors. Items changed w ill be highlighted.

B. Provide updated Plans and Specifications.

C. Extend the Proposal Due Date to 05 NOV 2013 at 2PM Local PST.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 41

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-Oct-2013

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 W91238-13-R-0041

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Sep-2013

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 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

29-Oct-2013

CODE

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J STREET

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:

W91238-13-R-0041

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION - CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) SCHEDULE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 30-Oct-2013 02:00 PM to 05-Nov-2013 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

SOLICITATION SECTIONS PERTAINING TO OFFEROR’S SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION

SECTION 00 22 16 INSTRUCTIONS

Notes

1. The Contracting Officer who signs this contract will be the principal Contracting Officer of this contract.

However, any Contracting Officer assigned to the Sacramento District, contracting within his or her authority, may take formal action on this contract when a contract action needs to be taken and the principal Contracting Officer is unavailable.

2. Pursuant to the Miller Act, Performance and Payment Bonds shall be provided for this contract. The Notice to Proceed for the contract will not be issued until the Contractor provides sufficient bonding to cover the work being performed. Consent of Surety will be required for changes to the price of the contract, if required. Bonds shall be provided within 10 calendar days of award of the contract.

3. Application of Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) Provisions. Current Davis-Bacon (construction) wage rates that apply to the location where the work will be performed, and is provided herein. Once the contract is awarded the wage rate will remain in force for the duration of the contract.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS,

BASIS OF AWARD, AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

American River Common Features, Sites R7 and L7, Sacramento, California

1. OVERVIEW.

This is a "Best Value" solicitation for the construction of American River Common Features, Sites R7 and L7, Sacramento, California. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to the Offeror whom the Government determines to be responsible, 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.

2. BASIS OF AWARD.

2.1. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

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.

A determination of responsibility will be made for the Offeror who is selected for award. If an Offeror is a small business and is determined to be non-responsible the decision will be referred to the SBA for a competency review, unless it is due to the non-acceptability of the Surety offered, in which case the determination of non-responsibility by the Contracting Officer will stand per FAR 28.203. Only Offerors who are determined to be responsible will be awarded a contract.

2.2. SOURCE SELECTION USING THE TRADE-OFF PROCESS

This procurement is using the best value, trade off approach because the Government is willing to pay a premium to ensure that the contractor selected for the contract will provide the highest quality construction within the Period of Performance.

The Evaluation Factors are shown in descending order of importance. Factor 1 is the most important factor and more important than Factor 2. When combined Factor 1 and 2 are more important and all other technical factors combined. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3 and 4. Factor 3 equally important to Factor 4. Factor 3 and 4 is more important than Factor 5. All the technical factors when combined are significantly more important than price.

2.3. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PRICE TO THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are more important than 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.

2.4. EVALUATION OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

The price proposal submitted will be evaluated and considered but will not be point scored. The proposed price will be evaluated to determine whether it is reasonable for the work to be performed; reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and is consistent with the Offeror’s technical proposal. The Government will use appropriate techniques in compliance with FAR 15.404-1(b) to evaluate the Price Proposal and determine an Offeror’s proposed price is reasonable. Additionally, all offers may be analyzed for unbalanced pricing (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

When applicable, the Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns will be applied. The Price Evaluation Adjustment for Small Disadvantaged Businesses will not apply to this procurement as it is currently suspended for Department of Defense.

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 bid guarantee; 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; FAR 28.101-4, Noncompliance with bid guarantee requirements.

The Government may consider the availability of funds for contract award in determining which proposal offers the best value to the Government. If an Offeror’s proposed price(s) exceeds the funds made available for any item or group of items on the pricing schedule (excluding option line items), that offer may be ineligible for contract award, notwithstanding the reasonableness of the total proposed price for all of the line items on the pricing schedule.

2.5. THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS:

The Offeror is required to propose a specific project team including key subcontractors for evaluation in response to this Request for Proposals. For purposes of this procurement, the terms “key subcontractors” are used to refer only to the prospective subcontractors whose qualifications, experience, and past performance will be evaluated by the Government as part of the source selection process. For reasons of efficiency, not all of the subcontractors are critical to successful post-award contract performance have been included in this group. In order to streamline the proposal submission and evaluation process, please limit your submission to the information specifically requested.

Information pertaining to other subcontractors not designated as “key” by the Government will be considered excess and will not be evaluated.

For the purposes of this procurement, a key subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor performing “key” major work elements for which capability information is required to be submitted for evaluation as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal.

The Offeror’s attention is directed to the clause in Section 00 73 00 titled “Key Personnel and Subcontractors”. In accordance with this clause, any post-award changes to the key subcontractors in the accepted proposal will require prior contracting officer approval.

2.6. GENERAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

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.

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.

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.

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., key personnel), the information will not be evaluated.

The degree of risk to the Government inherent in the Offeror’s technical proposal will be a consideration under every evaluation factor, with the exception of past performance, which will be evaluated as Past Performance Confidence Assessment, and Factor 5.

The Government cannot make award based on a deficient offer. Therefore, a rating of “Unacceptable” under any 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.

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.

TECHNICAL/RISK RATING SCALE

WITH RISK INCORPORATED INTO THE RATINGS:

IMPORTANT NOTE: These are general standards only. The Board must always consider the balance between the identified strengths, weaknesses and risks when assigning an adjectival rating. For example, if the Board identifies five strengths and three weaknesses, but considers the overall impact of the identified strengths and weaknesses to be equal in terms of their effect on the procurement, the assigned rating could be “Acceptable” if in the judgment of the Board the five strengths are offset by the three weaknesses. In another example, the Board might identify one strength and one significant weakness. The one significant weakness could outbalance the one strength, and result in a “marginal” rating. These examples are provided only to demonstrate that the assignment of an adjective rating requires considered judgment as to the significance of the strengths and weaknesses that are identified by the Board.

The adjective rating is not determined merely by “counting” the number of strengths and/or weaknesses, except that any deficiency will automatically result in an “Unacceptable” rating.

This combined technical/risk rating scale will be used in conjunction with each evaluation of Factor 1 through

4. Rating scales for Factors 5 and 6 are available below.

ADJECTIVE

DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

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.

These Rating Scales will be used for Factor 5- Past Performance 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. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontract/teaming. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (Adjectival) -- Past performance analysis provides insight into an Offeror’s probability of successfully completing the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s performance record on similar contract efforts.

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.

2. Past Performance Confidence Assessment - Performance confidence is the confidence associated with an Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that Offeror's record of current or past performance. Performance Confidence Assessment: In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in accordance with the table below (Reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)

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.

This Rating Scales will be used for Factor 6- Socio-Economic Considerations

Excellent Offeror is a small business. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal;

demonstrates substantive commitment to SB firm(s), for example enforceable commitment with 1 or more firms; identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; demonstrates commitment to far exceed the 15% SB Participation goal (offering 40% or more); meets or exceeds 2 or more subcategory small business goals. Subcontracting Plan= Pass

Good Offeror is a large or small business. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates substantive commitment to SB firm(s), for example enforceable commitment with 1 or more firms; identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; demonstrates commitment to exceed the 15%

SB Participation goal; and meets or exceeds 1 or more subcategory small business goals. Subcontracting Plan= Pass

Acceptable - Offeror is a large or small business. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates a commitment to SB firm(s); identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; and demonstrates commitment to meet the 15% SB Participation goal. Does not meet any of the subcategory small business goals. Subcontracting Plan= Pass

Unacceptable Offeror is a large or small business, and does not demonstrate commitment to meet the 15% SB Participation goal and/or does not identify SBs in the proposal; and/or does not demonstrate a commitment to use SB firms; and/or does not identify the work small businesses are to perform. Subcontracting Plan= Fail

TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

EVALUATION STANDARDS AND EXPLANATION OF TERMS

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

ADJECTIVE

DESCRIPTION

“STRENGTH”

Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

“WEAKNESS”

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

“UNCERTAINTY” or

“AMBIGUITY”

Any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear because there may be more than one way to interpret the proposal or because inconsistencies in the proposal indicate that there may be an error, omission, or mistake. Examples include a mistake in calculation or measurement and contradictory statements.

“DEFICIENCY”

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Examples of deficiencies include a statement that the Offeror cannot or will not meet a requirement, an approach that clearly does not meet a requirement, or omission of data required to assess compliance with the requirement.

*Board members will classify any failure to meet a Government requirement as a deficiency. The determination that a failure is immaterial (e.g., its effect on price, quantity, quality, or delivery is negligible when contrasted with the total price or scope of the supplies or services being acquired) is reserved solely for the Source Selection Authority. Additionally, the Source Selection Authority may waive minor informalities or irregularities in proposals. Generally, these are merely a matter of form and not of substance.

3. GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS.

3.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.

3.1.1 Media, Page Size, Margins, Fonts, and Page Limitations.

Submit only the hard-copy paper documents and electronic files specifically authorized elsewhere in this section.

Do not submit excess information, to include audio-visual materials, electronic media, etc. Do not include links to information on websites in lieu of incorporating the information physically into the proposal. Except where another size is specifically authorized for a specific submission, use only 8 1/2” x 11” paper. Use at least 1 inch margins, which may include headers and footers. Do not justify the right margin. Ensure that all text and graphics are clearly legible. Do not use a font size smaller than 10, unusual font styles such as script, or condensed fonts. For submissions with page limitations, the pages will be counted as follows: One side of the paper is one page;

information on both the back and front of one sheet of paper will be counted as two pages. Where authorized, a foldout sheet will count as one page. Pages furnished for organizational purposes only, such as a “Table of Contents” or divider tabs, are excluded from page limitations.

3.1.2 Proposal Binding.

The preferred method for assembling proposals is a method that enables the rapid insertion or deletion of pages such as three ring binders. Ensure recommended capacity is not exceeded and that pages turn freely. Do not use spring clamps, spiral binding systems, or heat binding systems.

3.1.3 Conditioning of Offer.

Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal volumes. Inclusion of any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in a determination that the offer is unacceptable and thus ineligible for award. Resolve questions about the terms and conditions or technical requirements of the solicitation prior to submission of the offer; see “Inquiries”, located in Section 00 21 16, for points of contact.

3.1.4 Restrictions on Offeror-Provided Information.

“Confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can nonetheless be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must clearly mark the information in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offeror – Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”. Files shall not contain classified data.

3.2 REQUIREMENT FOR SEPARATE PRICE AND TECHNICAL PROPOSAL VOLUMES.

Each Offeror must submit both a “price proposal” volume and a “technical proposal” volume. The price proposal includes the signed offer and the Offeror’s proposed prices, as well as other “pro forma” requirements. The technical proposal includes all required information relating to the “non-cost” evaluation factors. The two volumes must be submitted as separate, physically distinct volumes. Both volumes must be received at the location shown in Block 8 of Standard Form 1442, not later than the date and time specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. The information in the two volumes is evaluated separately and independently. Therefore, all information intended by the Offeror to be evaluated as part of the price proposal must be submitted as part of the price proposal. All information intended by the Offeror to be evaluated as part of the technical proposal must be submitted as part of the technical proposal. Do not merely cross-reference similar material between the technical and price proposals.

Information in the price proposal will not be considered in the technical evaluation, and vice versa.

3.2.1 Marking of Proposal Volumes.

Mark each volume as either the “Price Proposal” or the “Technical Proposal”. Additionally, mark the outside front cover of each volume with the project title and location, solicitation number, name and address of the Offeror, and volume copy number. (Markings which identify the Offeror are not required on either the back cover or on the spine/binding.)

3.2.2 Tabbing of Proposal Volumes.

Offers are to be formatted and tabbed in accordance with the instructions that follow for each proposal volume.

4. PRICE VOLUME

4.1 NUMBER OF SETS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

Submit the original and two (2) copies of the price proposal volume.

4.2 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

1 Proposal Cover Sheet

2 SF 1442; Acknowledgement of Amendments; Joint Venture Agreement

3 Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) pricing found in the Pricing Schedule.

4 Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors

5 Pre-Award Survey Information

6 Bid Guarantee

4.3 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). This provision, titled “Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition” is provided in full text in Section 00 21 00. The format and content for the proposal cover sheet follows:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number:

2. The name, address, DUNS, telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror (and electronic address if available):

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, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) 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 with continuation pages will 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 will 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: Contract Line Item Numbers

Submit a completed Pricing Schedule of the Offeror’s proposed contract prices using the format in Section 00 10 00 of the solicitation. Submit the completed Pricing Schedule on the CLINs work for the project (Section 00 10 00).

Prices will be proposed for all contract line items and sub-contract line items. Unit prices will 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 will have electronically completed the annual representations and certifications on the “System for Award Management” (SAM) website in accordance with FAR 52.204-8 (provided in full text in Section 00 45 00).

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 will also complete and return the “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” included in Section 00 45 00 of the solicitation. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, all participants will separately complete both the SAM Representations and Certifications and Section 00 45 00.

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 apparent successful contractor’s responsibility in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and its supplements. The contracting officer will 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 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.

(4) Surety Information. Provide information on the Surety. If it is a Corporate Surety, provide the name of the Surety, and the Surety will be checked for acceptability per FAR 28.202. If it’s an individual Surety provide the name of the Surety and information on the pledged assets. The assets of an individual surety will be checked for acceptability per FAR 28.203-2, and FAR 28.203-3.

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

Tab 6 of the Price Proposal: Bid Guarantee.

All Offerors must submit a bid guarantee, (e.g., Standard Form 24, Bid Bond) which complies with the requirements of FAR 28.101 Bid Guarantees, and any Defense and Army supplements thereto.

(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) Partners:

Officers:

Other Key:

Remainder: Subtotal Permanent:

Maximum Personnel at Any Time:

Date:

Total:

II—EQUIPMENT OWNED III—FINANCIAL DATA AS OF

(DATE): Present Value ($)

Current Assets:

Acquisition Cost ($) Current Liabilities:

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:

Owner:

$ Contract Amount:

Date:

Description:

Owner:

Avg. Annual Income

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.

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.

CONTRACT

NUMBER

AMOUNT

DESCRIPTION/

LOCATION

ORGANIZATION/

CONTACT PERSON/

PHONE NUMBER

PERCENT

COMPLETE

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA – SCHEDULE B – COMPLETED PROJECTS

List below the principal construction projects your firm has completed within the past six years, including all DoD contracts with a total value exceeding $2,000,000.00___.

NUMBER

AMOUNT

DESCRIPTION/

LOCATION

ORGANIZATION/

CONTACT PERSON/

PHONE NUMBER

PERCENT

SUBLET

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA – SCHEDULE C –

CONSTRUCTION AND/OR TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT

List total equipment and facilities owned for performing the prospective contract and present status as to whether or not it is currently committed to existing contracts.

QUANTITY

DESCRIPTION

CONDITION

YEARS OF

SERVICE

PRESENT

STATUS

5. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL VOLUME EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.1 NUMBER OF SETS OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

The Technical Proposal is to be submitted in one hard “original” and three copies. In addition, submit one complete copy of the technical proposal on Compact Disk (CD) using a searchable “PDF” file format.

5.2 FORMAT, CONTENTS, AND LIST OF TABS FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Use 8-1/2” x 11” pages for the narrative portions of the proposal. The overall page limit for the technical proposal is150 pages (not counting the past performance questionnaires or representations and certifications); additionally, there may be limits imposed at the tab level. Organize your technical proposal as indicated below. The tabs directly correlate to the technical evaluation factors. Although the Government may use information contained anywhere within the technical proposal in its evaluation of any technical evaluation criteria, the Government is not obligated to search for or to consider information that is not located in the specified location. Number the pages. Do not include information pertaining to your proposed pricing for this project in the technical proposal. Limit your submittals to the information specified; excess information will not be evaluated.

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

TAB CONTENTS

1. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH AND SPECIALIZED CAPABILITES

Areas of Specialized Capabilities

2. FACTOR 2 –EXPERIENCE & CAPABILITY

Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Example Projects Demonstrating Experience and Capability

3. FACTOR 3 – KEY PERSONNEL

Key Personnel Resumes and Example Projects Demonstrating Qualification and Experience

4. FACTOR 4 – ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Project Organization Chart Management Approach Prime Contractor/Key Sub-Contractor Corporate Resumes

5. FACTOR 5 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Prime Contractor/Key Sub-Contractor Past Performance

1. FACTOR 6 – SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSERATIONS

Proposed Small Business Participation

5.3 DETAILED SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

TAB 1: FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED CAPBILITIES AND APPROACH

1. General.

The information provided in this tab will be used in evaluating the offeror’s technical approach and specialized capabilities that are specific to this solicitation. The following information can be provided directly by Contractor.

There is no requirement for supporting evidence from engineer-of-record.

2. Areas of Specialized Capabilities.

a. Measurement of Drilling Deviations.

The offeror shall demonstrate how they will measure drilling deviations by detailing sizes and type of equipment, the capability of measuring drilling deviations through the drilling/injection rods, and the use of these instruments to depths of at least 50 feet or deeper, and made in limited headroom situation and for columns installed on the embankment slope. In addition, the Offeror shall provide evidence that they have this capability and cite the following as a reference: (Note: this information can be any two (2) triple fluid jet grouting or alternative jet grouting projects performed by the Contractor):

i. Contract Title and Location

ii. Contract number

iii. Name and address of the Prime Contractor

iv. Complete name and address of Customer/Project Owner (Government agency, commercial firm, or other organization or entity for whom work was performed)

v. Date of contract award

vi. Short Description of Project, indicating function of jet grouting, depth of treatment, jet grouting methods used, and method utilized to measure drilling deviations

vii. Description of subsurface conditions obtained from subsurface explorations and or reports (general soil type, layer thickness)

viii. Provide drilling deviation measurement method along with cut sheets for instruments used

ix. Provide summary list of drilling deviations measured for each project

b. Equipment Capability to Perform Triple Fluid or Alternative Jet Grouting in Limited Headroom for Sites R7 and L7.

The Offeror shall demonstrate how they will complete jet grouting in the limited headroom portions of the seepage barrier wall on Sites R7 and L7. The Offeror shall provide information related to the capability of their equipment as follows:

i. Schematics and manufacturer’s data sheets of drilling and triple fluid jet grouting or

(alternative jet grouting) equipment capable of operating in 12 feet or less headroom. Drill shall be capable of drilling to the depths specified on the drawings for Sites R7 and L7, and also be able to drill through the gravel and cobbles zones shown on the soil borings.

ii. Submitted evidence that the drill has the capabilities to use a down the hole water hammer.

iii. Due to the large number of rod changes required to drill at depths required for Sites R7 and

L7. The Offeror shall provide a schematic of the jetting monitor and provide discussions on how the jet nozzles for their system will not be clogged when connecting/disconnecting the rods during drilling and jet grouting.

iv. The Offeror shall provide evidence that they have the above listed equipment and cite one (1) project in which this equipment was used in a limited headroom situation in which triple fluid or alternative jet grouting was used.

c. Jet Grout Columns Diameters Using Zero Compressed Air for Sites R7 and L7.

It is anticipated that we may need to use compressed air due to relatively shallow utility pipes, (3-30 inch storm drain and 48” abandoned pipe), and potential of uncontrolled release of compressed air on the embankment slope. The offeror shall demonstrate their approach and proposed column diameters for forming the jet grout cutoff though the embankment slope and the soil conditions cited in the contract documents for Site L7 and R7, using zero compressed air. The Offeror shall provide their procedures and any supporting information from previous projects and present detailed discussion on the proposed sized column which their zero compressed air system will form in the soil conditions cited in the contract documents for Sites R7 and L7.

d. Closed Loop Drilling Equipment or Alternate System of Jet Grouting and Waste Conveyance.

It is of interest to the Government that the offeror submits evidence that they have the capability of employing a closed loop drilling or alternate system. The offeror shall demonstrate how their proposed closed loop system (or alternative approach) will prevent cuttings from flowing onto the slope of the embankment for Sites R7 and L7. The offeror shall provide evidence that they have employed a closed loop drilling (or alternate system) / jet grouting system on full production jobs. If the Contractor has an alternative method, for conveying the jetting hoses and waste for the R7 and L7 Sites, then the Offeror should provide the specifics of this alternative method. In all cases the Offeror shall cite the reference(s) which support their approach for the layout of their equipment and show a plan view of their process flow diagrams for performing jet grouting on the R7 and L7 Sites. (Note: the supporting information shall be any one (1) jet grouting project performed by the Contractor.) For any one (1) past jet grouting project that can satisfy this requirement, then the following shall be submitted:

i. Contract Title and Location

ii. Contract number

iii. Name, address , and telephone number of the Prime Contractor

iv. Complete name, address, and telephone number of Customer/Project Owner (Government agency, commercial firm, or other organization or entity for whom work was performed).

v. Date of contract award

vi. General description of jet grout application, including plan and profile of column locations, along with description of subsurface conditions obtained from subsurface explorations and or reports (i.e. soil type, , layer thicknesses, groundwater level)

vii. Cut sheets of the individual equipment used to perform jet grouting on slope and convey the waste off the embankment. Provide illustrations with narrative on the actual systems deployed during the production work.

viii. Summarize the jetting parameters used during production, and typical volumes of waste volume pumped through the waste conveyance system for a typical jet grout column

ix. Discuss any operational issues related to using closed loop system (or alternative), especially maintenance of the conveyance system, secondary containment to assure any leaks are managed and prevented from being released into the environment.

x. For the R7 and L7 Sites, the Offerors shall provide the proposed layout of their equipment (grout plant, high pressure pumps, waste pits, trucking routes for cement deliveries and waste removal from the site). Also show a plan view of their process flow diagrams for conveying jet grouting hoses and waste lines on the Sites R7 and L7 sides of the project.

e. Detailed Approach of Triple Fluid Jet Grouting or Alternative Jet Grouting on an Embankment.

Based upon the conditions described below, which are typical of Sites R7 and L7, and the specification, demonstrate a detail in your approach to accomplish the installation of jet grout columns to form a seepage barrier wall, (minimum three (3) feet thick), across the downstream face of the levee embankment, shown in the contract documents for Sites R7 and L7. The offeror shall provide the details concerning the means and methods to perform triple fluid jet grouting (or alternative jet grouting) across the surface of the embankment, include in discussion preparation of working platform, types of drilling and injection equipment, types of grout proposed, jetting parameters proposed, size of columns and number of rows of jet grout columns to form three foot thick wall, address any issues related to uncontrolled release of jet grout cuttings and actions proposed. Lastly, the offeror shall identify their QC methods which will be used to measure in-situ the nominal size of jet grout column and also hydraulic conductivity of the barrier wall formed on the slope of the embankment. The offeror shall include the following conditions in their technical approach presentation:

i. Levee embankment slope: 3 horizontal on 1 vertical

ii. Levee embankment height: 15 feet dense silty sand

iii. Top of Jet Grout column: three feet below surface of embankment slope

iv. Bottom of jet grout column: five feet into dense silt aquiclude

v. Subsurface foundation soil conditions: Upper soil layer consists of 30 foot thick layer of dense sand and soft to firm lean clays, silts, and loose silty sand which are underlain by 15 feet gravel and cobble layer, which is underlain by dense silt that provides the aquiclude for the wall.

vi. The ground water is located at the top of the gravel and cobble layer.

vii. Length of jet grout barrier wall starts at levee crown and terminates at the downstream toe of the slope.

viii. Jet grout wall does not tie-in to any other wall, just discuss construction of wall through embankment and foundation soil.

f. Detailed Approach to Performing Jet Grouting in Limited Headroom for Sites R7 and L7.

The offeror shall provide the details concerning the means and methods to perform triple fluid jet grouting (or alternative jet grouting) in a limited headroom situation which exists at Site R7 and L7.

Offeror shall include in discussion preparation of working platform, types of drilling and injection equipment, types of grout proposed, jetting parameters proposed, size of columns and number of rows of jet grout columns to form three foot thick wall.