W91238-17-R-0008_AMENDMENT__1_6JUL17.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

Marysville Ring Levee (MRL) Phase 2A North

The purpose of this amendment is the follow ing:

1. To extend the due date and time for receipt of proposals from 7 July 2017 to 13 July 2017 at 3:00PM PST.

2. Incorporate the revised Project Specif ications dated 29 June 2017.

3. Incorporate changes made to the solicitation. All changes are highlighted in yellow and items deleted have a strikethrough and additions are bolded in Section 00 22 00 - Supplementary Instructions.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 29

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Jul-2017

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 W91238-17-R-0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-May-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-Jul-2017

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO

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:

W91238-17-R-0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION - CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) SCHEDULE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Site Visit Information 1 28-FEB-2017

Attachment 3 As-Built_PROP_116 Bike

Lane Project

3 28-FEB-2017

Attachment 5 Phase 2A-North_Model

Version

175 28-FEB-2017

Attachment 6 YU-04-0061-

MRL_Ph_2A_ANSI_D_

Drawings_19APR17

33 19-APR-2017

Attachment 7 MRL Phase 2A Pricing

Schedule 26MAY17

7 26-MAY-2017

Attachment 8 Project Specifications

1811 25MAY17

944 25-MAY-2017

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Site Visit Information 1 28-FEB-2017

Attachment 2 Project

Specifications_AM0001_

29JUN17

687 29-JUN-2017

Attachment 3 As-Built_PROP_116 Bike

Lane Project

3 28-FEB-2017

Attachment 4 Davis Bacon Wage Rates 41 30-JUN-2017

Attachment 5 Phase 2A-North_Model

Version

175 28-FEB-2017

Attachment 6 YU-04-0061-

MRL_Ph_2A_ANSI_D_

Drawings_19APR17

33 19-APR-2017

Attachment 7 MRL Phase 2A Pricing

Schedule 26MAY17

7 26-MAY-2017

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The standard size code $36,500,000 has been added.

The required response date/time has changed from 30-Jun-2017 03:00 PM to 13-Jul-2017 03:00 PM.

The following have been added by full text:

NOTE: ESTIMATED QUANTITIES

Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) 0001 through 0007 and 0009 through 0040 are identified in 52.211-18, Variation in Estimated Quantities (contained herein by references) applies. CLIN 0008 is identified in clause UAI

5152.211-9001, Variations in Estimated Quantities, Subdivided Items (MAR 1995) are estimated quantities.

The following have been deleted:

NOTE: ESTIMATED QUANTITIES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

1. OVERVIEW.

This action is a "Best Value Tradeoff Method" solicitation for the construction improvements to the Marysville Ring Levee (MRL) Phase 2A North in Marysville, California. The Contracting Officer will award to those responsible offerors whom the Source Selection Authority determines 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.

Proposals to include options are intended to be evaluated, and award made, without discussions with the offerors (other than discussion conducted for the purpose of minor clarifications, unless discussions are determined to be necessary

2.2. SOURCE SELECTION USING THE TRADE-OFF PROCESS

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

2.3. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PRICE TO THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are [insert as applicable] 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). If competing technical proposals are determined to be essentially equal, price could become the controlling factor.

2.4. EVALUATION OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

a. Price 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 reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and is consistent with the offeror’s Technical Proposal. Additionally, all offers will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

b. The price evaluation adjustment for Small Disadvantaged Businesses will not apply to this procurement as it is currently suspended for Department of Defense.

c. 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 in accordance with paragraph 2.1 above (for example, the offeror’s representations and certifications; the bid guarantee; 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.

2.5. THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

a. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s technical proposal based on how well the proposal addresses each of the evaluation factors, listed below, 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 will be evaluated by the Government and an adjectival rating and risk rating will be determined by consensus of the Government evaluation board for all technical factors other than past performance. The Past Performance factor will be evaluated by the Government and a relevancy and confidence level will be determined by consensus of the Government evaluation board.

b. The evaluation factors correlate directly to the main organizational tabs identified in the proposal submission instructions.

Technical Proposal

(1) Factor 1: Experience and Capability

(2) Factor 2: Technical and Management Approach

(3) Factor 3: Past Performance

2.6 RELATIVE WEIGHTING OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

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

Factor 1 – Experience and Capability is the most heavily weighted factor.

Factor 2 – Technical Approach is weighted less than Factor 1.

Factor 3 – Past Performance is weighted less than Factor 2.

2.7 GENERAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

a. The offeror’s conformance with the specified format and submission requirements will be considered during the technical evaluation. In addition, mistakes and errors will also be considered during the technical evaluation. Failure to comply with the formatting and/or submission requirements, more than a nominal number of mistakes/errors, or individual mistakes/errors that are egregious may be seen as indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during contract performance. Lack of conformance may 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 considered deficient which will cause the Government to consider the proposals 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.

b. Technical proposals which do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions may be assigned a weakness. The Government is under no obligation to search for information that is not in the specified location.

c. Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail may be downgraded. Responses that are essentially blanket offers of compliance are not adequate substitutes for the detailed and complete technical information necessary to establish that an offeror can meet US Government needs. 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 assigned a weakness and/or being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided.

d. 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 subcontractor), the information will not be evaluated.

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

f. A “strength” is 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. A weakness is 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. An “uncertainty” or “ambiguity” is 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. 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. 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. “

g. 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.

h. Failure of a proposed key 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 that may impact their overall rating.

i. Technical/Risk Rating for other than past performance.

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.

j. 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.

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.

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.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL 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 – Instructions to Proposers, for points of contact. Notwithstanding the above, the offeror must clearly describe in the proposal cover sheet submitted with the price volume any exceptions, within the offer, to the contractual and/or technical terms and conditions of the solicitation.

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.

1.2 GENERAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION.

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. 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 Volume” or the “Technical Volume”. In addition, 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.

3.2.3 Table of Contents.

Include a table of contents for each proposal volume.

4 PRICE PROPOSAL VOLUME.

4.1 NUMBER OF SETS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL.

Submit the original hardcopy and one electronic copy of the price proposal volume on a Compact Disk, using a searchable “PDF” file format.

4.2 FORMAT, CONTENTS, AND LIST OF TABS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL.

Use only 8-1/2” x 11” pages for the narrative portions of the proposal. 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 (if applicable))

3 CLIN Schedule

4 Representations and Certifications

5 Offer Guarantee

6 Pre-Award Survey Information

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 16. The format and content for the proposal cover sheet follows:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number:

2. The name, address, DUNS number, telephone numbers and email addresses 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, email addresses, and telephone 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.

(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: It is preferred, but not required, that you use a document protector in lieu of punching holes in the original SF 1442.)

Tab 3 of the Price Proposal: CLIN Schedule.

Submit the completed CLIN 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: It is preferred, but not required, that you use a document protector in lieu of punching holes in the completed “original” CLIN schedule.)

Tab 4 of the Price Proposal: Representations and Certifications.

The offeror must have electronically completed the annual representations and certifications on the System for Award Management (SAM) website in accordance with FAR 52.204-8. 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 00 45 00 of the solicitation. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, all participants must separately complete annual representations and certifications and Section 00 45 00.

Tab 5 of the Price Proposal: Offer Guarantee.

All offerors must submit a Offer 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 6 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 (e.g., 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.

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 $10,000,000.00.

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 five hard copies. In addition, submit one complete copy of the technical proposal on Compact Disk (CD) using a searchable “PDF” file format.

Offerors may use the same CD that holds the electronic version of the price proposal. No pricing information shall be included in the technical volume. If pricing information is provided within the technical volume, the proposal will be disqualified and not considered for award. The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important.

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 is 60 double-sided pages (not counting the past performance questionnaires); additionally, there may be limits or exceptions for each tab. 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, the Government is not obligated to search for or to consider information that is not located in the specified location. Number all pages.

Offeror shall not include any information pertaining to the proposed pricing for this project in the technical proposal. Failure to comply with this requirement will disqualify your proposal from consideration for award. Limit your submittals to the information specified; excess information will not be evaluated.

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

TAB CONTENTS

1. FACTOR 1 –EXPERIENCE & CAPABILITY

a) Prime Contractor/ Example Projects Demonstrating Experience and Capability

2. FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH

a) Technical Approach

b) Management Approach

3. FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

a) Prime Contractor Past Performance

Factor 1 is somewhat more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is somewhat more important than Factor 3.

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are [choose which one - significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.

5.3 DETAILED SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL

5.3.1 FACTOR 1: – EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY

Sub element a: Prime Contractor Example Projects Demonstrating Experience and Capability.

1. General.

Offeror shall provide all information requested below to demonstrate satisfactory completion of permanent vertical seepage cutoff wall projects approximately equal to or greater in size and complexity to this project. Offerors must demonstrate experience with the slurry supported trench method using long-reach excavators or clamshells for construction of a slag-cement bentonite seepage cutoff wall.

Offeror shall submit minimum two (maximum three) example projects in which the offeror self-performed the slurry supported trench method for construction of a slag-cement-bentonite seepage cutoff wall or cement- bentonite seepage cutoff wall, or combination of both types of seepage cutoff walls. Multiple equipment set-ups or headings on any one project/contract will be considered as one construction project. The projects submitted shall demonstrate corporate experience and capability, not a specific individual’s experience and capability. Projects used to demonstrate experience and capability must have been constructed within the last 10 years from this solicitation (2017).

Project type: Slurry supported trench using long-reach excavators or clamshells (conventional).

a. Conventional seepage cutoff wall application: Permanent vertical cutoff wall in an embankment or non-embankment application using slurry supported trench; long reach excavators or clamshell.

b. Wall materials: Slag-Cement-Bentonite or Cement Bentonite

c. Minimum depth of cutoff wall: 40 feet

d. Minimum surface area: 50,000 sq. ft.

e. Minimum Wall thickness: 30 inches

f. Minimum hydraulic conductivity: no value more pervious than 1 x 10-6 cm/sec

g. Minimum unconfined compressive strength; no value less than 50 psi at 28 days

The following information shall be provided for each project submitted. Offeror is required to submit the information as per subsection 2: “Formatting and Other Restrictions.”

a. Brief project description including but not limited to methodologies utilized, equipment utilized, site conditions, and subsurface conditions in which the seepage cutoff wall was constructed including ground water levels.

b. Description of terrain in which the cutoff wall was constructed through (i.e. flat ground, an embankment). If the project was constructed through an embankment, describe what type of embankment (i.e. road, dike, levee, or dam) and include an approximation of the embankment height and working area for the cutoff wall construction.

c. Cutoff wall material mixing and placement descriptions; include the specific equipment used to mix the cutoff wall material, batching systems including automated data acquisition systems, and placement of the cutoff wall material including typical volumes placed per shift.

d. Actions taken to insure wall continuity. Include aspects of set time and re-excavation of material or other methods taken to mitigate or prevent cold joints from occurring, if applicable.

e. If used, bentonite slurry support systems, include any desanding methods employed, and range of sand content of the trench slurry. Method proposed to maintain properties of the bentonite slurry in the trench.

f. Copy of the actual pages(s) of the specification and plan documents that state: The type of seepage cutoff wall system(s); the cutoff wall material type(s); the required depth of treatment; the required area of treatment; minimum cutoff wall thickness; and QC requirements.

g. Copy of compiled test results for the entire project showing permeability results from in-situ tests, core samples, and/or wet bulk samples. Include a plot of permeability results versus station length of the cutoff wall. Provide description of how permeability is measured.

h. Copy of compiled test results for the entire project showing unconfined compressive strength results from core samples and/or wet bulk samples. Include a plot of unconfined compressive strength results versus station length of the cutoff wall.

Provide a point of contact for the Engineer of Record or authorized project owner representative that can verify the QC results provided in the above bullet items.

Projects considered “Confidential” in nature shall not be used to meet the experience requirement of this solicitation unless all of the information required for evaluation purposes as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror’s technical submission. Offerors that include in their submission data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, must clearly mark the data in accordance with the instructions in FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”.

Do not submit example projects that are not complete or substantially complete. (For this purpose, “substantially complete” means that only the punch list items remains for project’s acceptance or that the majority of the elements of the project have been turned over to the customer for beneficial occupancy).

2. Formatting and Other Restrictions.

Start the information for each example project on a new page. The submission is limited to twenty (20) 8- 1/2” x 11” double-sided pages; (in combination) with 11” x 17” single-sided pages (for showing graphics, maps, or plates). There is no page limit for copies of the actual page(s) of the specification and plan documents. , and test results (permeability and unconfined compressive strength).

Use the “Project Information Format” for submitting the example projects. Use of an alternate format could result in a lower rating if all of the specified information is not provided. (Note: Do not submit a group of related jobs as one project unless all of the work was done under the same contract, or for indefinite delivery contracts, under one task order).

Project Information Format:

a. Example Project Number: Start with “1” for the first of all submitted projects and number consecutively.

b. Name of Prime Contractor(s) that demonstrate experience: Provide the name of the firm(s) that this example project is demonstrating experience and capability.

c. Contract Number and Awarded Prime Contractor Name: Provide contract number assigned by the procuring Contracting Office and the name of the Prime Contractor that was awarded the contract.

d. Title and Location: Title and location of project or contract.

e. Month and Year Project Work Commenced and Month and Year Project was Completed.

f. Project Owner: Project owner or user, such as a government agency or installation, an institution, or corporation or private individual.

g. Point of Contact: Provide name of a person associated with the project owner or the organization that is very familiar with the project and the firm’s (or firms’) performance.

h. Point of Contact Telephone Number: Include area code and email address.

i. Description of the Project: Provide contract type, dollar amount, physical size, and brief description of prime contracted effort. If the firm (prime) performed as a sub-contractor, describe the work effort pertaining to the subcontracted effort, not the prime contract requirement. For each firm (prime/key sub-contractor) that was involved on the example project, provide sufficient detail to establish the relevance to the current project to include (1) the performance period in month and year, (2) final dollar value, (3) physical size and (4) principal elements and special features of the work self-performed by that Prime Contractor’s employees.

j. Provide name of firm(s) (prime) and branch offices, if appropriate, that were involved in the example project, their roles, and their respective contract numbers.

k. Description of key personnel: Indicate which of the offeror’s proposed key personnel for the prospective contract were involved in the example project; indicate their roles and responsibilities.

3. Evaluation Criteria.

This is how the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submission for Factor 1 – Sub element a.

The technical experience in construction and all supporting data will be evaluated for completeness relating to the specific information requested in this solicitation. The evaluation will cover the recency, and relevancy of the experience and capability in comparison to the scope of work in this solicitation. The more closely related and recent the example project is to the project of this solicitation (as described in “Project Type” above), the higher the rating assigned. Failure of the Offeror to demonstrate relevant experience for itself or for any proposed key sub-contractor will result in a “Deficiency” evaluation and an Unacceptable Rating.

a. Demonstrations of experience and capability in the following areas will be evaluated for relevancy

(similar project type/scope, physical size, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming with the requirements of this acquisition) and recency (Example projects completed before 2013 will be considered by the Government to be less recent, than projects completed on or after 2013; the more recent the project is, the greater the consideration):

i. Prime Contractor’s general contractor/construction/project management experience and capability.

The more relevant and/or recent the example projects are to the project requirements, the more favorable the rating.

b. Demonstrations of experience and capability in the following areas will be considered advantageous. (A lack of any of the below items will not be considered unfavorable):

i. Prime contractor and any subcontractors’ teaming experience on similar construction projects.

ii. Prior experience on Corps of Engineers construction projects.

iii. Prior experience on levee improvement construction projects.

5.3.2: FACTOR 2: – TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Sub element (a) – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Offeror shall describe the technical approach for the seepage cutoff wall construction and their proposed schedule.

Seepage Cutoff Wall.

a. Construction Approach: The Offeror must present the methodology intended to self-perform the construction of a permanent vertical seepage cutoff wall, through the levee embankment foundation, and native soils consisting of clays, silts, sands, and gravels; while ensuring embankment stability during construction. The approach must include the methodology to construct the permanent vertical seepage cutoff wall to varying depths, between approximately 40 feet and 50 feet deep using the slurry supported trench method for construction of a Slag- Portland-cement and bentonite cutoff wall. The construction approach must also include methodologies regarding installation of a cutoff wall under overhead restrictions created by high voltage power transmission lines with an overhead clearance of 40 feet. Include any safety equipment mechanisms and safety protocols utilized in constructing the cutoff wall under high voltage power transmission lines and any similar case histories. The construction approach must also include methodologies regarding installation of a cutoff wall near the toe of a temporary excavated slope. Include any equipment/trenching considerations, and trench slurry considerations for maintaining trench stability and any similar case histories where a slurry supported trench was constructed near the toe of a slope without impacting slope stability.

b. Equipment: Provide a complete list of all equipment specifically related to the methodology proposed for placement of the permanent vertical seepage cutoff wall. This must include but is not limited to, batch plant components, rigs, and other support equipment. For each piece of equipment, provide the following information:

• Photograph,

• Performance data

• Last time equipment was used on a production basis

• lease agreement (if applicable) or statement of ownership

• Age of equipment

• Quantity of available equipment

• Equipment geometry (including range of dimensions, weights, and minimum clearance requirements (i.e. horizontal and vertical))

• Equipment capability

c. Quality Control: The Offeror must provide a Quality Control Plan demonstrating the methods that are to be used to ensure compliance with the contract parameters in accordance with the construction method proposed. This must include procedures and equipment for measuring the seepage cutoff wall depth, width, hydraulic conductivity, and strength. The Quality Control Plan must include remediation methods repairing portions of seepage cutoff wall determined not to meet performance requirements. The Quality Control Plan must include testing procedures for monitoring and maintaining excavation stability for the slurry supported trench method, and ensuring stability for the temporary cut slope.

d. Emergency Plan: The Offeror must provide an emergency plan to repair and reconstruct the levee embankment should distress occur to the levee embankment, during construction of the seepage cutoff wall, associated with slope instability, slurry loss/escape, trench instability, or hydraulic fracture.

e. Proposed Schedule: Offeror must provide a proposed schedule to accomplish the work within the prescribed construction season indicated in this solicitation.

Sub element (b) – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Narrative: Identify and provide the name, DUNS number, street address, and a brief description of the role and authority of each firm that will be involved…