W9123819R0006 Amendment 0003.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

A. The purpose of Amendment 0003 is to revise Binder 4, TAB J; add new TAB N; revisions to section 00 22 16, paragraphs 3.3, 4.2 and 4.5; extend RFP due date; add the price breakdow n template; and revisions to Section 00 73 00 -- Work Hours.

B. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 33

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Nov-2019

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 W9123819R0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Sep-2019

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

15-Nov-2019

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:

W9123819R0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 25-Nov-2019 09:00 AM to 05-Dec-2019 09:00 AM.

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for the construction of the Missile Motor Receipt/Storage Facility at the Utah Test and Training Range, Utah. The resultant contract will be a single Firm-Fixed-Price contract.

1.2 The purpose of the Source Selection Plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), to include functional evaluation teams (Technical, Past Performance, Small Business and Price), and the development of the Best Value Decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Tradeoff Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1). In as much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the resulting contract, the proposal shall be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract.

1.3 The Government will utilize an unrestricted competitive Best Value Tradeoff solicitation.

1.4 In accordance with the requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), no contract shall be entered into unless the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) 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 PCO makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

1.5 The Government will provide detailed plans and specifications for the project and evaluate Offerors’ technical approaches, experience and capability, past performance, small business participation and price. Interested Offerors shall submit proposals for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and in accordance with the solicitation documents will select the Offeror that represents the overall best value for this procurement.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Section 9.601. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently-proposed contractor team arrangement, may be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

2.2 In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a prime contractor and subcontractor(s), where the prime contractor submits the proposal in response to this RFP, the prime contractor must have completed at least two of the total number of projects submitted for Factor 4 for consideration in response to the past performance requirements of this RFP. If information about a subcontractor is submitted and considered during the evaluation, the expectation is that this subcontractor will perform this work. Before utilizing another subcontractor for this work, the Government must consent.

2.3 An Offeror that relies upon the performance history of a member or members of a proposed contractor team arrangement will be expected to maintain that arrangement during performance of any contract awarded to that Offeror under this RFP. As a part of their proposal, the Offeror must provide a contractor team agreement signed by all parties, identifying the legal name(s) of all entities and describing the nature of each entity’s relationship (teaming/partnering, joint venture, etc.) and its role on this project. Past Performance information of other than the Offeror will not be considered without the teaming arrangements. In the case of joint ventures, at least one project will be submitted from each member to demonstrate past experience. This documentation shall be provided in Binder 1 of the Offeror's proposal.

2.4 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in Block 7 of Standard Form 1442.

2.5 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT

3.1 Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each binder of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents.

3.3 Printed Matter Submissions. Written material shall be on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper printed in no less than a 10 point Times New Roman or Arial font. Larger size pages, up to 11” x 17”, are acceptable for the proposed organizational chart, construction schedule, drawings to depict construction sequence and other proposed construction activities. The page count for the five (5) non-price factors should be no more than 80 pages. The page count will not include the following: table of contents, tabs, teaming arrangements or commitment letters, organization charts or schedules nor the past performance questionnaire. If the Offeror submits more than 80 pages, the Government will only review the first 80 pages and will remove any in excess.

Organize your technical proposal as indicated below. The binders and 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. Do not include information pertaining to your proposed pricing for this project in the technical proposal. Technical proposals including pricing information will result in disqualification.

Limit your submittals to the information specified; excess information will not be evaluated.

3.4 Binders. Proposals shall be submitted in tabbed, three ring binders.

Binder 1: Technical Proposal

TAB A: Teaming Agreement(s), if applicable. If there is no teaming agreement, please clearly state that there is no teaming agreement.

TAB B: FACTOR 1 Experience and Capability

TAB C: FACTOR 3 Technical Approach

TAB D: FACTOR 4 Management Approach

Binder 2: Past Performance

TAB E: FACTOR 2 Past Performance

Binder 3: Small Business Participation

TAB F: FACTOR 5 Small Business Participation Commitment Document

TAB G: Subcontracting Plan (Only for Other than Small Business Firms)

Binder 4: Price and Solicitation Information The CD with the electronic submissions must be included in this binder. The CD will contain the entire proposal (technical, past performance and small business participation and the price). The proposal must be in Adobe PDF and the price must be in Adobe PDF and Excel.

TAB H: Proposal Cover Sheet. The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1(c)(2). The format and content for the proposal cover sheet is as follows:

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;

and

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.

TAB I: SF 1442 and Joint Venture Agreement. Standard Form 1442 completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. 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 SF 30, Amendment. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

TAB J: Price Schedule. Submit a completed Price Schedule of the Offeror’s proposed contract prices using Attachment 8 of the solicitation. 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., two decimal places). Do not round off the extended prices to the nearest dollar. Check your pricing submission very carefully for mathematical or any clerical errors prior to submission. Any qualification of pricing may render the proposal unacceptable and therefore not eligible for award.

TAB K: Offerors are also required to provide a breakout of the line items provided in the price schedule. This breakout shall include direct costs such as labor, equipment materials, subcontractors; indirect costs; O/H, and profit.

TAB L: Pre-Award Survey Information. The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is required to make an affirmative pre-award determination of the apparent successful Offeror’s responsibility in accordance with the mandatory requirements of FAR subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors. The PCO is required to 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:

1. The completed Construction Contractor Data Form with Supplemental Schedules A-C (see Attachment A). 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 Offeror conducts business. The letters should contain information about your firm’s accounts, loans, available lines of credit, etc. The Government is interested in financial stability, timely payments, the length and nature of the relationship between the firms 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.

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

TAB M: 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 N: Representations and Certifications. All Offerors submit Representations and Certifications that complies with Provision 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (OCT 2018).

3.5 Number of Copies. Offerors shall submit the following:

Binder 1, Technical Factors 1, 3, 4: an original and five copies Binder 2, Past Performance Factor 2: an original and two copies

Binder 3, Small Business Factor 5: an original and two copies Binder 4, Price Factor 6 and Solicitation Information: an original and one copy

3.6 Proposals shall be marked:

Date and Time of Closing: As specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442 Solicitation RFP: W9123819R0006

3.7 Electronic Submission. In addition to the hard copies required in paragraph 3.5, all Offerors shall submit their proposal on a CD-ROM. Written portions of the proposal shall be in MS Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF format. The electronic version shall be either a single file tabbed in the same order as the hard copy or multiple files hyperlinked to a single table of contents. Any portion of the proposal not available in electronic format, i.e. cut sheets, if applicable, should be scanned in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, thus making it available electronically. The CD-ROM must be clearly labeled by solicitation number, project name, and Offeror’s name. The CD-ROM shall be marked with a label stating “Source Selection Information.” In the event of any conflict between the electronic submission and the hard copy submission, the hard copy submission will govern and will be the material upon which the Government bases its evaluation and ultimately, its decision. Electronic media may be submitted in an un-editable format. The CD shall be provided in Binder 4.

4. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.1 FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY

Offeror must clearly demonstrate experience and capability, combined or individually, in at least the following defined areas:

• Prime Contractor experience and capability [Prime Contractor]

• Modular Storage Magazines Construction [Prime Contractor or Key Subcontractor(s)]

• Rail Construction [Prime Contractor or Key Subcontractor(s)]

• Lightning Protection [Prime Contractor or Key Subcontractor(s)]

In order to get credit for proposed Key Subcontractors’ experience and capability, Offeror must provide a letter of commitment and authorization from each proposed key subcontractor that:

• States the business’s intent to work on this project in the proposed specified capacity if the Offeror is awarded the contract; and authorization for the Government to discuss the key subcontractor’s past performance record.

• Key Subcontractor(s) Commitment and Authorization Letter(s) must be furnished on the business’s letterhead and signed by an authorized representative.

The Offeror must demonstrate experience within the last seven (7) nine (9) years that it regularly engaged in projects of similar scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the subject procurement. Offerors must submit at least 3 (but no more than 6) substantially completed projects that individually or collectively demonstrate the experience and capabilities specified above. Additional project(s) submitted by the Offeror may be of a different type, but must explain the similarity of those projects to the project that is being solicited in this RFP.

Projects submitted must have a substantial completion date within seven (7) nine (9) years of the original date of issuance of this RFP. “Substantial completion” means that only punch list items remain for project acceptance of that the majority of the elements of the project have been turned over to the customer for beneficial occupancy.

Projects examples must identify the firms providing this experience and their role during said project, i.e., prime contractor or subcontractor. In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a prime contractor and subcontractor(s), at least two of the submitted projects must have been completed by the prime contractor. The remaining project(s) may come from other members of the contractor team arrangement, as defined above. In the case of a joint venture teaming arrangement, each member of the joint venture entity must each submit at least one project under this factor. Furthermore, project examples must provide a short narrative discussing the project, as well as the total dollar value of the contract at the time of award and at the time of completion. The Offeror is strongly encouraged to use the form in Attachment B, CONTRACTOR’S PROJECT EXPERIENCE.

Additionally, Offerors shall provide a summary matrix that indicates which submitted example project(s) demonstrates the experience(s) and capability(ies) of which firm (prime or subcontractor) will perform the capability area identified above.

Example projects may demonstrate multiple experiences and capabilities. If an example project is submitted for multiple experiences and capabilities, identify each attribute of experience and capability the Offeror seeks to demonstrate. Each example project submitted does not need to demonstrate multiple experiences and capabilities, but all the example projects should collectively demonstrate the Offeror’s range of relevant experience and capabilities.

The following table is an example only. Offerors must provide a table based on the example projects being submitted to demonstrate Prime and key Subcontractor experience and capability.

Capability Contractor Project #1 Project #2 Project #3 Project

#4 Project

#5 Project #6

Prime Contractor

Prime X X

Sub

Modular Storage

Magazines Construction

Prime X X

Sub

Rail Construction

Prime X X X

Sub X X X

Lightning Protection

Prime X

Sub X X

4.2 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror shall submit past performance information on the projects submitted in paragraph 4.1 under Factor 1 Experience and Capability. The Offeror shall provide completed performance evaluations for the submitted projects that demonstrate the Offeror’s performance on recent and relevant projects of similar scope, magnitude and complexity. The Offeror shall provide formal performance evaluation if they are available. Formal performance evaluations are those that are similar to the Department of Defense Performance Evaluation (Construction) Form DD2626. Offerors must submit the project information on the same form used for Factor 1, Attachment B, CONTRACTOR’S PROJECT EXPERIENCE.

Offerors shall provide the following additional information for each of the example projects submitted under the Experience and Capability factor:

• Safety Record: Detailed information pertaining to reportable injuries with lost workdays or fatalities on each project. For contracts with reportable injuries (lost workdays or fatalities), also include the total number of hours worked under the contract. Provide Days-Away from Work, days of Restricted work activity, and/or days of jobs Transfer (DART) for the Prime and key Subcontractors;

• Performance Problems: Describe any performance problems where a customer made adverse remarks.

Describe actions taken to correct any performance shortcomings. Describe any pending, on-going, or completed litigation. If there are no performance problems to report, provide a statement to this effect; and

If a formal evaluation is unavailable, the Offeror shall obtain the information using the Past Performance Questionnaire included (Attachment C). The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for this factor. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment C), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Melissa DeNigris via email at Melissa.A.DeNigris@usace.army.mil and Deanna Zemovich via email at Deanna.C.Zemovich@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

mailto:Melissa.A.DeNigris@usace.army.mil mailto:Deanna.C.Zemovich@usace.army.mil

4.3 FACTOR 3: TECHNICAL APPROACH

4.3.1 TECHNICAL PLAN:

Offerors shall provide a detailed technical narrative in sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the principal components of work described in the project specifications and drawing, and the Offeror’s understanding of the site and other conditions that could impact schedule. The narrative must be a comprehensive, start-to-finish discussion on the significant features of this work to include, but not limited to, staging, site preparation, site work, site constraints (such as austere environment and weather conditions), earthwork, site utilities, paving, and cleanup/demobilization, for the areas listed in A through E below.

Offerors are encouraged to elaborate on other features of the work that are considered relevant or where a high degree of risk is involved that may adversely affect the planned performance period. As a minimum, the following specific elements must be addressed in the narrative for each significant feature of this work and will be considered in the evaluation of each Offeror’s submission:

A. Technical Plan for construction of the modular storage magazines (MSM), including but not limited to, discussion on the specialized concrete production and delivery, material fabrication/production and delivery, special inspections, and facility systems.

B. Technical Plan for construction of the motor transfer facility (MTF), including but not limited to, discussion on the pre-engineered building, overhead bridge crane, and facility systems.

C. Technical Plan for construction of the boxcar holding area (BHA), including but not limited to, discussion on the site and facility systems.

D. Technical Plan for construction of the rail system, including but not limited to, discussion on the aggregate source, production and delivery, rail material source and delivery, schematic detailing proposed areas of continuous welded rail placement or continuous bolted rail placemen, and cross culvert construction.

E. Overall technical plan for mobilizing to the site including staging and trailer yards, strict compliance to the Facility Evaluation Tests (where applicable per the specifications), sequencing of work including overlap and interconnectivity of adjacent work, and meeting the early/interim Use and Possession suspense specified.

4.3.2 SCHEDULE

The schedule must show adequate detail, logic and sequences to demonstrate Offeror’s can meet the required completion date. The Offeror shall use a critical path method in either the Precedence Diagram Method (PDM) or the Arrow Diagram Method (ADM); however, schedules shall be graphically represented. The construction schedule must show that all construction activities (Base contract plus Options) are complete within the period of performance, using the assumptions and required minimum milestones listed below. The schedule must include all required milestones, identify the critical path(s), include appropriate timing of long lead time elements, and meet the required construction period of performance from NTP. The schedule must be provided in Primavera 6, both electronic and paper copies are required and must also include reports in PDF format for the evaluation review board.

Narrative Report. Offerors are required to include a Narrative Report that describes and discusses the rationale, assumptions and thought process used in generating the schedule to support project delivery performance. It must include a description of activities along identified critical path(s), a description of any anticipated problem areas or delaying factors and their potential impact, and an explanation of mitigating actions that will be required. This Narrative Report should convey to the Government the Offeror’s thorough analysis of the schedule output with overlapping features of work, and its plans to compensate for any problems either known or potential, which are revealed through that analysis.

A. ASSUMPTIONS:

i. All Offerors must use an anticipated NTP date of 1 July 2020 to begin the 730 calendar day Period of Performance; and

ii. Schedule to assume award of the Options (MSMs) on 1 October 2020.

B. The Schedule must include activities on or near the critical path, including the following MINIMUM activities and/or milestones (in no particular order):

i. NTP

ii. Mobilization

iii. Initial Partnering Session

iv. Construction Activities detailed to the “Feature of Work” level, including:

i. Start/Finish of MSMs

ii. Start/Finish of MTF

iii. Start/Finish of BHA

iv. Start/Finish of Rail System

v. Adverse Weather

vi. Long Lead Items (if applicable)

vii. Pre-Commissioning System Testing (if applicable)

viii. Final Commissioning System Testing (if applicable)

ix. Mechanical System Testing (if applicable)

x. Electrical System Testing (if applicable)

xi. Test and Balancing (if applicable)

xii. Pre-Final Inspections

xiii. Final Inspections

xiv. Use and Possession of minimum 4 MSMs, MTF, BHA, Rail System, and all supporting infrastructure

xv. Substantial completion date

xvi. Project Completion

The schedules provided in the proposal are for evaluation purposes and may be used as a basis for reviewing the Preliminary and Initial Schedule after NTP.

4.4 FACTOR 4: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

4.4.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN:

A. Discuss the management approach used to control construction, schedule, and closeout for the overall project and each major facility/system. Provide information that clearly demonstrates that the Offeror has the ability to deliver a quality product, effectively manage the construction schedule and subcontractors on the team, and coordinate all work throughout construction. Explanation to include: specific quality control procedures and testing to be used; quality control team coordination; Facility Evaluation Test coordination;

management and coverage; site safety coordination; submittal preparation, tracking and approval process;

subcontractor management; and preparation and submission of record (i.e., shop drawings and schedules) documents.

B. Provide a discussion of the onsite project manager and site superintendent, access to higher levels of corporate management and ability to obtain support from other corporate elements and subcontractors.

Include the onsite personnel’s authority to make on the spot decisions and the scope/limits of those decisions.

C. Provide a discussion of the Offeror’s plan for coordinating the information flow between the Offeror and any subcontractor(s) who may be employed in the project area and between the Offeror and the Government.

D. Provide a discussion on how other projects the Offeror is, or may be performing, might impact on the resources to be utilized on this project (including the availability of onsite personnel), and address how the adverse impacts of such other work would be mitigated.

4.4.2 CONCEPT OF OPERATONS

The Offeror must address the following aspects of the project, which include concerns and challenges working at a remote work site and on an operational facility:

A. Methodologies, productivity assumptions, proposed equipment, crew flow, work hours, and shifts including the logistics of a remote work site.

B. Describe the plan for coordinating Government inspection activities, including facility evaluation tests.

C. Plan for traffic control during construction D. Plan for complying with Right of Entry requirements.

4.5 FACTOR 5: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

A. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

B. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones. Enforceable commitments are letters submitted by the Offeror to small business stating if the project is awarded, then a particular feature of work would go to the small business.);

C. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

D. The extent of participation of small business prime Offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition; or alternatively may consider the percentage of ‘planned subcontracting’ dollars.

E. The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the goals: Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {30%} of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): {8%} of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {5%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBzone) Small Business: {5%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): {3%} of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {3%} of the total contract value. (Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {1%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

Please use the sample format provided in Attachment D, Small Business Participation Commitment Document.

Separate from the Small Business Participation Commitment Document, other than Small Business Offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the Offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan). Other than Small Businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. Subcontracting plans must reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document.

5. EVALUATION APPROACH

5.1 FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY: The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis. The more similar the project is to the subject procurement, the more favorable the rating. Demonstrated experience in continuous rail construction of five (5) miles or grater may be evaluated more favorably.

5.2 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE: Past performance includes recency and relevancy which is considered when providing an overall confidence assessment. Recency is a measure of time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. It is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity between the projects, complexity, dollar value, contract type and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source selection requirements. It is a measure of likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. The more similar a project the more relevant it will be considered and therefore may result in a higher confidence rating.

Overall past performance will be rated in terms of how likely there is a performance risk to the Government; that is, the higher the confidence performance rating the greater the expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the work. The more relevant a proposed project is, the more weight it will be given in the overall confidence assessment rating. If an Offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if information on the Offeror’s past performance is not available, the Offeror must state that fact. That Offeror may be rated as Unknown Confidence/Neutral.

Past performance in Federal Government work may be evaluated more favorably than work outside of the Federal Government. Additionally, work for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be rated more favorably over work with other Federal Government agencies.

5.3 FACTOR 3: TECHNIAL APPROACH

TECHNICAL PLAN: The more descriptive, logical, reasonable or achievable the technical approach the more favorable the rating.

SCHEDULE: The Government will evaluate the schedule for all of the elements identified in paragraph 4.4.2 4.3.2, Schedule. The schedule shall be considered meeting the criteria by submitting a schedule that is reasonable and will obtain completion of the project within the contract duration.

The Government will evaluate the thoroughness and logic of each construction activity within the proposed project schedule to determine the extent to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to schedule, integrate, and phase the major features on the critical and near-critical path, including final close-out activities. The Government will also evaluate if the construction schedule includes critical project factors such as: obtaining all necessary approvals on schedule and pre-work plans, project climate, weather sensitive work, and phasing/sequencing constraints. As part of its evaluation, the Government will assess whether the Offeror’s approach to the scheduling/phasing/sequencing of these major activities includes the starting and completion times of all major elements of work beginning with the notice to proceed to completion of all options and indicates sequences proposed to accomplish each work element and appropriate interdependencies between various work elements, identify long lead items, address proper sequencing of submittals to include review time by Government personnel and submittal corrections. The Government will also consider whether the Offeror’s schedule is realistic and demonstrates a schedule that identifies all major elements of work for this project, meets the Government’s requirements, and is obtainable.

5.4 FACTOR 4: MANAGEMENT APPROACH: The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS: The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis. The Government will evaluate a plan that demonstrates an adequate approach capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The more descriptive, logical, reasonable or achievable the approach the more favorable the rating.

5.5 FACTOR 5: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT: The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis. The Government will evaluate all the information listed in paragraph 4.5. The Offeror may be rated more favorably if enforceable commitments are provided and/or if the Offeror exceeds the stated small business goals.

5.6 FACTOR 6: PRICE: The proposed prices will be evaluated using price analysis. This includes a process of examining and evaluating an Offeror’s proposed price to determine if it is fair and reasonable without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit/fee. Price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.

Price analysis may involve comparison with other proposed prices received in response to this solicitation;

comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid; comparison of proposed prices to the independent government estimate; analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the Offeror; or any other techniques mentioned in FAR 15.401-1(b)(2). The Base and options will be evaluated at the time of award and the sum total will be calculated to determine the overall price.

The Government will also carefully review the submitted price proposal for unbalanced pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.401(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Procuring Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.7 Proposal Ratings: Factors 1-5 will be adjectivally rated. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals.

5.8 Technical Rating Definitions: The following combined technical/risk rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of Factors 1, 3 and 4.

5.9 Past Performance Assessment Definitions: The following criteria will be used to establish relevancy and the performance confidence for Factor 2. Please note the confidence rating will be used as the overall rating for this factor.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

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

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

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

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

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and a risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and a risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

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

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

5.10 Small Business Participation Definitions: The following definitions will be used utilized to establish the ratings for Factor 5.

6. EVALUATION PROCEDURE

6.1 Source Selection Evaluation Board: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is comprised of a Chairperson and evaluators (also known as SSEB members). The SSEB members are organized into functional teams corresponding to the specific evaluation criteria (e.g., Technical Team, Past Performance Team, Small Business Team and Price Team). The SSEB Chairperson will provide consolidated evaluation results in an SSEB

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the small business objectives.

report to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SSEB will evaluate the proposals against the solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria to ensure an equitable, impartial, and comprehensive evaluation against the solicitation requirements. The SSEB does not compare proposals against each other. The fundamental responsibility of the SSEB is to provide the SSA with a summary SSEB report containing adjectival assessments for each factor, their supporting rationale, and supporting documents.

6.3 The SSEB report (to include ratings on individual factors) will be provided to the SSA. The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine the overall “best value” to the Government and documents this in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

6.4 Discussions: Offerors are advised that it is not the intent of the Government to hold discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government.

6.4.1 Clarifications: In accordance with FAR 15.306(a), clarifications are limited exchanges, between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

6.4.2 If discussions are conducted, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will schedule the discussion sessions, and each Offeror will be notified of the time and place at least three (3) business days prior to their discussion session. The PCO will provide additional instructions with the notification. Discussions with Offeror (if necessary) after establishment of the competitive range are for the purpose of allowing Offerors the opportunity to revise their proposals. Discussions will be tailored to each Offeror’s proposal and shall be conducted with each Offeror in the competitive range IAW FAR Part 15.306(d) and (e).

6.5 Miscellaneous: In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), if the PCO determines the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

6.6 Restrictions: Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this section may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

6.7 General Evaluation Guidelines: a. Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail may receive a lower rating. 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 receive a lower rating and/or being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided.

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

c. A “deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

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

d. 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.

7. BASIS OF CONTRACT AWARD:

NON-PRICE FACTORS

Factor 1 Experience and Capability

Factor 2 Past Performance

Factor 3 Technical Approach

Factor 4 Management Approach

Factor 5 Small Business Participation Commitment Document

PRICE FACTOR

Factor 6 Price

All…