am_3.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53 243

The Solicitation for Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity for Pavement Structure, Drainage, Utility Lines and Site Work, Depot Wide, Red River Army Depot, Texarkana, Texas , is amended as follows:

See Continuation Sheet.

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date and time remain 16 June 2009, 2:00 p.m. local time, as previously announced.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

W9126G-09-R-0066

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15 May 2009

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

3 Jun 2009

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH

ATTN: CESWF-CT

819 TAYLOR ST, ROOM 2A19

P.O. BOX 17300

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

W9126G 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9126G-09-R-0066

SECTION SF30 - CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO DOCUMENTS 00 - INTRODUCTORY, AND CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

1. Replacement Section.- Replace the following sections with the accompanying new sections bearing the notation

"ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT NO. 0003 TO SOLICITATION NO. W9126G-09-R-0066:”

00 22 11 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, NOTICE TO OFFERORS,

AND BASIS OF AWARD

00 72 00 CONTACT CLAUSES **

** Note: The change is the addition of clause 52.219-3 "Notice of Total HUBZone set-aside” on page 00 72 00 - 5

End of Summary of Changes

ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT 0003 TO SOLICITATION W9126G-09-R-0066

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-1

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Criteria, and Basis of Award One Step - Best Value (Single Award)

PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADE-OFF

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS,

NOTICE TO OFFERORS, AND BASIS OF AWARD

PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADE-OFF

1. PROPOSAL OVERVIEW. This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity for Pavement Structure, Drainage, Utility Lines and Site Work, Depot Wide, Red River Army Depot, Texarkana, Texas. The purpose of the Source Selection plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the technical evaluation of proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value Decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Trade-Off Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1). In-as-much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform any resulting contract, the proposal should be specific and complete in every detail. The proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent. Local Instructions, including Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Provisions are located in Section 00 21 00.

1.1 Proposal Submissions and the Trade-Off Process. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. Offerors submit their performance and capability information for review and consideration by the Government. Relative weights among technical factors are provided in paragraph 5 Technical Evaluation Weights. The SSEB reviews, evaluates, and rates the proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP. Concurrently, the Government analyzes price proposals of Offerors. Price will not be rated, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final best value determination for award. The SSA compares proposals to one another and determines the best value for the government. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit. Any legally organized offeror may submit a proposal.

2.2 Where to Submit. Offerors shall submit their proposals to the Fort Worth District at the address shown in Block 7 of the Standard Form 1442.

2.3 Submission Deadline. Proposals shall be received by the Fort Worth District no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

2.4 General Requirements.

2.4.1 In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. Failures to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affect an Offeror's evaluation. Offerors should provide sufficient detail and clearly define all items required in this section.

The Contracting Officer may remove any Offeror from further consideration during any phase of the procurement if the Offeror fails to meet the submittal requirements of the RFP or to reduce the competitive range for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

2.4.2 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as shown in paragraph 2.5 Submission Format.

2.4.3 Size of Printed Matter Submissions.

2.4.3.1 Written proposal materials shall be submitted in standard three ring loose-leaf binders. Proposals shall be tabbed and labeled in a manner to afford easy identification from a Table of Contents. Font size shall not be less than 10 point. Each page shall be identified with the appropriate page number centered at the bottom of the page.

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-2

Sheet size of the proposal contents shall be 8-1/2 inches x 11 inches where sheets are prepared specifically for this proposal; however, if drawings, charts, or other graphics are submitted, sheets no larger than 11 inches x 17 inches and folded to 8-1/2 inches x 11 inches shall be used. 11 x 17 inch sheets will be counted as 2 8-1/2 inch x 11 inch sheets. Volume II, Technical Proposal, shall not exceed 70 pages (70 single-sided or 35 double-sided sheets), excluding the cover sheet and Table of Contents. The Government will not review any information submitted in an appendix or attachment to the proposal. The Offeror must comply with the page limitation. The Offeror shall not submit verbatim sections of this solicitation as part of their proposal. Offers that do not meet these requirements may be subject to rejection.

2.4.3.2 The proposals shall contain a detailed table of contents. If more than one binder is used, the complete table of contents shall be included in each. A cover sheet identifying the Offeror (name, address, point of contact) project description, and solicitation number shall be provided. The second sheet shall be a Table of Contents. Offers that violate these rules unnecessarily delay the evaluation process and may be rejected by the Government after the initial evaluation without receiving any further consideration. The Government will not evaluate any information beyond the page limitation noted above.

2.4.3.3 Proposal revisions shall be submitted as page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g., bold face print or underlining. The source of the revision, e.g., Error, Omission, or Clarification, or amendment shall be included and be annotated for each revision. Proposal replacement pages shall be numbered, shall be clearly marked “REVISED”, shall show the date of revision, shall be submitted in appropriate number of copies (e.g., if two (2) copies of the original page was required, then two (2) copies of the revised page will also be required, and shall be a different color than the original pages they are to replace.

2.4.4 Number of Copies. Offerors shall submit an original and one (1) hard copy of Volume I and an original and five (5) hard copies of Volume II of their Proposal in both hard copy and electronic format. Within three (3) days of contract award, the awardee shall submit both volumes, updated to include all revisions, in electronic format on a

CD-ROM.

2.5 Submission Format.

2.5.1 The Proposal will be tabbed and submitted in three ring binders in the following format:

VOLUME I – Price/Cost Proposal

TAB A – SF 1442, completed and signed by an authorized person from the company or team

TAB B – Section 00 11 00 – Supplies or Services and Price/Costs Schedule

TAB C – Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications

TAB D – PROPOSAL DATA SHEET – See the format provided in this Section. Ensure to include Offeror’s telephone number, FAX number, e-mail address and DUNS number. DUNS number will be used to access CCASS data.

TAB E – Bid Bond (Standard Form 24)

TAB F – Pre-Award Information (e.g. Bank and Supplier References)

In accordance with FAR 9.103(a) “… contracts shall be awarded to responsible prospective contractors only.” To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the standards at FAR 9.104 that require a prospective contractor to have adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain them. As an aid in assessing responsibility, the offeror shall notify their bank/suppliers that the Corps of Engineers may contact them, and shall authorize the bank/suppliers to release the following information regarding the Offeror’s account. If a written authorization is required by their bank, Offerors shall provide that authorization with their proposal.

Name and telephone number of bank’s point of contact

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-3

Number of year’s business has been conducted with each bank Types of open accounts (checking, loans, etc.)

Balance of current accounts (the banks will provide a "range of figures" for this information, such as, medium five-figures range) Means by which loans are secured and if paid as agreed Point of contact and telephone number of three (3) different suppliers

For the purpose of evaluating the Pre-award survey information submitted hereunder:

Pre-award survey data will be evaluated and scored, as it relates to the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort.

The Government will use pre-award survey data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources to perform this assessment.

VOLUME II – Technical Proposal

THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY COST INFORMATION AND SHALL

NOT EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT ANNOTATED ABOVE. ALL INFORMATION SHALL BE

PROVIDED WITHIN THESE TABBED SECTIONS AND SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED AS AN

APPENDIX OR ATTACHMENT).

TAB 1 – FACTOR 1: CONSTRUCTION PAST PERFORMANCE (Worksheet & Questionnaire Provided)

TAB 2 – FACTOR 2: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE (No Worksheet Provided)

TAB 3 – FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS (No Worksheet Provided)

3. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

3.1 FACTOR 1: CONSTRUCTION PAST PERFORMANCE (VOLUME II, TAB 1). Offerors shall be evaluated on construction projects completed or in progress in the last five years that are same/similar in nature to the project requirements solicited under this RFP. The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine technical capability to perform the proposed contract and how well it satisfied its customers. The information presented in the Offeror’s submittal, together with that from other sources available to the Government will comprise the input for evaluation of this factor. The following elements will be evaluated:

• Quality of Construction

• Timeliness of Performance

• Customer Satisfaction

• Subcontractor Management

• Documentation

• Safety Record

3.1.1 Offeror’s Submission Requirements.

3.1.1.1 Project Information Worksheets. Offerors shall provide project information on no more than ten completed (or substantially complete) projects, of which 3 projects submitted can be currently under construction and at least 50% complete, that reflect prior past performance in the construction elements referenced in paragraph

3.1 above The examples should be similar to this solicitation in project type and scope. As a minimum, the contractor shall provide the data specified in the attached Project Information Worksheet. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies for the purpose of this RFP, each company shall list project examples.

3.1.1.2 Performance Documentation. For each project submitted, offerors shall submit available performance documentation. If no performance documentation is available, state so on the project information worksheet.

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-4

3.1.1.2.1 For Corps of Engineer or other DOD contracts, provide a copy of the signed CCASS (Construction Contract Administration Support System) evaluation issued at the completion of the project.

3.1.1.2.2 For non-Corps of Engineer contracts, provide a copy of the performance rating issued by the contracting agent.

3.1.1.2.3 Offerors may submit awards, letters or other forms of recognition relevant to the submitted projects that demonstrate the offeror’s performance capabilities, customer satisfaction, and safety record.

3.1.1.3 Past Performance Questionnaires. For each project that does not have a final CCASS evaluation, offerors shall provide a questionnaire to the point of contact, clearly identifying the project to be evaluated. A sample Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire is included at the end of this section. When completed, these forms shall be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the Fort Worth District Contract Specialist identified in the sample transmittal letter provided. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that the reference documentation is provided, as the Government may not make additional requests for past performance information from the references. The evaluation form shall be provided to the Contract Specialist directly from the reference. Do not request past performance questionnaires on projects that have final CCASS evaluations.

3.1.1.4 Other Sources. The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the Offeror for information with respect to past performance on projects completed or substantially completed within the past 5 years and on projects that are currently under construction and at least 50% complete. These other sources may include, but are not limited to, CCASS, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the Offeror’s performance, and Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability.

3.1.1.5 New Companies and Joint Ventures. New companies and joint ventures entering the marketplace (without relevant company experience) are reminded that they, along with all other offerors, may submit past performance information for key personnel, using the attached “Project Information” worksheets. If such information is submitted, how long key personnel stayed on their assigned projects and how well they managed their portion of the referenced projects shall be used to judge past performance, along with any other information regarding such key personnel from any other sources the Government may choose to contact. If no such information regarding key personnel is given, then the new company or joint venture shall be given a neutral rating.

3.1.2 Evaluation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's responsiveness to the solicitation regarding past performance using the sources identified above. New Companies and Joint Ventures shall be evaluated on their own past performance, including the performance of key personnel as noted in 3.1.1.5, above, to determine the company’s ability to perform satisfactorily under the elements of evaluation.

Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. The Government treats an Offeror's lack of past performance as having no positive or negative evaluation significance. The Government will evaluate past performance based on the elements listed below:

• Quality of Construction. Based on all information available, the Government will assess the quality of the actual construction undertaken and the standards of workmanship exhibited by the Offeror.

• Timeliness of Performance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the

Offeror completing past projects within the scheduled completion times.

• Customer Satisfaction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s past customer satisfaction, cooperation with customers, and interaction on past projects.

• Subcontractor Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the

Offeror’s management of subcontractors, including mitigation of conflicts and resolution of disputes at the lowest level. For large businesses, the Government will also evaluate compliance with subcontracting plans.

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-5

• Documentation. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s level of meeting customer satisfaction on timeliness and quality of the documentation, reports, and other written materials completed by the Offeror on past projects.

• Safety Record. All information available with respect to the Offeror’s safety record, to include CCASS rating for safety and safety awards, will be taken into consideration in evaluating the Offeror’s overall safety record.

3.2 FACTOR 2: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE (VOLUME II, TAB 2).

Offerors shall be evaluated on their experience in two areas: experience with task order type contracts and experience in various types of roads, paving, utility lines, fencing, pavement repair, and drainage.

3.2.1 Offeror’s Submission Requirements. For each of the projects submitted on the Project Information Worksheets in Factor 1, provide a narrative discussing the technical relevancy of the submitted project to this solicitation.

3.2.2 New Companies and Joint Ventures. If offeror represents the combining of two or more companies for the purpose of this RFP, the proposal shall clearly identify the contractual responsibilities of each firm and the work to be performed by each; describe the nature of the association; indicate whether the firms have experience working together in construction ventures, including how long and how many projects. In addition, each company including joint ventures shall list their Government contract experience. Provide a copy of the commitment letter of the firms or the joint venture agreement. Prior to award of any contract, a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement will be required. If approval of the Joint Venture Agreement is required by the Small Business Administration, failure to timely provide an approved SBA Joint Venture Agreement may prevent award of a contract.

3.2.3 Evaluation. The Government will review the projects provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate the recent relevant specialized experience of the Offeror with similar projects. The Government will place a higher value on experience with similar task order contracts executed with the Corps of Engineers or other DoD Components. If the Offeror cannot provide suitable relevant experience and the evaluators consider that the information provided indicates that the Offeror has no relevant experience, a determination will be made as to the risk this lack of corporate experience presents to the Government and the proposal will be evaluated accordingly. The experience of individuals will not be evaluated under this factor.

3.3 FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS (VOLUME II, TAB 3). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management effectiveness by considering the Offeror’s understanding and capability of successfully managing the project to completion. The following elements will be evaluated:

• Personnel Qualifications.

• Home Office Management and Support.

• Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization.

3.3.1 Offeror’s Submission Requirements.

3.3.1.1 Personnel Qualifications. Offeror shall identify the principal program personnel with their areas of responsibility and relationship with the management structure. Principal program personnel are defined as, but not limited to, Program Manager, Project Superintendent, Quality Control System Manager (ref: 01 45 01 CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL for minimum qualifications). Offeror shall provide key personnel resume information that includes as a minimum, the following:

• Name and Title

• Specific assignment on this project

• Name of Firm (If different from Offeror)

• Number of years with this firm/with other firms

• Education - Degree(s)/year/specialization

• Active registration: number/state/year

• Specific experience, including dates, and qualifications relevant to this project

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-6

Offerors are encouraged to provide descriptive analysis of why they feel their proposed personnel meet the criteria for principal program personnel experience.

3.3.1.1.1 Minimum Qualifications and Responsibilities for Program Manager: This individual shall have a recognized four-year college degree in engineering or related technical field or business/management and a minimum of five years experience in managing and supervising construction projects similar in scope to this project, or a minimum of ten years experience without the four-year degree. This individual shall be familiar and conversant with the various codes and standards applicable to the tasks covered by the scope of work. The Program Manager shall be responsible for the overall management and coordination of this contract and shall be the central point of contact with the Government for performance of all work under this contract including warranty. Another individual may be designated to temporarily act for the Program Manager; however, forty-eight (48) hours advance notice, in writing, of such change shall be provided to the Contracting Officer.

3.3.1.1.2 Minimum Qualifications for Project Superintendent: The superintendent shall have a minimum of five years experience in construction similar to the work to be performed under this contract. The individual shall also be familiar and conversant with the various codes and standards applicable to the task order work. The full time on site Project Superintendent shall report directly to the Program Manager and to the Contracting Officer’s Representative for the task order. The Project Superintendent shall be responsible for the coordination of all work for their task orders.

3.3.1.1.3 Minimum Qualifications for Contractor Quality Control: See Section 01 45 01 CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL for responsibilities.

3.3.1.2 Management and Support.

3.3.1.2.1 Describe the organization, responsibilities and lines of authority established for the contract. A flow chart diagram of the management/support structure is required.

3.3.1.2.2 Describe your plan and capabilities to respond to the Government's notification of a proposed Task Order requirement. Include your plan and capabilities to estimate, prepare, submit and/or negotiate Task Order proposals within the range anticipated under the awarded contract; your plan to interface with the Government for informational, collaborative and historical purposes regarding a wide variety of construction projects for a wide variety of customers simultaneously; your plan for task order management under the awarded contract, including your plan for conducting meetings and in-process reviews.

3.3.1.2.3 Describe your plan for managing subcontract performance, acquisition, execution and administration.

3.3.1.2.4 Describe your material purchasing system and capabilities.

3.3.1.2.5 Describe your resources in personnel, construction plant and equipment available to self-perform required work under individual Task Orders. Fully describe the type of work your firm is capable of self-performing and describe the types of work you intend to self-perform, if awarded this contract.

3.3.1.2.6 Describe your resources available and your capabilities to support this project concurrently with other projected on-going or new work. Describe your resources available and your capabilities to manage and execute several concurrent Task Orders. State why your firm is especially qualified to undertake this contract.

3.3.1.3 Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization. ALL OFFERORS are required to provide a narrative discussion of their plan, as well as provide the information requested in the below table, for utilization of small and small disadvantaged businesses. At a minimum, the narrative shall discuss:

3.3.1.3.1 Goals for subcontracting with small and small disadvantaged businesses in sufficient detail to allow Government evaluators to determine that these goals are realistic, justifiable, positive, and in accordance with the Government’s policy to maximize opportunities for these types of businesses.

3.3.1.3.2 The extent to which small disadvantaged businesses, and where appropriate, historically black colleges

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-7 and universities/minority institutions (HBCU/MI) have been identified for participation as part of the Offeror’s team.

3.3.1.3.3 The Offeror’s past and present commitment to providing subcontracting opportunities and encouragement to small and small disadvantaged businesses.

3.3.1.3.4 The Offeror must complete the following table as part of their proposal to express in percentage what they plan to execute as a prime contractor and what they plan to subcontract for this project.

Utilization of Small and Small Disadvantaged Business

*Percentage

Self Perform (Prime Contractor) %

Subcontracted Work:

- Small and Small Business Disadvantaged Business %

- HBCU/MI %

Total: 100%

*Representative of the percentage of the total project.

3.3.2 Evaluation.

3.3.2.1 Personnel Qualifications. The Government will review the key personnel provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate the recent experience of the key personnel in similar projects. Resumes will be evaluated for qualifications and relevant technical experience to this project. The key personnel example projects should closely resemble the project identified in this solicitation.

3.3.2.2 Management and Support. The Government will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the Offeror’s organization, systems and plans for responding to task order requirements, estimating, submitting and negotiating proposals, for completing construction, for managing subcontractors, capability and commitment to self-perform the required percentage of work, and the capacity to successfully accomplish the task orders along with other ongoing work, and multiple task orders, all in a timely manner.

3.3.2.3 Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization. The Government will evaluate narratives provided for the following elements. Greater detail and specificity will be given greater credit than general statements and commitments.

3.3.2.3.1 The extent to which the goals for subcontracting with small and small disadvantaged businesses are realistic, justifiable, positive, and in accordance with the Government’s policy to maximize opportunities for these types of businesses.

3.3.2.3.2 The extent to which small disadvantaged businesses, and where appropriate, historically black colleges and universities/minority institutions (HBCU/MI) have been identified for participation as part of the Offeror’s team.

3.3.2.3.3 The Offeror’s past commitment to providing subcontracting opportunities and encouragement to small and small disadvantaged businesses.

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-8

4. EVALUATION STANDARDS. Evaluation criteria (factors) will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions. Evaluators will apply the appropriate adjective to each criterion rated. The evaluator’s narrative explanation must clearly establish that the Offeror’s submittal meets the definitions established below. As each criteria is evaluated an assessment of Risk will be made. The “Proposal Risk Assessment” ratings are applicable to all criteria except Past Performance. Past Performance Risk is rated using the “Past Performance Risk Assessment” ratings listed below. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral rating.

4.1 Rating Adjectives

4.1.1 Excellent. The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes numerous advantageous characteristics of substance, and essentially no disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low

4.1.2 Good. The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in a good performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low

4.1.3 Acceptable. The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect moderate risk in that they are somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Moderate

4.1.4 Marginal. The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High

4.1.5 Unacceptable. The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has numerous disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are far outweighed by disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages will not result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions are further considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision, are unsupported, and do not demonstrate an understanding of the requirement. Risk Level: Very High

4.2. PAST PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

4.2.1 In addition to adjectival ratings, risk ratings shall be assigned to Past Performance. Past Performance Risk Ratings assess the risks associated with each Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent contracts. SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-9 performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral/unknown risk rating.

4.2.2. Risk Rating System

4.2.2.1. Neutral / Unknown Risk. No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the Offeror or key team members/subcontractors. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

4.2.2.2. Low Risk. Based on the Offeror's past performance record essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.2.2.3. Moderate Risk. Based on the Offeror's past performance record some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.2.2.4. High Risk. Based on the Offeror's past performance record extreme doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

5. TECHNICAL EVALUATION WEIGHTS

5.1 Relative Importance Definition. For the purpose of this evaluation, the following terms will be used to establish the relative importance of the technical factors and subfactors.

• Significantly More Important: The criterion is at least two times greater in value than another criterion.

• More Important: The criterion is greater in value than another criterion but less than two times greater.

• Equal: The criterion is of the same value or nearly the same as another criterion.

5.2 PRICE is approximately equal in importance to ALL TECHNICAL FACTORS when combined.

5.3 Weight among technical factors :

FACTOR 1: CONSTRUCTION PAST PERFORMANCE: This factor is more important than Factors 2 and 3.

FACTOR 2 CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE: This factor is equal in importance to Factor 3.

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS: This factor is equal in importance to Factor 2.

6. PRICE.

6.1 The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine completeness, reasonableness, and understanding of the work. The evaluation will determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP.

Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the IGE, and any other pricing tools necessary.

6.2 Price will not be rated, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final best value determination for award.

7. EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

8. RESTRICTIONS. Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this solicitation may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-10

9. PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

9.1 Each member of the Government evaluation team (Source Selection Evaluation Board) will independently consider all information provided in the proposal. Worksheets are provided on the following pages, which the evaluators will use to review the individual proposals.

9.2 Once these individual analyses are completed, the team will meet and determine a rating for each of the evaluation factors by consensus decision.

9.3 The evaluation team will document strengths (e.g., advantages), weaknesses (e.g., disadvantages), and other comments (e.g., deficiency and/or clarification) to support the rating for each factor, as well as the overall rating.

Documentation and comments are required for all ratings.

9.4 This final overall rating, along with ratings on individual factors, will be provided to the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority for the best value decision.

10. BASIS FOR AWARD

10.1 Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility.

10.2 In order to determine which proposal represents the best overall value, the Government may compare proposals to one another. The Government will award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose technical submittal and price proposal contains the combination of those criteria described in this document offering the best overall value to the Government. Best value will be determined by a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP.

10.3 As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in rating and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination. In the event that the technical and cost/price proposals become more equivalent for two or more large businesses, the subcontracting plan will become more significant and may become the determining factor for award.

10.4 The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers. The basis of award will be a conforming offer, the price or cost of which may or may not be the lowest. If other than the lowest offer, it must be sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest offer to justify the payment of additional amounts. Any award price must be determined to be fair and reasonable.

10.5 Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interests of the Government.

10.6 The Government intends to award a contract without discussions based on initial proposals received; therefore, the proposals shall contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. Should discussions be necessary after evaluations, the Government will establish a competitive range of the offerors that are the most highly rated. The Government reserves the right to address any pertinent issues in the proposals.

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-11

VOLUME I – TAB D

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

1. Name of Firm:

2. Address:

3. Phone:

4. Fax:

5. E-mail:

6. Duns # (used for accessing

CCASS)

7. If a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

8. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

9. Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

10. Negotiator's Address:

11. Negotiator's Telephone:

12. Negotiator’s E-mail:

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-12

VOLUME II – TAB 1

PROJECT INFORMATION WORKSHEET

The information provided on this worksheet will be utilized in the evaluation of Factor 1, Construction Past Performance, and Factor 2, Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience.

1. Project Title/Description:

(For task order contracts, attach a list of task orders to this sheet, to include description, cost, dates of construction start/completion or percent complete if not completed, for each task order)

2. Location:

3. Contract number:

4. Procuring activity:

5. Procurement Point of Contact and Telephone Number:

6. Address and telephone number of owner/customer:

7. Type of Project (private sector, Government, planned unit development, etc.):

8. General Nature of the Contract:

9. Nature of Involvement in this project (i.e., General Contractor, subcontractor, designer)

10. Award Date:

11. Original Contract Amount:

12. Final Contract Amount:

13. Original Completion Date:

14. Final Completion Date:

15. Explanation for any differences between original and final contract costs and completion dates:

16. Total number of Manhours including all subcontractors:

17. Total number of Lost Time Accidents including all Subcontractors:

18. Is performance documentation provided? If not, state reason.

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-13

SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL LETTER

AND

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Date: _________________

To: ______________________________________

We have listed your firm as a reference for work we have performed for you as listed below. Our firm has submitted a proposal under a project advertised by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), an evaluation of our firm's past performance will be completed by the Corps of Engineers. Your candid response to the attached questionnaire will assist the evaluation team in this process.

We understand that you have a busy schedule and your participation in this evaluation is greatly appreciated. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire as thoroughly as possible. Space is provided for comments.

Understand that while the responses to this questionnaire may be released to the offeror, FAR 15.306 (e)(4) prohibits the release of the names of the persons providing the responses. Complete confidentiality will be maintained.

Furthermore, a questionnaire has also been sent to ____________________ of your organization. Only one response from each office is required. If at all possible, we request that you individually answer this questionnaire and then coordinate your responses with that of ________________________, to develop a consensus on one overall response from your organization.

Please send your completed questionnaire to the following address to arrive NOT LATER THAN (3 days prior to due date of the solicitation):

U.S. Army Engineer District, Fort Worth ATTN: CESWF-CT-C (Richard Feller) 819 Taylor Street Fort Worth, TX 76102

The questionnaires can also be faxed to Richard D. Feller, Fort Worth District, Contract Specialist at FAX 817-886- 6407 or emailed to richard.feller@usace.army.mil. If you have questions regarding the attached questionnaire, or require assistance, please contact Mr. Feller at 817-886-1056. Thank you for your assistance.

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-14

RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT IDIQ ROADS AND DRAINAGE

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Upon completion of this form, please send directly to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the enclosed addressed envelope, fax to (817) 886-6407 ATTN: Richard Feller, or email to richard.feller@usace.army.mil.

Do not return this form to our offices. Thank you.

1. Contractor/Name & Address (City and State):

2. Type of Contract: Fixed Price ________ Cost Reimbursement ________

Other (Specify) ________________________________

3. Title of Project/Contract Number:

4. Description of Work: (Attach additional pages as necessary)

5. Complexity of Work: High ________ Mid _________ Routine __________

6. Location of Work:______________________________________________

7. Date of Award: ________________________

8. Status: Active _________ (provide percent complete)

Complete __________ (provide completion date)

9. Name, address and telephone number of Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative:

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-15

10. QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION:

Evaluate the contractor's performance in complying with contract requirements, quality achieved and overall technical expertise demonstrated.

Excellent Quality

Good Quality

Acceptable Quality

Marginal Quality

Unacceptable or Experienced Significant Quality Problems

Remarks: __________________________________________________________________

11. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

To what extent did the contractor meet the contract and/or individual task order schedules if the contract was an indefinite delivery type contract?

Completed Substantially Ahead of Schedule (Excellent)

Completed Ahead of Schedule (Good)

Completed on Schedule with Minor Delays Under Extenuating Circumstances (Acceptable)

Completed Behind Schedule (Marginal)

Experienced Significant Delays without Justification (Unacceptable)

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-16

12. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

To what extent were the end users satisfied with:

Quality

Cost

Schedule

Exceptionally Satisfied (Excellent)

Highly Satisfied (Good)

Satisfied (Acceptable)

Somewhat Dissatisfied (Marginal)

Highly Dissatisfied (Unacceptable)

13. SUBCONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT

How well did the contractor manage and coordinate subcontractors, suppliers, and the labor force?

Excellent management and coordination of subcontractors

Good management and coordination of subcontractors

Acceptable management and coordination of subcontractors

Marginal management and coordination of subcontractors

Unacceptable management and coordination of subcontractors

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-17

14. SAFETY

How well did the Contractor implement and maintain its Accident Prevention Program? Did it have an effective safety incentive program? Were there excessive lost time accidents?

Excellent Documentation

Good Documentation

Acceptable Documentation

Marginal Documentation

Unacceptable Documentation

Remarks: _________________________________________________________________

15. DOCUMENTATION

To what extent were the contractor’s reports and documentation accurate, complete and were they submitted in a timely manner?

Excellent Documentation

Good Documentation

Acceptable Documentation

Marginal Documentation

Unacceptable Documentation

Remarks: _________________________________________________________________

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-18

16. OTHER REMARKS:

Use the space below to provide other information related to the contractor's performance. This may include the contractor's selection and management of subcontractors, flexibility in dealing with contract challenges, their overall concern for the Government's interest (if applicable), project awards received, etc.

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-19

Proposal Evaluation Worksheet Individual Comment Sheet

RFP No.

Evaluator’s Name: Offeror’s Name:

Evaluation Factor: Factor 1 Construction Past Performance (Volume II, TAB 1)

Rating Rationale: (Include supporting rationale for the ratings.)

Strengths: (Precede the strength with an (S) if it identifies a significant strength.)

Weaknesses: (Precede the weakness with an (S) if it identifies a significant weakness.)

Deficiencies: (List all areas where the contractor fails to meet minimum requirements of the solicitation)

Uncertainties: (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 offer.)

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-20

Evaluation Factor: Factor 2 Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience (Volume II, TAB 2)

Deficiencies: (List all areas where the contractor fails to meet minimum requirements of the solicitation)

Uncertainties: (Any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear because there may be more than

W9126G-09-R-0066 00 22 11-21

Evaluation Factor: Factor 3 Management Effectiveness (Volume II, TAB 3)

Deficiencies: (List all areas where the contractor fails to meet minimum requirements of the solicitation)

Uncertainties: (Any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear because there may be more…