B3b_AM2_20R0006_v1.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 Repair Airfield Drainage; Laughlin AFB, Texas is amended as follows.

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is 21 November 2019; at 2:00 p.m.,CT.

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 AMERICA 15C. 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.

W9126G20R0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Oct-2019

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 where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

7 -Nov-2019

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:

W9126G20R0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION W9126G20R0006

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Section 00 21 00 SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS: Section 00 21 00 Supplemental Instructions have been updated and replaced, bearing the notation W9126G20R0006-0002:

DRAWINGS

2. Updated Drawing.- The following drawing has been updated and replaced in its entirety, bearing the notation W9126G20R0006-0002:

C-123 PROJECT LOCATION PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION PLAN

End of Summary of Changes

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION SF30 - CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 11 00 - STANDARD FORM (SF) 1442 AND CLIN SCHEDULE

The required response date/time has changed from 21-Nov-2019 02:00 PM to 04-Nov-2019 10:00 AM.

The Issued By organization has changed from

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORT WORTH

819 TAYLOR ST, CT OFC RM 2A17

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

to

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH

SHIP TO ADDRESS - PER TASK ORDER

819 TAYLOR ST, ROOM 2A17

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

SECTION 00 21 00 - SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS

SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS

A. OVERVIEW

The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria described herein, using the evaluation rating systems outlined for selection procedures. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and for material unbalancing, as described herein.

Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.

B. BASIS OF AWARD

The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the Request for Proposal (RFP), is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the non-price factors described herein, and price as determined by the SSA. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price. The intent of this RFP is to obtain the best value proposal. After the Government individually evaluates each proposal, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Contracting Officer/SSA must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify award to that Offeror.

W9126G20R0006-0002

PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

C. VOLUME 1, TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

Submit the Technical proposal in a searchable, unsecured PDF file titled:

“W9126G20R0006_Firmname_Volume 1_Factor#_Description.pdf”

*Enter your firm’s name for Firmname. Enter applicable factor number and description for Factor#_Description.

Location

Factor

Description

Relative Importance

Vol. 1 TAB A

Factor 1

Past Performance

Most Important Factor

Vol. 1 TAB B

Factor 2

Schedule Summary

2nd Most Important Factor. Less important than Factor 1, more important than Factor 3.

Vol. 1 TAB C

Factor 3

Small Business Participation Plan

3rd Most Important Factor. Less important than Factors 1 or 2.

1. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 1 – TAB A, PAST PERFORMANCE

a. Submission Requirements

1. The Offeror shall each demonstrate past performance through the submission of similar projects, using the Past Performance Assessment Worksheet, (See Appendix D, Attachment 1).

If the Offeror is a joint venture, provide past performance information for construction projects relevant to each of the proposed roles on this project. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) and no more than five (5) projects completed or substantially completed within 6 years from the date of this solicitation that best represents their experience similar to the scope of work for this solicitation. At least one (1) project submitted must be 100% completed. Any additional projects submitted (not to exceed the maximum) must be at least 50% construction progress completed. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and past performance cannot be provided as a JV, each partner shall submit past performance information, not to exceed the maximum of five (5) projects total.

2. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), (See Appendix D, Attachment 2), is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project the Offeror included in its proposal for Factor 3, Past Performance that does not have a final CCASS or CPARS evaluation or is a non-Federal Government project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQ should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, 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 any negative past performance information is received to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Sara Guzman- Walter, via e-mail at: sara.n.guzman-walter@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposals PPQ’s previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

3. Do not request a PPQ on project(s) that have final evaluations. If a final CCASS or CPARS evaluation exists and a PPQ is provided for the same project, the CCASS or CPARS evaluation will be reviewed as the official past performance record for the project, and the PPQ will not be considered by the Source Selection Evaluation Board or the Source Selection Authority.

4. For USACE or other DoD projects which are underway but do not yet have an interim CPARS evaluation, one PPQ per contract may be submitted; to be considered, the PPQ shall be signed by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) for the contract.

5. Offerors may submit performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) years, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition relevant to the submitted projects to demonstrate the Offeror’s performance capabilities and customer satisfaction.

6. Offerors may submit information on past performance issues and corrective actions taken to prevent these issues from reoccurring. Discuss whether these corrective actions have been implemented on contracts awarded subsequent to the performance issues, the effectiveness of the corrective actions, and POC information for the subsequent contracts.

7. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluation of 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 number(s) 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 Awardees 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.

8. Projects will be considered relevant to this procurement if they are similar in complexity, type, scope, or magnitude. Relevancy is defined as:

(a) Prime and/or Subcontractor experience in renovation/repair of airfield drainage or paving or equivalent commercial airfield type: and

(b) Prime Contractor Management of a Construction value of at least $20,000,000.00; and

(c ) Prime and/or Subcontractor experience in underground storm water drainage, and

(d) Prime and/or Subcontractor experience in jack and bore with drainage piping under pavement.

9. The Offeror may provide a supplemental narrative (not project lists), not to exceed two pages, explaining how any corporate past performance that is not directly related to the specific projects above is applicable to this project and how the Government will benefit.

b. RELEVANCY DETERMINATION:

1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the past performance is to the project under consideration. Past performance on the projects identified in the project forms will receive more consideration than past performance provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government will place greater value on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project past performance will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project past performance.

2. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

3. Contracts with lower degrees of relevance will not be as strong of predictors of likely future contract performance success and will typically have less influence on the final past performance confidence rating.

4. Contracts that have little or no relevance typically do not influence the performance confidence rating; however, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating.

5. Based on the relevancy of the projects submitted, an overall relevancy determination will be assessed as an interim step prior to establishing a confidence rating. For an overall relevancy determination of “relevant” or higher, the Offeror must demonstrate past performance that meets any defined aspects of relevancy on this project.

c. CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA:

1. The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include CCASS, CPARS and other past performance information deemed relevant, to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. If the Government cannot establish the Offeror’s relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire to conduct telephone interviews on any source it deems relevant to the evaluation. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will not release the information gathered to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

2. In determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance, the degree of relevancy/recency of all of the considered efforts; the overall performance record of the offeror on each contract assessed; number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised); and trend data will be considered.

Contracts with higher degrees of relevance will typically have a greater influence on the final performance confidence rating. Contracts with lower degrees of relevance will typically have less influence on the final performance confidence rating however, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating. Contracts which are comparatively more recent may be better predictors of likely future success than older contracts. The resulting relevant/recent assessment conclusions will then be combined, along with the assessed quality of performance on prior contracts, to arrive at a single performance confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor.

3. The confidence rating will be established based on the past performance of the firms or that of its predecessor, if applicable. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its key personnel apart from that of the entity. If the Government does not obtain past performance information and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, a rating of Unknown (Neutral) confidence will be assigned. If negative information is received, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to provide input as required by FAR 15. CCASS and CPARS that are part of the official record will be utilized as if the Offeror has already had an opportunity to respond.

2. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 2 – TAB B, SCHEDULE SUMMARY

a. Submission Requirements:

1. Proposed Contract Duration and Phasing: The Offeror shall propose the overall contract duration in the appropriate Contract Line Item Number in the CLIN Schedule, not to exceed the maximum contract duration specified in Section 01 00 00.00 44.

2. Summary Schedule: The Offeror shall submit a summary level schedule for construction.

This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule. The summary schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented and shall include, as a minimum, Activity ID, Activity Description, Original Duration, early start and early finish dates, and total float for each activity.

3. The proposed schedule shall include an activity that shows the proposed overall contract duration in calendar days. Give attention to the following features:

(a) Show the overall construction phase for each critical work breakdown structure, (i.e.

mobilization, demolition, etc.).

(b) Show as-built submissions and close-out processes.

(c) Constraints: Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.). Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

4. The page limitation for Factor 2 is limited to two (2) pages (11x17) and 80 activities. Offers exceeding the page limitation for this factor will not be reviewed past the second page.

b. Evaluation Criteria:

1. Proposed Contract Duration and Phasing: This duration and phasing will become the contractually binding schedule. The Government will evaluate the contract duration, as proposed by the Offeror herein and also on the Price Proposal Schedule, not to exceed the maximum allowed duration listed. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the Government may take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports the proposed duration, as well as use other information, such as but not limited to independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. A proposed contract duration shorter than the maximum allowed duration, or proposed phasing providing for early turnover of facility, will receive additional rating consideration, provided the schedule is realistic and deemed to be achievable. The Government will consider an unreasonably condensed contract duration, which places additional cost or schedule risk on the Government or which may create a risk of contract or performance failure, as a significant weakness or a deficiency, depending upon the evaluators' judgment.

2. Summary Schedule: The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g., sequencing of work, long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. The Government will evaluate for logic, reasonableness, how it facilitates meeting the proposed contract duration. The packaging plan should minimize risk to the Contractor and to the Government for tear-out and coordination. A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction will receive additional consideration.

3. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 3 – TAB C, SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

GENERAL: All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of participation of small business concerns in performance of this contract opportunity.

Offeror’s proposal must meet the minimum mandatory Total Small Business participation goal of 25% (through collective small business participation from any type of small business or sub-category small business). The subcategory small business goals are NOT mandatory. However, the Government will evaluate the proposal to determine which Offeror(s) propose the best value in terms of meeting all the Small Business Participation goals herein. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime Offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation.

a. Submission Requirements:

Offerors must complete and submit the Small Business Participation Plan form (See Appendix D, Attachment 3).

b. Evaluation Criteria:

Small Business Participation Plans (from large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the basis of:

1. The extent to which Small Business firms are specifically identified in the proposal;

2. The extent of commitment to Small Business firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighed more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

3. The complexity and variety of the work small business firms are to perform;

4. Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirement of the clauses at FAR

52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (large businesses only); and

5. The extent of participation of SB firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition and the extent of which the proposal meets or exceeds small business participation goals for this acquisition.

4. DEFINITIONS

Deficiency. 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. See FAR 15.001.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that significantly increases the risk of

Unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Strength. Any aspect of an Offerors proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offerors proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Outstanding. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good. Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal. Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is un-awardable.

a. Performance Ratings. A single confidence rating shall be assigned to Past Performance.

The relevancy determination will assess the Offerors past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired under this solicitation.

The confidence rating assesses the risks associated with each Offerors likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offerors demonstrated performance on recent contracts. SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offerors past 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 confidence rating.

b. Relevancy Determination Definitions

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.

c. Confidence Rating System

Unknown Confidence (Neutral). 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.

Substantial Confidence. Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence. Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence. Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

d. Small Business Participation Plan Rating System:

Outstanding. Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates substantive commitment to SB firm(s), for example, enforceable commitment with one (1) or more firms; identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; demonstrates commitment to meet a SB Participation goal. For prime contractors that are large business, the proposal displays past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9.

Good. Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates substantive commitment to SB firm(s), for example, enforceable commitment with one (1) or more firms; identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform;

demonstrates commitment to exceed the SB Participation goal. For prime contractors that are large business, the proposal displays past performance in complying with FAR 52.219- 8 and 52.219-9.

Acceptable. Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates a commitment to SB firm(s); identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; demonstrates commitment to meet the SB Participation goal. For prime contractors that are large business, the proposal displays past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9.

Marginal. Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal, but the Offeror does not fully demonstrate a commitment to SB firm(s); or does not fully identify a commitment to use SB firms or does not fully identify the work small businesses are to perform; or for prime contractors that are large business, the proposal does not fully display past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 and/or does not explain or provide justification for the lack of substantive effort. The Offeror demonstrates a commitment to SB Participation goal.

Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet small business objectives and demonstrates commitment to meet less than SB Participation goal or does not identify SBs in the proposal; or does not fully identify a commitment to use SB firms; or does not identify the work small businesses are to perform; or for prime contractors that are large business, the proposal does not display past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 and/or does not explain or provide justification for the lack of substantive effort.

D. VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION

Submit the price proposal as one separate PDF file titled:

“W9126G20R0006_Firmname_Volume 2_Tab#_Description.pdf”

*Enter your firm’s name for Firmname. Enter applicable Tab number and description for Tab#_Description.

Location

Description

Vol. 2 TAB A

Proposal Cover Sheet

Vol. 2 TAB B

FACTOR 4 – Section 00 11 00, CLIN Schedule

Vol. 2 TAB C

SF 1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments

Vol. 2 TAB D

Bid Guarantee (Bid Bond) Required.

Vol. 2 TAB E

Joint Venture (JV) Agreement and/or Articles of Organization for LLC, if applicable.

Vol. 2 TAB F

Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors or Clause 52.204-8 if Offeror has electronic certifications in SAM

Vol. 2 TAB G

Subcontracting Plan

Vol. 2 TAB H

Required Pre-Award Information

Offeror proposal will be reviewed to ensure documentation is provided, as required.

1. GENERAL

Size Restrictions and Page Limits. Use only 8 ½” x 11” pages in PDF format. There are no page limits set for the price proposal. However, limit your response to information required by this solicitation. Excess information will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation.

Format and Contents of the Price Proposal and List of Tabs. The Price Proposal shall be appropriately labeled as such and shall be organized as indicated in the above chart. Note: If the

Offeror is not required to submit any information under a listed Tab in accordance with the instructions below, that tab can be omitted. However, do not renumber the subsequent tabs.

2. VOLUME 2, TAB A – Proposal Cover Sheet

The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1(2)(c)(i)-(v) and must be submitted by all Offerors. This provision, titled “Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition,” and the format for the proposal cover sheet is shown here:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number: W9126G20R0006

2. The name, address, telephone number, facsimile number, and email of the Offeror.

3. The Tax ID number, CAGE Code, and DUNS Number of the Offeror. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (JV), it must also be submitted. Provide a DUNS number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association.

4. Names, titles, telephone number, facsimile number, and email of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

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

3. VOLUME 2, TAB B – Section 00 11 00, CLIN Schedule

a. Submission Requirements:

Submit the properly completed CLIN Schedule containing proposed line item(s) and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors.”

b. Evaluation Criteria:

Price will be evaluated and considered, but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. The proposed prices will be analyzed for fairness and reasonableness.

They may also be analyzed to determine whether they are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the information provided by the Offeror. Additionally, all offers will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

4. VOLUME 2, TAB C - SF 1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments

The SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award is to be completed by all Offerors and duly executed with an electronic or PDF scanned signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with FAR 4.102. All amendments must be acknowledged by all Offerors in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 or 1442, Amendment of Solicitation.

5. VOLUME 2, TAB D – Bid Guarantee (Bid Bond) Required

Provide a fully executed Bid Bond as required by FAR 52.228- 1 Bid Guarantee.

Submit a scanned copy of the completed bid bond, Standard Form 24, electronically with the proposal. Original bid bond must be received by this office within five (5) days of proposal due date.

b. Evaluation Requirement:

This item is not rated. The Government will review the Bid Bond for legal sufficiency. The Bond must be legally sufficient. Failure to submit a bid bond may make the Offerors proposal ineligible for award.

6. VOLUME 2, TAB E – Joint Venture (JV) Agreement and/or Articles of Organization for LLC, if applicable

If the offeror is a joint venture, include a copy of the JV Agreement. If a JV Agreement has not yet been finalized/approved, indicate its status. JV Agreements must clearly indicate the percentages of the JV participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party, and a clear delineation of responsibilities and authorities between the JV parties. If the Offeror or any member of the JV is a Limited Liability Company (LLC), include a copy of the Articles of Organization. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

7. VOLUME 2, TAB F – Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors or Clause 52.204-8 if Offeror has electronic certifications in SAM

All Offerors must have electronically completed the annual representations and certifications in the “System for Award Management” (SAM) website or respond with the completed representations/certifications found in the solicitation.

The Offerors are responsible for ensuring that these on-line representations and certifications are updated as necessary to reflect changes, but at least annually to ensure they are kept current, accurate, and complete.

Additionally, the Offeror must also complete and return the “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” included in the solicitation.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, all participants must separately complete the SAM or respond with the completed representations/certifications found in the solicitation.

8. VOLUME 2, TAB G – Subcontracting Plan

a. Submission Requirements:

NOTE: This Requirement only applies to the Offerors who are “Other Than Small Business”.

1. If the Offeror proposing on this solicitation is a large business concern, in accordance with the definition as identified in FAR Clause 52.219-1, “SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

REPRESENTATION”, the firm must submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9 “SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN” (Aug 2018).

2. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan. In accordance with DFARS 215.304 (c), when an evaluation assesses the extent that small businesses and HBCUs are specifically identified in proposals, the small businesses and HBCUs considered in the evaluation shall be listed in any subcontracting plan submitted.

3. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan. In accordance with DFARS 215.304 (c), any small business and HBCUs identified in Factor 3, Small Business Participation Plan, must be included in the subcontracting plan.

4. Submit the firm’s subcontracting compliance on previous projects completed or underway within the past three years of the date of this solicitation. This requirement may be supported by using copies of the Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) from the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS).

b. Evaluation Criteria:

1. The Government will evaluate the Plan in accordance with AFARS Appendix DD (https://www.acquisition.gov/afars/afars-appendix-dd) and with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9. Offerors are encouraged to review AFARS Appendix DD for how the subcontracting plan will be reviewed. To be acceptable, subcontracting plans must address all requirements in AFARS Appendix DD, DD-301.

2. Only the selected Offeror’s plan will be reviewed and must be approved prior to award of the contract.

9. VOLUME 2, TAB H – Required Pre-Award Information

1. Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

(a) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

(b) A certified statement listing; (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three month period (from date that submittal is due) exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

(c) If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

b. Evaluation Requirements:

In addition to the other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9. Failure to achieve an affirmative responsibility determination will make the Offeror ineligible for award.

10. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The Source Selection Evaluation Board will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor, utilizing the evaluation and rating system described.

End of Section 00 21 00

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

ATTACHMENT 1

(To be completed for each project submitted)

CONSTRUCTION

OR PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT #_______

Offeror:

Project and Location:

Owner:

Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference:

Telephone:

Awarded Construction Cost: Final Construction Cost:

Explain Cost Growth, if any:

Date of Award:

Original Completion Date: Revised Completion Date: Percent Complete:

Explain Time Growth, if any:

General Scope of Construction and Offeror’s Role:

Work Your Company Self-Performed:

Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out:

Describe extent of relevancy and complexity of the project by checking all applicable boxes below.

RELEVANCY:

Prime and/or Subcontractor experience in renovation/repair of airfield drainage or paving or equivalent commercial airfield type: and

Prime Contractor Management of a Construction value of at least $20,000,000.00

Prime and/or Subcontractor experience in underground storm water drainage

Prime and/or Subcontractor experience in jack and bore with drainage piping under pavement

ADDITIONAL FEATURES OF COMPLEXITY:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE

ATTACHMENT 2

USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

Provide any additional narrative to support relevancy assessment (in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the scope of the RFP).

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE

ATTACHMENT 2

Continued

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND

SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED

QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE

HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT

THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT

TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner.

There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF

PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel

E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?