AMD05_W9126G21R0004_LDSM_30Sep2021.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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 Lewisville Dam Safety Modification (LDSM), Dallas, TX is amended as follows:

SECTION 00 22 11

SECTION 01 00 00.00 44

SECTION 01 50 00

SECTION 02 41 00

SECTION 31 01 10

SECTION 31 68 13

SECTION 33 46 16

See SF 30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposals are due Tuesday, 26 Oct 2021, 1:00 PM.

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.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 40

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 W9126G21R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Aug-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer 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.

A0005

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE

DATE

30-Sep-2021

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORT WORTH

819 TAYLOR ST, CT OFC RM 2A17

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND BASIS OF

AWARD ONE STEP - BEST VALUE, (SINGLE AWARD)

SECTION 01 00 00.00 44

SECTION 01 50 00

SECTION 02 41 00

SECTION 31 01 10

SECTION 31 68 13

SECTION 33 46 16

(End Summary of Changes)

SECTION 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND BASIS OF

AWARD ONE STEP - BEST VALUE, (SINGLE AWARD)

EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION II

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

Section 00 22 11 <AMD05> Amendment</AMD05>

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on a best value tradeoff methodology. The evaluation factors, other than or price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The successful Offeror will be selected based on the “Best Overall Value to the Government.” The evaluation factors and their relative importance are reflected in the table below:

Factor Relative Importance to Other Factor

I. Technical Approach This factor is equal in importance to Factor II, Specialized Experience.

It is more important than Factors III.

Management Approach, IV. Past Performance, & V. Small Business.

II. Specialized Experience This factor is equal in importance to Factor I.

Technical Approach.

It is more important than III. Management Approach, IV Past Performance & V. Small Business.

III. Management Approach This factor is equal in importance to Factor IV, Past Performance.

It is more important than V. Small Business and less important than Factor I and II.

IV. Past Performance This factor is equal in importance to Factor III. Management Approach.

It is more important than V. Small Business and less important than Factor I and II.

V. Small Business This factor is the least important when compared to I. Technical Approach, II.

Experience, III. Management Approach, & IV. Past Performance.

VI. Price The evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The Contracting Officer will award a contract to the firm whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government considering the price and non-price factors using the Trade-Off Process.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The source selection evaluation factors have been carefully selected to obtain the acquisition objective of constructing the following work using techniques, workmanship, sequencing and technical oversight that will minimize risk to the dam and underlying materials during construction and result in a high quality installation that will maximize spillway stability and performance. The evaluation factors will enable the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) to complete an integral assessment of each proposal considering non-price factors:

The six (6) evaluation factors will enable the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) to complete an integrated assessment of each proposal considering both price and non-price factors.

1. FACTOR I – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Technical approach will consider the means and methods for construction of the required elements, and the approach to emergency response during construction.

2. FACTOR II – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

Specialized Experience will consider the experience of both the offeror and subcontractor in completing similar work in the last 6 years.

3. FACTOR III – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Management Approach will evaluate the contractor, subcontractor and supplier plans, the organizational structure and key personnel proposed for the project including quality control personnel, and the proposed project schedule.

4. FACTOR IV – PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance will evaluate the contractor and subcontractor experience and performance on similar projects.

5. FACTOR V – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Small Business Participation will evaluate the offeror’s Small Business Plan and prior utilization of small businesses.

6. FACTOR VI – PRICE PROPOSAL

C. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. PROPOSAL FILES

The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of two separate files: I. Technical Proposal (Factors I-V) and II. Price Proposal (Factor VI) as follows:

File I: Factor I – Technical Approach

– Work Plans (Including any proposed specification deviations)

– Emergency Response

File I: Factor II – Specialized Experience

– Specialized Experience of the Entity Performing Each Activity

– Specialized Experience of Key Personnel

File I: Factor III – Management Approach

– Contractor/Major Subcontractor/Supplier Plan

– Organization with Key Personnel, Including Quality Control Personnel

(Including Attachment 5)

– Schedule

File I: Factor IV – Past Performance

– Past Performance Questionnaire, Form PPQ-0 (Attachment 1)

File I: Factor V – Small Business Participation

– Small Business Participation Plan (Attachment 2)

– Past Utilization of Small Business Participation

Plan Information Collection Sheet (Attachment 3)

File II: Factor VI - Price Proposal and the other documents listed below:

– Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer and Award and Amendments

– Price Schedule, the Offeror shall include an electronic

Microsoft Excel version of the Proposal Price Schedule.

– Bid Guarantee

– Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 4)

– Offeror’s Certifications and Representations <AMD05>Copy of Quantity Backup Sheets used by the offeror (blank copy provided in Attachment 7) </AMD05>

For subsequent proposals, two versions of each file shall be submitted. “Clean” versions which incorporate all changes from the initial proposal shall be submitted along with a Red-Lined copy clearly identifying all changes from the initial proposal in red, and a summary file that responds to the feedback form from USACE and tells where changes were made. Changes to the Quantity Backup Sheet shall be highlighted only. These two versions shall be submitted electronically via Safe.

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each file shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each file shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. Documents shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right - 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer - 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11” Drawings shall be on 11”x17” pages Schedule shall be on 11”x17” pages

The following additional restrictions apply:

m2ct9cg9 Cross-Out

Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size not less than 8-point and may be landscape.

Page Count: The page count for Factors I thru V shall not exceed 40 pages for each Factor excluding the exceptions below.

EXCEPTIONS: The Cover Page, Table of Contents, proposed specification deviations, Quantity Backup Sheets (Attachment 7), and agreements between the Offeror and major subcontractors submitted under Sub-Factor V will not count towards the page limit.

b. Content Requirements. All information shall be confined to the appropriate Factor. The

Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

c. No price proposal data shall appear in any file other than Factor VI – Price

d. Language and Currency – In accordance with FAR 52.215 1(c)(5), Offerors shall submit proposals in response to this solicitation in English and in U.S. dollars.

Proposals shall be edited by a technical editor who is proficient in the English language.

2. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The SSA, using sound business judgment, bases the award decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria in the factors described below. While the entire evaluation team strives for maximum objectivity, the selection process is subjective by nature and professional judgment is implicit throughout the best value process. Ultimately, the contract shall be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal, based upon the evaluation criteria, represents the best value to the Government. Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price term 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.

Discussions (If necessary)

The Government intends to award without discussions. A “competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that discussions with Offerors are required. In such an event, the SSA will approve a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals. If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with each Offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it. Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still considered the most highly rated will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

The following shall be included in the Proposal Submission.

FILE I: -FACTOR I – TECHNICAL APPROACH

WORK PLANS

The Offeror’s proposal shall contain a detailed Work Plan that includes how the project site will be organized. The Site Plan shall illustrate, where applicable, the use of contractor work areas including, but not limited to, lay down areas, construction work areas, contractor and Government offices and maintenance facilities, quality control laboratories (if on-site), containment areas, sedimentation ponds, haul roads, access roads, employee parking, and any additional land requirements outside the designated lay down areas within the contractor work limits. Include a general description of the traffic management plan for haul routes and temporary public access along Fish Hatchery Rd.

The Offeror’s proposal shall contain a description of the Offeror’s Construction Approach Work Plan for the Lewisville Dam Spillway Modifications that includes all of the following:

For items a. through f. below discuss the following in addition to the specific items listed in each item:

Discuss what equipment will be used and why it is appropriate for this contract. If applicable, provide relevant examples of how methods and/or equipment have been successfully used previously. Provide a list of risks associated with the major construction elements listed in these items and how those risks will be mitigated. Describe quality control measures for these items.

a. Proposed plan for installation of weir anchors. Plan should include but is not limited to site access and layout, sequence of anchor construction, anchor design, anchor installation, and any contractual or other significant limitations or considerations. Site access should include any work platforms required for drilling and installing the anchors. Anchor design should include the anchor head design and methods to allow for re-stressing anchors. Anchor installation should include drilling methods to drill through the concrete and protection of the interface at the foundation of the weir, duplex drilling through the free length, drilling of the bond zone and under-ream, placement and grouting of the anchor, stressing and testing of the anchor, and the estimated durations of the individual elements and overall time required to complete each anchor, including stressing, testing, lockoff, and completion of temporary weir anchor head detail including grout. Discuss methods to test integrity of corrosion protection and handling of anchors to prevent damage. Discuss and highlight any proposed differences in the dimensions of the under-ream. Discuss what equipment and tooling will be used to drill the anchors. Also, discuss how drilling tolerances will be achieved using the proposed equipment. If applicable, provide relevant examples of how methods and/or equipment have been successfully used previously. Discuss management and disposal of drill cuttings and waste grout.

b. Proposed plan for installation of apron rock dowels. Plan should address but not be limited to the applicable items as required in ‘a’ above for the installation of the weir anchors.

c. Proposed plan for installation of the geomembrane. Plan should include but not be limited to site access, sequence of construction, riprap removal and replacement, installation of the geomembrane, and fastening of the geomembrane to the weir.

d. Proposed plan for stabilizing and raising the training walls. Plan should include but not be limited to sequence of construction, excavation of backfill, stabilization of excavation, placement of concrete, placement of drains, and placement of filter materials. Discuss how timely delivery of complying concrete materials will be ensured.

e. Proposed plan for construction of the turndown wall including cap beams and slab.

Plan should include but not be limited to sequence of construction, drilled piers, cap beams, and reinforced slab that ties the rows of piers together. Discuss what equipment and tooling will be used to drill the piers. Discuss drilling methods to install the drilled piers including use of casing as required. Discuss how verticality will be achieved and how the distance between piers will be maintained. Discuss how concrete will be placed in the piers. Discuss methods proposed to mix and place the mass concrete.

Discuss how timely delivery of complying concrete materials will be ensured.

f. Proposed plan for construction of the apron overlay. Plan should include but not be limited to layout of the work area, sequence of construction including checkerboard installation method for apron slabs, installation of the trench drain, removal and replacement of slabs, installation of collector drains, installation of cement stabilized open graded drainage layer, and the apron overlay. Discuss concrete mixtures to provide a durable surface and minimize shrinkage cracking. Discuss methods to provide, place and cure the concrete. Discuss mix design of cement stabilized open graded material (OGM), placement methods, and methods to protect the completed surface from damage and contamination during subsequent construction activities.

Discuss grade control methods for the apron overlay. Discuss sources for the drainage material in the collector and trench drains. Discuss removal of the apron and excavation for the trench drain. Discuss means and methods that will be used to protect the existing foundation materials to minimize exposure and loss of moisture. Discuss how timely delivery of complying cementitious materials will be ensured.

g. Proposed sequencing of the major features of work including but not limited to anchor installation in the weir, installation of turn down wall, stabilization and raising of the training walls, installation of drainage trench, removal and replacement of existing apron slabs, installation of apron drainage layer and collector drains, installation of apron rock dowels, placement of apron overlay, and installation of geomembrane. The proposed sequencing should consider the restrictions posed by: haul routes, temporary roads, traffic management, cofferdam, riprap removal/replacement, borrow source, waste area, spillway weir, existing apron, training walls, existing turndown, normally occurring weather and pool elevations, and contract restrictions. If contractor chooses to install overhead powerline to supply power to the construction site, include electrical plan. Specifically address any expectations or assumptions regarding actions and restrictions required by the specifications resulting from changing reservoir or groundwater elevations.

h. Discuss means and methods to prevent damage to the earthen dam and spillway, and to maintain Dam Safety throughout all construction activities. Discuss how Offeror will approach the protection of the embankment, spillway weir, existing apron, and training walls, and instrumentation (both existing and new), during various construction activities.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Offeror's proposal shall address emergency response that includes, as a minimum, the methods and procedures to maintain integrity of the adjacent embankment, spillway weir and foundation, and apron slabs and foundation. As a minimum the proposal shall include:

a. Reservoir elevations that could overtop the cofferdam during geomembrane construction.

b. Spillway flows during all major phases of construction

c. Movement or slope failure of the excavation for stabilizing the training walls.

d. Removing equipment and temporary works as a result of high reservoir elevations and/or spillway flow

e. Other risks identified by the Offeror

FACTOR I – EVALUATION

Work Plans

Work Plan(s) will be evaluated for content that clearly illustrates the construction approach in all work areas and that clearly illustrates an understanding and well thought out emergency approach to various situations that could threaten the integrity of the dam or personnel and equipment. Logically present all sequencing and site planning to incorporate construction and employee access in the safest manner possible.

Identify the procedure for ensuring all construction is completed according to the specifications including emergency backfilling procedures, limitations on slab removal, protection of foundation soil materials, and other concerns, and identify appropriate emergency procedures to protect the spillway structures and Contractor personnel and equipment. The plan should clearly explain how all drilling, monitoring, excavation, concrete placement, waste handling and disposal will be conducted, and the equipment to be used within each work area should be listed. Detailed procedures for accomplishing the work affords the opportunity for more favorable evaluation.

Proposals that reflect a good understanding of the scope of work and the conditions under which the work will be performed, while reflecting conformance with the specifications, may be evaluated more favorably.

Proposals that demonstrate experience in developing and executing a Drilling Program Plan (DPP) in accordance with Engineering Regulation (ER) 1110-1-1807 will be viewed more favorably. Proposals that adapt methods that have been successful elsewhere to the site conditions present at Lewisville Dam may be evaluated more favorably. Proposals detailing anchor and rock dowel installation methods that protect the spillway and apron foundations may be evaluated more favorably. Proposals that provide a detailed and efficient construction sequence may be viewed more favorably. Proposals that provide realistic and reliable methods of protecting the foundation materials (Eagle Ford Shale) from wetting and drying by maintaining the existing level of moisture may be viewed more favorably. Proposals should include considerations and procedures for handling rising reservoir pool and potential flows over the cofferdam and potential spillway flows.

Construction Approach descriptions are expected to be comprehensive, reflect a good understanding of the work and the conditions under which the work will be performed, and demonstrate compliance with the specifications. Proposals that demonstrate proven methods or techniques that will be used in various site conditions present at Lewisville Dam, and the reasoning as to why the proposed equipment is appropriate for the project may be evaluated more favorably. Direct experience using these techniques will be evaluated under Factor II Specialized Experience. Construction approaches and techniques which demonstrate minimal Dam Safety risk will be evaluated more favorably. Specifically identify any proposed deviations from the Plans and Specifications. Annotate the applicable specification to clearly describe and fully detail the nature of the deviation from the requirements and include the proposed alternate requirement(s). Include the rationale for the proposed deviation, describing how the intent and purpose of the project feature will be achieved with the deviation.

Emergency Response

Proposals will be evaluated on how the integrity of the existing embankment dam, spillway weir, existing apron slabs, apron and upstream foundation materials (EFS), and training walls will be protected throughout the construction process, including procedures for addressing emergency situations. The ability to protect the existing dam and spillway, the ability to stabilize work and evacuate the spillway during potential spillway operation, and the ability to rapidly provide and place emergency materials will be evaluated more favorably. Responses should be developed for both upstream and downstream conditions. A complete proposal showing a good understanding of all potential dam safety emergency situations during construction with appropriate risk reduction measures and response plan may be evaluated more favorably.

FILE I: FACTOR II – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE OF ENTITY PERFORMING EACH FEATURE OF WORK (Performing Entity)

The Offeror must submit at least three and a maximum of twelve (12) prior contracts as examples to demonstrate similar scope and complexity as the work included in this RFP and identified below.

Management Specialized experience must be substantially complete within the last six years to be considered. For purposes of this RFP, “Substantially Complete” is defined as the point at which the project is at least 95% complete and can be safely and effectively used by the public or user without delay or limitation except for resolving punch list items; or for management of civil works projects in excess of $60 million, where work is underway and the project is at least 50% complete. The example contracts used to demonstrate technical Specialized Experience must be substantially complete for the applicable feature of work within the last six years to be considered. Technical specialized experience of example contracts must be at least 95% complete for the applicable feature of work. All example contracts must be within the past 6 years, and be of similar size, scope and complexity. The experience demonstrated by the contract MUST

HAVE BEEN PERFORMED BY THE ENTITY THAT WILL PERFORM THE APPLICABLE

FEATURE OF WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT (Performing Entity/Entities) if selected.

For each example contract, the Offeror must submit the information required along with the applicable CPARS reports. If a CPARS interim or final evaluation has not been issued for the contract, provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form PPQ-0 (Attachment 1) limited to no more than 5 pages per project.

The examples shall contain at a minimum the following and be no more than 4 pages per project:

a. The experience intended to be demonstrated by the contract

b. The name of the Performing Entity (contractor or subcontractor) and role/feature of work of the Performing Entity being addressed by the contract

c. Contract title

d. Contract Description

e. Geographic location

f. % Complete

g. Date the contract was/will be complete

h. Final U.S. dollar contract amount or, for subcontractors or joint ventures, the total contract/subcontracted amount of the work for the applicable Performing Entity

i. Current contract amount earned for the overall contract and for the applicable

Performing Entity)

j. Detailed description of the contract and work performed by the applicable Performing

Entity

k. Description of the Performing Entity’s actual involvement in the performance of the contract

l. Current contact information of owner and prime contractor for the contract

As a minimum, example contracts shall demonstrate experience in the following features of work of similar scope and complexity:

a. Installation of multi-strand post tensioned anchors. Provide at least three past contracts demonstrating multi-strand post tensioned anchor installation. These example contracts should show installation of a total of at least 150 multi-strand post tensioned anchors. At least one example contract must have anchors installed to a similar depth as this contract.

b. Installation of bar anchors (rock dowels). As a minimum, submit two example contracts that demonstrate experience with bar anchors. These example contracts should show installation of a total of at least 150 bar anchors.

c. Installation of cement stabilized open graded drainage layer. As a minimum, submit two example contracts that demonstrate experience with open graded drainage layers and granular filters. These example contracts should show placements of a total of at least 30,000 SYDS of open graded drainage layer.

d. Placement of large concrete slabs. Provide at least two contracts demonstrating large, complex concrete placements where the entity performing the work used the same techniques as proposed in Factor I. These example contracts should show a total of large concrete placements in excess of 20,000 SYDS with a thickness of at least 18 inches.

e. Installation of drilled piers. As a minimum, submit two example contracts that demonstrate experience with drilled shafts. These example contracts should show installation of a total of at least 150 drilled shafts. At least one example project must have drilled shafts of a similar diameter drilled to a depth of at least 50 feet. Projects with drilled shafts installed in the Eagle Ford Clay Shale will be viewed more favorably.

f. Installation of geomembrane. As a minimum, submit two example contracts that demonstrate experience with the installation of geomembranes. These example contracts should show installation of a total of at least 30,000 SYDS.

g. Management of contracts of similar scope and size by the prime contractor As a minimum, submit three example contracts that demonstrate experience managing contracts of similar scope and size.

Contracts containing the following elements in similar scope and complexity as the work included in the RFP will be considered more relevant:

Installation of multi-strand post tensioned anchors Installation of drilled piers

The contracts listed above shall describe and demonstrate the technical and management experience of similar size, scope, and complexity to this contract. Contracts completed on high hazard dams may be viewed more favorably. No more than twelve example contracts shall be submitted, but as few as three may be submitted if all three meet all of the requirements.

All drilling activities shall meet USACE Engineering Regulation (ER) 1110-1-1807. In addition to these requirements, the Performing Entity and their proposed driller for the post-tensioned anchors in the ogee weir must have prior experience in drilling in embankment or concrete dams. Submit a minimum of two projects documenting both the performing entity and drillers experience drilling in embankment or concrete dams.

If the Offeror represents the combination of two or more partners for the purpose of this RFP, describe the role and responsibilities that each partner will have under the Lewisville contract, including the responsibilities of the Offeror. For this factor, partner is defined as a joint venture firm or primary subcontractor, and an offeror may represent multiple partners. If the partners have worked together on contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity, the example contract(s) shall describe the roles, responsibilities, and experience of each partner. If the partners have not previously worked together on a contract of similar size, scope, and complexity, then the example contracts shall demonstrate the experience of each individual partner as the Performing Entity for the applicable listed features of work. If the partners have worked together but on contracts that were not of similar size, scope, and complexity, the examples shall include an example contract that demonstrates the roles, responsibilities, and working relationship of each partner, however the experience of each individual partner as the Performing Entity for a listed feature of work with contracts having work of similar size, scope, and complexity shall also be demonstrated by other example contracts. As a minimum, the Offeror shall describe a combination of three example contracts that demonstrate technical and construction management experience of similar size, scope, and complexity to this contract. The Performing Entity described in the successful proposal as being responsible for the construction of the features of work listed above must construct the applicable feature of work contained in this RFP.

SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE OF KEY PERSONNEL

Key personnel proposed for this contract shall have a maximum two (2) page resumes included in the proposal. No more than fifteen (15) resumes shall be submitted. Resumes will not count toward the page count limit of the proposal. Identify the proposed staff’s involvement, if any, with the example contracts demonstrating Performing Entity experience above. Individuals proposed for this contract who have a history of direct employment with the prime contractor or subcontractor, and who have made significant contributions to the successful performance of the example contract(s) shall be cited along with their specific role. Relevant training, licenses, and certifications shall be listed in the resume. Key Personnel as a minimum are:

a. Project Manager

b. QC System Manager

c. Construction Superintendent(s) (prime contractor)

d. Lead Geotechnical Engineers/Geologists*

e. Lead Driller for all drilling (Post tensioned weir anchors, apron rock dowels, drilled shafts)

f. Anchor Installer

g. Anchor Testing Engineer*

h. Geomembrane Installer

i. Concrete Superintendent(s)

j. Site Safety & Health Officer (SSHO)

* Provide a Registered Professional Engineer or Geologist as required by the specifications

All resumes of Key Personnel shall include valid contact information for the owner of each project listed on the resume.

In addition to resumes, proposals shall include a table listing the key personnel, the relevant projects they have been on in the past, their role on the projects listed, and their proposed role on the Lewisville Dam Modification. An example of this table is included as Attachment 5.

Key personnel identified in the successful proposal shall be assigned to the project for the duration of the contract. No substitution of these individuals will be allowed without prior approval of the Contracting Officer.

FACTOR II – EVALUATION

SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE OF PERFORMING ENTITY

The contract(s) used to demonstrate management Specialized Experience must be substantially complete within the last 6 years to be considered. For purposes of the RFP, “Substantially Complete” is defined as the point at which the project is at least 95% complete and can be safely and effectively used by the public or user without delay or limitation except for resolving punch list items; or for civil works projects in excess of $60 million, where work is underway and the project is at least 50% complete. The example contracts used to demonstrate technical Specialized Experience must be substantially complete for the applicable feature of work within the last six years to be considered. Technical specialized experience of example contracts must be at least 95% complete for the applicable feature of work.

Failure to submit the minimum number of contracts for each type of work as described above may result in a less favorable evaluation. The Government will not consider more than twelve relevant contracts including those of the prime and the subcontractors. Failure to provide actual CPARS evaluations or equivalent when available may result in less favorable evaluation.

Although each individual project submitted in response to this factor need not include all of the features of work listed above, greater weight will be given to those proposals that demonstrate experience by the Contractor Team in performing more of the listed elements, the proposal demonstrates that construction of the elements on the Lewisville project will be performed by the Contractor Team Partner(s) having that demonstrated specialty experience, the proposal demonstrates that the identified Key Personnel will be assigned to the identified role on the Lewisville project, and the proposal demonstrates experience managing projects having similar size, scope and complexity. The distribution of the experience between the Offeror and Partners is less important than the demonstrated ability of Performing Entities to complete the work as proposed.

Contracts submitted shall demonstrate experience in the major components of strand and bar rock dowel installation, drilled pier installation, cement stabilized open graded drainage layer, large concrete slab placements, geomembrane installation, and management of contract of similar scope and size. placement.

However, the following elements are considered MOST relevant and important than other experience and may be evaluated more favorably:

Installation of multi-strand post tensioned anchors Installation of drilled piers

The extent and quality of the technical experience will be evaluated.

Experience performing this type of work at earthen and concrete retaining structures impounding large bodies of water may be evaluated more favorably. Experience with under-ream anchor installations and drilling anchors and piers in highly plastic clay shales may be evaluated more favorably. Experience drilling in materials similar to the Eagle Ford Clay Shale may be evaluated more favorably. Successful experience using the techniques proposed by the Offeror in Factor 1 may be evaluated more favorably. Experience which demonstrates the ability to respond to emergencies, stabilize a worksite, and evacuate the worksite quickly may be evaluated more favorably. Successful experience with modifications of spillways on operational dams retaining pool during construction may be evaluated more favorably.

Documentation of successful management performance and completion or substantial completion of contracts in a prime contractor role of similar size, scope, and complexity as the Lewisville contract may be evaluated more favorably.

If the Offeror represents the combination of two or more companies (joint venture or major subcontractors) for the purpose of this RFP, the combination of partners will be evaluated as a single Offeror. The Offeror may satisfy the requirement of providing relevant contracts from the major components of the planned construction by combining the contracts of the various partners. The experience of each partner will be evaluated based on each partner’s role in cited past work relative to their proposed role in the Lewisville contract.

Specialized Experience of Key Personnel

The adequacy and strength of the key personnel’s technical and management experience will be evaluated.

Individuals contributing to the successful performance of contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity within the past six (6) years may be evaluated more favorably. Experience of the personnel identified for this contract on example contracts cited by the Offeror and other Performing Entities above may be evaluated more favorably. Individual resumes that exceed the minimum requirements in the specifications or who show recent experience on contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity may be evaluated more favorably. Demonstrating Key Personnel knowledge and experience in meeting Army Engineering Regulation requirements may be evaluated more favorably. Demonstrating the ability to ensure the Key Personnel will be assigned to the Lewisville project may be evaluated more favorably. No more than fifteen

(15) resumes will be reviewed.

FILE I: FACTOR III – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

CONTRACTOR/ MAJOR SUBCONTRACTOR/SUPPLIER PLAN

Provide a management approach for the contract that describes how labor, resources, subcontractors, and material suppliers will be coordinated and used to ensure successful completion of the contract. Discuss which resources are available but will not be present at the site. Describe how the Offeror will manage, supervise, and coordinate the subcontractors’ work. The Offeror shall identify personnel in the organization responsible for this management and coordination. Joint Venture Offerors shall identify the respective areas of responsibility for each partner. Additionally, at a minimum, specifically identify what entity (Offeror, JV partner or subcontractor) is the Performing Entity for each of the features of work listed below. The Performing Entity for each listed feature on the successful proposal must perform that feature of work as shown in this RFP.

a. Construction Management

b. Installation of multi-strand post tensioned anchors

c. Installation of bar anchors (rock dowels)

d. Remove and replace existing apron slabs

e. Installation of trench and collector drains

f. Placement of cement stabilized OGM

g. Placement of apron overlay

h. Installation of drilled piers

i. Stabilization and raising of retaining walls

j. Earthwork--excavating and fill and placing granular filter materials

k. Geomembrane installation

l. Safety

m. Weir anchors and apron rock dowels,

n. Turndown wall and associated structures,

o. Stabilization and raising of training walls,

p. Removal and replacement of apron slabs,

q. Installation of trench and collector drains,

r. Installation of cement stabilized open graded drainage layer,

s. Placement of apron overlay slabs, and installation of upstream geomembrane.

Provide any written agreements between the Offeror and major subcontractors demonstrating a commitment for the identified Performing Entity to perform the work that is the subject of this solicitation.

ORGANIZATION WITH KEY PERSONNEL

The Offeror’s proposal shall contain an Organization Chart and description for this contract showing/discussing home office support, on-site management and technical specialists, and the responsible chain of command, including for Quality Control and Site Safety. Names of Key Personnel identified in Factor II shall be included. Clearly delineate between on-site and off-site personnel. For this factor, partner is defined as a joint venture firm or primary subcontractor, and an Offeror may represent multiple partners.

If the Offeror is combination of two or more partners, clearly show the relationship between the firms and their roles and responsibilities on this contract. Identify the firm employing each individual. Key Personnel shall include those identified in Factor II as well as the overall management structure and support.

SCHEDULE

The Offeror’s schedule shall show completion within the allowable contract period of performance, be based on Early Dates and Late Dates, and shall address major tasks, durations, relationships between tasks, and other pertinent information. For the purposes of the Final Revised Proposal only, the offeror shall assume a Notice to Proceed (NTP) date of 01 June 2022. This NTP is for proposal purposes ONLY and shall not be construed as the receipt of actual NTP. At a minimum, the schedule shall include durations and completion milestones (referenced to the Notice to Proceed) for:

a. Pre-construction Actions (major preconstruction submittals, permitting, etc.)

b. Mobilization and site preparation

c. Haul roads and other temporary roads

d. Technical restrictions on the work

e. Installation of spillway weir anchors

f. Installation of piers and associated structures for the turndown wall

g. Stabilization and raising of the training walls

h. Installation of the trench drain

i. Removal and replacement of existing apron slabs

j. Installation of bar anchors (rock dowels)

k. Construction of apron overlay including collector drains and cement stabilized OGM

l. Construction of cofferdam and installation of geomembrane

m. Site restoration and demobilization

n. Borrow site and other restoration work

o. Contract completion actions (as-builts, punch-list, closeout submittals, etc.)

The schedule should define the work shift duration, number of shifts per day, and the number of workdays per week for the various features of work. The schedule shall communicate the Offeror’s understanding of the work and the sequencing required to accommodate technical restrictions (e.g. cure time, drilling limitations, open excavations), contract restrictions, weather and pool levels, and other limitations on the work.

FACTOR III – EVALUATION

Proposals that indicate the Offeror's successful experience with management of similarly resourced, staffed and scoped projects may be evaluated more favorably.

Contractor/ Major Subcontractor/ Supplier Plan

The Offeror’s ability to demonstrate sound management practices for construction similar to that planned at Lewisville Dam, both at the home office and at the project site will be evaluated. The aspects of both technical management and construction management will be evaluated. Comprehensive proposals that demonstrate a clear understanding of the work and an ability to coordinate resources, manage and sequence multiple operations and subcontractors and/or joint venture partners to ensure successful and timely completion of the work, and that have comprehensive and effective safety programs that reach to all levels of the site work may be evaluated more favorably. Proposals which clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the Offeror, partners, and the subcontractors for the major components of the contract may be evaluated more favorably. Proposals that include written agreements between the Offeror, partners, and the subcontractors may be evaluated more favorably. Proposals that include commitments by the Offeror to self perform the features of work for which it has identified itself as the Performing Entity may be evaluated more favorably.

Organization with Key Personnel

The clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the Offeror’s organization will be evaluated. An organization that clearly depicts an on-site team supported by appropriate resources off-site and that clearly defines both the responsibilities and authority of Key Personnel along with their experience successfully performing these roles may be evaluated more favorably. Organizations that identify one person as filling two or more key positions may be evaluated less favorably. Identification of two or more individuals proposed for a single position will result in the evaluation of only the least qualified person. Proposals that address the Offeror’s response to technical staffing changes and turnover of key personnel while maintaining technical competency may be evaluated more favorably.

Schedule

The Offeror’s schedule will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s understanding of all activities associated with construction of all project features within the stated period of performance. Schedules which communicate the Offeror’s understanding of the nature of work and the sequencing required to accommodate the technical restrictions associated with spacing of anchor hole drilling and drilled shafts may be evaluated more favorably. Proposals that ensure sequencing reflecting contractual restrictions may be evaluated more favorably.

FILE I: FACTOR IV - PAST PERFORMANCE

All offerors shall be evaluated on past performance for the past six (6) years. While the Government may elect to consider data and information from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. Provide CPARS ratings for each of the projects submitted in Factor II, Specialized Experience. Where an interim or final CPARS evaluation has been issued, the Offeror shall provide the CPARS evaluation. If a CPARS interim or final evaluation has not been issued for the contract, provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form PPQ-0 (Attachment 1) limited to no more than 5 pages per project for itself or its team members as applicable. Submit the PPQ Form-0 to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor II, including team members, that is not addressed by CPARS evaluation. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Submit the completed PPQs with the 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 (Attachment 1), 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. The Government reserves the right to utilize previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

Do not request past performance questionnaires (PPQ) on projects that have interim or final CPARS.

If an interim or final CPARS evaluation exists and a PPQ is provided for the same project, the 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 Board or the Source Selection Authority.

For USACE or other DoD projects which are underway but do not yet have an interim or final 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. Form PPQ-0 may be provided for non-federal contracts.

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