W9127N-16-R-0052-0001.pdf

W66QKZ60135952

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

Project: Cougar Dam Spillw ay Rehabilitation

The purpose of this amendment is to update Evaluation Factor 1: Experience.

See Continuation Pages.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Jul-2016

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 W9127N-16-R-0052

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Jul-2016

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 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

27-Jul-2016

CODE

USACE PORTLAND DISTRICT

333 SW 1ST AVE

PORTLAND OR 97204-3440

W9127N 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9127N-16-R-0052

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The Issued By organization below has been added:

USACE PORTLAND DISTRICT

333 SW 1ST AVE

PORTLAND OR 97204-3440

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE / INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

BASIS OF AWARD

A. General

(1) The solicitation is restricted to small businesses using Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process for the award of a firm-fixed-price contract. Award will be made at the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptable standards for non-cost factors. This acquisition will utilize FAR Part 15 LPTA source selection procedures, leading to selection of the proposal representing the best value to the Government.

(2) The Government intends to make an award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions should discussions prove to be necessary or advantageous to the Government. Because the Government does not intend to hold discussions Offeror’s are encouraged to include their best pricing in their initial proposal.

(3) In the context of this proposal, the “offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor. A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor that the offeror proposes to perform 25% or more of the work required under the solicitation.

(4) All proposals received will stand alone and be considered complete and final. The evaluation board will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference or otherwise referred to. The successful offeror will be selected solely on the basis of the evaluation factors set forth below. Accordingly, proposals submitted in response to this solicitation should provide clear, complete, concise, and straightforward responses to the evaluation factors. Elaborate proposals, color brochures, and other excesses are discouraged.

(5) Joint Ventures (JV) A joint venture is defined as follows: a legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. This does not include other arrangements such as “teaming agreements” or “strategic alliance” which are not recognized as bona fide joint ventures for the purposes of this solicitation. A company that is part of a joint venture shall submit a legally binding joint venture agreement. Joint ventures shall include a copy of the legal joint venture agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the joint venture with the chief executive of each entity identified. If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience and past performance of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The experience for each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity. Page and project form limits apply to the joint venture as a whole. Prospective Offeror’s that submit proposals may not change their firm (including Letters of Commitment (LOC) and proposed subcontractors) or their Joint Venture firms, if selected to submit Final Proposal Revisions (FPR).

B. Evaluation Ratings

(1) The principle objective of the evaluation process is to make award of a contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to be the “best value” to the Government, price and other factors considered. An evaluation of acceptability will be performed on each proposal in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process. Award will be made on the basis of the low evaluated price of proposals meeting the acceptability standards of non-cost factors. Tradeoffs are not permitted. The failure of a proposal to meet any of the acceptability standards for non-cost factors will result in a technically unacceptable rating and thus preclude award.

(2) A Technical Proposal will be rated as ‘Acceptable’ or ‘Unacceptable’ based upon whether it demonstrates the minimum requirements of the RFP.

Table 1. TECHNICAL Acceptable/Unacceptable RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable

Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating DESCRIPTION

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

5. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

A. Administrative Details and General Instructions: Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

(1) General Proposal Format. Submit each copy of the proposal in tabbed, 3-ring binders with a “D” ring or locking closures.

Title Page. Each copy must include the Offeror’s name and address, phone number and email address, title of the solicitation, solicitation number and date of submittal clearly identified on the front cover of the binder.

Table of Contents. Each binder of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. The complete table of contents shall be included in each binder.

Printed Matter Submissions. Pages containing text are expected to be 8 ½ x 11 inches with at least one-inch margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Paragraphs should be separated by at least one blank line. A standard 11-point font in either Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required.

Organization charts or schedules. A folded 11” x 17” format may be used. Larger format drawings or tables may be added by folding them to fit within the binder.

All information must be confined to the appropriate volume. If the materials do not fit within a single volume, they should be separated in additional binders, but clearly identified as such. Each volume of the proposal is expected to contain a table of contents, summary section with a brief abstract of the volume, and the narrative discussion.

THE OFFEROR SHALL SUBMIT AN ELECTRONIC VERSION OF EACH PROPOSAL. The electronic version shall be on a readable CD. Any discrepancies between the electronic and paper copies shall give precedence to the paper copy.

(2) Proposal Content Limitations.

The Offeror must confine the proposal to relevant information and documentation sufficient to provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Offeror’s are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal. The page count is at the discretion of the offeror, however the proposal may not be more than 25 pages total.

The evaluation panel for the Government is instructed to evaluate the non-price proposal factors on the basis of the information provided. Extraneous information provided in the proposals will not be considered in the evaluations; therefore, the offeror should only provide information that satisfies the solicitation requirements. Merely restating the specifications without sufficient elaboration demonstrates a lack of understanding of the requirement.

DO NOT cross reference past performance information. It is acceptable to repeat data, project information or experience in more than one non-price area as long as it satisfies the requirements of the factor.

Proprietary information must be clearly marked.

B. Content of Proposals: All proposals must be prepared in two (2) volumes: A technical proposal (Volume I) and a price proposal (Volume II). Each of the volumes shall be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently from evaluation of the other. The technical proposal must not contain reference to price. The narrative and content structure of the proposal shall follow the format shown in the table for Volume I below. Offeror’s who fail to submit a complete proposal may be excluded and thus receive no further consideration for award.

(1) Technical Proposal, Volume I: Provide one (1) original and four (4) copies and one (1) pdf. file on a CD-ROM. Volume I shall consist of information for the three (3) factors listed in tabular form, as noted below. Repeating or restating the specifications without sufficient elaboration will be determined to show a lack of understanding of the requirement.

Volume I – Technical (Non-Price) Factors:

Factor 1: Experience

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: W o r k P l a n a n d Schedule

(2) Price Proposal, Volume II: The Price Proposal shall be submitted on one (1) original copy and one

(1) pdf. file on a CD-ROM. Contractors shall provide pricing and complete all line items on Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442). Your price proposal must be prepared in accordance with below paragraphs and must include:

Tab 1 - SF1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award.

The SF1442 shall be filled out completely by the offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. The Offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 or Block 19 of SF1442.

Tab 2 – Section 00010, Proposal Price / Bid Schedule.

The Offeror shall fully complete this section.

Tab 3 - Representations, Certifications and other Statements of Offeror’s.

The Offeror shall complete all representations and certifications in Section 00600 and also ensure current registration and completed/updated Annual Representations and Certifications on the System for Award Management (SAM) website, www.sam.gov.

Tab 4 – Banking and Bonding Points of Contact.

The Government is required to determine Contractor’s responsibility; the Offeror shall provide contact information (company name, point of contact, address, email, and phone number) for the Offeror’s bank and bonding institutions.

Tab 5 - Bid/Offer Guarantee. The Bid Bond shall be at least 20% of the bid price, but shall not exceed $3 million. See FAR Clause 52.228-1 – Bid Guarantee.

C. Submission of Proposals: Proposals must arrive at the location designated in the RFP for receipt of such proposals prior to the time and date established in Block 13, SF 1442. There will not be a public proposal opening. In order for the proposal to be considered, it MUST be prepared in ENGLISH, and must be submitted as a hardcopy original (Volume I and II) and four (4) copies (Technical Volume I only) with the required electronic CD-ROM:

BY HAND OR COURIER TO:

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NWP

Block 300 (10th Floor USACE Security Desk) 333 SW First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Attention: David Dvorak – CECT-NWP-C

MAILING ADDRESS:

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NWP

P. O. Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208-2946 Attention: David Dvorak – CECT-NWP-C

NOTE: E-MAIL SUBMISSIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. If the electronic CD-ROM proposal differs from the hard copy, the hard copy will take precedence.

OFFEROR SHALL MARK THE OUTSIDE ENVELOPE(S) AS FOLLOWS:

Envelope(s) shall be plainly marked with the following information:

Solicitation No. W9127N-16-R-0052 Proposal Due Date: ____________________________________

Number of each amendment that has been received: _________

6. EVALUATION FACTORS

Volume I – Technical (Non-Price) Submission Requirements and Evaluation Method:

FACTOR 1 – Experience

Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit information for up to two projects that demonstrates the offeror’s experience rehabilitating spillway tainter gates and the associated mechanical and electrical operating equipment. Information submitted for each project must include the information outlined in Attachment B, Offeror’s Experience Form.

To be evaluated, projects must have been completed or must be substantially complete within five years of the date that proposals are due and be projects valued over $3,000,000.00. Substantially complete is defined as being 75% complete by the date that proposals are due. If an offeror submits a project that it represents is “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 75% complete. If an offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 75% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project.

A maximum of two projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than two projects, only the first two projects will be evaluated. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess whether the projects submitted meet the minimum evaluation criteria outlined below.

Evaluation criteria:

Experience will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis.

Acceptable: To be determined “acceptable,” the offeror’s proposal must demonstrate that the offeror has experience rehabilitating spillway tainter gates and associated mechanical and electrical operating equipment valued over $3,000,000. To be determined acceptable under this factor, each project submitted does not need to demonstrate all functional categories (structural, mechanical, and electrical work) for each individual project. Rather, to be acceptable an offeror must submit a proposal that includes up to two projects that collectively demonstrate the offeror’s experience with all three discrete categories of work: structural, mechanical, and electrical.

Unacceptable: The offeror’s proposal fails to demonstrate experience rehabilitating spillway tainter gates and associated mechanical and electrical operating equipment valued over $3,000,000. The offeror’s proposal collectively fails to demonstrate experience performing structural, mechanical, and electrical work on spillway tainter gates valued over $3,000,000.

Table 1. TECHNICAL Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating DESCRIPTION

FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall provide past performance information for each project listed by the offeror under Factor 1:

Experience. Recent and relevant projects are those projects completed or substantially completed ** within the past five years of the date that the proposals are due that are comparable in size, scope, and complexity with this requirement.

** Substantially completed is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time proposals are due.

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available.

Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal if a CPARS evaluation is not available. 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 A), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offeror’s should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, David Dvorak, via email at david.l.dvorak@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The Offeror shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line. The PPQs are Source Selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an email confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is their responsibility to follow up to ensure the Government has received the information.

Offeror’s shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted past performance information in the past performance evaluation.

Offeror’s may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance.

Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the 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),FAPIIS, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the Offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability, 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.

Evaluation Method:

Past Performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis.

The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the project outlined in the solicitation requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the project.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to ensure previous work performance satisfactorily met the contract requirements, performance schedules, prescribed quality of work, safety requirements, and other customer expectations on these projects.

The Government reserves the right to obtain or verify offeror’s past performance information from references and other sources available to the Government.

Past performance under Factor 2 shall be evaluated using the following rating of an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings stated in Table 2:

Table 2. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

FACTOR 3 – Work Plan and Schedule

The offeror shall demonstrate its ability to plan, organize, and manage the project and schedule.

Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall submit a work plan explaining the Offeror’s technical approach for completing the project in accordance with the specifications outlined in this solicitation. The plan shall include a detailed narrative that addresses the procedures proposed for the successful completion of the following major features of work:

1. Structural steel fabrication

2. Mechanical hoist system

3. Trunnion bearing system

4. Electrical control system and commissioning

The work plan shall also include the proposed Gantt chart for this project that accounts for the Gate Out of Service Period (GOSP), Final Construction Physical Completion, and Contract End Date contractual milestones. The proposed schedule shall include incidental design, fabrication, shop testing, delivery, assembly/disassembly, installation, and testing.

Evaluation criteria:

Work plan and schedule will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis.

Acceptable: To be determined “acceptable,” the offeror’s proposed work plan must include the offeror’s plan for completing each feature of work outlined in the submission requirements above and demonstrate a feasible plan for completing the work in accordance with the requirements outlined in the solicitation specifications. The offeror’s work plan must also include a schedule in Gantt chart format for completing the work items outlined in the submission requirements above, and within the timeframes described in the solicitation specifications.

Unacceptable: The offeror’s proposed work plan fails to include all of the features of work included in the submission requirements. The offeror’s proposed work plan is not feasible or fails to demonstrate the ability to complete the work in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation. The offeror’s plan fails to include a schedule in Gantt chart format addressing each of the work items contained in the submission requirements. The offeror’s proposed schedule demonstrates an inability to complete the work within the timeframes described in the solicitation specifications or inability to feasibly complete the work on time.

TECHNICAL Acceptable/Unacceptable RATINGS

Volume II - Price.

Price Evaluation

Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price (sum of all CLINs) of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.

The Price Proposal will be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness. For evaluation purposes, the total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the total price for all optional items to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes)