DRAFT_Solicitation_W9127N19R0007.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

W9127N19R0007

MOUTH OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER

CLATSOP COUNTY, OR

MOUTH OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER (MCR)

SOUTH JETTY REHABILITATION

PROJECT MANUAL

TOC-1

SOUTH JETTY REHABILITATION

CLATSOP COUNTY, OR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

00 10 00 SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (SF 1442)

SF 30 INFORMATION ON AMENDMENT: NOT USED

00 10 00 SOLICITATION

00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS

00 45 00 REPRESENTATION AND CERTIFICATIONS

00 72 00 GENERAL CONDITIONS

00 73 00 SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS

GENERAL AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

ATTACHMENTS

A1: Submittal Register (ENG FORM 4288-R)

A2: Transmittal Form (ENG FORM 4025-R)

A3: Construction Project Identification Sign

A4: Spill Emergency - Initial Report Form

A5: Oregon Wage Rates

A6: Water Quality Certification – To be added

A7: Inadvertent Discovery Plan

A8: Letter of Authorization to Take Marine Mammals Incidental to Pile Driving Activities, March 2017

A9: Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan for Pile Installation, Removal and Maintenance MCR Jetty System, Revised Final Draft, November 2016 v2

TOC-2

SOUTH JETTY REHABILITATION

CLATSOP COUNTY, OR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A10: Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Permit - To be added

A11: Federal Register: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Rehabilitation MCR Jetty System, February 2017

A12: SLOPES IV In-Water Over-Water Structures

A13: MCR South Jetty 1982 As-Constructed Site Plan

A14: Material Offload Facility Design Report

A15: Jetty Crest Access Road Culvert Design

A16: Access Road Culvert Scour

A17: Oregon State Parks Jetty Road Design Report

A18: South Jetty Landing Survey Geophysical Survey Report

A19: LHE - Effects of Wind

A20: Environmental Working Conditions by Jetty Reach

A21: Floating Plant Inspection Checklist

A22: Oregon DEQ Construction General Permit 1200-C Application

A23: Notice to Large Businesses

A24: Offeror's Experience Form

A25: Past Performance Questionnaire

A26: Small Business Participation Plan

PROJECT TITLE: Mouth of the Columbia River (MCR) South Jetty Rehabilitation

LOCATION OF PERFORMANCE: Mouth of the Columbia River, Clatsop County, Oregon

MAGNITUDE OF CONSTRUCTION: Betw een $100,000,000 and $250,000,000

SOCIO-ECONOMIC: Unrestricted, Full and Open

DAVID C BOONE

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

18-Jan-2019

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________ calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________3 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________04 Mar 2019 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______120 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

USACE PORTLAND DISTRICT

333 SW 1ST AVE

PORTLAND OR 97204-3440

W9127N

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

04:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W9127N19R0007 77

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job

Mobilization and Demobilization

FFP

Mobilization and Demobilization for Stone Procurement FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

A Stone

FFP

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0002AA 13,488 Cubic

Yard First 13,488 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

00 10 00-3

0002AB 4,760 Cubic

Yard Over 13,488 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

B Stone

FFP

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0003AA 5,238 Cubic

Yard First 5,238 CY

FFP

00 10 00-4

0003AB 1,850 Cubic

Yard Over 5,238 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

BB Stone

FFP

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0004AA 5,610 Cubic

Yard First 5,610 CY

FFP

00 10 00-5

0004AB 1,980 Cubic

Yard Over 5,610 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

C Stone

FFP

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0005AA 10,028 Cubic

Yard First 10,028 CY

FFP

00 10 00-6

0005AB 3,540 Cubic

Yard Over 10,028 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

D Stone

FFP

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0006AA 19,090 Cubic

Yard First 19,090 CY

FFP

00 10 00-7

0006AB 6,737 Cubic

Yard Over 19,090 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

F Stone

FFP

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0007AA 24,263 Cubic

Yard First 24,263 CY

FFP

00 10 00-8

0007AB 8,563 Cubic

Yard Over 24,263 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

G Stone

FFP

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0008AA 28,678 Cubic

Yard First 28,678 CY

FFP

00 10 00-9

0008AB 10,122 Cubic

Yard Over 28,678 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

H Stone

FFP

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0009AA 9,882 Cubic

Yard First 9,882 CY

FFP

00 10 00-10

0009AB 3,488 Cubic

Yard Over 9,882 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

I Stone

FFP

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0010AA 9,982 Cubic

Yard First 9,982 CY

FFP

00 10 00-11

0010AB 3,523 Cubic

Yard Over 9,982 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0011 855 Cubic

Yard Bedding Material (Class 50)

FFP

STA 153+50 to STA 188+00 FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0012 5,250 Square

Yard Reconstruction of Existing Stone

FFP

00 10 00-12

0013 728 Cubic

Yard Bedding Filter (ODOT 1” Minus);

FFP

Bedding Filter (ODOT 1” Minus); Material Transition Zone FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0014 924 Cubic

Yard Cobble (1”-6”); Material Transition Zone

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0015 1 Job

Haul Roads, Ramps, and Pile Removal

FFP

Haul Roads, Ramps, and Trestle Pile Removal

00 10 00-13

0016 1 Job

Material Offloading Facility

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0017 1 Job

Site Restoration

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

OPTION Bedding Material (Class 50)

FFP

Spur Groin STA 250+00

00 10 00-14

0018AA 1,200 Cubic

Yard OPTION First 1,200 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0018AB 360 Cubic

Yard OPTION Over 1,200 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

OPTION Base Material (Class 200)

FFP

00 10 00-15

0019AA 800 Cubic

Yard OPTION First 800 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0019AB 240 Cubic

Yard OPTION Over 800 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

OPTION J Stone

FFP

00 10 00-16

0020AA 725 Cubic

Yard OPTION First 725 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0020AB 218 Cubic

Yard OPTION Over 725 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

OPTION Bedding Material (Class 50)

FFP

Spur Groin STA 270+00

00 10 00-17

0021AA 1,450 Cubic

Yard OPTION First 1,450 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0021AB 435 Cubic

Yard OPTION Over 1,450 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

OPTION Base Material (Class 200)

FFP

00 10 00-18

0022AA 970 Cubic

Yard OPTION First 970 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0022AB 291 Cubic

Yard OPTION Over 970 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

OPTION J Stone

FFP

00 10 00-19

0023AA 725 Cubic

Yard OPTION First 725 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0023AB 218 Cubic

Yard OPTION Over 725 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

OPTION Dynamic Revetment Repair; Cobble (1”-6”)

FFP

00 10 00-20

0024AA 2,550 Cubic

Yard OPTION First 2550 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0024AB 1,200 Cubic

Yard OPTION Over 2,550 CY

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

TOTALS

SUBTOTAL FOR MANDATORY LINE ITEMS $__________________

SUBTOTAL FOR OPTIONAL LINE ITEMS $ __________________

TOTAL FOR ALL LINE ITEMS $___________________

As indicated under UNIT heading in the contract Bid Schedule, Cubic yards (CY) is solid stone volume exclusive of stone to stone void space. A conversion will be used to convert stone weight (tons) to pay volume (CY). Examples of the weight to volume conversion are given below.

Pay Volume (CY) = Armor Stone Weight in Tons x 2,000 lb/Ton x 1/(mass density-lb/ft^3) x 1 CY/27 ft^3.

00 10 00-21

For Rock Mass Density = 171 lb/ft^3, the Pay Volume (CY) for 10 tons of Rock is:

10 Ton Weight x 2,000 lb/ton x 1/(171 lb/ft^3) x 1 CY/27 ft^3 = 4.332 CY

For Rock Mass Density = 195 lb/ft^3, the Pay Volume (CY) for 10 tons of Rock is:

10 Ton Weight x 2,000 lb/ton x 1/(195 lb/ft^3) x 1 CY/27 ft^3 = 3.799 CY. Bidders must account for the stone mass density of the product they are proposing when completing this Bid Schedule. Refer to Measurement & Payment section for examples dealing with measurement and payment.

00 10 00-22

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. BASIS FOR AWARD.

A. General.

(1) This is an unrestricted competitive acquisition using Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) source selection procedures for award of a firm-fixed-price contract. The Government intends to award a single, firm-fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation.

(2) In the context of this proposal, “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.

(3) 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, Offerors are encouraged to include their best pricing in their initial proposal.

(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 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 alliances,” which are not recognized as bona fide joint ventures for the purposes of this solicitation. An Offeror that is a joint venture shall submit a copy of its legally binding 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.

(6) Subcontracting Plan (other than small businesses only). Separate from the Small Business Participation Plan discussed in Factor 4, other than U.S. Small Business Offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan with its proposal. No award will be made to an Offeror until an approved subcontracting plan is in place. Subcontracting plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan – see DFARS 215.304(c)(i)(C) – however the subcontracting plan will not be considered in the evaluation of the Small Business Participation factor.

The Government will evaluate the subcontracting plan in accordance with AFARS Appendix DD (http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vmafara.htm) and with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9 and DEVIATION 2018-O0018. The subcontracting plan must contain the mandatory requirements outlined in FAR 19.704 and the dollar amount for each socioeconomic category must match the dollar amount for each socioeconomic category that was proposed in the evaluated Small Business Participation Plan (Factor 4). The final approved subcontracting plan shall become a material part of the contract.

00 21 00-1

B. Evaluation Factors.

The Government will evaluate proposals under the following factors:

Factor 1: Experience Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Work Plan and Schedule Factor 4: Small Business Participation Factor 5: Price

Factor 3 is more important than Factors 1 and 2, which are approximately equal in weight, and Factors 1 and 2 are more important than Factor 4. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The Government will use the following definitions when evaluating proposals:

Deficiency – A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness – A flaw a proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Weakness – A flaw in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

Strength – An aspect of a 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 a 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.

2. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS AND EVALUATION

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 is required.

00 21 00-2

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. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal.

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.

(3) English Language Requirement.

In order for a proposal to be considered, it MUST be prepared in ENGLISH.

B. Content of Proposals: All proposals must be prepared in two volumes: A technical proposal (Volume I), 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 (Volume I) must not contain reference to price. The narrative and content structure of the proposal shall follow the format shown under Volume I below. Offerors that 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) hardcopy original and three (3) copies and one (1) .pdf file on a CD-ROM. Volume I shall consist of information for the four (4) 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

Tab 1 – Factor 1 - Experience

Tab 2 – Factor 2 – Past Performance

Tab 3 – Factor 3 – Work Plan and Schedule

Tab 4 – Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

00 21 00-3

(2) Price Proposal, Volume II: Provide one (1) original and one (1) .pdf file on a CD-ROM of a complete and detailed Price Proposal on the forms provided in the solicitation. Provide pricing and complete all line items on Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442). The price proposal must be prepared in accordance with the following 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 00 10 00, Proposal Price / Bid Schedule.

The Offeror shall fully complete this section.

Tab 3 – Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors.

The Offeror shall complete all representations and certifications in Section 00 45 00 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 a contractor’s responsibility. Accordingly, the Offeror shall provide contact information (company name, point of contact, address, email address, 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 52.228-1 – Bid Guarantee.

C. Submission of Proposals: Proposals must arrive at the location designated in the solicitation 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.

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 Boone – CECT-NWP-C

OR SURFACE MAIL ADDRESS:

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NWP

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

NOTE: EMAIL 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. W9127N19R0007 Proposal Due Date:

Number of each amendment that has been received:

00 21 00-4

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

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

FACTOR 1 (TAB 1) – Experience

Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit information on up to three projects completed or substantially completed that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to this South Jetty project.

Information submitted for each project must include the information outlined in Attachment A1, Offeror’s Experience Form. In addition, ensure the following is addressed for each project: 1) the total tonnage and size of stone or material placed, 2) the environmental conditions experienced at the project location and

3) equipment utilized.

To be evaluated, each project must have been completed or substantially completed within 20 years of the date that proposals are due. Substantially complete is defined as being 80% complete.

A maximum of three projects will be evaluated. If an Offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than three projects, only the first three projects will be evaluated. Offerors should describe the project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how well the project submitted meets the evaluation criteria outlined below.

Past Projects of Key Personnel – The Government will consider past projects of a Project Superintendent from a different company as long as the Offeror proposes to use the same Project Superintendent for this project. Project Superintendent is as defined in technical specification section 01 45 00.00 25, Paragraph 3.1.2. In addition, in order for the project to be considered, the Offer must demonstrate that the proposed Project Superintendent served in the role of Project Superintendent on the past project. It is up to the Offeror to submit sufficient information establishing the role of the individual on the past project.

If the Offeror is awarded this contract and submitted Project Superintendent experience under this factor, that same individual must serve as the Project Superintendent under the awarded contract. The Project Superintendent may not be replaced unless prior written approval is obtained from the Contracting Officer. Approval for replacing the Project Superintendent will only be given if the new proposed Project Superintendent possesses equal or greater experience than the Project Superintendent submitted with the Offeror’s proposal.

Evaluation Method:

The Government will rate this factor using the combined technical/risk rating as follows:

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

00 21 00-5

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

TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DESCRIPTION

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Proposals will be evaluated to determine the similarity and extent of the Offeror’s past experience as it relates to the scope of this project. In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following:

To what extent the projects were performed in a similar exposed marine environment (work performed along an ocean coast), such as projects performed along the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, British Columbia) coast.

To what extent the projects involved similar extension into the ocean;

To what extent the projects required the use of cranes and/or excavators in a similar exposed marine environment;

To what extent the projects involved placement of similar sized stone or material that will be required under the solicited project.

To what extent the projects involved the procurement and delivery of a similar amount (in tons) of stone or material placed.

To what extent the projects involved a similar equipment reach for placement of similar sized stone or material.

FACTOR 2 (TAB 2) – Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

00 21 00-6

The Offeror shall provide past performance information for each project listed by the Offeror under Factor 1 – Experience.

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, the Offeror shall submit it with the proposal.

If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project. See Attachment A2. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available.

o If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

o Offerors should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, David Boone, via email at david.c.boone@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The Offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

o 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 the Offeror’s responsibility to follow up to ensure the government has received the information.

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

Offerors 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 (Past Performance Information Retrieval System) including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS (Commercial and Government Entity Code/Data Universal Numbering System) 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 (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, 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:

The Government seeks a contractor who maintains a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in his technical proposal. In doing so, be mindful that “past performance” and “experience” are not identical.

Experience measures what the Offeror has done and how many times, or for how long, the Offeror has done it. Past performance, however, measures how well the Offeror has performed.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, 00 21 00-7 context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including text of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. For this solicitation, recent projects are those completed or substantially completed (as defined above) no more than twenty (20) years before the date that proposals are due.

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the work required by the solicitation. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the table below.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

RATING DESCRIPTION

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.

In assessing the relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance, the Government will consider the following:

To what extent the projects were performed in a similar exposed marine environment (work performed along an ocean coast), such as projects performed along the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, British Columbia) coast.

To what extent the projects involved similar extension into the ocean;

To what extent the projects required the use of cranes and/or excavators in a similar exposed marine environment;

To what extent the projects involved placement of similar sized stone or material that will be required under the solicited project.

To what extent the projects involved the procurement and delivery of a similar amount (in tons) of stone or material placed.

To what extent the projects involved a similar equipment reach for placement of similar sized stone or material.

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.

The third aspect of the past performance is to determine how well the Offeror performed on its past performance projects. If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type and severity of the problems and effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

00 21 00-8

Based on a consideration of those three aspects for each project, the Government will assign a final Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for this factor. The Government will review the past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the table below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

RATING DESCRIPTION

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

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

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

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and therefore will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

FACTOR 3 (TAB 3) – Work Plan and Schedule

Submission Requirements:

The purpose of the work plan narrative and corresponding schedule is to determine if the Offeror has a clear understanding of the scope of work for the project and a viable approach for executing the project at this specific location.

The Offeror must submit a work plan narrative, not to exceed 20 single-sided pages, and corresponding Gantt chart schedule that demonstrates how the Offeror intends to resource and execute stone procurement, delivery, staging and placement activities along the entire length of the jetty including the root, trunk, spurs, and terminus.

The Offeror’s work plan narrative must discuss the overall plan to rehabilitate the south jetty, from mobilization through project completion. The schedule and work plan narrative shall be mutually supporting.

At a minimum the Offeror shall submit the following:

1) Schedule – The Offeror’s proposed schedule for stone procurement, stone delivery, and stone placement over the contract period of performance.

2) Work Plan – A narrative explaining the Offeror’s stone (a) Procurement and Delivery Plan; and (b) Placement Plan.

00 21 00-9

(a) Procurement and Delivery Plan – The Procurement and Delivery Plan must include the following:

Identification of primary and contingent stone sources with anticipated quantities and classifications from each source.

The significant constraints to stone procurement and how the Offeror plans to manage the associated risks within those constraints.

The Offeror’s stone delivery plan, including the significant constraints to stone delivery and how the Offeror plans to manage the associated risks within those constraints.

(b) Placement Plan – The Placement Plan must include the following:

The Offeror’s plan for stone placement activities, including access and work site areas along the entire length of the jetty (including the root, trunk, terminus, and spur groins);

Anticipated challenges and risks associated with placement activities for the project, and mitigation activities the Offeror would take to overcome those challenges and risks in order to ensure completion of the project as specified.

Anticipated annual stone placement rates, with a discussion of reasons for variances in placement rates along the jetty.

Stone placement sequencing and subsequent jetty stationing anticipated to be completed during each year.

Identification of the specific stone placing equipment proposed to be utilized along the entire length of the jetty including the root, trunk and terminus, and why it is appropriate given the Offeror’s placement plan.

Discussion of equipment, methods, and timing for below water placement as well as above water placement along the construction reaches.

Evaluation Method The Government will rate this factor using the combined technical/risk rating as follows:

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

00 21 00-10

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DESCRIPTION

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Proposals under this factor will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the project scope and the unique challenges of executing the project at this specific location, and its vision for what is necessary to successfully complete the project in accordance with the solicitation.

1) Schedule – The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s schedule for congruency with the work plan, the logic of work task sequencing, and whether the schedule meets the time constraints of the solicitation.

2) Work Plan

(a) Procurement and Delivery Plan – The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Procurement and Delivery Plan for how well it demonstrates an understanding of the stone procurement requirements and the unique challenges and risks associated with stone procurement and delivery to the site. When evaluating for strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following:

The likely impacts and risks to public safety and tourism based on the Offeror’s stone delivery plan, given the constraints identified for access to Fort Stevens State Park and current conditions of the park access road (Jetty Road). In general, barging of stone will be considered to have less negative impacts than delivery of stone by truck.

The reasonableness of:

1) The Offeror’s planned approach to procure the stone in the time required, to include the

Offeror’s plan to address risks.

2) The Offeror’s plan to ensure delivery of the required stone throughout the period of performance and the Offeror’s plan to address risk.

(b) Placement Plan – The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Placement Plan for how well it demonstrates an understanding of the placement requirements and the unique challenges and risks associated with stone placement at the site. When evaluating for strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following:

Whether the Offeror has a thorough plan for the stone placement activities, to include a sound plan for site access.

00 21 00-11

Whether the Offeror has anticipated the likely challenges and risks associated with stone placement, and whether the Offeror has developed a comprehensive and logical plan to deal with those challenges and risk.

The reasonableness of:

1) The activities proposed to mitigate the identified risks;

2) The annual placement rates given the Offeror’s proposed sequencing and understanding of reasons for variances along the jetty; and

3) The proposed equipment to place stone along the jetty with the noted placement activities along the jetty.

FACTOR 4 (TAB 4) – Small Business Participation

The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate the amount of work proposed to be performed by small businesses in relation to the total value of the project, as well as the types of work small businesses will be performing and the extent of commitment in using the identified small business firms.

NOTE: Per 13 C.F.R. § 125.3(g)(3), small business Offerors need not submit any information in connection with this factor and shall receive the maximum rating under this evaluation factor.

Submission Requirements:

Other than small business Offerors shall submit the following:

1) Small Business Participation Plan – Complete and submit Attachment A3, Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP), to identify the extent to which small businesses will participate in the performance of the proposed acquisition.

A mandatory minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of 4% of the total contract value (through small business participation from small-, small disadvantaged-, HUB Zone-, Service Disabled Vet-, Vet-, or Woman-owned small businesses) is required based on the nature of the work for this project.

2) Small Business Past Performance – Submit past performance information reflecting the Offeror’s small business participation for each project listed by the Offeror under Factor 1, Past Experience.

For each project submitted under Factor 1, Past Experience, submit the following:

(a) Name of the project;

(b) Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract value self-performed;

(c) Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract value subcontracted;

(d) Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract value subcontracted to small businesses;

(e) Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract value subcontracted to other than small businesses.

In addition to the above project submission information, the Government reserves the right to review Offerors Individual Subcontract Reports (ISRs) and Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) from the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS).

Evaluation Method:

Other than small business Offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation by U.S. small businesses in the performance of this project relative to the objectives and goals established herein, as

00 21 00-12 well as Offerors’ past performance complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Other than small business Offerors will be rated using the small business rating method table below.

NOTE: In accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 125.3(g)(3), small business Offerors shall receive the maximum rating under this evaluation factor without having to submit any information in connection with this factor.

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following:

The extent of the Offeror’s proposed participation of small businesses in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition expressed in both percentage and dollar value.

The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the mandatory minimum small business goal and the suggested socioeconomic category goals. These goals are a percentage of the total value of the acquisition.

o A mandatory minimum total small business participation goal of 4% of the total contract value is assigned to this acquisition.

o In addition to the mandatory small business goal, the following goals are suggested for the individual socioeconomic categories and determined to be reasonable based on market research for this requirement. Goals are based on % of TOTAL contract value:

{0.25%}…