W9127N19R0007_Amd_0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Solicitation W9127N19R0007 is amended, incorporating the follow ing changes:

1. Section 00 21 00, Instructions to Offerors, 3. Evaluation Factors, Factor 2 (Tab 2) -- Experience, Submission Requirements, Past Projects of Project Superintendent, is revised as follow s: (SEE CONTINUATION PAGE.)

2. Administrative change to Section 00 21 00 Instructions to Offerors, 3. Evaluation Factors, Factor 3 (Tab3) -- Past Performance, Submission Requirements as follow s: (SEE CONTINUATION PAGE.)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Apr-2019

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 W9127N19R0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Feb-2019

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

01-Apr-2019

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:

W9127N19R0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0003

1. From:

Past Projects of Project Superintendent – An Offeror may submit past projects of the Project Superintendent it will use for this project. Project Superintendent is as defined in technical specification section 01 45 00.00 25, Paragraph 3.1.2. To be considered, the Project Superintendent must have served as the Project Superintendent on the project submitted. It is up to the Offeror to submit sufficient information establishing that the Project Superintendent served as the Project Superintendent on the project submitted.

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.

To:

Past Projects of Project Superintendent – An Offeror may submit past projects of the Project Superintendent it will use for this project. Project Superintendent is as defined in technical specification section 01 45 00.00 25, Paragraph 3.1.2. To be considered, the Project Superintendent must have served as the Project Superintendent on the project submitted. It is up to the Offeror to submit sufficient 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

Other than the Project Superintendent, who may be a subcontractor employee, the Government will not consider subcontractor experience.

2. From:

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

To:

The Offeror shall provide past performance information for each project listed by the Offeror under Factor 2 – Experience.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

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.

(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 small business offerors also must submit a subcontracting plan with their proposals. 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.

B. Evaluation Factors.

The Government will evaluate proposals under the following factors:

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

Factor 1 is more important than Factors 2 and 3, which are approximately equal in weight, and Factors 2 and 3 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 in 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 required 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.

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.

Volume I – Technical (Non-Price) Factors

Tab 1 – Factor 1 - Work Plan and Schedule

Tab 2 – Factor 2 – Experience

Tab 3 – Factor 3 – Past Performance

Tab 4 – Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

(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:

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

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

FACTOR 1 (TAB 1) – 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.

(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

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 such as impact on freeways, highways, and roads, access to Fort Stevens State Park, and 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.

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 2 (TAB 2) – Experience

The Offeror shall submit information on up to three projects completed or currently ongoing 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 A24, 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 within 20 years of the date that proposals are due, or be currently ongoing. For ongoing projects that are not yet complete, the Offeror must indicate the percentage of work completed on the project and include a detailed description of the portion of work that has been completed. The Government will only evaluate that portion of the work that has been completed and will not consider the portion of the work that is incomplete.

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 Project Superintendent – An Offeror may submit past projects of the Project Superintendent it will use for this project. Project Superintendent is as defined in technical specification section 01 45 00.00 25, Paragraph 3.1.2. To be considered, the Project Superintendent must have served as the Project Superintendent on the project submitted. It is up to the Offeror to submit sufficient 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

Other than the Project Superintendent, who may be a subcontractor employee, the Government will not consider subcontractor experience.

Evaluation Method:

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

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

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 3 (TAB 3) – Past Performance

The Offeror shall provide past performance information for each project listed by the Offeror under Factor 2 – 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 A25. 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.

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, 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, to be considered recent, each project must have been completed within 20 years of the date that proposals are due, or be currently ongoing.

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.

NOTE: For ongoing projects, the Government will only evaluate for relevancy that portion of the work that has been completed and will not consider that portion of the work that is incomplete.

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.

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 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.

Other than small business Offerors shall submit the following:

1) Small Business Participation Plan – Complete and submit Attachment A26, 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).

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 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.

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%} Small Disadvantaged Business {0.25%} Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) {0.25%} Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business {1%} Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) {0.25%} Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

The extent to which proposed small business firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified by name.

The extent of commitment to use the identified small business firms (enforceable and/or long-term commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable commitments).

The complexity and variety of the work small businesses are proposed to perform (for example:

work requiring specific certifications, i.e. welding, mechanical, electrical, manufacturing, supply, etc. to expand competitive pool).

The extent of the Offeror’s past compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, Small

Business Subcontracting Plan.

Volume II – Price

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)