A.07.24_Solicitation_Amendment_0002.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

As an amendment to the solicitation, the follow ing changes are made:

1. Section 00 21 00 Basis for Aw ard, Number 3. Evaluation Factors, Factor 1 (Tab 1) Experience, Submission Requirements is modified as follow s:

a. The $300,000 or greater project size requirement for project submittals is deleted.

b. Reference to "experience" is changed to "project."

See Continuation Page for updated Basis of Aw ard section.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Jan-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 W9127N19R0012

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Dec-2018

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

15-Jan-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:

W9127N19R0012

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR AWARD.

A. General.

(1) This solicitation is Total Small Business Set-Aside. The Government intends to award a single, firm-fixed price construction contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the evaluation factors in the solicitation. Offerors shall submit a technical proposal, and a price proposal. The evaluation results of the non-price and price proposals will determine an awardee. All evaluation factors other than price are of approximately equal importance. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

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

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

(4) Information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether an affiliated company, major subcontractor, or other associated business, may not be given much weight unless the proposal contains evidence that the Offeror has obtained a written commitment from this other business entity to perform a portion of the work.

(5) 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. Elaborate proposals, color brochures, and other excesses are discouraged.

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

(7) The Government recognizes that completion of a project is often a team effort. Thus, offerors are required to submit experience and past performance information for any major subcontractor proposed to be used to help demonstrate that the team they select to perform this project has a complete record of experience and past performance. Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii). In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

(8) 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. The offeror’s technical proposal will be incorporated into the awarded contract.

B. Evaluation Ratings.

All non-price factors other than past performance shall be rated 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.

C. Definitions.

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.

Strength- An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength- An aspect of an Offeror's 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.

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

FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness- in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

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 8½” × 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” × 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. The page count is at the discretion of the Offeror, however the proposal may not be more than 25 typewritten (single page only) pages total. The 25 page limit does NOT include past performance information submitted under Factor 2.

Evaluation of the non-priced factors will end on the 25th page submitted.

Extraneous information provided in the proposals will not be considered in the evaluations; therefore, the Offeror should only provide information that satisfies the solicitation requirements. Merely restating the specifications without sufficient elaboration demonstrates a lack of understanding of the requirement.

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

Proprietary information must be clearly marked.

B. Content of Proposals: All proposals must be prepared in two 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 who fail to submit a complete proposal may be excluded and thus receive no further consideration for award.

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

Volume I – Technical (Non-Price) Factors and Sub-factors:

Tab 1 - Factor 1 - Experience

Tab 2 - Factor 2 – Past Performance

Tab 3 - Factor 3 – Work Plan

Volume II – Price Proposal:

Price Proposal, Volume II: The Price Proposal shall be complete, detailed and submitted on forms provided in the Request for Proposal (RFP) (one (1) original and one (1) pdf. file on a CD-ROM). Offeror shall provide pricing and complete all line items on Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442).

Volume II - Price. Offeror’s price proposal must be prepared in accordance with below paragraphs and must include:

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

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

Tab 2 – Section 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 point of contacts.

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

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

Submission of Proposals: Proposals must arrive at the location designated in the RFP for receipt of such proposals prior to the time and date established in Block 13, SF 1442. There will not be a public proposal opening. In order for the proposal to be considered, it MUST be prepared in ENGLISH, and must be submitted as a hardcopy original (Volume I, and II) and three (3) copies (Volume I only) with the required electronic CD-ROM:

BY HAND OR COURIER TO:

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NWP

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

OR SURFACE MAIL ADDRESS:

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NWP

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

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

OFFEROR SHALL MARK THE OUTSIDE ENVELOPE(S) (PURSUANT TO FAR 14.201-5) AS

FOLLOWS:

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

Solicitation No. W9127N19R0012 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) – Experience

Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit information for a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of three (3) projects valued $300,000 or greater and completed or substantially completed within the past 5 years that best demonstrates the Offeror’s experience performing work similar in size, scope, and complexity to the Powerhouse Drainage Gallery Repair project required by this solicitation.

Instructions on the use of major subcontractors to fulfill the chemical grouting portion of the work: If the Offeror will not be self-performing the chemical grouting portion of the work, the Offeror must submit at least one past experience project of the subcontractor it proposes to perform the chemical grouting portion of the work as part of its Factor 1 proposal. This requirement does not change the maximum number of projects in total that the Offeror may submit under this factor (maximum of three projects in total).

“Substantially complete” is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time of proposal submission. If an offeror submits a project that it represents is “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 75% complete. If an offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 75% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project.

Information submitted for each project must include the information outlined in Attachment A, Offeror’s Experience Form.

A maximum of three (3) 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 each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how well the projects submitted meet the evaluation criteria outlined below.

Evaluation method:

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

How comparable each project is to the specific project elements required by this solicitation, to include chemical grouting in a concrete structure;

Whether projects demonstrate grout injection experience under comparable joint openings and pressures (i.e. joints or openings greater than ¼” and a minimum of 100 feet of head or 40 pounds per square inch [psi]). It is up to the offeror to provide enough detail for the Government to evaluate the pressures and flows of the submitted project;

Whether the projects involved the fabrication and installation of steel weldments to tight tolerances (Less than an 1/8 of an inch);

The breadth and depth of the offeror’s experience performing similar projects as required by this solicitation.

FACTOR 2 (TAB 2) – Past Performance

The Offeror shall provide past performance information for each project listed by the Offeror under Factor 1: Experience, including any projects performed by a major subcontractor. Relevant projects are projects valued over $300,000.00 that are comparable in size, scope, and complexity with this project, as identified in Factor 1. A recent project is defined as a project completed or substantially completed within the past 5 years.

“Substantially complete” is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time of proposal submission.

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, the offeror shall submit the CPARS evaluation with the proposal. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal if a CPARS is not available. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment B), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Joshua Fellwock, via email at Joshua.D.Fellwock@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line. The PPQs are Source Selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an e-mail confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is their responsibility to follow up to ensure the government has received the information.

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

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 (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System), 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 have 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 relevance 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. The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the work required by the RFP. The third aspect of the past performance is to determine how well the offeror performed on the recent and relevant projects.

A final Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be given for this factor based on the assessment of recent and relevant past performance information and the assessment of the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts.

With respect to relevancy, 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.

Relevancy will be determined based on how closely the Past Performance effort involved similarity of scope and magnitude of effort, dollar value, and complexities this solicitation requires.

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.

The SSEB 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, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s 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.

If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type and severity of the problems and effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

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

FACTOR 3 (TAB 3) – Work Plan

The Offeror shall submit a Work Plan that demonstrates the Offeror’s approach to performing the required work as outlined in the specifications. The Work Plan must include a Grout Injection Plan.

The Work Plan must provide, at a minimum:

A narrative detailing the challenges and site constraints that may be encountered and proposed mitigation measures to successfully complete the work.

The Grout Injection Plan must provide, at a minimum:

Whether the Offeror plans to self-perform the chemical grouting portion of the work or if the

Offeror plans to have a subcontractor perform the chemical grouting work. If a subcontractor is to be used, include the name of the proposed subcontractor.

The proposed grout product, with a data sheet including manufacturer and product number, a general description of how the product works to provide and maintain a watertight seal, and cure times for the grout product;

A description of how the proposed product is best suited for the site constraints and challenges identified by the offeror in the offeror’s overall Work Plan

Provide a narrative providing details of the grout injection sequence.

The Offeror may submit drawings, photos, or figures to further illustrate any portion of the Grout Injection Plan.

Evaluation method:

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following when evaluating the Offeror’s Work Plan:

How well the Offeror understands the scope of work, the challenges to be encountered during construction, and how the Offeror plans to mitigate those challenges;

Whether the Offeror’s proposed product will meet or exceed specification requirements, to include cure time requirements;

A detailed and descriptive, project specific, Work Plan that describes the Offeror’s approach and how the Offeror’s proposed product will work, will receive greater weight than a vague and general plan.

Volume II - Price.

Price Evaluation

For this solicitation, the non-price factors, when combined, are approximately equal to 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)