Solicitation W9127N20R0019 - TDA Gate Repair Pit Upgrades.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

W9127N20R0019

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM

KLICKITAT COUNTY, WA

THE DALLES GATE REPAIR PIT

PROJECT MANUAL

TOC-1

THE DALLES GATE REPAIR PIT

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM

KLICKITAT COUNTY, WA

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 70 00 CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT

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: Hazardous Energy Control Program

A6: Oregon Wage Rates

A7: Test America Lab Report

A8: Informational Photos and Sketches

This acquisition is for a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Design-Build (DB) construction project entitled “The Dalles Lock and Dam Gate Repair Pit Upgrades” located at The Dalles Lock and Dam, Klickitat County, Washington. This project w ill be aw arded using the Best Value Trade Off (BVTO) source selection process (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15) and the tw o-phase DB selection procedures (FAR 36.3).

This acquisition is a total small business set-aside.

NAICS Code: 237990 FSC: Z2KA Small Business Size Standard: $39.5M

MAGNITUDE OF CONSTRUCTION: Betw een $3,000,000 and $7,000,000

JORDAN M QUANTOCK (503) 808-4627

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

13-Feb-2020

(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 _________________________FAR 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 __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________16 Mar 2020 (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 of fers 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

02:00 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:

W9127N20R0019 52

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

Mobilization/Demobilization

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

Design Gate Repair Pit

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

Demolition

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

00 10 00-3

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

Structural

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

Mechanical

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

Electrical

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

00 10 00-4

Section 00 20 00 - Instructions for Procurement

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCUREMENT

This acquisition is a total small business set-aside, and is therefore, open to all small business concerns. Other than small businesses are not eligible to compete on this acquisition.

Proposals will be evaluated utilizing the Best Value Trade-Off Source Selection Procedures n FAR Part 15 and Two-Phase Design-Build procedures in FAR Subpart 36.3. The NAICS Code for this acquisition is 237990, Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. The PSC Code is Z2KA, Repair or Alteration of Dams. The small business size standard is $39.5 million.

The Phase One solicitation will contain the Phase One evaluation factors based on the Summary of Work (SOW).

The Phase One evaluation of proposals will be used only for the selection of the most highly qualified offerors and to determine which offerors will submit proposals for Phase Two. Up to five (5) of the most highly qualified firms will be selected to submit Phase Two proposals. Upon the conclusion of Phase One, the solicitation will be amended to include the Phase Two evaluation factors and the SOW for the project. The Government intends to award one 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.

00 20 00-1

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PHASE ONE

1.0 CONTRACT DESCRIPTION

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

3.0 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS AND EVALUATION

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

5.0 BIDDER INQUIRY INFORMATION

1.0 CONTRACT DESCRIPTION

A. This acquisition will be a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Design-Build (DB) construction contract. Award will be made using the Best Value Trade Off (BVTO) source selection process (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15) and DB procedures (FAR 36.3). This acquisition is a 100% total small business set aside.

One (1) contract will be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous and results in the best value to the Government.

B. The NAICS Code is 237990 and the Small Business Size Standard is $39.5 million.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

A. General.

(1) This acquisition is a small business set-aside competitive acquisition in which the Government will use Two Phase Design-Build source selection procedures for award of a FFP contract. The Government intends to award a single, FFP contract at the conclusion of Phase Two evaluations 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 acquisition, “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 Phase Two 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 shall 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

00 20 00-2 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.

B. Evaluation Factors.

The Government will evaluate proposals under the following factors:

Phase One – Volume I Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Technical Approach

All evaluation factors for Phase One are of approximately equal importance. Phase One ratings will not carry over to Phase Two evaluations.

Phase Two – Volume II Factor 1 – Conceptual Design Factor 2 – Work Plan

Phase Two – Volume III Factor 3 – Price

All evaluation factors for Phase Two, other than price, are of approximately equal importance. All evaluation factors for Phase Two, other than price, when combined, are approximately equal to 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.

3.0 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 the Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442) or most recently issued Amendment of Solicitation (SF 30) as applicable.

(1) General Proposal Format. The proposal shall be in electronic Portable Document Format, filename extension “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader except for Excel spreadsheets which shall also be submitted in Microsoft Excel 2013 format. Offerors shall bookmark and label each electronic PDF to afford easy identification from the proposal table of contents.

00 20 00-3

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.

Table of Contents. Each proposal shall contain a detailed and complete table of contents.

Submissions. PDF pages containing text shall be 8 ½ x 11 inches with at least one-inch margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Paragraphs shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard 11-point font in either Arial or Times New Roman is required. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

Organization charts or schedules. An 11” x 17” PDF format may be used. Larger format drawings or tables may also be used.

All information must be confined to the appropriate volume. 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.

(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 three separate volumes as set forth below:

Phase One – Volume I – Technical Proposal Phase Two – Volume II – Technical Proposal Phase Two – Volume III – Price Proposal

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 proposals (Volume I and Volume II) must NOT contain reference to price. The narrative and content structure of the proposals shall follow the format shown under Phase One Volume I and Phase Two Volumes II and III below. Offerors that fail to submit a complete proposal may be excluded and thus receive no further consideration for award.

(1) Phase One – Volume I – Technical Proposal: Volume I shall consist of information for the five (5) sections, 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.

Section 1: Solicitation, Offer, and Award (SF 1442)

00 20 00-4

Section 2: Representations and Certifications Section 3: Factor 1 – Experience Section 4: Factor 2 – Past Performance Section 5: Factor 3 – Technical Approach

(2) Phase Two – Volume II – Technical Proposal: Volume II shall consist of information for the two

(2) sections, 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.

Section 1: Factor 1 – Conceptual Design Section 2: Factor 2 – Work Plan

(3) Phase Two – Volume III – Price Proposal: Volume III shall consist of a complete and detailed Price

Proposal on the form provided in the Phase Two Solicitation. Provide pricing and complete all line items in the Schedule of Items (Price Schedule). The Price Proposal must include the following four

(4) sections, listed in tabular form, as noted below:

Section 1: Amendment of Solicitation (SF 30) Section 2: Banking and Bonding Points of Contact Section 3: Bid/Offer Guarantee Section 4: Factor 3 – Price

C. Submission of Proposals: To avoid rejection of an offer, the offeror must make every effort to ensure its electronic submission is virus-free. Proposals, or portions thereof, submitted with the presence of a virus or which are otherwise unreadable will be treated as unreadable pursuant to FAR 15.207(c).

Proposals are due via email to the following individuals by no later than the time specificed and date established in Block 13 of the SF 1442 or Block 14 of the SF 30 as applicable:

Jordan M. Quantock, Contract Specialist – CECT-NWP-C jordan.m.quantock@usace.army.mil

Ryan S. Shoemaker, Contracting Officer – CECT-NWP-C ryan.s.shoemaker2@usace.army.mil

Each email shall contain the following information:

Solicitation No. W9127N20R0019 Proposal Due Date:

Number and date of each amendment received:

Proposal Validity Date: (120 days from proposal due date)

Proposals received after the date and time stated will be considered late and will not be considered for award. There will not be a public proposal opening.

Offerors should enter a description for every file submitted. For files over 20 megabytes (MB) the offeror shall break the file into smaller files sent via separate emails with each email marked to identify which number the email is relative to the total number of emails submitted (i.e., email one of four). Once all of the emails submitted have been received the Government will confirm receipt of the emails via responsive email. If an offeror submits multiple proposals the Government will only consider the last proposal received prior to the proposal due date and time.

The electronic proposal shall be in Portable Document Format, file name extension “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Excel spreadsheets shall also be submitted in Microsoft Excel 2013 format.

00 20 00-5

Offerors shall bookmark and label each PDF document to afford easy identification from the proposal table of contents.

Do not assume submission will be instantaneous. File size and number of files to be uploaded should be factors to consider. Offeror/Teammate/Subcontractors should allow adequate time for submission completion because the entire proposal (i.e. offeror’s submission and all teammate’s/subcontractor(‘s) independent submissions) must be received by the time and date specified in Block 13 of the SF 1442 or Block 14 of the most recent SF 30 as applicable.

To avoid rejection of a proposal, the offeror must make every effort to ensure its electronic submission is virus-free. Proposals, or portions thereof, submitted with the presence of a virus or which are otherwise unreadable will be treated as unreadable pursuant to FAR 15.207(c).

The requirement that an original and copy(ies) of proposals be submitted as found in Block 13A of the SF1442 is satisfied through the electronic submission. Additionally, electronic submission of the Bid Guarantee is due with the proposal (mailing a Bid Guarantee is not allowed).

4.0 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION FACTORS

PHASE ONE – VOLUME I – TECHNICAL (NON-PRICE) PROPOSAL

Section 1: SF 1442

Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Blocks 14-20c of the SF 1442, including acknowledgment of all amendments, if any, signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company.

Section 2: Completed Representations and Certifications

The offeror shall submit completed Representations and Certifications as well as a completed Corporate Certificate/Authority to Bind Partnership (see Section 00 45 00 of the solicitation):

If the offeror is a corporation, submit a completed Corporate Certificate If the offeror is a partnership, submit a completed Authority to Bind Partnership and provide a copy of the Partnership Agreement If the offeror is a joint venture, submit a completed Corporate Certificate for each member of the joint venture and provide a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement

The offeror shall also ensure current registration and completed/updated Annual Representations and Certifications on the System for Award Management (SAM) website (https://beta.sam.gov/).

Section 3: Factor 1 – Experience

The offeror shall submit information for no more than three projects completed or substantially completed no more than ten (10) years before the proposal due date, which projects demonstrate the offeror’s experience with projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work required by this solicitation.

Information submitted under Factor 1, Experience, shall not exceed six (6) pages, including graphics the offer chooses to include.

00 20 00-6

At a minimum, at least one of the projects submitted must demonstrate the past experience of the proposed Designer of Record and at least one of the projects submitted must demonstrate the past experience of the prime offeror. If the prime offeror will also be the Designer of Record, one project may be submitted in order to meet both of these minimum submission requirements.

To be evaluated, each project must have been completed or must be substantially complete within ten (10) years of the date that proposals are due. Substantially complete is defined as being 75% complete by the date that proposal are due. If an offeror submits a project that it represents is “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the Government should consider the project which is “substantially 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. It is the obligation of the Offeror to describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess each project against the evaluation criteria outlined below.

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.

Instructions on the use of subcontractors to demonstrate experience: Of the maximum of three projects submitted, offerors may submit up to two (2) projects completed or substantially completed by its proposed subcontractor(s). If the offeror submits experience of a proposed subcontractor, the offeror must clearly indicate the role the subcontractor is proposed to perform on the solicited project and submit a letter of commitment, signed by both the prime and subcontractor. If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered.

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

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.

00 20 00-7

TECHNICAL RISK RATING

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.

The Government will evaluate contractor experience as it relates to the scope of the project described in the solicitation. In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following:

The similarity of the projects submitted in comparison to the solicited project, in terms of size, scope, and complexity.

The extent of the prime offeror’s experience with the design-build delivery method.

The extent to which the projects include design and/or construction of multiple level open space warehouses with suspended/elevated walkways, HVAC and mechanical systems, and/or electrical systems.

Section 4: Factor 2 – Past Performance

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 B. 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 points of contact, Jordan M. Quantock, via email at jordan.m.quantock@usace.army.mil and Ryan S. Shoemaker, via email at ryan.s.shoemaker2@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.

00 20 00-8

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, 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 or substantially completed (as defined above) within ten (10) years of 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:

00 20 00-9

The similarity of the project submitted in comparison to the solicited project, in terms of size, scope, and complexity.

Whether the project was completed using the design-build delivery method.

The extent to which the project included design and/or construction of multiple level open space warehouses with suspended/elevated walkways, HVAC and mechanical systems, and/or electrical systems.

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.

Section 5: Factor 3 – Technical Approach

The offeror shall submit the offeror’s technical approach to performing the required work as outlined in the solicitation. The information submitted under this factor shall not exceed five (5) pages.

The Technical Approach should not include detailed technical or design information. The purpose of the Technical Approach is to determine if the offeror has a clear understanding of the scope of work and the design-build process.

Address the following areas in your technical approach, to include any risks and the proposed approach for isk mitigation:

00 20 00-10

Organization o Describe the roles and lines of authority of the prime contractor and any anticipated subcontractors during both the design and construction phases of work.

Communication and Coordination o Describe your communication and coordination approach within the design-build team, including subcontractors, and with the Government during the design and construction phases.

o Describe your approach to facilitating design and construction submittal reviews.

o Describe in detail the Designer of Record’s involvement throughout the entire project period.

Quality Control o Describe your approach for quality control for both design and construction. Include the following: quality control organization; review of design; verification of construction materials; construction inspection; permit compliance; project documentation.

Schedule Management o Describe your approach for meeting the Government’s schedule to include the 30%, 60%, and 90% design reviews.

o Describe your approach for scheduling procurement of materials within the solicitation schedule.

o Describe your approach to phasing construction milestones including mobilization, demobilization, painting, construction of stairs, construction of extendable platforms, mechanical and electrical work.

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

TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

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.

00 20 00-11

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

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following when evaluating the offeror’s Technical Approach:

Whether the offeror’s Technical Approach demonstrates a clear understanding of this requirement including clarity of approach for the offeror’s o Organization o Communication and Coordination o Quality Control o Schedule Management

The extent to which the offeror understands the likely risks associated with the solicited project and has a feasible plan for mitigating those risks.

Organization o The extent to which the offeror’s lines of authority demonstrate a productive approach and clear understanding of the design-build process.

Communication and Coordination o The extent to which the offeror’s communication and coordination approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the interrelationship between the offeror and the Government throughout the contract lifecycle.

o The extent to which the offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the typical facilitation of design and construction submittal procedures and reviews for a design-build project as described in Specification Sections 01 33 00 Submittal Procedures.

o The extent to which the offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the Designer of Record’s involvement throughout the entire project period.

Quality Control o The extent to which the offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of a quality control organization during both design and construction.

o The extent to which the offeror’s approach demonstrates a clear understanding of design and construction quality management as described in Specification Sections 01 33 16.00 25 Design-Build: Design After Award and 01 45 00.00 25 Quality Control.

Schedule Management o The feasibility of the offeror’s approach to:

Meeting the Government’s schedule to include the 30%, 60%, and 90% design reviews;

Ensuring timely procurement of materials; and

00 20 00-12

Phasing construction milestones including mobilization, demobilization, painting, construction of stairs, construction of extendable platforms, mechanical and electrical work.

PHASE TWO – VOLUME II – TECHNICAL (NON-PRICE) PROPOSAL

Section 1: Factor 1 – Conceptual Design

This information will be provided during Phase Two.

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

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

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following when evaluating the offeror’s Conceptual Design:

Sketches/drawings:

00 20 00-13

The level of understanding of solicitation specifications shown through the proposed conceptual design.

The functionality, usability, and maintenance of the extendable platforms based on the proposed conceptual design.

Section 2: Factor 2 – Work Plan

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

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

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

The extent to which the offeror’s Work Plan demonstrates a feasible and well thought out approach to completing the design and construction portion of the offerors conceptual design.

00 20 00-14

The extent to which the offeror’s Work Plan demonstrates an understanding of the requirements by identifying challenges and site constraints and appropriate mitigation measures.

PHASE TWO – VOLUME III – PRICE PROPOSAL

Section 1: SF 30

Section 2: Banking and Bonding Points of Contact

Submission Requirements

Section 3: Bid/Offer Guarantee

Submission Requirements

Section 4: Factor 3 – Price

The Price Schedule will be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness.

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.

5.0 BIDDER INQUIRY INFORMATION

BIDDER INQUIRIES

All inquiries regarding this solicitation are to be submitted via ProjNet-Bid. Telephone and email inquiries will not be accepted. ProjNet-Bid is a web-based program that allows offerors to post questions regarding the solicitation, and to view all questions by other offerors, and answers by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

ProjNet-Bid can be accessed through the ProjNet website: https://www.projnet.org/projnet/.

To access the ProjNet-Bid website the first time:

1) Register

2) Click Quick Add Key (the agency is USACE).

00 20 00-15

3) Enter the following information for access:

The Bidder Inquiry Key is G23UJ3-738YUC

Valid business contact information (e.g. Company name, contact person, business address, phone number and email address) (required for first project only).

Establish secret question and answer which will be used as a password (required for first project only).

4) For subsequent access to the ProjNet-Bid Module 00100 use your email address, the Bid Inquiry Key, and respond to the secret question.

5) Submit questions or review questions and answers. A bidder who submits a question will receive an automated email notification that their question has been received. When an answer is posted to a question, the question and answer are then available for all other bidders to review.

6) A specific step-by-step set of instruction for POSTING YOUR INQUIRIES is available in the Reference link on the Contract Viewer.

7) For questions about the ProjNet-Bid, please contact the Call Center help desk. The contact information is listed on the ProjNet website.

No response will be posted to inquiries after the Close of Business on the seventh business day preceding the solicitation due date. All bidders will be held to have reviewed the questions and responses in ProjNet- Bid prior to bid submission. Any information given to an Offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.204-7 System for Award Management OCT 2018 52.204-16 Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting JUL 2016 52.204-22 Alternative Line Item Proposal JAN 2017 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition JAN 2017

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984)

The Government contemplates award of a firm-fixed-price design-build construction contract resulting from this solicitation.

(End of provision)

52.222-5 CONSTRUCTION WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS--SECONDARY SITE OF THE WORK (MAY

2014)

00 20 00-16

(a)(1) The offeror shall notify the Government if the offeror intends to perform work at any secondary site of the work, as defined in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of the FAR clause at 52.222-6, Construction Wage Rate Requirements,of this solicitation.

(2) If the offeror is unsure if a planned work site satisfies the criteria for a secondary site of the work, the offeror shall request a determination from the Contracting Officer.

(b)(1) If the wage determination provided by the Government for work at the primary site of the work is not applicable to the secondary site of the work, the offeror shall request a wage determination from the Contracting Officer.

(2) The due date for receipt of offers will not be extended as a result of an offeror's request for a wage determination for a secondary site of the work.

52.222-23 NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO ENSURE EQUAL

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSTRUCTION (FEB 1999)

(a) The offeror's attention is called to the Equal Opportunity clause and the Affirmative Action Compliance Requirements for Construction clause of this solicitation.

(b) The goals for minority and female participation, expressed in percentage terms for the Contractor's aggregate workforce in each trade on all construction work in the covered area, are as follows:

Goals for minority participation for each trade

Goals for female participation for each trade

2.9% (Klickitat County) 6.9%

These goals are applicable to all the Contractor's construction work performed in the covered area.