W9127N21R0005 U0001.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

This amendment serves to extend the proposal due date and provide revisions to the Instructions to Proposers and Attachment C - Small Business Participation Commitment Document.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Sep-2021

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 W9127N21R0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Aug-2021

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 X is extended, 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

14-Sep-2021

CODE

USACE, PORTLAND DISTRICT

333 SW 1ST AVE

PORTLAND OR 97204

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9127N21R0005

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:

REVISIIONS TO ATTACHMENTS

Attachment C - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT which previously read;

Other than small business Offerors (large businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Commitment Document. Offerors shall propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this area. A mandatory minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of 12% of the total contract value is assigned to this acquisition.

Shall now read Other than small business Offerors (large businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Commitment Document. Offerors shall propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this area. A mandatory minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of 10% of the total contract value is assigned to this acquisition.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 27-Sep-2021 02:00 PM to 12-Oct-2021 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

(1) This solicitation will be advertised using Full and Open Competition . 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 non-price factors are approximately equal in importance. All non-price evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than 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) All proposals received will stand alone and be considered complete and final. Accordingly, proposals submitted in response to this solicitation should provide clear, complete, concise, and straightforward responses to the evaluation factors. 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. The offeror’s technical proposal will be incorporated into the awarded contract.

(4) 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 past performance of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The past performance for each joint venture partner will be considered the past performance 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).

B. Definitions.

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.

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.

5. 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. The proposal shall be in electronic Portable Document Format, filename extension “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Offerors shall bookmark and label each electronic PDF to afford easy identification from the proposal table of contents.

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.

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

Submissions. PDF pages containing text are expected to be 8 ½ x 11 inches with at least one-inch margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Paragraphs should be separated by at least one blank line. A standard 11-point font in either Arial or Times New Roman is required. 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 Technical Proposal, Volume I, 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 1. Evaluation of the non-price 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 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) electronic proposal in Portable Document Format, filename extension “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. 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:

Tab 1 – Factor 1 – Past Performance

Tab 2 – Factor 2 – Work Plan

Tab 3 – Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Plan

(2) Price Proposal, Volume II: Provide one (1) electronic proposal in Portable Document Format, filename extension “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader 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 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 are due no later than the time and date established in Block 13, SF 1442.

There will not be a public proposal opening.

Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442, or SF 30 if applicable. Proposals received after the date and time in block 13A of the solicitation will be considered late and will not be considered for award.

Offeror shall submit its proposal via email to Cory Pfenning, Cory.R.Pfenning@usace.army.mil, and Kristina Morrow, Kristina.K.Morrow@usace.army.mil. 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, each marked to identify which number the email is relative to the total number of emails submitted (i.e. “one of four”). Once all the emails submitted have been received, the Government will confirm receipt via return email.

If an offeror submits multiple proposals, the Government will only consider the last proposal submitted prior to the due date and time.

The electronic proposal shall be in Portable Document Format, filename extension: “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Offerors shall bookmark and label each electronic PDF to afford easy identification from the table of contents.

Do not assume submission will be instantaneous. File size and number of files submitted shall be considered.

Offeror/Teammate/Subcontractors should allow adequate time for submission completion because the entire proposal (i.e. offerors submission and all teammate/subcontractor(s) independent submissions) must be received by the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442, or SF 30 if applicable.

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).

The requirement that an original and copy(ies) be submitted as found in block 13A of the SF1442 is satisfied through the electronic submission. Additionally, electronic submission of the bid guarantee, when a bid guarantee is required, is due with the bid submission (mailing a bid guarantee is not allowed).

6. EVALUATION FACTORS

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

FACTOR 1 (TAB 1) – Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall submit information* for at least two and no more than four substantially complete projects that demonstrate the offeror’s experience performing projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work required by this solicitation. Each project must be completed or be substantially completed within the last ten (10) years.

“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.

A maximum of four (4) projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than four projects, only the first four 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.

Instructions on the use of subcontractor past performance: Offerors may use the past performance of subcontractors. If the offeror submits past performance of a subcontractor, the offeror must submit a letter of commitment from the subcontractor on the letterhead of the firm to be subcontracted. The letter of commitment must be signed by an authorized individual from the subcontractor that is proposed to perform the work. If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the past performance will not be considered.

*For each project, submit the following information:

Information outlined in Attachment A, Offeror Experience Form. The offeror must address all items included in Attachment A.

A completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, if a completed CPARS evaluation is available.

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's point of contact, Cory Pfenning, via email at Cory.R.Pfenning@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

o PPQs are source selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an email confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is the offeror’s responsibility to follow up to ensure the government has received the information.

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

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

In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the PPIRS (Past Performance Information Retrieval System) including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS (Commercial and Government Entity Code/Data Universal Numbering System) numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), FAPIIS (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

Evaluation Method:

The 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, recent projects are those 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:

The extent to which the offeror’s submitted projects demonstrate Large Valve Manufacturing (Large diameter butterfly valves are defined at those 78” in diameter or larger and in compliance with AWWA C516, or meeting the intent of AWWA C516.).

The extent to which the offeror’s submitted projects demonstrate HPU Manufacturing.

The extent to which the offeror’s submitted projects demonstrate work experience in confined space areas.

The extent to which the offeror’s submitted projects demonstrate Control Panel Fabrication The extent to which the offeror’s submitted projects demonstrate the following type of installation:

industrial piping component installation (4 feet in diameter or larger), HPU installation and component connection that also include the use of a bank of accumulators, and electrical wiring installation.

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 may receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

FACTOR 2 (TAB 2) – 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, at a minimum:

Gantt Chart: Submit a project schedule in Gantt chart format using the critical path method (MS

Project or Primavera software). Provide enough detail and tasks to adequately cover the scope of the project and the activities required to successfully complete the project as required by the solicitation.

Include the following:

1. All applicable phases of work, to include design, fabrication, shop testing, delivery, disassembly, installation, reassembly, and on-site testing/commissioning.

2. All major milestones, to include major component delivery completion, disassembly start date, acquisition of long lead items, installation complete, reassembly complete, and on-site testing completion (The maximum allowable schedule must meet the stated schedule requirements specified in the Contract Clause 52.211-10, Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work).

3. Sufficient time for all Government reviews.

Work Plan Narrative: Provide a detailed narrative for how the offer plans to execute the work, with at a minimum, the following addressed:

1. How the offeror plans to successfully complete the following project phases: Inspection, disassembly, procurement, fabrication, factory testing, installation, and on-site testing of all major features of work.

2. Likely challenges and constraints to be encountered (e.g., site restrictions, access limitations and availability, restricted resources) and the offeror’s plan to deal with those challenges and constraints.

3. Description of any major equipment required and how the offeror will procure and use that equipment onsite.

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.

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

How realistic the offeror’s schedule durations are considering the scope of work and the offeror’s stated plan for each work phase;

The extent to which the offeror understands the scope of work and how to accomplish each project phase;

The extent to which the offeror understands the challenges to be encountered during construction, such as schedule constraints, site constraints, and logistics related to long lead items/equipment;

and

The extent to which the offeror has a logical and well-thought out plan for dealing with challenges to be encountered during construction, to include maximizing flexibility to deal with unexpected problems.

A detailed and descriptive, project-specific Work Plan that describes the offeror’s approach with a supporting Gantt chart reinforcing a realistic schedule will receive greater weight than a vague and general plan.

FACTOR 3 – Small Business Participation Plan

a. 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 (particularly major project phases – design, manufacturing, installation/testing, and demolition/removal).

b. 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.

c. 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.

Other than small business Offerors shall submit the following:

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

Participation Plan (SBPP), to identify the extent to which small businesses will participate in the performance of the proposed acquisition.

2) A mandatory minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of 10% 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.

3) 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 Performance. For each project submitted under Factor 1, Past Performance, 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, and

(f) If the project was performed for a Federal agency, all Individual Subcontract Reports

(ISRs) and Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) from the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) for the project.

4) In addition to the above project submission information, the Government reserves the right to review Offerors ISRs and SSRs from the eSRS.

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

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

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

i. 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.

ii. 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.

A mandatory minimum total small business participation goal of 10% of the total contract value is assigned to this acquisition.

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:

{1%} Small Disadvantaged Business {1%} Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) {0.5%} Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business {1%} Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) {0.5%} Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

iii. The extent to which proposed small business firms, are specifically identified by name

(DFARS 215.304(c)(1)(C)).

iv. 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).

v. 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 - particularly major project phases – design, manufacturing, installation/testing, and demolition/removal).

vi. The extent of the Offeror’s past compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (eSRS and CPARS evaluations).

Volume II - Price.

Price Evaluation

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)