B.08 7N23R0007 TDA Lamprey Amendment 1.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

See the block 14 continuation page for the purpose of this amendment.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-May-2023

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 W9127N23R0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Apr-2023

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

04-May-2023

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:

W9127N23R0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 1

The purpose of this amendment is to revise the Welder certification requirement under Factor 2 in the Basis of Award from:

Welder certification: Provide the AWS D1.1 welding certification for all welders as specified or describe your plan to obtain the necessary welding certifications prior to commencement of welding.

To: Welder certification: Provide the AWS D1.1 and D1.2 welding certifications for all welders as specified or describe your plan to obtain the necessary welding certifications prior to commencement of welding.

Additions highlighted.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

A. General

(1) This is a total small business set-aside competitive acquisition using Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) source selection procedures. 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 technical and price proposals will determine an awardee. All non-price factors are approximately equal in importance. All technical evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest-priced offer or to reject all offers.

(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. If discussions are conducted, the Procuring Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). 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. The Government 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.

(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 alliances,” 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).

Affiliate companies, sister companies, teaming arrangements, joint venture agreement, etc., will be considered provided that sufficient documentation is included in the proposal. The primary offering entity must demonstrate that the affiliate will perform significant and critical aspects of the contract if awarded. Documentation includes a copy of the signed arrangement such as documented affiliation, a copy of the teaming agreement, a copy of the joint venture agreement, etc.

If subcontractor experience is submitted for consideration as part of the proposal, the offeror should include a commitment signed by offeror and subcontractor certifying that if a contract is awarded resulting from the proposal, the parties commit to joint performance as proposed. If the signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

The Government recognizes that completion of a project is often a team effort. Thus, offerors may submit 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 past performance. Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), a “major subcontractor” is a subcontractor that the offeror proposes to perform 25% or more of the work required under the solicitation.

(5) 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.

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: The proposal shall be in electronic Portable Document Format (PDF), 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, unique entity identifier (UEI) generated by SAM.gov, 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 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 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) and 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 electronic proposal in Portable Document Format, filename extension “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Volume I shall consist of information for both 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) Factor:

Tab 1 – Factor 1 – Past Performance Tab 2 – Factor 2 – Work Plan

(2) Price Proposal, Volume II: Provide one 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 legally bind the company. The offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 (SF 30) or Block 19 of the SF1442.

Tab 2 – Section 00 10 00, Proposal Price:

The offeror shall fully complete this section legibly.

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 at 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 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/offered 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:

Aragon Liebzeit, Aragon.N.Liebzeit@usace.army.mil; and Clinton Jacobsen, Clinton.M.Jacobsen@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.

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).

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

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 significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror's proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty: is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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

See FAR 15.001.

FACTOR 1 (TAB 1) – Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall submit information for three complete or substantially complete projects that demonstrate the offeror’s past performance performing projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work required by this solicitation. Each project must be completed or be substantially completed not more than ten (10) years before the solicitation issue date.

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

For each project submitted, the offeror shall provide:

Project description and information using the information outlined in Attachment A, Offeror’s

Experience Form. The offeror must address all items included on Attachment A (no more than two (2) pages per project). The “Offeror Experience Form” may also be used for major subcontractor experience.

Instructions on the use of major subcontractor experience: Offerors may use the experience of major subcontractors to demonstrate experience. A “major subcontractor” is a subcontractor that the offeror proposes to perform 25% or more of the work required under the solicitation. If the offeror submits experience of a major 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 individual with the authority to legally bind the firm from the offeror and from the subcontractor that proposed to perform the work. If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered.

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 Form PPQ-0 in Attachment B.

o 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 shall be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Aragon Liebzeit, via email at Aragon.N.Liebzeit@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offeror 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.

o 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.

o 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 CPARS, using all UEI, Commercial and Government Entity Code (CAGE), and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, major subcontractor, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 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.

Past performance information retrieved through PPIRS, CPARS, or other sources are not subject to the same evaluation criteria but will instead be reviewed for recent negative performance, trends of negative performance, and any other performance information that may negatively impact the offeror’s Confidence rating.

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.

Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects, whether the project was submitted by the offeror or is a project that the offeror did not submit but for which there is a CPARS evaluation, and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

A firm will not receive credit under this factor for past performance of key personnel proposed for this project. An offeror may receive credit for relevant experience under a previous business arrangement (ex.

joint venture) if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the submitted project is relevant to their proposed role on this project. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm of the joint venture shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this requirement. Clearly identify the role and responsibilities of each joint venture partner. Offerors who submit experience information of a parent, sister or other affiliated company must describe what involvement such company will have on the instant acquisition. The offeror shall provide a one (1) page narrative that clearly and specifically indicates what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will be provided or relied upon for contract performance. The Government may discount the experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company unless the prime contractor clearly provides evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the parent, sister or other affiliated company or provides a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter including the following:

1. A statement of commitment as to the performance and utilization of the identified entity’s resources on the project.

2. Signatures by individuals with the authority to legally bind their firm by both the Offeror and

Meaningful Relationship Entity.

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 the technical proposal.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying construction services that meet the contract requirements. The evaluation method that the Government will use with respect to Factor 1 – Past Performance is detailed below.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context 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 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 this solicitation. The projects will include those submitted as well as from other sources described above. This relevancy rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing the overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor.

With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

ADJECTIVAL

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 extent to which the offeror’s submitted projects involved the following:

1. Structural modifications-adding new structural elements to an existing dam:

a) Fabrication and installation of aluminum flume and trap box.

b) Installation of a concrete pad and safety bollards for the trap box.

c) Installation of a new water supply piping system from an auxiliary penstock.

d) Fabrication and installation of guide slot cover plates mounted on the existing fish ladder entrance weirs.

Dam means a concrete or metal structure built on a river to hold back water.

2. Safety and risk mitigation in a confined space, meaning a space that has limited or restricted means for entry or exit such that the entrant’s ability to escape in an emergency would be hindered and is a space not designed for continuous worker occupancy.

a) Using cranes to stage materials into a confined space work area.

b) Using man baskets to get personnel in and out of a confined space work area.

3. Schedule:

a) Meeting schedule requirements while working outside during Winter conditions

(December to March).

b) Meeting schedule requirements in a limited in-water work window, meaning a limited work timeframe at a dam that is established to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife species and their habitats.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation, quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information), 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 METHOD

ADJECTIVAL 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 whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may receive a Neutral Confidence rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). The SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

FACTOR 2 (TAB 2) – Work Plan

Submit a Work Plan that demonstrates the offeror’s approach to performing the required work as detailed in the specifications.

The Work Plan must include:

1. Narrative:

a. Submit a narrative including:

i. Discussion of the means, methods, equipment, and sequence of work, meeting the schedule (including Government submittal reviews and long lead items).

ii. Discussion of the challenges and site constraints that may be encountered during construction.

iii. Description of the proposed mitigation measures for the identified challenges and

iv. Description of the constraints to successfully complete the required major features of work described below.

v. Provide the name(s) of the proposed subcontractor(s) that will perform the major features of work that will not be completed by the prime offeror.

The narrative shall not exceed 3 pages.

Major features of work include:

a) Fabrication and installation of aluminum flume and trap box.

b) Installation of a concrete pad and safety bollards for the trap box.

c) Installation of a new water supply piping system from an auxiliary penstock.

d) Fabrication and installation of guide slot cover plates mounted on the existing fish ladder entrance weirs.

2. Welder certification: Provide the AWS D1.1 and D1.2 welding certifications for all welders as specified or describe your plan to obtain the necessary welding certifications prior to commencement of welding.

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

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Technical Risk Rating Method:

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Volume II – Price Proposal Evaluation Method:

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 (if applicable) 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 Procuring Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes)