Attachment A - Offeror Experience Form.docx

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

FOR

Bonneville Spillway Crane Rehabilitation

Solicitation Number: W9127N25RA005

Two-Phase Design-Build Unrestricted Best Value Trade-Off

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Northwestern Division Portland District Portland, OR 97204 CUI (Controlled Unclassified Information

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104)

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Coordination Page

The attached Source Selection Plan (SSP) for the above project is hereby recommended for approval by the following functional activities:

Submitted by:

ANDREW SPRYS

Contract Specialist

Concurrence:

ELISABETH DIXON

Legal Counsel

CAROL MCINTYRE

Small Business Professional

CALEB MEYER

SSEB Chairperson

ALICIA EVANS

Procurement Contracting Officer

Approval:

ALICIA EVANS

Source Selection Authority

Table of Contents

I. Overview A. Background and Objectives B. Acquisition Strategy

II. Source Selection Team - Roles and Responsibilities A. Evaluation Organization B. Responsibilities of the Organizational Elements

III. Solicitation Provisions A. Proposal Submission and Evaluation Criteria B. Phase I Basis for Award C. Phase II Basis for Award

IV. Evaluation Process and Procedures A. Key Milestones B. Rating Method C. Proposal Evaluation D. Communications and Securing Source Selection Material E. SSAC Written Comparative Analysis F. Best Value Decision G. Announcement of Selection H. Debriefing of Unsuccessful Offerors

V. Standards of Conduct and Evaluation Principles A. General B. Safeguarding Procurement Information C. Evaluation Principles

Attachments:

Appendices:

CUI (Controlled Unclassified Information

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104)

I. OVERVIEW

This plan is source selection information, as defined by FAR Part 2.101, and shall not be disclosed outside the Source Selection Team. However, the submission and evaluation information will eventually become public knowledge as it becomes part of the solicitation.

This Source Selection Plan (SSP) defines how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how the source(s) will be selected for the Bonneville Spillway Crane Rehabilitation construction contract. The purpose of this SSP is to establish the criteria and methodology to be used in the evaluation of proposals received in response to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. W9127N25RA005, entitled “Bonneville Spillway Crane Rehabilitation.” The plan will be approved prior to the advertisement of the project and will be provided to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and Source Selection Authority (SSA) prior to the SSEB convening to conduct the evaluation.

a. Project Description

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District has a requirement from Bonneville Power Administration to provide the rehabilitation of two 350-ton Spillway Cranes at the Bonneville Dam.

These cranes, which support the spillway operations by enabling the raising and lowering of the spillway gates, are nearing 90 years of service. A considerable portion of their control systems and components have become outdated and requires refurbishment. There have been reports of failures and degradation in the mechanical, electrical, control, and structural systems. Additionally, the cranes do not meet OSHA safety standards and are not compliant with existing power supply regulations.

The scope of this project encompasses the rehabilitation of the two identical spillway gantry cranes, designated as Crane 5 (south) and Crane 6 (north), along with any incidental work related to the project. Each crane is a gantry type with a capacity of 350 tons, featuring four gantry legs, one main hoist trolley, and one auxiliary hoist trolley. The main hoist of each crane is rated for 350 tons. The main hoists are utilized for lifting the spillway gates and splitting the gates, whereas the auxiliary hoists are employed for lifting deck lids and other lighter loads. The rehabilitation work must ensure that the lifting capacities of each crane are preserved.

USACE, Portland District plans to advertise this solicitation in March 2025. The current estimated schedule anticipates contract award in December 2025.

b. Acquisition Strategy

The acquisition approach for this requirement will utilize the Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures following FAR Part 15 and FAR Subpart 36.3, using Full and Open competition to allow maximum competition among all business and socioeconomic categories. Proposals will be evaluated utilizing the Best Value Tradeoff source selection method. The resulting award will be a firm-fixed-price (FFP) construction contract. The magnitude of construction is between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000. The North American Industry Classification System code (NAICS) for this acquisition is 237990: Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction, with a small business size standard of $45 million. Award will be made to the best overall proposal that is determined to be most beneficial to the government.

Phase One of the solicitation will include the Phase One evaluation factors, which consist of the following non-price technical factor (price is NOT evaluated during Phase One):

Factor 1 – Past Performance

· Prime Contractor

· Designer of Record

Factor 2 – Management Approach

The Government will evaluate Phase One proposals using the Phase One evaluation criteria in order to select the most highly qualified offerors and request that only those offerors submit Phase Two proposals. The Government intends to advance up to five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors from Phase One to Phase Two.

Phase Two of the solicitation will be issued as an amendment to the solicitation and released only to those offerors advancing from Phase One. Phase Two proposals will be evaluated in accordance with (IAW) the Phase Two solicitation amendment using the following factors:

Factor 3 – Technical Approach for Design Build Factor 4 – Small Business Commitment Document Factor 5 – Price

During Phase Two, the Government will select the offer that represents the best value by using the tradeoff process described in FAR Part 15. This process permits tradeoffs between price and technical ("non-price") factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest-priced offer when determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The award decision will be based on a comparative analysis and an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

II. SOURCE SELECTION TEAM

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. EVALUATION ORGANIZATION. The evaluation and selection of the successful offeror will be performed by the following organizational elements:

1. Source Selection Authority (SSA)

2. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

3. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENTS

1. Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SSA will make the best-value decision independently, based upon a comparative assessment of the price and non-price factors in the solicitation. For this procurement the SSA is also the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO). The SSA shall:

· Be responsible for the proper and efficient conduct of the source selection process IAW these procedures and all applicable laws and regulations.

· Appoint the chairperson for the SSEB.

· Ensure that personnel appointed to the SSEB are knowledgeable of policy and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting the source selection.

· Ensure the SSEB members have the requisite acquisition experience, skills, and training necessary to execute the source selection, and ensure the highest level of team membership consistency for the duration of the selection process.

· Ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performs dual leadership roles in the source selection pursuant to DFARS 203.170(a).

· Ensure that realistic source selection schedules are established, and source selection events are conducted efficiently and effectively in meeting overall program schedules. The schedules should support proper and full compliance with source selection procedures outlined in this SSP.

· Ensure all involved in the source selection are briefed and knowledgeable of applicable portions of 41 U.S.C. § 2102 - Prohibitions on Disclosing and Obtaining Procurement Information; FAR 3.104 regarding unauthorized disclosure of contractor bid and proposal information, as well as source selection information.

· Ensure that all persons receiving source selection information are instructed to comply with applicable standards of conduct (including procedures to prevent the improper disclosure of information) and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and a Conflict-of-Interest Statement.

· Ensure Conflict of Interest Statements from Government members/advisors are appropriately reviewed, and actual or potential conflict of interest issues are resolved prior to granting access to any source selection information. See 5 C.F.R. § 2635.

· Make a determination to award without discussions or enter into discussions.

· Select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government IAW evaluation criteria and basis for award stated in the solicitation.

· Document the rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

2. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The SSEB is composed of a chairperson and evaluators (also known as SSEB Members). The SSEB will evaluate the technical proposals, utilizing technical advisors in the evaluation process, as necessary. The SSEB will meet to evaluate proposals, using the factors described in Section 00 21 00. Neither the SSEB Chairperson nor the SSEB members shall perform comparative analysis of proposals or make source selection recommendations unless requested by the SSA.

The SSEB Chairperson shall:

· Establish functional evaluation teams, as appropriate, and identify members to the functional evaluation teams subject to approval of the SSA.

· Review all aspects of all proposals, fully participate in all ratings, and ensure the SSEB provides written narrative support substantiating evaluation ratings. The SSEB Chairperson is responsible for the conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposals in an impartial and equitable manner.

· Ensure the SSEB members understand the criteria for the evaluation of proposals so there is a uniformed approach in the rating effort.

· Require the assigned members’ attendance at the meetings and conferences of the SSEB and assign work necessary for the accomplishment of its mission.

· Relieve and replace members from assignment only in the event of a demonstrated emergency or other appropriate cause.

· Arrange for members to work overtime, when necessary, allowed, and approved.

· Assure the safeguarding of sensitive information used by the SSEB.

· Arrange for the needed administrative staff at the work site.

· Plan the security requirements of the SSEB and the work site and ensure their accomplishment through conclusion of the source selection, to include any protests.

· Establish the agenda and the schedule for SSEB meetings.

· Isolate policy issues and major questions requiring decision by the SSA.

· Seek to build consensus among the SSEB members.

· Be responsible for the overall management of the SSEB and act as the SSEB’s interface to the SSA.

· Ensure the skills of the personnel, the available resources, and times assigned are commensurate with the complexity of the acquisition.

· Ensure members of the SSEB are trained and knowledgeable on how an evaluation is conducted prior to reviewing any proposals.

· Ensure that the evaluation processes follow the evaluation criteria and that ratings are being consistently applied.

· Provide consolidated evaluation results in an SSEB report to the SSA.

· Support any post source selection activities such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

The SSEB members shall:

· Conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of proposals against the RFP requirements and the approved evaluation criteria.

· Ensure the evaluation is based solely on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP.

· Assist the SSEB Chairperson in documenting the SSEB evaluation results.

· Support any post source selection activities such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

· Contemporaneously and thoroughly document, in writing, the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties identified in the proposals in sufficient detail so the SSA can determine whether and to what extent each proposal met, did not meet, or exceeded each evaluation factor and sub-factor.

· Brief the SSA, as requested.

· Respond to comments/instructions from the SSA.

· Prepare the necessary evaluation notices (ENs).

The SSEB will be composed of the following members who have been selected for their technical expertise in specific areas associated with this acquisition:

Professional Advisors. The Contract Specialist will assist the SSEB by compiling the board comments, answering technical questions, preparing a summary report comparing the offers received qualitatively for the Source Selection Authority, documenting negotiations (if necessary), and participating in price analysis. The Attorney will ensure the process is consistent with the solicitation terms and pertinent regulations. The Small Business Specialist will assist the SSEB with any Small Business matters.

The following personnel will act as professional advisors to the rating members:

Subject Matter Expert (SME) Advisors.

Note: Approval by the PCO is required prior to the SSEB discussing any matters related to this source selection with any SME advisor who is not a member of the SSEB. SME advisors will be used only if the PCO determines the SSEB is lacking expertise in a subject matter that he or she determines is necessary in order to complete the evaluation. If the PCO determines a SME advisor is needed, the SME advisor shall receive procurement integrity training from Legal Counsel and complete a source selection participation agreement and certificate of non-disclosure. The PCO will ensure that source selection information and contractor proposal information provided to SME advisors is limited to only information that is necessary for the SME advisor to provide the technical expertise.

3. Procuring Contracting Officer. The PCO will serve as the primary business advisor and principal guidance source for the entire Source Selection. The PCO will be Alicia Evans, CECT-NWP.

The PCO shall:

· Manage all business aspects of the acquisition and work with the SSEB Chair to ensure the evaluation is conducted IAW the evaluation criteria specified in the solicitation.

· Ensure that required approvals are obtained and the appropriate notification clause is included in the solicitation before non-Government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support (FAR 7.503 and 37.205).

· IAW FAR 3.104 and DFARS 203.104, ensure that procedures exist to safeguard source selection information and contractor bid or proposal information.

· Approve access to or release of source selection information and contractor proposal information after consulting Legal Counsel before and after contract award.

· Maintain the documents and source selection evaluation records.

· Release the final solicitation only after obtaining all required approvals including the SSA approval of the SSP.

· Serve as the single point of contact for all solicitation-related inquiries from actual or prospective offerors.

· After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors IAW FAR 15.306.

· Establish the competitive range and enter into discussions as applicable.

· Award the contract.

· Chair all required debriefings.

· Manage and resolve any organizational conflicts of interest pursuant to FAR 9.504(a) and FAR 9.505.

· Evaluate and determine the reasonableness of offered prices. The PCO should consult with a pricing subject matter expert (SME).

III. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS (SECTION 00 21 16)

For clarity, the addressed section shall reference the Solicitation. The identified sections are in accordance with (IAW) the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) pursuant to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Desk Guide (UDG) 5114.201-1.

Section 00 21 16 of the Solicitation (Request for Proposal (RFP)) contains the proposal submission instructions. Section 00 21 16 includes specific information on what must be furnished with the offer and identifies evaluation criteria that will be used in evaluating proposals received. Section 00 22 10 contains the basis of award and evaluation methods/ratings for Phase One. Section 00 22 20 contains the basis of award and evaluation methods/ratings for Phase Two.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Solicitation is an unrestricted full and open competitive acquisition using the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 36.3, Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures, and FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Source Selection Process (i.e., Best Value Tradeoff). A Solicitation will be issued for the acquisition during Phase One and will be amended for Phase Two, pursuant to FAR 36.3 and FAR 15.101-2 best-value tradeoff (BVTO) source selection process to award a firm-fixed-price (FFP) type contract.

1.2. The Government intends to make an award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions should the Contracting Officer decide discussions necessary or advantageous to the Government. Because the Government does not intend to hold discussions, all Offerors are encouraged to put forth their best proposal.

1.3. In Phase One of the Two-Phase Design Build selection procedures, interested Offerors will submit specified performance capability proposals for review, consideration, and evaluation by the Government. Phase One proposals should be based on the project description and the Phase One evaluation factors, identified below. Based on the results of the Phase One evaluation, the Government will select up to five of the most highly qualified firms to submit Phase Two proposals. The amended Phase Two Solicitation will require the submission of technical and price proposals. Phase Two evaluation will be based on the Phase Two evaluation factors that were developed IAW FAR 15.304.

Note: Do not submit cost/pricing information in the Phase One proposal.

1.4. Pursuant to Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 236.204, the magnitude of construction is between $10 million and $25 million.

1.5. The primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the acquisition is 237990 – Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. The Small Business Size Standard is $45 million.

1.6. Selection will be made based on the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the Solicitation requirements while demonstrating high technical capability and low risk, presenting the most advantageous offer to the Government IAW FAR Subpart 36.3- Two Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures, FAR 15.101-1- Tradeoff Source Selection Process (i.e., Best Value Tradeoff), and the Solicitation. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest-priced offer or to reject all proposals.

1.7. For Phase One, the Government intends to make a selection without affording an opportunity to submit additional information but reserves the right to allow updates to proposals if it is advantageous to the Government. Because the Government does not intend to request or allow additional information, the Offeror is encouraged to put forth its best proposal. The Government intends to evaluate the Offerors proposals and select the most highly qualified offerors without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain its best terms, as stated in herein. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions/negotiations in Phase One if the Contracting Officer (KO) and Source Selection Authority (SSA) later determines them to be necessary. If discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the SSA determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the SSA 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.

1.8. The Government will not reimburse any cost incurred or associated with preparing and submitting any responses to the Solicitation. Oral explanations or instructions to Offerors are not binding. Any information given to an Offeror which impacts the Solicitation and/or offers will be provided in the form of a written amendment to the Solicitation. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to acknowledge all amendments in its proposal submission.

1.9. The Offeror should not modify the terms and conditions of the Solicitation in their technical proposals or add conditions or qualifications to their offers. Should an Offeror include terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the Solicitation, the Offeror may be determined ineligible for award. Any questions related to specific terms and conditions contained within the Solicitation should be resolved prior to the submission of an offer.

1.10. All proposals received will be considered complete and final. The evaluation board will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference or referred to other sources outside the respective proposal volumes and factors responses. The successful Offeror will be selected solely based on the evaluation factors below. Accordingly, proposals submitted in response to the Solicitation should provide clear, complete, concise, and straightforward responses to the evaluation factors. Elaborate proposals, color brochures, and other excesses are discouraged.

1.11. Proposals that merely reiterate or “parrot” the contents of the Solicitation, or contain only superficial responses, may be considered unacceptable. Evidence of experience, capability, and qualifications demonstrating and supporting the Offeror’s claims is essential. The absence of such evidence will adversely influence the evaluation of the proposal.

1.12. References to “confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal. The Offeror including confidential information in its proposal that they do not want to be disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall clearly mark their proposals IAW the instructions at FAR Clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors –Competitive Acquisition, paragraph (e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data.

1.13. Use of the words “shall” or “must” indicate a mandatory requirement for which failure to comply at the time and date for submission of proposals may result in the Offeror’s proposal being disqualified from consideration for the award, or a deficiency or weakness being assessed for the factor. Failure to comply with non-pricing or pricing requirements annotated with the words “should” or “may” can result in an unacceptable, affecting the Offeror being selected for the contract award. The Government may elect to initiate discussions with some or all of the Offerors, thereby providing a means by which appropriate corrections by the Offeror(s) involved can be made. If the requirement is stated as a number of days, the time period is specified as calendar days, unless otherwise specified.

1.14. In Phase One, any responsible, interested contractor may submit a proposal. For Phase Two, only the Offerors that are selected in Phase One to participate in Phase Two will be allowed to submit a proposal.

2. E-BUSINESS REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

2.1. System for Award Management (SAM): The Offeror shall be registered in SAM at the time an offer is submitted. Failure to have an active and completed registration in SAM may determine an Offeror ineligible for the award and removed from the competition. A successful Offeror with incomplete or expired registrations at the time of award may not be eligible for a contract. In such instances, the Government will award to the next successful Offeror who is eligible for the award. Information contained within an Offeror’s registration shall be current and valid. The responsibility of maintaining current information contained in an Offeror’s registration rests solely on the Offeror.

2.2. Solicitation Inquiries (Phase One and Two)

All inquiries regarding the Solicitation are to be submitted via ProjNet: https://www.projnet.org/.

Telephone and e-mail inquiries will not be accepted. ProjNet is a web-based program that allows offerors to post question regarding the Solicitation, view all questions submitted by other offerors and the corresponding responses by the Government.

a. The Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions will be rejected.

b. The Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of its question(s) via e-mail, followed by an answer to its question(s) after it has been processed. The Offerors may view all inquiries through ProjNet.

c. Inquiries shall be submitted seven-calendar days prior to the proposal due date. The Offerors will not be able to submit inquires after this date.

To submit and review inquiries, offerors will need to use the inquiry key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access.

The Inquiry Key is: ICG28Q-45FMV5 Note: The Bidder Inquiry Key for Phase Two will be issued by amendment.

· Specific Instructions for ProjNet inquiry access:

· From the ProjNet home page link: https://www.projnet.org/projnet/ click on Quick Add (upper right side of the screen).

· Identify the Agency: This should be marked as “USACE.”

· Key: Enter the Inquiry Key listed above.

· E-mail: Enter the e-mail address you would like to use for communication.

· Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found, and it will ask you to create one using the provided form.

· Enter your first and last name, company, city, state, phone, e-mail, secret question, secret answer, and time zone. Make sure to remember your secret question and answer, as they will be used from the point you access the ProjNet system.

· Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Submit questions or review questions and answers. An offeror who submits a question will receive an automated e-mail notification that its question has been received. When an answer is posted to a question, the question and answer are then available for all other offerors to review.

2.3. The Government intends to hold an organized site visit between the conclusion of the Phase One prequalification and the submittal of offers in Phase Two of the Solicitation. Details will be provided in the Phase Two amendment and all Phase Two offerors are highly encouraged to attend in person.

2.4. Joint Venture. A joint venture (JV) is defined as a legal business entity formed between two or more companies to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. The Offerors proposing as JV shall provide evidence that the JV as a legal entity has been duly formed. The JV shall include a copy of the legal JV agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the JV, with the Chief Executive of each entity identified. The Government will not evaluate the capability of any firms that are not included in the JV agreement. If submitting a proposal as a JV, the experience of each of the JV partners can be submitted for the JV entity. The experience of either JV partner will be considered the experience of the JV entity. Prospective Offerors that submit proposals may not change their JV firms, if selected for award. If an Offeror is a JV, the JV entity shall have a valid registration representing the JV as one entity in SAM. The Government will not accept separate registrations and licenses from each separate entity representing the JV.

2.5. Unsuccessful offerors will be notified IAW FAR Subpart 15.5. An unsuccessful offeror may request a pre-award debriefing or a delayed debriefing after award (post-award debriefing) by submitting a written request to the SSA/Contracting Officer within three-calendar days after receipt of the notice excluding an offeror from the competition and award. The Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal (i.e., either a pre- or post-award debriefing).

3.1.1 Content – General

An Offeror’s proposal without the minimum content may be determined ineligible to continue to Phase Two. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government may reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration.

All information intended to be evaluated as part of the technical proposal shall be submitted within the technical proposal. Do not include references to material or information not found within its respective volumes. Information submitted in the wrong volumes could lead to an Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable if materially incomplete in any aspect.

The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified within each evaluation factor.

The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. The Offeror’s proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by the Solicitation. Absence of information will be deemed as if no support for that criterion was provided. The Offerors submitting proposals should limit submission to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and money is expended in preparing information required by the Solicitation. Penalty for making false statements in a proposal is prescribed in Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1001.

3.1.2 File Format

Proposals shall be in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) in a searchable text format. Embedded sound or video (e.g., MPEG) files are not authorized and shall not be included. Offerors shall bookmark and label each electronic PDF to afford easy identification from the proposal table of contents.

3.1.3 Proposal Format

Cover Page: A cover page shall appear at the beginning of each volume and, at a minimum, shall consist of the following information:

· Solicitation Number

· The Offeror’s name, physical mailing addresses, telephone number, and email address of the official having the authority to bind the Offeror contractually.

· The Offeror’s (if a JV provide each firm’s) Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, and Tax Identification Number (TIN).

Table of Contents: The Offeror shall provide a table of contents, placed in each volume, and shall identify major areas by title, volume location, and page number.

Proposals shall be sized to print on 8 ½ X 11-inch (in) paper (11-in X 17-in for drawings). Margins shall be no smaller than a ½-in, font face shall be Times New Roman or Arial, and font size shall be no smaller that 10-point font. Page is defined as a single sheet of paper with text on one side. Pages furnished for organizational purposes only, such as a cover page or a table of contents, are not included in the page limitation. LOC and JV partner agreements are also not included in the page limitation.

Proposal volume organization, number of copies, and page limits: The Offeror shall prepare its proposal as set forth below. The Government will not evaluate any pages that exceed the page limitations identified in the Solicitation.

Volumes: The Offeror shall provide two separate proposal volumes for Phase One: Volume I– Pro Forma Information and Volume II – Technical (Non-Price) Proposal. Each Volume shall be clearly marked as follows:

W9127N25RA005- OFFEROR NAME- VOLUME I

W9127N25RA005- OFFEROR NAME- VOLUME II

Electronic Submissions: Offerors must submit their proposals no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the Standard Form 1442, electronically via email to:

Mr. Andrew Sprys at andrew.j.sprys@usace.army.mil Ms. Alicia Evans at alicia.g.evans@usace.army.mil Note: The Portland District is in the Pacific Time Zone. No hard copies will be accepted.

Table 1. Phase One Submittals

(any pages over the page limit will not be reviewed)

I

II

Technical (Non-Price) Proposal

Volume I – Pro Forma Information

Volume II – Technical (Non-Price) Proposal

Factor 2 – Tab B – Management Approach

3.1.2 Phase I Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Past Performance is the most important factor. Factor 2: Management Approach is least important factor.

3.2 PHASE TWO – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Note: The Phase Two “Instructions to Offerors” are subject to change before issuance of the Phase Two RFP.

3.2.1 Content – General

The Government intends to make an award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions should the Contracting Officer decide discussions necessary or advantageous to the Government. An Offeror’s proposal without the minimum content may be determined ineligible for award and removed from the competition. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government may reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration.

All information intended to be evaluated as part of the technical proposal shall be submitted within the technical proposal. Do not include references to material or information not found within its respective volumes. Information submitted in the wrong volumes could lead to an Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable if materially incomplete in any aspect.

The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified within each evaluation factor. Elaborately prepared proposals are optional, and any material over what is requested, such as corporate marketing information, will not be considered.

The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. The Offeror’s proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by the Solicitation. Absence of information will be deemed as if no support for that criterion was provided. The Offerors submitting proposals should limit submission to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and money is expended in preparing information required by the Solicitation. Penalty for making false statements in its proposal is prescribed in Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1001.

3.2.2 File Format

Proposals shall be in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) in a searchable text format. Embedded sound or video (e.g., MPEG) files are not authorized and shall not be included. Offerors shall bookmark and label each electronic PDF to afford easy identification from the proposal table of contents.

3.2.3 Proposal Format

Cover Page: A cover page shall appear at the beginning of each volume and, at a minimum, shall consist of the following information:

· Solicitation Number

· The Offeror’s name, physical mailing addresses, telephone number, and email address of the official having the authority to bind the Offeror contractually.

· The Offeror’s (if a JV provide each firm’s) Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, and Tax Identification Number (TIN).

Table of Contents: The Offeror shall provide a table of contents, placed in each volume, and shall identify major areas by title, volume location, and page number.

Proposals shall be sized to print on 8 ½ X 11-inch (in) paper (11-in X 17-in for drawings). Margins shall be no smaller than a ½-in, font face shall be Times New Roman or Arial, and font size shall be no smaller that 10-point font. Page is defined as a single sheet of paper with text on one side. Pages furnished for organizational purposes only, such as a cover page or a table of contents, are not included in the page limitation. LOC and JV partner agreements are also not included in the page limitation.

Volumes: The Offeror shall provide three separate proposal volumes for Phase Two: Volume I – Pro Forma Information, Volume II – Technical Proposal, and Volume III – Cost/Price. Each Volume shall be clearly marked as follows:

W9127N25RA005- OFFEROR NAME- VOLUME I

W9127N25RA005- OFFEROR NAME- VOLUME II

W9127N25RA005- OFFEROR NAME- VOLUME III

Proposal volume organization, number of copies, and page limits: The Offeror shall prepare its proposal as set forth below. The Government will not evaluate any pages that exceed the page limitations identified in the Solicitation.

Table 2. Phase Two Submittals

(any pages over the page limit will not be reviewed)

I

II

Technical Proposal

III

Volume I – Pro Forma Information

Volume II – Technical (Non-Price) Proposal

Factor 3 – Tab A – Technical Approach for Design Build

Factor 4 – Tab B – Small Business Commitment Document

Volume III – Cost/Price

3.2.4 Phase Two Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors:

Factor 3: Technical Approach for Design Build is the most important. Factor 4: Small Business Commitment is the least important factor. The non-priced factors, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

SECTION 00 22 10

A. SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR PHASE ONE

The Government intends to evaluate offerors’ Phase One proposals and select up to five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors, without discussions, for advancement to Phase Two. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain its best terms, as stated in the Solicitation, Section 00 21 16. As stated in 1.6 below, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions/negotiations if the SSA later determines them to be necessary. If discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the SSA determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the SSA 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.

If discussions are deemed necessary, the SSA will include only those firms determined to be the most highly rated; those whose proposals are reasonably susceptible to being made acceptable; but not those that are so deficient as to essentially require major revisions or a total re-write of their proposal. In certain circumstances, the Government may limit Offers in the competitive range to a number that will permit an efficient competition. If discussions are required, the SSEB will follow the evaluation process herein until discussions are closed. Upon the conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still within the competitive range will be afforded an opportunity to revise their proposals and submit a Phase One, Final Proposal Revision (FPR) for evaluation. If discussions are held, the Offerors are required to submit their responses to comments electronically. If discussions are held, detailed instructions on responses will be provided. Electronic submissions shall meet the submission deadline set forth by the Government during discussions or indicated in the Amendment requesting the FPR. The Contracting Officer will notify all the Offerors in the competitive range, in writing, how and when interim revisions and FPR are to be submitted.

Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still within the competitive range will be afforded an opportunity to revise their proposal and to submit their FPR for evaluation.

1.7 Selection Process. The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will make the Source Selection Decision as to which Offerors will be invited to submit a proposal in Phase Two. Phase One factor ratings will be used to determine the Offerors participating in Phase Two. For all Offerors participating in the Phase Two source selection process, the Government will not allow or consider any revisions to an Offeror’s Phase One proposal during Phase Two.

The Solicitation contains certain mandatory or minimum requirements to be met for evaluation. The Solicitation also contains within the described factors certain documents for submission. Failure to satisfy any mandatory or minimum requirement may result in a determination that an offer is unacceptable. (A final determination that an offer is unacceptable means that an award to the Offeror involved cannot be made.)

After evaluating Phase One proposals, the SSA will select the most highly qualified Offerors’ and request that only those Offerors submit Phase Two proposals. The maximum number of Offerors to submit Phase Two proposals shall not exceed five (5).

All the submission items to be evaluated pertain to the Prime Offeror, whether a single contractor entity, partnership, or a JV. The Government will consider information provided concerning primary subcontractors (those performing the likelihood that the proposed subcontractor will be available for the Solicitation project), then that submitted information will largely be diminished in the evaluation and selection process. At the same time, an Offeror that intends to have a significant on-site subcontractor participation (20% or more of the total on-site management and construction efforts) should provide information pertaining to those subcontractors IAW Section 00 21 16.

2 Phase One – Evaluation Factors for Award and Methodology To determine the most highly qualified offerors, a source selection process will be used that involves evaluation of the Offeror’s Phase One Proposal.

The SSEB—composed of USACE personnel, using activity representative, and as necessary, technical advisors—will conduct the evaluation. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone that is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors. The SSEB will evaluate proposals using the factors and evaluation criteria described in this section.

The evaluation process for Phase One consists of three parts: Proposal Compliance Review, Non-Price Factor Evaluation, and Non-Price Tradeoff Analysis.

· Proposal Compliance Review. This is an initial check by Contracting Division to ensure that all required forms are complete, and in compliance with all administrative and submission criteria.

· Non-Price Factor Evaluation. IAW the Solicitation, each member of the SSEB will conduct an independent review of the proposals. The review will be an in-depth, systematic evaluation of the proposal against the submission criteria and evaluation factors. After these reviews, the SSEB, by consensus, will provide a rating for each evaluation factor supported by a justifying narrative. The Offeror’s ratings are confidential and will remain in the KO’s files. Upon completion of the evaluations, the results will be provided to the SSA in the form of a Proposal Analysis Report with a recommendation of the Offerors who are most qualified to proceed to Phase Two.

· Non-Price Tradeoff Analysis. The selection of Offerors to receive an invitation to submit a proposal for Phase Two will be based on the most highly qualified Offerors subject to best value tradeoff basis of relative importance as identified in Section 00 21 16.

3. Phase One - Volume I - Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

3.1 Volume I – Pro Forma Information

Tab A - Standard Form 1442

Submission Requirements

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 found in Section 00 10 00 of this solicitation.

Evaluation Criteria

The Standard Form 1442 will not be rated. The form will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the offer signed.

Note: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission.

Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

Submission Requirements

If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (formally DUNS number) with the proposal.

Small business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB) submitting a proposal as a JV or Mentor-Protégé shall submit evidence from the offeror's SBA Servicing Agency that the offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist. Joint Venture agreements and approved 8(a) Mentor-Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal.

Evaluation Criteria

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated. Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order for an offeror to be eligible for any small business-related price preference.

Note: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Each offeror’s proposal shall be submitted as set forth and all information shall be confined to the appropriate part to facilitate independent evaluation. Proposals that do not include the requested minimum information may be eliminated from further consideration for award.

4. Volume II – Tab A - Factor 1 – Past Performance This factor is designed to verify the past performance of the Offeror’s experience on projects of similar in magnitude, complexity, and scope to the requirements of this solicitation.

4.1…