Solicitation Amendment W9127N25RA0210002 SF 30.pdf

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers 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 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section 00 22 10 - Two Phase - Phase One

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

A. Supplementary Instructions to Offerors for Phase One

1. Phase One - Basis of Award

1.1 . The Government is using a two-phase procurement approach for this design-Evaluation Process build project. One Solicitation will be issued for the acquisition consisting of a Request for Proposal (RFP) during Phase One pursuant to FAR 36.3and an amendment to the RFP during Phase Two pursuant to FAR 15.101-1.

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.

1.2 Compliance with The Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information Terms and Conditions.

in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the Solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

1.3 Adequacy of . The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror's proposal Response adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements as specified in the Solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether each requirement has been sufficiently addressed in the proposal IAW the proposal submission section of the Solicitation. The SSEB must not assume that an Offeror's performance includes the requirements of the Solicitation that are not specified in the Offeror's proposal.

1.4 . The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated and determined Rejection of Proposals to be unacceptable or fails to comply with the Solicitation terms and conditions.

1.5 The Offeror's proposal shall meet the criteria stated in the Solicitation to be eligible for award, to include responsibility, and technical acceptability.

1.6 . The Government intends to select Offerors for participation in Phase Two based on Discussions the initial Phase One proposals without holding discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, and allow proposal revisions, if the SSA determines that discussions are in the Government's best interest. The Offerors are cautioned that discussions may not be conducted and should not assume that they will have an opportunity to revise their proposals after submission.

W9127N25RA0210002

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 nonresponses 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 RFP for evaluation.

1.7 . The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will make the Selection Process 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. An Offeror's Phase One factor rating for Factor 1- Past Performance will be rolled over into Phase Two. Offerors are not required to resubmit Phase One information, for Phase Two. Phase One, Factor1 and Phase Two factors rating will be used during the nonprice/price tradeoff analysis. 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 PhaseOne 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 processor 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 incompliance 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 of this solicitation. Section00 10 00

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 inBlock14 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 JVor Mentor-Protege 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 approved8(a)Mentor-Protege 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-Protege agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13of 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.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

1.

2.

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 Submission Criteria

4.1.1 Prime Contractor:

The Offeror shall submit no more than three (3) narratives for projects completed or substantially complete within 10 years from the solicitation issued date. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project.

Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

Each project narrative must include the information outlined in Attachment A, Offeror's Experience Form and shall not exceed four (4) pages. If more than four (4) pages are submitted for a single project, only the first four (4) pages will be evaluated. Use one form for each project.

4.1.2 For project(s) submitted where work was performed as a Key Subcontractor as opposed to a Prime Contractor, the Offeror must submit a separate statement (in addition to the Offeror Experience Form) that includes:

The total contract amount.

The dollar amount of the work performed as the Key Subcontractor.

A description of the elements of work specifically completed by the Offeror (or the Offeror's Key Subcontractor) while working as a Key Subcontractor.

The percentage of work performed as the Key Subcontractor.

The statement must also justify how the Offeror (or the Offeror's Key Subcontractor) meets the definition of "Key Subcontractor" in the context of the example project(s) submitted.

The statement must not exceed one (1) 8.5" x 11" double-sided page or two (2) 8.5" x 11" single-sided pages, regardless of the total number of projects submitted where work was performed as a Key Subcontractor. This statement does not count towards the page limit.

4.1.3 If the past performance of a subcontractor is used to meet the minimum requirements, at least one

(1) of the submitted narratives should demonstrate subcontractor past performance. A binding Letter of Commitment between the prime and subcontractor must be included and contain the following:

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

Signatures of both the Offeror and subcontracting entity.

If a binding Letter of Commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

1.

3.

4.1.4 A maximum of three (3) projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than three (3) projects, only the first three (3) projects will be evaluated. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess the projects against the evaluation criteria described in the RFP. Substantially complete is defined as being 75% construction progress completed by the from the solicitation issued date. If an offeror submits a project that it represents as "substantially complete," the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 75% construction progress 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.

4.1.5 For evaluation purposes, "similar" is defined as work performed in the areas of work below. Each project submitted must demonstrate experience in at least two of the following areas:

Renovating steel structures Renovating electrical and mechanical systems Renovating cranes Working around waterways Retrofitting cord reels onto existing cranes Gantry Crane design and fabrication Bridge Crane Rehabilitation Gantry Crane Rehabilitation Replacement of Bridge and Gantry Cranes Derrick Cranes

4.1.6 To be considered similar in magnitude would be projects valued at a minimum of $4,000,000.00

4.1.7 Additional consideration may be given for projects that contain the following features:

Design/Build projects Established, working relationship with the proposed DOR on prior Design/Build projects Experience with Federal (e.g., DOD, USACE) Design/Build Criteria (e.g., AT/FP, UFC, Specs Intact, United Facilities Guide Specifications).

4.1.8 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached (Attachment B) for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency by the reference. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror's respective corrective action.

3.

4.1.9 The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15% of the direct contract labor (including testing and layout personnel), exclusive of other general condition or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, or subcontractors for a submitted project performed by the offeror to receive any rating higher than Somewhat Relevant (though a Somewhat Relevant rating is not guaranteed).

4.2 Designer of Record (DOR):

Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects that have been constructed (i.e., construction is substantially complete) within the last ten (10) years (from the solicitation issue date) which are similar in magnitude and scope (see paragraphs 4.1.5 and 4.1.6 above). To be considered similar, the proposed firm must have been the DOR on the submitted project. The listed design firm must be used on the project. No deviations will be permitted unless approved by the Contracting Officer. Identification of more than one design firm will result in an evaluation based on the least qualified firm. Indicate any previous working relationship with the prime contractor.

Additional consideration may be given for the DOR projects that contain the following features:

Design/Build Projects Established, working relationship with the Prime Contractor on prior Design/Build projects.

Experience with Federal (e.g., DOD, USACE) Design/Build Criteria (e.g., AT/FP, UFC, Specs Intact, United Facilities Guide Specifications).

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier (formerly known as DUNS number) with the JV proposal.

4.3 Performance Appraisals

The past performance information required in this solicitation shall be provided by the Offeror. Past performance information may also be obtained from questionnaires. At the Government's discretion, past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractors Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

4.3.1 Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS). For projects constructed for other Government or commercial entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by the respective Government or commercial entity. For each project that may be private industry work or other Government entity not covered in the CPARS database, submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment B, completed by an owner or owner's representative not affiliated with the Offeror's firm. Offerors are advised to ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the

Client point of contact. (Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is available).

Offeror should explain any past performance resulting in significant cost and/or time growth. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government points of contact:

Andrew Sprys at andrew.j.sprys@usace.army.mil Alicia Evans at alicia.g.evans@usace.army.mil

4.3.2 Offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line. 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.

4.3.3 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.

4.4 Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime contractor, and Designer of Record. The Offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, related experience in both design and construction included in this solicitation.

The past performance evaluation results are an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance evaluation factor includes recency, relevancy, and quality of projects to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror's ability to meet the needs of the requirement, based on a demonstrated record of past performance.

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).

Recency

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror's past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For this project, "recency" is defined as a project that is complete or substantially complete within the past ten (10) years from the solicitation issued date. The Offeror is responsible for providing start and completion dates for each completed project, or the start and scheduled completion dates for projects currently under construction.

Each of the submitted project must meet the timeframe expressed above. Projects which fail to meet the timeframe above for "recent" will not be evaluated.

Relevancy

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal.

In assessing the relevancy of the offeror's past performance, the Government will consider past projects similar in magnitude and scope (see paragraphs 4.1.5and4.1.6).

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria identified (see Table3), the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the magnitude and scope of effort and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings shown in the Table 3below.

Table 3- Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

Quality Assessment

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. For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government may review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including similar projects other than those submitted by the offeror.

The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers identified in the offeror's proposal. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for both the Prime and DOR. The SSEB will determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above, based on the SSEB's assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror's recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience. NOTE: The Past Performance of both the Prime and DOR will be weighted equally in the establishment of the overall Performance Confidence rating.

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 evaluate the record of past performance for the Offeror to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the requirements under this solicitation. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The overall performance confidence assessment will be evaluated using Table 4, below.

Table 4: Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substan tial Con fidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfac tory Co nfidenc e

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable e xpectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confide nce

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 Confid ence

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 Con fidence

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.

For Past Performance, an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating will be awarded when no past performance records are available. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a)(2)(iv), "In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance."

4.5 Volume II - Tab B - Factor 2 - Management Approach

This factor assesses the Offeror's proposed management approach for the design and construction phases of the project, considering both internal organization and external coordination.

4.5.1 Submission Criteria

Based on the Offeror's understanding of the Solicitation, Section 01 11 00.10 25 Scope of Work, describe the Offeror shall clearly and concisely describe its management approach. The management approach narrative shall be limited to 20 pages or less. As a minimum, the narrative should address/discuss the offerors intended management approach and strategy addressing the following:

A detailed, descriptive, and project-specific narrative that describes the offeror's approach and how the offeror's proposed product will work will be evaluated more favorably than a vague and general plan.

1. Technical Skills including such elements as:

-Working within narrow construction windows and -Quality control for both design and construction.

2. Subcontractor Management.

3. Management of hazardous material over bodies of water.

Beyond internal measures, the Offeror shall demonstrate knowledge of:

1. USACE reporting requirements,

2. USACE communicating requirements, and

3. USACE coordinating requirements essential to successful contract execution.

The Offeror shall describe their approach to streamlining design and construction, taking consideration of operational or environmental restraints.

A detailed, descriptive, and project-specific narrative that describes the offeror's approach and how the offeror's proposed product will work will be evaluated more favorably than a vague and general plan.

4.5.2 Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the Factor to assess the Offeror's management approach to ensure it reflects an understanding of the requirements of the Solicitation. Factor 2 will be assessed for understanding, logic, and reasonableness. The Government will determine the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in the approach presented and then assign an overall combined technical/risk rating as listed in Table 5, below.

Table5. Phase I -Factor 2 - Management Approach

Combined Technical/ Risk Rating

Color 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 unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Note: the combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

A is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that, when judged against the evaluation significant strength criteria, appreciably enhances the merit of the Offeror's proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance by the Offeror.

A is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or strength capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

A isa flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.weakness

A in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful significant weakness contract performance.

A is a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of deficiency significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

A as it pertains to source selection is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The risk consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror's proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

An is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is uncertainty 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).

. Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, Low risk increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may Moderate risk 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.

. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses, which is likely to High risk cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. It is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

5. Selection of The Proposals Invited to Participate in Phase-Two

The most highly qualified offerors will be determined based on their ratings. The Government will evaluate the advantages each proposal offers when distinguishing between equal ratings. A maximum of five of the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and invited to participate in Phase-Two. Those offers not selected will be excluded from the competition.

KO CONTRACTING DIVISION, 333 SW FIRST AVE

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3495

UNITED STATES

ANDREW SPRYS, EMAIL: ANDREW.J.SPRYS@USACE.ARMY.MIL TELEPHONE: 503-248-6839

AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: