B.08.03 W9127S22R0003- Amendment 0002.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

Amendment 0002 incorporates the follow ing:

1. Extends the solicitation period until March 11, 2022, at 12:00 PM CST.

2. Provides Government responses to RFIs.

3. Provides Amended Draw ing S-502.1 and Excel Spreadsheet of River Flow Data.

4. Updates Wage Determinations for Franklin County, AR, dated February 18, 2022.

5. Updates all provisions and clauses.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 31

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Feb-2022

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 W9127S22R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Jan-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

18-Feb-2022

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE, LITTLE ROCK (W9127S)

700 W. CAPITOL AVE, RM 7315

LITTLE ROCK AR 72201-3225

W9127S 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9127S22R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Specifications 218 30-JUN-2021 Attachment 2 Plans 21 30-JUN-2021 Attachment 3 Wage Determinations-

Franklin, AR (JAN 2022)

6 07-JAN-2022

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Specifications 218 30-JUN-2021 Attachment 2 Plans 21 30-JUN-2021 Attachment 3 Wage Determinations-

Franklin, AR

6 18-FEB-2022

Attachment 4 Government Responses to RFIs

6 18-FEB-2022

Attachment 5 Drawing S-502.1 (Amended)

1 18-FEB-2022

Attachment 6 Ozark River Flow Data 31-DEC-2021

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 25-Feb-2022 12:00 PM to 11-Mar-2022 12:00 PM.

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00 22 16 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION

CRITERIA, AND BASIS OF AWARD

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the requirements of the Specifications. The proposal should be specific and complete in every detail; and should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the requirements. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent.

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. Failure to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affects an Offeror's evaluation.

The proposal shall not exceed the page limits described. Provide all information in bookmarked sections. Appendices and/or attachments are not permitted and will not be evaluated.

SUBMISSION FORMAT

METHOD OF SUBMISSION. Offerors shall submit one (1) electronic copy of their proposal via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module before the time and date specified in the solicitation (Standard Form 1442).

1. Register in PIEE:

a. Navigate to https://wawf.eb.mil/

b. Select Register [top right]

c. Select Vendor

d. Create a User ID and Password and follow the prompts [next]

e. Create Security Questions [next]

f. Complete your User Profile Information [next]

g. Complete your Supervisor or Approving Official Information [next]

h. Complete Roles

i. Step 1. Select SOL-Solicitation

ii. Step 2. Select Proposal Manager

iii. Step 3. Click Add Roles

iv. Step 4. Fill in your Location Code (CAGE Code) [next]

i. Provide a justification for your registration [next]

j. Follow the remaining prompts to submit your registration

2. Log into PIEE and select the Solicitation Icon.

3. Enter search criteria to find the solicitation. (Search Criteria can be the complete solicitation number, Solicitation Open Date, Response Due Date, Product or Service Code, NAICS, Set Aside code, Place of Performance Zip Code, Contracting Office DODAAC, or Status)

4. The search results display. Select the Solicitation Number link to open the solicitation.

5. The solicitation displays. The information is view only.

6. Scroll down to see the Contract Information and Attachments. The Attachments can be viewed by selecting the File link. Scroll back up to the top of the screen and click the Offer tab.

7. Click the Offer tab to Add and review current offers on the Solicitation. Click the Add button to add an offer to the Solicitation.

8. Select the applicable CAGE Code for which they are submitting the offer. The list is prefiltered based on the CAGEs in the Proposal Manager’s profile.

9. Upload the attachments that comprise their offer by selecting the Choose Files link.

10. After entering all necessary information enter a Signature Date and Click the Signature button.

11. The Sign Document pop-up will be displayed requiring the user to enter a Digital Pin and One Time Password (OTP). Click the Sign and Submit button to continue.

12. After successfully adding the Offer a success message of the submission will be displayed and the offer displayed collapsed. Users may expand and view all offers on a Solicitation.

FILE FORMAT. Files shall be in Portable Document Format, filename extension: “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. There shall only be four files in each Offerors’ submission:

W9127S22R0003- Firm Name- Volume I, Contractual/Admin W9127S22R0003- Firm Name- Volume II, Technical Factors, and W9127S22R0003- Firm Name- Volume III, Price.

FONT SIZE. Shall not be less than 10-point. Each page shall be identified with the appropriate page number centered at the bottom of the page.

SHEET SIZE. Shall be 8-1/2 inches x 11 inches; however, if drawings, charts, or other graphics are submitted, sheets no larger than 11 inches x 17 inches shall be used. Sheets which are 11 x 17 inch will be counted as two 8-1/2-inch x 11-inch sheets. All sheets shall be dated and numbered.

COVER SHEET & TABLE OF CONTENTS. Proposals shall consist of four (4) three (3) volumes. A cover sheet identifying the Offeror (name, address, point of contact) and solicitation number shall be provided. The second sheet shall be a table of contents. The proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. Offers violating these rules unnecessarily delay the evaluation process and may be rejected by the Government after the initial evaluation without receiving any further consideration. Neither the cover sheet nor the table of contents count toward the page limitations.

BOOKMARKS. Proposals shall be bookmarked and labeled as specified in a manner to afford easy identification from the Table of Contents. Additional bookmarks may be provided but shall be nested under the appropriate tab bookmark.

HYPERLINKS. Hyperlinks are not permitted. This includes hyperlinks within the document, such as Figure or Table references to the page containing content, and hyperlinks to websites.

ATTACHMENTS. Attachments/appendices are not permitted.

PAGE LIMITS. The proposal shall not exceed the specified page limits. The Government will not review any information in excess of the page limits or information submitted in an appendix or attachment to the proposal. The Offeror shall not submit verbatim sections of this solicitation as part of their proposal. Offers not meeting these requirements may be subject to rejection.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Offerors shall submit their proposals in accordance with the following:

VOLUME I, Contractual/Admin Bookmark A – Standard Form 1442 (including any amendments) and Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment A). Proposal must include Offeror’s telephone number, FAX number, email address, and DUNS number. DUNS number will be used to access CPARS Data.

VOLUME II, Technical Factors Bookmark A – Factor 1 – Performance Capability

Sub-Factor 1.1 – Technical Approach

Sub-Factor 1.2 – Key Personnel Sub-Factor 1.3 – Organization

Bookmark B – Factor 2 – Proposed Contract Duration & Summary Schedule Bookmark C – Factor 3 – Past Performance

VOLUME III, Price Bookmark A — Price Schedule (Seed Task Order) Bookmark B — Offer Guarantee

PAGE LIMITS FOR VOLUME II FACTORS

FACTOR 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY (VOL II, BOOKMARK A)

SUB-FACTOR 1.1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

PAGE LIMIT: 10 Pages.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: The Offeror shall submit their technical approach to execution that includes:

1. Detailed discussion describing challenges, risks, and constraints associated with this project and how the offeror intends to address each with means and methods, resources, or internal organizational processes.

2. Discussion of the floating plant the offeror intends to utilize: List the type, length, capacity, speed, and availability of any self-propelled plant or vessel planned to move any non- self-propelled plant to be used. Include the river flow reading in cubic feet per second at which the floating plant must be moved away from the dam to safe areas and how the offeror arrived at that value. Define the minimum qualifications required for the Officers and crew of any floating plant to be utilized. The Offeror shall be required to provide the proposed floating plant for construction.

3. Description of the method(s) to be utilized by the offeror to deliver personnel, equipment, and materials to the gates to perform the work as well as the type of work platforms intended to be utilized. If the work platform is intended to be a scaffolding system supported by the dam structure provide a sketch showing the concept including details of attachment to the structure and a narrative as to how the contractor will ensure the scaffolding will be structurally sufficient to support the work. Define the water flow and elevation that would require workers begin removing equipment from any scaffolding system as well as the water flow and elevation at which no personnel would be allowed on the work platform. Include critical assumptions made and uncertainties that the Offeror believes will impact the completion of the work and plan to deal with each.

Factor 1 Performance Capability

1.1 Technical Approach 10 Pages

1.2 Key Personnel 2 Pages per Resume

1.3 Organization 3 Pages

Factor 2 Proposed Contract Duration & Summary Schedule Narrative 1 Page Gantt Chart 75 Items

Factor 3 Past Performance Past Performance Questionnaires 3 – 5 PPQs

4. Description of the means and method(s) that the offeror will utilize to measure and document the existing gates stability, location, and dimensions prior to work, how the offeror will ensure the gate maintains stability, location, and its dimensions during construction, and how the offeror will address any changes to the gate location or dimension that do occur as a result of the repair process.

5. Discussion about the equipment required for blasting, painting, and testing; the containment and disposal of spent sand blasting media; and how the adjacent structures will be protected.

6. Discussion about the equipment required for blasting, painting, and testing; the containment and disposal of spent sand blasting media; and how the adjacent structures will be protected.

7. Description of the items the Offeror will self-perform.

EVALUATION CRITERIA – The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it:

- Demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements and the technical risks and site constraints associated with the required work; and

- Demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of how major work tasks impact other major work tasks needed to accomplish the work; and

- Demonstrates the Offeror’s approach for managing the technical risks and site constraints for each major task of work.

SUB-FACTOR 1.2 – KEY PERSONNEL

PAGE LIMIT: 2 Pages per Resume.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: The Offeror shall provide resume data for the following key personnel:

Construction Project Manager, Quality Control Manager (CQC System Manager), all specialized personnel assisting the Quality Control Manager, Site Superintendent, and Site Safety and Health Officer.

Each submitted resume shall include, at a minimum:

1. Name and title.

2. Project assignment.

3. Name of firm with which associated.

4. Years of experience in the role identified.

5. Years of experience with this firm and with other firms.

6. Education degree(s), year, specialization, if applicable.

7. Active professional registration, year first registered, if applicable.

8. Other experience and qualifications relevant to same/similar work required under this contract.

Unless otherwise stated in the Specifications, each individual shall have a minimum of five (5) years of experience in their respective position.

EVALUATION CRITERIA – The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it:

- Demonstrates whether key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications.

SUB-FACTOR 1.3 – ORGANIZATION

PAGE LIMIT: 3 Pages.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: The Offeror shall provide its projected organized approach for successfully executing this work in accordance with all stated requirements. The approach must include, at a minimum:

1. Organization: Describe what firms, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities on the project. Include a simple organizational chart, illustrating the organization, including the proposed quality control group(s). Present a matrix of responsibilities for each firm in executing the key work breakdown structure activities of the project, including construction activities for each major feature. Identify the firms chosen for the project if not to be self-performed. The Offeror shall be required to obtain the Contracting Officer’s approval for any substitution of firms listed. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include a key personnel organization chart that clearly depicts the key positions and the names of the personnel, their firm affiliations and their job locations, their job/position title within the organization. The key personnel organization chart shall be consistent with the corporate organization chart, with the matrix of responsibilities assigned to the firms, and with the list of key personnel to be provided under the Tab, “Key Personnel.”

*Letter(s) of Commitment from Subcontractors may be submitted as part of this Sub-Factor. Inclusion of Letters of Commitment may be weighed against the review team’s confidence of a successful project. These will not count toward the page limit.

2. Quality Control: Describe the team’s quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the construction. Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan. Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as built, and completion documentation. There is no need to submit a quality control plan as the successful offeror will provide that after award. Describe how the team will meet USACE three phase quality control requirements.

3. Safety Plan: Describe the team’s safety approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain safety requirements during construction. Describe the proposed safety organization, including the proposed staffing plan.

The intent is to provide enough detail to demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the project; however, it is not the intent for the Offeror to provide the amount of detail that will be required in pre-work submittals.

EVALUATION CRITERIA – The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it:

- Demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the requirements detailed in the plans and specifications and the capability to execute the project; and

- Demonstrates the organizations’ strength and ability to execute the entire scope of work; and

- Demonstrates the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the quality control processes required for this contract;

and

- Demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the safety plan requirements.

FACTOR 2 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE (VOL II,

BOOKMARK B)

PAGE & TASK LIMITS: Narration: 1 Page. Gantt Chart: 75 Items.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: The Offeror shall submit a summary-level schedule for the duration of this requirement with the timeframe designated in the solicitation in mind. The schedule shall be task-oriented and indicate the number of calendar days, after Notice to Proceed, milestones will be achieved. A short narrative may accompany the schedule to provide context and clarification.

The schedule shall be presented in Gantt chart format using the critical path method (MS Project 2007 or Primavera P6 software). The schedule shall include a detailed outline of the project work schedule, identifying major work tasks and milestones that include completion of work performed and dates detailing who (prime vs. subcontractor) will perform each activity, with the minimum included:

1. Preparation, submittal, and review period.

2. Milestones: Notice to proceed; mandatory sequences activities.

3. Overall construction phase for all major item(s).

4. Graphical representation of critical path.

5. Completion, inspection, acceptance, and turnover of each gate.

6. Turnover of the project. Identify any proposed phased turnovers (if applicable). The time to complete the project and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

7. Constraints: Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.).

8. As-built submissions.

EVALUATION CRITERIA – The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it:

- Demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the overall requirement by clearly identifying the major tasks in a logical sequence and identifying critical path items; and

- Demonstrates the Offeror’s schedule is realistic considering the schedule constraint contained in FAR Clause 52.211-10 – Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work (APR 1984).

FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE (VOL II, BOOKMARK C)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: The Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) but no more than five (5) projects to demonstrate the organization's/team’s recent and relevant experience. Only include projects completed up to five (5) years prior to the date of this RFP. The Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) but no more than five (5) projects to demonstrate the organization's/team’s recent and relevant experience.

Completed projects presented must be within ten (10) years prior to the date of the RFP Issue Date. Active projects presented must have been awarded more than 1 year prior to the date of the RFP Issue Date and be more than 50% complete. Review will be completed in the order they are submitted within the proposal.

For each submitted project, the Offeror shall request a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), found as Attachment B below, from those Government agencies or private sector companies’ Point of Contact identified for each project.

These agency or company contacts must have detailed information concerning the performance of the project in order to accurately complete the PPQ for the Offeror. The POCs may be contacted by the SSEB to assess the scope of work performed and to evaluate performance of the projects listed under the previous experience tab of this volume, if necessary; therefore, it is imperative to ensure correct telephone and email addresses are identified for the client POCs on each PPQ. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted with your proposal if they are able to be received from the POC prior to the proposal due date. Offerors shall follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the Offeror’s client requests, he/she may submit the questionnaire directly to the Contract Specialist, Sarah Hagood at Sarah.N.Hagood@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

PPQs previously completed by the example project's POC may be submitted in lieu of requesting the POC to re-complete the form; however, Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

NOTE: For Department of Defense (DoD) projects, the Offeror need not submit a copy of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluations (ACASS & CCASS) for each DoD project; instead, provide written notification current ratings are available for the Government to evaluate. CPARS evaluations shall not be submitted by the Offeror in place of a PPQ.

TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS AND JOINT VENTURES. Provide a copy of the teaming/joint venture agreement. Offerors may submit experience of an affiliated entity where the affiliated entity has made a firm commitment to participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. If required, JV approval must be obtained in accordance with Small Business Administration policy.

EVALUATION CRITERIA: There are two aspects to the Government’s past performance evaluation: relevancy and quality of performance. The Government will first evaluate how relevant the past performance is to the work required by the MATOC specifications and then the Government will evaluate how well the Offeror performed on the submitted projects. In doing this, Government will use the relevancy and confidence ratings discussed below.

In addition to the PPQs, the Government may review and consider any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror (including information from Government personnel and databases).

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.

The Government intends to assess the relative risks associated with the Offeror’s performance based on the past performance information provided in the proposal and, if applicable, information obtained from available sources identified previously. A significant achievement, unexplained or unresolved problem, or lack of relevant data may significantly impact the risk rating by the Government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to include all relevant information, including demonstrated corrective actions, in its proposal.

In addition to the project information requested in this section, the Offeror shall also provide notification and information concerning any projects where it’s right to proceed was terminated for the convenience of the Government or for default/cause during the last five (5) years, or so state that there were none. If any contracts were terminated, whether for convenience or default/cause, the Offeror shall list each, providing the contract number, title, brief type of work effort, and the reason for the termination.

NOTE: Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSAC may recommend, and 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 the best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

PRICE SCHEDULE (SEED) (VOL IV, BOOKMARK A)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: Submit the required Price/Bid Schedule (SF 1442) that includes pricing for all Contract Lines Items (CLINs). An Offeror that fails to submit a complete price proposal may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

EVALUATION CRITERIA: The Government will perform a price analysis after completion of technical evaluations. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine completeness, reasonableness, and understanding of the work. Price will not be rated but will be a factor in making the final best value determination for award.

OFFER GUARANTEE (VOL IV, BOOKMARK B)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: Submit Standard Form 24. The guarantee shall be submitted in accordance with Contract Clause 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee.

EVALUATION CRITERIA: This item is not rated. The Government will review the Bid Bond for legal sufficiency.

The Bond must be legally sufficient. Failure to submit a bid bond may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

DEFINITIONS AND RATING ADJECTIVES

DEFINITIONS

Affordability Caps are the approved cost constraints for major systems acquisitions determined by the resources a DoD component can allocate, which provide a threshold for procurement and sustainment costs that cannot be exceeded. For other procurements, this is the approved funding allocated for a given acquisition.

Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. See FAR 2.101.

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(b).

Competitive Range - See FAR 15.306(c).

Deficiency is 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.

Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(d).

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO’s written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions.

Excesses are elements of the proposal that have exceeded mandatory minimums (in ways that are not integral to the design) whose removal and corresponding price decrease may make an offeror’s proposal more competitive. See FAR 15.306(d)(4).

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) is a process used in competitive negotiated contracting where the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. See

FAR 15.101-2.

Objective (or objective (maximum) as used in this document) is the value of an attribute that is applicable when a higher level of performance delivers significant increased operational effect, or decreased operational risk, if it can be delivered below the affordability cap. The objective value is the desired operational goal that is achievable but may be at a higher risk in cost, schedule, and technology.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Requirements Documents are all aspects of the RFP that convey the needs of the Government to offerors, including the SOO, SOW, PWS, technical requirement documents, and system requirement documents.

Requirements Owner is the entity (for example, a program management office or other organizational entity) responsible for providing requirements documents within the RFP that communicate those requirements to offerors.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The 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, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

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

Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) is a group of individuals, appointed as needed by the SSA, that provides counsel during the source selection process, prepares the comparative analysis of the SSEB's final evaluation results, and makes an award recommendation to the SSA.

Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to make the source selection decision.

Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) is the document that reflects the SSA's independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision.

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is a group of individuals representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition that is responsible for evaluating proposals against the solicitation criteria.

Source Selection Information is information prepared for use by an agency for the purpose of evaluating a bid or proposal to enter into an agency procurement contract, if that information has not been previously made available to the public or disclosed publicly. See FAR 2.101 for a listing of source selection information.

Source Selection Plan (SSP) is a plan that describes how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how source(s) will be selected.

Source Selection Team (SST) is a team that is tailored to the specific acquisition, tasked with carrying out a source selection. Composition of the team generally consists of the SSA, PCO (if different from the SSA), SSAC, SSEB, Advisors, Cost or Price Experts, Legal Counsel, Small Business Professionals/Specialists, and other subject-matter experts.

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

Subjective Tradeoff is a source selection process used when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror but it is not possible to place a quantifiable value on proposed performance or capabilities above threshold (minimum) requirements (see paragraph 1.3.1.3).

Threshold (or Threshold (minimum) as used in this document) is the minimum acceptable value of an attribute that is considered achievable within the available cost, schedule, and technology at low-to-moderate risk. Performance below the threshold value is not operationally effective or suitable or may not provide an improvement over current capability. (See also “mandatory minimums” in FAR 15.306(d)(4).)

Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) is a tradeoff source selection process where the offeror’s total proposed price may be adjusted based on the “value” placed on better performance as identified in the solicitation.

The SSA must then determine if a higher rated technical offer is “worth” the additional cost to the Government.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

RATING ADJECTIVES

Outstanding— Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good— Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable— Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal— Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable— Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVENCY RATINGS

In performing the past performance evaluation, evaluators will apply the following relevance levels to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of Offerors.

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.

RATING AND PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

The government will evaluate past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. Each Offeror will be assigned one of the ratings below for past performance.

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 successfully perform the required effort.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION WEIGHTS

For the purpose of this evaluation, the following terms will be used to establish the relative importance of the technical factors:

More Important: The criterion is greater in value than another criterion.

Equal in Importance: The criterion is of the same value or nearly the same as another criterion.

Less Important: The criterion is less in value than another criterion.

Weight among technical factors:

Factor/Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance

Factor 1 Volume II Bookmark A Performance Capability

Factor 1 is more important than Factors 2 and 3.

Sub-Factor 1.1 Technical Approach

Sub-Factor 1.1 is more important than Sub- Factors 1.2 and 1.3.

Sub-Factor 1.2 Key Personnel

Sub-Factor 1.2 is less important than Sub- Factor 1.1 and more important than Sub- Factor 1.3.

Sub-Factor 1.3 Organization

Sub-Factor 1.3 is less important than Sub- Factors 1.1 and 1.2.

Factor 2 Bookmark B Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule

Factor 2 is less important than Factor 1 and equally as important as Factor 3.

Factor 3 Bookmark C Past Performance

Factor 3 is less important than Factor 1 and equally as important as Factor 2.

EVALUATION

Each member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will independently consider all information provided in the technical proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the team will meet and determine a rating for each of the evaluation factors by consensus decision. The evaluation team will document strengths (e.g., advantages), weaknesses (e.g., disadvantages), and other comments (e.g., deficiency and/or clarification) to support the rating for each factor, as well as the overall rating. The ratings for Technical Factors will be expressed in an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable. Documentation and comments are required for all ratings. This consensus rating will be provided to the Source Selection Authority.

BASIS OF AWARD

The Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors. Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability, and responsibility. For offerors other than small businesses, this includes submission of an acceptable subcontracting plan.

The Government intends to award without discussions based on initial proposals received; therefore, the proposals shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. The Government reserves the right to address any pertinent issues in the proposals.

The combination of all technical (non-price) evaluation factors are more important than the price. As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in rating and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination.

ATTACHMENT A

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

DUNS # (used for accessing CCASS)

CAGE Code

If a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association:

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS (FAR 52.215-11)

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP):

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

ATTACHMENT B

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND

SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED

QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE

HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT

THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT

TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/ Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/ Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/ Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly…