Am0002.pdf

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 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.

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

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

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

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

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.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

Amendment No. 0002

Conduit Filter Install & Partial Conduit Replacement, Salt Creek 2, 4, 14 & 17, Lincoln, NE.

See attached documentation for content of the amendment revisions

New Date for receipt of Proposals is 27 August 2019 at 2:00 pm

Government Point of Contact: Dan Monahan (402) 995-2886

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVE.

OMAHA, NE 68102-4901

See Item 6

W9128F19R0031

07/26/2019

05/23/2019

07/26/2019

Am #0002 - 2 (Continuation SF 30)

26 July 2019 Solicitation No. W9128F19R0031

Date of Issue: 23 May 2019 New Date of Receiving Proposals: 27 August 2019

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0002 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Construction of Conduit Filter Install & Partial Conduit Replacement, Salt Creek 2, 4, 14 & 17, Lincoln, NE.

TO: Prospective Offerors and Others Concerned

1. The specifications and drawings for subject project are hereby modified as follows (revise all specification indices, attachment lists, and drawing indices accordingly).

a. Specifications. (Descriptive Changes.)

(1) Section 00 10 00, SF1442 and CLIN Pricing Schedule, delete date and time of receiving proposals shown and substitute "27 August 2019" at "2:00 pm.

(2) Section 00 21 00 Page 11, paragraph 1.14, subparagraph (b), delete “Wednesday, 12 June 2019” and substitute “Tuesday, 13 August 2019”.

(3) Section 00 21 00 Page 12, paragraph 1.16.3, last line, delete “Tyler.Hegge@usace.army.mil” and substitute “David.W.Neal@usace.army.mil”

(4) Section 01 12 00 Page 8, add the following new paragraph:

“1.15 ORDER OF WORK

Due to the complexity, Site 14 will be completed last.”

b. Specifications (New and/or Revised and Reissued). Delete and substitute or add specification pages or sections as noted below. The substituted pages or sections are revised and reissued with this amendment.

Pages or Sections Deleted Pages or Sections Substituted or Added

Section 00 22 00 Section 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

2. This amendment is a part of the proposing papers and its receipt shall be acknowledged. All other conditions and requirements of the request for proposal remain unchanged.

3. Electronic Proposal/Email. Provide proposals by AMRDEC, however send a courtesy email that contractor has submitted proposal via AMRDEC for the sake of tracking and acknowledging receipt. Courtesy Email to the following address:

Daniel.D.Monahan@usace.army.mil David.W.Neal@usace.army.mil

4. Electric Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m., local time at place of receiving proposals, 27 August 2019, as stated in the Request For Proposal.

Am #0002 - 3 (Continuation SF 30)

Attachments: Specifications listed in 1.b. above

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901

26 July 2019

MFS/2184

SECTION 00 22 00 W9128F19R0031

Salt Creek Conduit Repairs

Section 00 22 00 - Page 1 Am0002

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3. SIZE OF PRINTED MATTER SUBMISSIONS

4. WHERE TO SUBMIT

4.1. Bidder Inquiry

4.2. Proposal Submittal Instructions

5. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

6. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

6.1. Summary

6.2. Information

6.3. Tradeoff Process

6.4. Evaluation Definitions

7. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

7.1. Volume 1-Technical

7.2. Volume II – Cover Letter and Price

8. VOLUME I - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

8.1. Page Limitations

8.2. Factor 1 – Experience (Most Important Factor)

8.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance (Second Most Important Factor)

8.4. Factor 3 -- Small Business Participation Plan (Third Most Important Factor) .......…….16

9. VOLUME II – FACTOR 4 -- PRICE

9.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

9.2 EVALUATION OF PRICE

9.3 CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

9.4 JOINT VENTURES AND AFFILIATION

9.5 JOINT VENTURES/SAM REGISTRATION

10 COMPETITIVE RANGE

11 CLARIFICATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

Section 00 22 00 - Page 2 Am0002

12 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

13 DEBRIEFING

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

This solicitation is unrestricted.

All offerors, including joint ventures, must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). See paragraph 9.6. NOTE: If you are registering as a new entity in the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov to do business with the U.S. Government, a notarized letter stating you are the authorized Entity Administrator is required before your account can be activated in SAM.gov entity registration.

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly indicate compliance with the proposal submission requirements.

3. SIZE OF PRINTED MATTER SUBMISSIONS

Unless otherwise stated, the following formatting requirements apply: a page is defined as one 8.5"x 11" size electronic page with 1 inch margins and using a minimum of 10 point Times New Roman font. Font style and size requirements are not applicable to graphics, organization chart, bar chart schedule, or drawings (if provided); however, these documents must be legible.

Any form that the Government has provided as an Attachment to be filled out by the Offeror shall follow the format of the form.

4. WHERE TO SUBMIT

Offerors shall submit their proposal packages to the USACE Contracting Activity at the address shown in Paragraph 4.2.

4.1. Bidder Inquiry.

Technical inquiries and questions relating to technical requirements, proposal procedures, etc.

are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at: https://www.projnet.org/projnet/.

The Bidder Inquiry system is to be used to ask and receive answers to all non-proprietary questions. See 00 21 00, Paragraph 1.18.1. Bidder Inquiry for more information.

4.2. Proposal Submittal Instructions.

In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically via the AMRDEC SAFE website. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) applied to all documents that will enable word searches to be conducted using Adobe-compatible PDF software. The two (2) volumes listed below shall be submitted as “SEPARATE” single files via AMRDEC. Offerors may use compression utilities such as 7-Zip, WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission when using AMRDEC. Offerors are encouraged to send both files in the same AMRDEC transmission, if possible.

4.2.1. AMRDEC Submittals

Volume I: Technical Proposal and Past Performance Information Volume II: Cost Information and Other Statements of Offerors

Title the single files in the following format:

W9128F19R0031_Company_Name_Volume_I_Technical_Proposal W9128F19R0031_Company_Name_Volume_II_Price_Information

(Note: Company name may be abbreviated)

To submit proposals electronically via AMRDEC SAFE, go to the following website:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/ At the AMRDEC SAFE website select “Non-CAC Users” in order to register, access the site and submit your proposal(s). When completing the information for transmittal at the AMRDEC SAFE website, you will be asked to enter e-mail addresses for the recipients. When your proposal is submitted via the AMRDEC SAFE website, the website will provide notification of the submittal to the recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients will be:

Daniel Monahan, daniel.d.monahan@usace.army.mil David Neal, david.w.neal@usace.army.mil

After submitting your information, you will receive two (2) disclaimers:

a. “The files were successfully uploaded.”

b. “Your files cannot be downloaded by recipients until you verify your email address. Please check your email for further instructions.”

***OFFERORS MUST FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS SENT TO YOUR EMAIL

TO COMPLETE THE SUBMITTAL PROCESS***

For the purposes of determining whether the proposal was received “late” in accordance with FAR 15.208, the date and time the file(s) are uploaded into the AMRDEC SAFE website as identified in the AMRDEC e-mail sent to the Contract Specialist(s)/Contracting Officer will be the time and date the Government received the proposal. Please note that the process involves two steps, after the proposal has been uploaded to the AMRDEC SAFE website the Offeror must verify its email address in order for the Government to receive access to the proposal uploaded onto the AMRDEC SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal.

NOTE: ONLY in the unusual case that the AMRDEC website is “down” (not operational);

the Offeror should email their proposal to the following individuals prior to the proposal due date and time:

Daniel Monahan at email address: daniel.d.monahan@usace.army.mil

David Neal, david.w.neal@usace.army.mil

5. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

Proposals shall be received by the USACE Contracting Activity no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

6. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

6.1. Summary.

All proposals and documentation which have been properly submitted will be evaluated. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the factors stated in the solicitation to select the responsible Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government. Because of the number of proposals anticipated, uniformity of all proposals is essential to assure fair and accurate evaluation. All proposals must comply with the instructions in the solicitation. Proposals that do not generally conform to the solicitation requirements may be considered to have a “critical defect”, i.e. a defect that cannot be remedied by exchanges and/or permitted proposal revisions. If a proposal is suspected of having a critical defect, it will be brought to the immediate attention of the appropriate authority who will determine if there is a critical defect. If the determination is made that a critical defect exists, the proposal will not be evaluated further and will be eliminated from further consideration. The affected Offeror shall be promptly notified of the decision. Properly conforming proposals will be forwarded to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for evaluation. If, after award, the key personnel or sub- contractors identified in the proposal are replaced, replacement personnel or sub-contractors with similar skills and experience equal to those presented in the proposal shall be presented to the Contracting Officer for approval. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitutions for these designated personnel or sub-contractors.

6.2. Information.

Information obtained from owners, contract administrators, or other points of contact provided by the Offeror may affect the evaluation rating given for the factors being evaluated by those discussions.

6.3. Tradeoff Process.

Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Tradeoff Process, FAR 15.101-1.

This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically-rated proposal to achieve a best-value contract award. Factors 1 and 2 will be rated using an adjectival methodology referenced below in Paragraph 6.4.10.

using the Combined/Technical Risk Ratings. Factor 3 will utilize the ratings described in Paragraph 6.4.11. below. Factor 4 will utilize the Small Business Participation Factor Ratings below in Paragraph 6.4.12. Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the Offeror’s ability to perform the resultant contract successfully. Proposals will be evaluated to determine ratings supported by narratives, and to identify strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposed approach in each proposal.

6.4. Evaluation Definitions.

6.4.1. Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

6.4.2. Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

6.4.4. Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

6.4.6. 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 demonstrated experience regarding the technical factor may result in risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

6.4.7. Clarification. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the

Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated.

6.4.8. Communications. Communications are exchanges between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

6.4.9. Discussions. Discussions are exchanges (i.e. negotiations) in a competitive acquisition that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

6.4.10. Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The application of a scale of colors and adjectival description will be used in conjunction with narrative to denote the degree to which the proposal has met the standard for a non-cost factor. Ratings will be applied at the factor and sub-factor level (if applicable). If, at any level of indentation, an Offeror’s proposal is evaluated as not meeting a minimum requirement (that is, below the level of Green - Acceptable), this fact must be included in the rating and narrative assessment at that level and each higher level of indentation.

Therefore, a marginal (yellow) or unacceptable (red) rating at any level may be carried to the factor level.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description

Outstanding

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

Good

Proposal indicates 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 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.

6.4.11. Past Performance (Factor 2) Evaluation.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects of the past performance evaluation. The first aspect is recency/relevancy. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated relevancy record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Consideration shall be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement.

Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. There are four levels of relevancy as shown below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

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.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts and give a performance confidence assessment.

The past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited. Past performance information may also be obtained from questionnaires. Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The Source Selection Evaluation Board will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings as indicated below.

Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

An Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating will be given when no past performance records are otherwise 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."

6.4.12. Small Business Participation Plan Evaluation (Reference Paragraph 8.6 below):

The following table will be used to evaluate Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Plan.

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

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

7. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The requirements specified in the solicitation are considered to be minimum requirements. A more favorable evaluation may be given for exceeding the minimum requirements. Note: In accordance with FAR 15.304(e)(1), all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

The following factors are listed in descending order of importance:

7.1. Volume 1-Technical

Factor 1: Experience (Most Important Factor)

Factor 2: Past Performance (Second Most Important Factor)

Factor 3: Small Business Participation Plan (Third Most Important Factor)

7.2. Volume II – Cover Letter and Price

Factor 4: Price (Least Important Factor)

8. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

All proposals shall contain the information stated herein. Proposal clarity, organization (as defined in this solicitation) and cross-referencing is mandatory. No material (information not part of the proposal) shall be incorporated by reference.

(1) Volume 1 - Offerors shall submit Technical Volume 1 containing Factors 1-4.

Factor 1: Experience (Most Important Factor)

Factor 2: Past Performance (Second Most Important Factor)

Factor 3: Small Business Participation Plan (Third Most Important Factor)

(2) Volume II - Offerors shall submit the information shown below for Volume II

Factor 4: Price

Volume II shall include a cover letter stating that the proposal complies completely with all terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the solicitation. A proposal that does not comply with all terms, conditions, and specifications in the solicitation may be rejected and not considered for award.

Volume II containing the Solicitation, Offer and Award and Pricing Schedule (Section 00 10 00), Cover Letter, Pre-Award Survey Information, and Subcontracting Plan.

Please Note: The Government will not pay for the provision of any information, nor will it compensate any Offerors for the development of the required information listed in the solicitation, in the preparation of the Offerors proposal.

All proposals shall contain the information stated herein. Proposal clarity, organization (as defined in this solicitation) and cross-referencing is mandatory.

No material (information not part of proposal) shall be incorporated by reference.

Note: If you do not want the data submitted below disclosed by the Government, follow the procedure specified in Section 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS, paragraph: RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE AND USE OF DATA. However, portions of the winning proposal will be incorporated into the contract and are subject to disclosure notwithstanding restrictive markings.

8.1. Page Limitations

TABLE 1: Page Limitations. Pages exceeding the page limitations in each factor will not be evaluated.

Volume Evaluation

Factor Title Page Limitations

Factor 1

Experience

Two (2) pages per project with a maximum of 8 pages total

Factor 2

Past Performance

No page limit but limited to the projects submitted in Factor 2

Factor 3

Small Business

Participation Plan

No Page Limitation

Factor 4

Price

No page limit for Volume 2

8.2. Factor 1: Experience

8.2.1. Submission Requirements:

This factor is designed to verify the previous experience of the offeror in earthwork on dams and implementing dewatering systems. Offeror shall submit no more than two (2) examples of construction projects for each work element below (i.e. two examples of earthwork on high hazard dams and two examples of installation and operation of dewatering systems) which best demonstrates the experience of the offeror as a Contractor on projects of similar function, scope, complexity and size as this project and as defined above. Each project should be completed in the past five

(5) years (from the date of solicitation issue). If more than two (2) examples of construction projects are submitted for each work element, only the first two (2) shall be reviewed by the Government. The following is a description of work elements where project examples are required:

• Earthwork on Dams, Levees or Other Water Retention Structures: Provide descriptions of the offeror’s history of coordinating and performing relatively deep and narrow excavations within embankment and/or foundation of dams, levees, or other water retention structures. Earthwork experience on high hazard dams similar to Salt Creek Dam Sites 2, 4, 14, and 17 will be rated more favorably. High Hazard Dams are defined in this solicitation as earth-fill embankments with a height of at least 30 feet. Additionally, a high hazard dam is defined as those where failure or mis-operation will probably cause loss of human life and is further defined in FEMA Document 333, Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams.

• Dewatering Systems: Provide a description of the offeror’s history of coordinating and installing a dewatering system of similar scope as required in this contract (See Specification Section 33 26 00 DEWATERING). Similar scope is defined as installation of a well-point dewatering system to depress groundwater at least 10 feet around a finite excavation to allow a suitable work area within the excavation.

Projects that meet the requirements described for both work elements above (Earthwork on Dams, Levees or Other Water Retention Structures, in conjunction with a Dewatering System) will be counted as one (1) example of each work element and are considered more relevant. Earthwork experience on high hazard dams will be more relevant and rated more favorably.

Projects submitted with an award amount of $250,000 or greater are considered more relevant.

Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements set forth in the RFP. The offeror shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. If the Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. If projects were design-build, so identify them.

Project information shall CLEARLY include:

(a) Type of Facility Represented

(b) Name of Firm

(c) Name of Project

(d) Location of Project

(e) Owner, including reference POC with confirmed contact information

(f) General Scope of Construction Project

(g) Summary of Your Role in the Project

(h) Construction Cost at completion

(i) Percentage and Type of Work Subcontracted Out

(j) Dates Construction Began and Completed

8.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

Characteristics such as size, complexity, number and types of trades employed, and whether the Federal Government was the customer may be indicative of similarity.

Strengths or Significant Strengths may be given for:

• Project examples that are more similar in function, scope, and size to this project, and clearly demonstrate a contractor’s capabilities to complete a project of this nature and execute the project successfully while containing costs and maintaining schedule.

• Project examples that include earthwork on high hazard dams.

• Project examples that include earthwork on dams, levees, or water retention structures that required the installation, operation, and maintenance of a dewatering system.

• Federal Government construction projects

• Any 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.

Weaknesses or Significant Weaknesses may be given for:

• Projects that are not yet complete.

• Projects showing significant cost and time growth.

• Projects cited which indicate the Offeror was not the prime contractor.

• Any flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Omission of required information may result in a deficiency (see paragraph 6.4.5.

above).

Note: The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing DoD or Government appraisal systems, or through interviewing owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

8.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance

8.4.1 Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall provide past performance evaluations for each of the projects submitted under 8.3 Factor 2 - Experience. The Offeror may submit its past performance evaluations in any combination of these three (3) methods below.

(1) Rating issued under Contractor Performance Assessment Report System

(CPARS) by federal clients. Offeror’s are requested to retrieve their CPARS past performance information directly from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at http://www.ppirs.gov. PPIRS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major federal performance reporting systems. Logging onto PPIRS will require a UserID and Password.to log into PPIRS.

(2) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) completed by the client for submission with offer. The PPQ is Attachment 1 to the solicitation and is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client.

The PPQ should be completed by an owner or owner’s representative not affiliated with your firm. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure the client has timely submittal of questionnaire. Questionnaires shall be electronically submitted to:

Daniel Monahan, daniel.d.monahan@usace.army.mil and David Neal, david.w.neal@usace.army.mil

The offerors shall also include in the proposal a reference list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Questionnaire rests solely with the Offeror and shall not be delegated to any subcontractors, team contractors, or joint venture partners.

(3) Reference equivalent to CPARS or PPQ completed by the client. It is not necessary to have the client complete a new PPQ (or equivalent) or performance rating for this solicitation if the client has already completed one for other purposes (such as another solicitation). To avoid duplication of effort, the Government will accept a reference previously completed by the client.

Offerors that have no record of past performance (i.e., new businesses) must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect.

8.4.2. Evaluation Method

Offerors that have no record of past performance (i.e., new businesses) must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect. If an offer submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the Offeror’s past performance, that Offeror will be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance (i.e., the Offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance

8.4.3. Additional Information

Offerors are requested to retrieve their past performance information directly from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at http://www.ppirs.gov. PPIRS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major federal performance reporting systems.

Logging onto PPIRS will require the following:

All Offerors must have purchased and installed a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificate. If you do not have this certificate, you cannot access your information. Additional information about the PKI certificate is posted in the column under “Links” on the left side of the http://www.ppirs.gov web page.

You will also need your DUNS number and Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) to log onto PPIRS. The MPIN number was selected by whoever registered your firm in the previous Central Contractor Registry (CCR) or System for Award Management (SAM) at http://www.sam.gov. If you do not know your MPIN number, you will need to contact the Federal Service Desk on the https://fsd.gov/fsd-gov/home.do web page.

Please be aware that they will only release the MPIN number to the person who originally registered your firm.

There are two other ways to obtain a copy of CPARS evaluations as follows:

(1) Contact your government point of contact for the project you mentioned, and ask them if they can send you a copy, or (2) Apply for “Corporate Senior Contractor Representative” access on the following CPARS web page:

http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/. This type of access is issued to only one person within the firm, typically a member of senior management. In addition to access to your completed CPARS performance evaluations, you will also be able to view status of evaluations, which have not yet been completed.

Following receipt of your application request, you will be emailed a logon and access instructions. This type of access will only let you see view CPARS information, so it is not as complete as PPIRS access, which allows access to evaluations prepared by non-DOD federal agencies, as well as the DOD agencies, which use CPARS. Be aware that you will also need to have a PKI certificate to access the CPARS system. This is a DOD requirement.

8.5 Factor 3 – Small Business Participation

8.5.1 Submission Requirements

This factor requires all Offerors, regardless of size status to address their planned small business usage for this project. All Offerors are required to provide a Small Business Participation Plan. Offerors should propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractor) in the performance of this acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this area. The Participation Plan should address the Offeror’s corporate approach and methodology for acquiring, soliciting and using small businesses in the performance of this contract. All plans should address the Offeror's commitments to providing subcontracting opportunities, as well as evidence of planned and /or continued outreach efforts to encourage and use small businesses. This Participation Plan should include a breakdown of small business subcategories to be used as shown on the chart in (d) below.

The Participation Plan should demonstrate commitment to all federally designated categories of small business: Small Businesses (SBs), Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) HUBZone Small Businesses (HUB), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSBs), and when applicable, Historically Black Colleges/Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MIs).

The plan should identify all categories for participation as part of the Offeror's team. This should include a general description of the type of work, product or service anticipated to be supplied via a small business concern. Large business primes may achieve the small business participation goals through subcontracting to small businesses.

Small business primes may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses.

A specific format is not required, however, items stated below (a) through (e) shall be provided as a minimum.

Small Business Participation Plan requirements:

(a) Provide a narrative addressing the corporate approach and methodology for acquiring, soliciting and using small businesses in the performance of this contract. The narrative should address the Offeror's commitment to providing subcontracting opportunities, as well as evidence of planned and /or continued outreach efforts to encourage and use small businesses. The narrative should provide detailed supporting documentation regarding the individual commitments expressed in percentages for evaluators to determine that the goals stated are realistic.

(b) Provide the applicable size and categories for the Prime Offeror for this procurement.

Large Business Prime Offeror

Small Business Prime Offeror (also check type of SB below) Small Disadvantaged Business Woman-Owned SB Small Business HUB Zone Small Business Veteran Owned Small Business Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Historically Black College/University or Minority Institution

(c) Submit the Total Percentages planned for Small Business. Percentages are based on Total Contract Value of the Offeror. For this project, the Offeror is required to submit total percentages to identify goals based on planned small business utilization that are challenging but realistic.

Total Percentage planned for Small Business: = % (Small Business Prime Contractors – Include yourselves in the above percentage.)

For example: If you are a Small Business Prime Contractor and will be doing 40% of the work and you will be subcontracting another 20% to other small business firms, then your Total Percentage planned for Small Business will = 60%

(d) Indicate the total percentage of participation, Supplies/Services to be provided and the name of the small business firms intended to be used by each type of subcategory small business.

Type of Small Business % Supplies/

Services Name of Small Business Firms

Small Business

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

Service Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVOSB)

Veteran Owned (VOSB) Historical Black Colleges/Minority Institutions

(HBCU/MI)

(e) Provide types of commitments, if any are in place, for this specific acquisition either written, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, joint venturing, mentor-protégé, etc.

8.5.2 Evaluation

All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business sub-contractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition; or alternatively may consider the percentage of ‘planned subcontracting’ dollars.

e. Past performance of the offerors in complying with the requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (applicable to both small and large), and FAR 52.219-9 (applicable to large businesses only), Small Business Subcontracting Plan (in looking at Small Business Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well the offeror has performed on achieving its small business goals (applicable to large businesses only) in their compliance of FAR 52.219-9, utilizing electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) information;

8.6 Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {10%} of the total contract value.

8.7 Evaluation Method

Offerors who propose a goal that exceed the required 10% goal will receive a more favorable evaluation than Offerors that merely meet the goal. Offerors will be evaluated on their proposed utilization and participation of small business concerns as team members, subcontractors, and/or suppliers in the resulting contract. The Offeror’s will be evaluated on its commitments that small business concerns will have maximum subcontracting opportunities. Enforceable commitments to use small business concerns will receive more favorable evaluations than non-enforceable commitments. Offerors will be evaluated favorably if they provide assurances that small business clauses and terms are included in subcontracts.

9. VOLUME II - FACTOR 5 - PRICE

9.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Cover Letter.

Submit a cover letter stating that the proposal complies completely with all terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the solicitation and states the following:

• No exception of any terms, conditions, or requirements has been taken, or if so, delineate any exception(s) taken

• The company is eligible for award with evidence of SAM registration and Certification and Representations

• The company does not possess any Federal debt that would prohibit them from receiving an award

• Letter should be sign by an officer of the company that has the authority to enter into a binding contract with the Government.

b. Section 00 10 00, Solicitation, Offer and Award and Pricing Schedule.

Include the completed SF Form 1442 (Pages 00 10 00-1 and 00 10 00-2) of the RFP, along with the completed CLIN Pricing Schedule. The total price for the project will be considered for evaluation and will assist in establishment of the competitive range (if one is established).

c. Section 00 45 00, Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors.

Offerors should ensure that completion of System for Award Management (SAM) per FAR 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS has been accomplished as the Government intends to retrieve this information from SAM.

d. Pre-Award Survey.

In accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-15 PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS, the following information should be submitted with each offer. Submission of this information will expedite the award process.

1. Financial:

Name, address, fax number and e-mail address of Financial

Institution Name and phone number of finance individual (primary and alternate) to be contacted for information

2. Bonding Information: Provide the name, address, regular phone number, fax number and e-mail address of the Offeror’s Surety Company.

e. Subcontracting Plan

Separate from Small Business Participation Plan, other than U.S. Small Business offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFAS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan) in Volume II. Other than U.S. Small Business offerors must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan.

See 00 21 00 Page 16, Para 1.24 for more on Subcontracting Plan Information.

9.2 EVALUATION OF PRICE

Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of price analysis. Price analysis will be performed using one or more techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b). In the event, during the course of the analysis, if there is reason to question the reasonableness of a price proposal, additional price analysis shall be conducted as required in order to complete a thorough analysis. The price proposal will also be evaluated for completeness; all price information required in section 9.1 must be submitted.

The total evaluated price will be the summation of CLIN prices proposed by the Offeror in the CLIN Pricing Schedule (refer to Section 00 10 00). The total evaluated price will be the price used for purposes of conducting the best-value tradeoff analysis.

Unbalanced Pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The CLIN prices will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

9.3 CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

The Contracting Officer will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationship are fully disclosed and validation of formal agreements and relationships (i.e., Mentor-Protégé agreements, joint-ventures, partnerships, etc.) are provided in the offer and submitted with the proposal responding to the solicitation. Nothing in the solicitation authorizes contractor team arrangements in violation of antitrust statutes or limits the Government’s rights to:

(1) Require consent to subcontracts (FAR Subpart 44.2)

(2) Determine, on the basis of the stated contractor team arrangement, the responsibilities of the prime contractor

(3) Provide to the prime contractor data rights owned or controlled by the Government.

(4) Pursue its policies on competitive contracting, subcontracting, and component breakout and initial production or an any other time; and

(5) Hold the prime contractor fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors.

9.4 JOINT VENTURES AND AFFILIATION

(1) The joint venture is viewed as a business entity in determining power to control its management. For the purpose of this solicitation, a joint venture entity cannot submit more than three offers over a two year period, starting from the date of the submission of the first offer.

(2) The Contracting Officer may determine if the relationship between a prime contractor and its subcontractor is a joint venture, and that affiliation between the two exists.

(3) A joint venture of two or more business concerns may submit an offer as a small business in response to this solicitation without regard to affiliation so long as each concern is small under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the solicitation.

(4) Parties to a joint venture are affiliates if any one of them seeks SBA financial assistance for use in connection with the joint venture.

(5) A joint venture of two or more business concerns may submit an offer as a small business for a Federal procurement without regard to affiliation as long as each concern is small under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the solicitation.

(6) The completed approved joint venture agreement must be submitted with the initial offer to the solicitation.

9.5 JOINT VENTURES/SAM REGISTRATION

No contract may be awarded to a joint venture that is not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). Joint ventures may register in the following way:

(1) The firm that will be the recipient of payments should be registered in

SAM and have a DUNS number. This firm is considered in the SAM to be the “mother firm.” If no money is to go to any other firm in the joint venture, the mother firm may make the other firm in the joint venture a “child.” This child will be assigned the mother firm’s SAM number with an…