Amd 02 - W9128F21Q0004 for Oahe Draft Tube Bulkheads.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

The purpose of this modification are listed below .

1. The due date has been extended to 2PM CDT on 13 July 2021.

2. All questions must be submitted in ProjNet by 4PM CDT on 3 July 2021.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-Jun-2021

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 W9128F21Q0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Jun-2021

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

25-Jun-2021

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DIST

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVENUE

OMAHA NE 68102-4901

W9128F 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9128F21Q0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 01-Jul-2021 02:00 PM to 13-Jul-2021 02:00 PM.

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002 INFORMATION

25 June 2021 Solicitation No. W9128F21Q0004

Date of Issue: 01 June 2021 Date of Receiving Offers: 13 July 2021

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0002 to Supply and Install for Draft Tube Bulkhead Replacement, Oahe Dam, SD.

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. Solicitation. (Descriptive Changes.)

(1) SF1449 Page 1 of 44 delete ”2:00PM 1 July 2021” and substitute “2:00PM 13 July 2021”.

(2) FAR 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 Addendum, paragraph 4.1 replace “10 days prior to the due date” with “4pm CDT on 2 July 2021” all questions must be submitted in ProjNet.

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

3. Electric Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m., local time at place of receiving offers, 13 July 2021, as stated in the Offer.

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

25 June 2021

MFS/2184

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 and 52.212-2 ADDENDUM

OFFER INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

This solicitation is for Unrestricted competition.

This solicitation is Unrestricted and open to both large and small business participation. This solicitation is issued as a firm fixed-price SUPPLY/INSTALL HYBRID CONTRACT. Construction clauses incorporated into the solicitation and subsequent award are applicable ONLY TO the installation portion of the requirement.

All proposers, including joint ventures, must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov). See paragraph 15.6 Joint Ventures/SAM Registration.

There will be no public opening. All offers submitted will become, upon receipt, the property of the U.S.

Government and will not be returned. After evaluation of offers, the original will be retained for the official contract file. Extra copies of the awardees’ offer will be submitted to the Field and Area Offices in support of their contract administration functions. Any extra copies of the offers deemed unnecessary by the government will be destroyed.

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

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

3. SIZE OF PRINTED MATTER SUBMISSIONS

All written portions (other than an organization chart (if provided)) shall be in 8-1/2" x 11" format.

4. WHERE TO SUBMIT

Offers shall be submitted electronically to Timothy Boyte, Contract Specialist, via email address timothy.b.boyte@usace.army.mil no later than the time and date as specified in in Block 8 if the SF 1449. No other method of submission will be accepted without prior permission/coordination from the Contracting Officer.

ANY MAIL addressed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including but not limited to bids, modifications to bids, proposals, revised proposals, bid guarantees, bonds, correspondence, etc., will be REJECTED by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers mail room facility located at 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901 if it does not contain a return mailing address. THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS.

Copies of the solicitation and amendments are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All solicitation documents will be posted to the Contracting Opportunities website at: https://beta.sam.gov/.

It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to check the websites for any amendments. The offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation. A list of interested vendors (potential offerors and subcontractors) is available on the federal business opportunities web site listed above (registration required).

4.1. Bidder Inquiry. Questions and/or comments relative to these documents should be submitted via Bidder Inquiry as indicated below. Questions and/or comments relative to these bidding (proposal) documents that is proprietary in nature or if Bidder Inquiry system (see below) is out of service should be submitted to the Contract Specialist:

Contract Specialist - Primary POC:

Timothy Boyte Timothy.b.boyte@usace.army.mil

Technical inquiries and questions relating to technical requirements, proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at: https://www.projnet.org/projnet/binKornHome/index.cfm no later than 4pm CDT on 2 July 2021, in order that questions may be given consideration or actions taken prior to receipt of offers. Phone calls for non-technical or procedural type questions should be made between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time) Monday through Friday. The Bidder Inquiry system is to be used to ask and receive answers to all non-proprietary questions.

To submit and review inquiry items, prospective Offerors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below.

A prospective Offeror who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email, followed by an answer to the comment/question following a thorough technical review by the government.

All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through ProjNet.

The Solicitation Number is: W9128F21Q0004, OAHE DRAFT TUBE BULKHEADS The Bidder Inquiry Key is: GH94NK-YFYINR

a. Registration for ProjNet Bidder Inquiry Access. Offerors with an existing registration should proceed to paragraph

b. Entering Bidder Inquiries in ProjNet Bidder Inquiry System.

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency: This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key: Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email: Enter the appropriate email address for official communication.

5. Click Continue.

A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask that one be created using the provided form.

6. Enter First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Note that the Secret Question and Answer will be used to access the ProjNet system from this point forward.

7. Click Add User. At this point, ProjNet registration and log on are complete. Questions may be submitted using the procedures in paragraph 3.2, Entering Bidder Inquiries in ProjNet Bidder Inquiry System.

b. Entering Bidder Inquiries in ProjNet Bidder Inquiry System

1. For future access to ProjNet, the Secret Question and Secret Answer created above will be used to log in to the system.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency: This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key: Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email: Enter the email address used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Click Continue. A page will open requesting the answer to the Secret Question.

7. Enter the Secret Answer and click Login. Once the answer is authenticated, system login is complete.

8. Follow online screen instructions to enter specific bidder inquiries for the project.

c. The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquires after 4pm CDT on 2 July 2021 to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary. After this time, no further questions will be accepted.

d. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

e. The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

f. Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

6. OFFERS

For receiving notifications or e-mail of changes regarding a solicitation, Contract Opportunities (formerly Federal Business Opportunities) has these features available (https://beta.sam.gov/). For this solicitation, go to https://beta.sam.gov/ and register as a vendor or enter user name and password to login, select the solicitation and click “Follow”. If you wish for General Contractors, Subcontractors, Suppliers, Plan Rooms or Print Shops to have the ability to contact you, click on the "Add me to Interested Vendors" for the solicitation.

Scope of project includes all work required for Intake Gate and Draft Tube Bulkhead Replacement at Oahe Dam, Pickstown, SD. Work shall be in accordance with Request for Proposal documents issued with this solicitation.

The Contracting Officer has established a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) to conduct an evaluation of each proposal received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based exclusively on the merits and content of the proposal and any subsequent discussion required. The identities of the SSEB personnel are confidential, and any attempt by the proposers to contact these individuals is prohibited.

It is the Contractor's responsibility to investigate applicable federal, state and local taxes and any specific exemptions that may exist. This includes any applicable Value-Added Taxes (VAT), sales, use, and excise taxes. See General Conditions (Contract Clause) 52.229-3 FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL TAXES.

Materials installed under this contract are not exempt and the tax must be included in the price amount. Telephone:

(402) 595-2065 (Department of Revenue-Omaha).

7. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Project Management Plan Factor 4 - Price

The following Table shows the Factors to be evaluated and relative evaluation importance.

Factor Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 Experience Factor 1 is of equal importance to Factors 2 and 3

FACTOR 2 Past Performance Factor 2 is of equal importance to Factors 1 and 3

FACTOR 3 Project Management Plan Factor 3 is of equal importance to Factors 1 and 2

FACTOR 4 Price Factors 1, 2 and 3 when combined, are considered significantly more important than Factor 4 - Price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

The application of an adjectival description will be used in conjunction with narrative to denote the degree to which the proposal has met the standards for a non-cost factor. The following ratings will be used to evaluate Factors 1 and 3:

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

Proposal is unawardable.

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 relevancy. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant 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 subcontracting/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. The following ratings will be used to evaluate Factor 2:

Relevancy Rating 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.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings as indicated below.

Table 3. 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 be able to 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.

Factor 2, Past Performance, an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating will be awarded when no past performance records are otherwise unavailable. 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."

8. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FACTOR 1 - Experience

Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall submit information for up to three (3) projects where bulkheads or gates have been fabricated, installed, and accepted no more than seven (7) years before the proposal due date, that demonstrate the offeror’s relevant experience fabricating projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work required by this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate how the projects submitted by the offeror demonstrate similar work experience that is relevant to this solicitation. Each project shall demonstrate experience with fabrication in accordance with American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) bridge certification program and American Welding Society (AWS) D1.5 welding standards for fracture critical components. In addition, offerors shall demonstrate experience applying the 5- E-Z paint system.

Each project submitted shall include the following content:

1. Contract number and Offeror’s and/or major subcontractor’s specific role in the project.

2. Project name and location.

3. Name of customer, agency, or firm.

4. Point of contact (POC) information for the customer, agency, or firm, including name, title, email, and telephone number.

5. Scope of project (designed, built, and installed new major features, rebuilt select components, etc.); focus on fabrication and protective coating aspects of the project.

6. Total Dollar Amount.

7. Start and completion dates, or anticipated date of completion and percent complete.

8. Key personnel information for each project, including but not limited to the fabricator’s Quality Control

Personnel and Project Manager. Key personnel information should include, but not be limited to:

a. Name.

b. Role in contract.

c. Years of experience.

d. Education and/or other relevant qualifications.

e. Current professional registration, if applicable.

9. Role of Offeror (Prime or Subcontractor) Address type of work performed and percentage of work, as applicable. Also indicate whether proposed team members were directly involved in the project, describing work performed, roles, and responsibilities.

10. If the offeror is a joint venture combining two or more companies, state whether each project was performed by the same joint venture. Each member of the joint venture shall demonstrate experience commensurate with its proposed role on this project.

Evaluation method:

Three (3) projects will be evaluated. If an offeror submits more than three projects, only the first three (3) projects will be evaluated. Offerors shall describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how well the projects submitted meet the evaluation criteria outlined below.

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following when evaluating the offeror’s Experience:

Projects must be similar in scope, dollar value and complexity for the fabrication and installation of bulkheads, gates or similar structures and the removal and disposal of similar bulkheads or gates.

Each project shall demonstrate experience with fabrication in accordance with American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) bridge certification program and American Welding Society (AWS) D1.5 welding standards for fracture critical components.

Each project shall demonstrate experience applying the 5-E-Z paint system.

Any other aspect of the proposal that the evaluators determine enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

FACTOR 2 – Past Performance Submission Requirements:

Past Performance Questionnaire will be submitted for each project listed by the offeror under Factor 1 – Experience where a finalized CPARS has not been completed. Contractor must provide all finalized CPARS for each project listed by the offeror under Factor 1 – Experience.

See Attachment A, Past Performance Questionnaire, for a form that shall be used to fulfill this requirement.

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, the offeror shall submit it with the proposal.

If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project. See Attachment B. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available.

o If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

o Offerors should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Timothy Boyte via email at timothy.b.boyte@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

It is recommended the PPQs shall be submitted with the proposal.

o PPQs are source selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an email confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is the offeror’s responsibility to follow up to ensure the government has received the information.

In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the (Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System) CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS (Commercial and Government Entity Code/Data Universal Numbering System) 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), FAPIIS (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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.

Evaluation Method:

The Government seeks a contractor who maintains a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in the technical offer. In doing so, be mindful that “past performance” and “experience” are not identical. Experience measures what the offeror has done and how many times, or for how long, the offeror has done it. Past performance, however, measures how well the offeror has performed.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

FACTOR 3 – Project Management Plan

The Offeror shall demonstrate capability to successfully complete this project and fabrication quality requirements by providing information on the key elements noted below. Include key personnel involved in fabrication and quality control.

Successful demonstration shall include, at a minimum:

1. A detailed narrative of the quality control and the methods which will be utilized to complete this specific project.

2. List of major equipment to be used on this job. Describe fabrication shop facilities. Describe means and methods used to move the assemblies during fabrication and to measure control dimensions.

3. The management plan narrative shall include a detailed work plan to include the removal of existing draft tube bulkheads and installation of the new draft tube bulkheads.

4. Narrative to identify constraints/risks for the project, as well as other significant risks the offeror anticipates (i.e. labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.) and provide a description of the offeror’s plans to mitigate these constraints and risks.

5. An organization chart and narrative that outlines how the Contractor’s team will be organized, roles and responsibilities of all parties, and lines of authority.

6. The qualifications and experience of the Offeror’s project team, including key personnel.

a. Resume of Project Manager, including a list of projects performed that are similar in scope and complexity to the requirements in this solicitation.

b. Resume of contractor quality control (CQC) Manager, including a list of projects performed that are similar in scope and complexity to the requirements in this solicitation. (Refer to Section 01 45 04.00 28 for minimum individual education/experience requirements.)

c. Offeror shall submit documentation for weld inspectors that demonstrates minimum compliance with the following requirements: Lead Inspector must be either a Senior Certified Welding Inspector (SCWI) or a Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) with a D 1.5 endorsement or a CWI that took the exam under D 1.5. All other inspectors must be CWIs. CAWIs or noncertified inspectors are not permitted.

d. For any key personnel not employed by the offeror, a Letter of Commitment signed by the individual not employed by the prime offeror shall be submitted with the offeror’s proposal.

7. Offer shall submit documentation for the paint contractor that demonstrates the paint shop is either SSPC QP3 (shop painting certification program) qualified or holds an AISC sophisticated paint endorsement.

Paint inspectors must be certified as an SSPC Protective Coating Inspector (PCI) or NACE Coating Inspection Program (CIP) to a level of 2 or 3.

8. Offeror shall submit certification for the fabricator that demonstrates the fabricator is certified to one of the following AISC Quality Certification Programs: Major Bridge Fabrication (CBR), Certified Bridge Fabricator – Advance (ABR), Certified Bridge Fabricator – Intermediate (IBR), or Certified Hydraulic Fabricator (HYD). In addition, the fabricator is required to be certified with a Fracture Critical endorsement (F).

9. A detailed work plan including, but not limited to: schedule in Gantt Chart format, description of fabrication sequencing, identification of hold points, preparation and disposition of non-conformance reports, shop testing, delivery plan and field operational testing. The Gantt Chart shall not exceed the maximum contract duration (548 days). The proposed duration will become the contractually binding completion period.

Evaluation Method:

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following when evaluating the offeror’s Project Management Plan (PMP):

Whether the offeror’s schedule has realistic durations and timeframes for each required work task and includes work task sequencing in a logical order;

The extent to which the offeror’s narrative demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the scope of work and the challenges to be encountered during construction;

Whether the offerors work schedule demonstrates the ability to complete the work on time, despite schedule constraints and potential contingencies that may arise.

The detailed narrative of the quality control of this project will be rated more favorably than a general quality control for a company.

An organization chart that outlines how the Contractor’s team will be organized, roles and responsibilities of all parties, and lines of authority. If the Offeror is proposing to subcontract any portion of the work to a fabrication shop, a narrative shall be included that clearly outlines how the Offeror will ensure compliance with the quality control requirements of Section 01 45 00.00 10.

The qualifications and experience of the Offeror’s key personnel.

FACTOR 4 – Price.

Submission Requirements – The following items shall be included in Part II of the proposal.

A. Offeror shall submit 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 will be automatically rejected and not considered for award.

B. Signed copy of the solicitation /contract award document, SF 1449.

C. Completed Total Amounts and Unit Prices (where applicable) for CLINS 0001 - 0008 of the SF 1449.

D. Completed Representations and Certifications (FAR Clause 52.209-5, 52.212-3, and 52.219-1 Alt I) and information contained in Section “Instructions to Offerors.”

E. Acknowledgement of all RFP amendments, if applicable.

EVALUATION OF FACTOR 4 - Price reasonableness and affordability will be evaluated with the following information:

A. To determine price reasonableness, the contracting officer will use techniques described in FAR 15.404- 1(b) as necessary. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price competition. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

B. To determine affordability, proposed prices will be compared to the Independent Government Estimate.

Price will also subjectively be considered as part of the Best Value tradeoff process by the Government, considering total cost of the basic and all option items to reach the best value for the Government, price and other factors considered.

A. Best Value is defined as the expected outcome of an acquisition that in the Government’s estimate provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement, Technical and Price factors considered.

ATTACHMENT 1

BLANK PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0)

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

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 #):

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:

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) Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Describe the client’s role in the project:

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT 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 invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any

Yes No default action in comment section below.

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)