SPS_AM0002_Section 00 22 00 Pipestem_20220523.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

23 MAY 22: AM0002: Jessica Jackson: Contracting Officer: 402.995.2052

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Jun-2022

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W9128F22B0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-May-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

23-May-2022

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:

W9128F22B0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AM0002 DESCRIPTIVE CHANGES

23 May 2022 Solicitation No. W9128F22B0002

Date of Issue: 02 May 2022 [New] Date of Opening: 13 June 2022

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0002 to Specifications and Drawings for Construction of Pipestem Spillway Modification Project, Pipestem Dam, ND.

TO: Prospective Bidders 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 01 31 00 Page 47, paragraph 3.7.5

Remove: “Design specific views to the EDB based on Government-provided calculations to facilitate data display of blast design and for comparison of changes between shot plans and shot reports.”

(2) Section 01 31 00 Page 48, paragraph 3.7.8.2

Remove: “For the tunnel imagery create a flat image along the tunnel alignment view that is selectable in sections.”

(3) Section 01 45 00.00 10 Page 4, paragraph 3.1

Remove “00 22 00 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION.”

and replace with “01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES.”

(4) Section 01 57 20.00 10 Page 7, paragraph 1.7.2.i

Remove item “i. Drawing showing the location of borrow areas.”

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 Am0002 Section 00 22 00

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

a. See Section 00 21 00, paragraph: Instructions to Bidders, on how to submit electronic bids.

3. Electronic Step 1 technical proposals will be received until 2:00 p.m., local time at place of bid opening, 13 June 2022.

Attachments:

Am0002 00 22 00

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

23 May 2022

JAC/[2100]

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION, CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) SCHEDULE

The required response date/time has changed from 01-Jun-2022 01:00 PM to 13-Jun-2022 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

00 22 00

TWO-STEP SEALED BID OVERVIEW,

GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS, EVALUATIONS

AND CONTRACT AWARD

REVISED 23 MAY 2022

1. OVERVIEW

a. This is a “Two-Step Sealed Bid” Invitation for Bid for the Pipestem Dam Spillway Modification Project, Jamestown, North Dakota. The Contracting Officer will award one (1) firm fixed-price construction contract to the responsive and responsible bidder whom the Government determines to have an acceptable Step-One technical proposal, conforms to the solicitation requirements, is fair and reasonable, and bids the lowest overall price in Step-Two.

b. The Step-One Request for Technical Proposals is issued with approximately 95% complete sufficiently descriptive technical specifications and construction drawings. The information contained in Step-One is not binding on the Government, and the actual delivery or performance requirements will be contained in the invitation issued under Step-Two. The 95% specifications and drawings are not final or to be used for construction. Only those firms determined to be technically acceptable during Step-One will be issued the 100% final technical specifications during Step-Two.

c. The Two-Step Sealed Bidding procedure is a combination of competitive procedures designed to obtain the benefits of sealed bidding while ensuring only technically acceptable firms participate in the priced sealed bid. The process allows for the Step-One technical proposal submission and evaluation to be performed concurrent with the development of the final 100% technical specifications and construction drawings. Step-One ensures that only technically acceptable firms participate in the Step-Two, the sealed bid process.

d. Step-One under this process consists of the request for, submission of, evaluation and (if necessary) discussion of a technical proposal. Only one technical proposal may be submitted by each offeror. The proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability. The Step-One technical proposal must not include prices or pricing information.

e. In Step-One, offerors must submit technical proposals that are complete and acceptable without the need for additional explanation or information. The Government may make a final determination regarding a proposal’s acceptability solely on the basis of the proposal as submitted. The Government may proceed with Step-Two without requesting further information from any offeror; however, the Government may request additional information from, or enter into discussions with, the offerors of proposals that are determined to be reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable. Discussions will only be held if necessary, and if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

f. A notice of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” will be forwarded to each Step-One offeror upon completion of the technical proposal evaluation and final determination. The names of the offerors that submitted acceptable technical proposals will be listed on the Government’s https://sam.gov website for the benefit of prospective subcontractors.

g. In Step-Two, an amendment with the final 100% technical specifications and construction drawings will be issued to only those offerors whose technical proposals are determined to be acceptable in Step-One. The normal sealed bidding process in FAR Part 14 will be followed. In Step-Two, only bids based upon technical proposals determined to be acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Each bid submitted in Step-Two must be based on the bidder's own technical proposal that was submitted, evaluated and determined to be acceptable in Step-One. Bidders must comply with the 100% technical specifications and construction drawings and the bidder’s acceptable technical proposal.

h. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one (1) or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program.

The Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in an offer or, for arrangements entered into after submission of an offer, before the arrangement becomes effective. The Government will not normally require or encourage the dissolution of contractor team arrangements. The Offeror must identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement.

i. Any Offeror submitting an offer in the name of a Joint Venture must include a fully executed copy of the Joint Venture Agreement with the offer. Joint Venture Agreements which require SBA approval may be submitted absent the requisite SBA Servicing Agency approving authorities’ signature; however, the Offeror shall submit evidence from the Offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed Joint Venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel.

2. STEP-ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

All offerors are required to submit a technical proposal with the minimum content as specified herein.

Proposals without the minimum content may be rated other than “acceptable”. Step-One Technical Proposals shall be emailed to the below individuals no later than the date and time established in Block 13 of the Standard Form (SF) 1442, or Block 14 of the most recent SF 30, as applicable:

Contracting Officer: Jessica R. Jackson at jessica.r.jackson@usace.army.mil

Contract Specialist: Wayne C. Weidenhamer at wayne.c.weidenhamer@usace.army.mil

Each email shall contain the following information:

a. Solicitation No: W9128F22B0002

b. Bid Due Date and Time: [Block 13 of the SF 1442 or Block 14 of the most recent SF 30, as applicable]

c. Bid Validity Date: 60 Days

Proposals received after the date and time stated within Block 13 of the SF 1442 or Block 14 of the most recent SF 30, as applicable, will be considered late and will not be considered for award. To avoid rejection of a proposal, the offeror must ensure the e-mail submission is virus-free. The Government will follow FAR 14.406 if an e-mail bid is unreadable.

Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) when sending the submission to comply with the annual representations and certifications requirements. The offeror certifies with its offer that the representations and certifications included in SAM are current, accurate, and complete.

3. STEP-ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

Submit the Step-One technical proposal via email in PDF format and Optical Character Recognition (OCR)* compatible and word searchable. Each section must be clearly labeled by solicitation number, project name, and Offeror’s name.

*OCR is a common method of digitizing printed texts so that they can be electronically searched, stored more compactly, displayed on-line, and used in machine processes such as machine translation, text-to-speech, key data extraction and text mining.

Bidders should enter a description for every file submitted. Bidders should separate files over 20 megabytes (MB) into smaller files and send separate e-mails. Bidders shall identify each e-mail with the number relative to the total number of e-mails submitted (i.e., “e-mail 1 of 4”). Bidders should request Government receipt upon sending all e-mails. Bidders should not assume e-mail submissions are instantaneous and must consider file size and number of files sent. Bidders should send bids at least 1 hour early to ensure delivery and may send test e-mails to USACE the day before bid opening.

Technical proposals will be organized with a table of contents as follows:

COVER LETTER - Solicitation number; Name, address, email, and telephone number of the offeror; Names, titles, emails, and telephone numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP. Name, title and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal.

A statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the RFP;

CAGE Code and DUNS number for the offeror, and all teaming partners and / or Joint Ventures.

Note: The inclusion of any exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in the technical proposal, or the inclusion of any other terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable and thus ineligible for award. Resolve questions about the terms and conditions or technical requirements of the solicitation prior to submission of the proposal.

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror, include the offeror’s DUNS number in Block 14.

Acknowledgement of all amendments to the RFP in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 (amendment form).

TAB B – Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications, Printed Entity Record from the online System for Award Management (SAM) database.

TAB C – Teaming & Joint Venture Arrangements: Offers submitting proposals using a teaming arrangement shall submit a fully executed copy of the teaming arrangement signed both by the subcontractor/teaming partner and the offeror and the narrative described in Section 00 22 00 paragraph 1.h above.

Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal, including letters of commitment from the joint venture firms. See Section 00 21 00 paragraph 1.i above.

TAB D – All submission requirements for Factor 1: Bond Surety Letter & Bank Letter

TAB E – All submission requirements for Factor 2: Prior Experience in Relevant Projects

TAB F – All submission requirements for Factor 3: Construction Approach submission requirements

TAB G – All submission requirements for Factor 4: Past Performance submission requirements

4. STEP-ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation shall be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org. To submit and review inquiry items, prospective offerors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective offeror who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email. Another email to the same address will notify the prospective offeror once the reply is available for viewing.

***Please Note: Offerors shall only submit one (1) question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions may be rejected. Please review all previous inquiries to limit redundant inquiries.

The Project ID is: Pipestem Dam PED Project Name: Pipestem Dam Step 1 IFB Bidder Inquiry Key: RV374J-9DDNF2

Instructions for first-time ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

b. Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

c. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

d. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

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

f. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret

Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

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

Instructions for future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

a. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be provided any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

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

c. Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

d. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

e. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

f. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret

Question.

g. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries 10 calendar days before proposal due date in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response to inquiries and amend the solicitation if necessary.

Proposing firms are requested to review the specification in its entirety and review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

The ProjNet call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago) or by appointment for OCONUS. The telephone number for the Call Center is 1-800-428-HELP. Email to staff@rcesupport.com.

5. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with the requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award will be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective prime contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

6. STEP-ONE REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSALS EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s technical proposal based on how well the proposal addresses each of the evaluation factors listed below. Each of the evaluation factors will be evaluated by the Government and either an “acceptable”, “unacceptable” or “reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable” rating will be determined by consensus of the Government evaluation board. There are no relative weights assigned to the factors. A Step-One acceptable technical proposal must be rated “acceptable” for all evaluation factors in order to receive an overall “acceptable” technical proposal rating.

General Technical Proposal and Evaluation Information:

a. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 14.5, Two-Step Sealed Bidding. For this procurement, only one (1) technical proposal may be submitted by each offeror. The proposal must be complete without the need of additional explanation or information. The Government may proceed with Step-Two without requesting further information from any offeror; however, the Government may request additional information from offerors of proposals that it considers “reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable.”

b. Technical Proposals will be rated at the factor level. If any factor is determined to be “unacceptable”, the entire proposal will be determined “unacceptable”. A technical proposal may be determined to be “reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable”, and therefore eligible for discussions. However, a proposal with a factor that is determined to be “unacceptable” will be eliminated from further consideration.

c. Technical proposals which do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions may be rated other than “acceptable”. The Government is under no obligation to search for information that is not in the specified locations. If an offeror submits alternates that are not requested, the information will not be evaluated.

d. In general, example projects or experience that the Government does not consider relevant for the purposes of evaluating experience will not be considered as a part of the minimum project requirement.

e. The degree of acceptability to the Government inherent in the content of the offeror’s technical proposal will be a consideration under every evaluation factor.

f. If discussions are held with offerors whose proposals are considered “reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable” and a request for proposal revisions are requested, the revised proposal will be re-evaluated in accordance with the criteria in the solicitation. After completion of discussions and evaluation of any revised proposals, the proposal will be determined as “acceptable” or “unacceptable”.

If determined “unacceptable”, a notice of unacceptability will be forwarded to the offeror upon completion of the proposal’s evaluation.

g. Any proposal which modifies or fails to conform to the essential requirements or specifications of the request for technical proposals will be considered nonresponsive and categorized as “unacceptable”.

h. The offeror’s conformance with the specified format and submission requirements will be considered during the technical evaluation. Failure to comply with the formatting and/or submission requirements may be seen as indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during contract performance.

Lack of conformance and material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as “unacceptable”.

i. The proposal submission instructions are written to give prospective offerors, where feasible, an indication of the level of detail desired by the Government. The offeror’s failure to include information that the Government has indicated must be included will result in the proposal being found other than “acceptable” if inadequate detail is provided.

j. Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in the technical proposal submissions. The inclusion of any terms and conditions in the proposals that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in a determination that the proposal/bid is “unacceptable” and thus ineligible to bid in Step-Two. Resolve questions about the terms and conditions or technical requirements of the solicitation prior to submission of the proposal/bid; see “Proposal Inquiries and Questions”, located above in Section 00 21 00.

k. Factor and Overall Technical Proposal Ratings. Each factor and the overall technical proposal as a whole will be given one of the ratings identified and defined as follows:

FACTOR RATINGS

(Factors 1 through 3)

DEFINITION

Acceptable The proposal meets the requirements of the RFP and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable (Note: This rating is not used for the overall technical proposal rating)

The proposal, as proposed, cannot be rated as Acceptable because of error(s), omissions(s) or deficiency(ies) which are capable of being corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal.

Unacceptable The proposal does not meet the requirements of the RFP.

FACTOR 4 RATING

(Past Performance)

DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the RFP, and based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the RFP, and / or based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria for the Technical Proposal

The information provided in this section will be used in evaluating the offeror’s specialized technical experience and proposed construction approach, specific to this solicitation.

Factor 1 – Bond Surety Letter and Bank Letter

Submission Requirements:

1. Proposing firm must provide a letter from a surety appearing on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 (list of approved sureties at https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html) stating:

a. The bidder is able to provide a project bid bond in Step-Two for an individual project valued at a minimum of $150M.

b. The bidder is able to obtain performance and payment bonds for an individual project valued at a minimum of $150M should they be awarded the contract.

2. Financial statement and bank letter that verify that sufficient funds will be available to perform the work on an individual construction project valued at a minimum of $150M.

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate all the proposing firm’s submission documents and categorize the proposal with one

(1) combined technical evaluation for this factor.

Minimum Acceptability Criteria:

1. The bidder provides a letter from a surety appearing on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 stating they are able to provide a project bid bond in Step-Two for an individual project valued at a minimum of $150M.

2. The bidder provides a letter or other documentation from a surety appearing on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 stating they are able to obtain performance and payment bonds for an individual project valued at a minimum of $150M should they be awarded the contract.

3. The bidder provides a financial statements and bank letter verifying that sufficient funds will be available to perform the work on an individual construction project valued at a minimum of $150M.

Note: If a firm is found acceptable and qualified to participate in Step-Two, a bid bond is required with their Step- Two bid IAW FAR 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee. If a firm is selected for award, they must provide payment and performance bonding IAW FAR 52.228-15 Performance and Payment Bonds – Construction.

Factor 2 – Prior Experience in Relevant Projects

Submission Requirements:

Submit a minimum of three (3) example projects and a maximum of five (5) example projects completed within the last 6 years demonstrating the proposing firm’s recent, relevant experience. If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five will be evaluated. The projects submitted shall be limited to no more than five pages for each project submission. Additional pages above the limit may not be evaluated.

Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) or any other type of task-order contracts that provide for the issuance of task orders for the performance of tasks will not be considered projects for the purposes of this evaluation. Only individual task orders issued under such contracts will be evaluated as projects. However, a phased project using phased task orders for a single customer with multiple inter-dependent facilities on a single site may be considered a project for the purposes of this evaluation. Project descriptions that do not clearly describe the proposing firm’s or team member’s experience, the scope of the project, or the periods of project performance will not be considered.

The information that is required for Factor 2, below, is provided in the template Attachment A, Experience in Relevant Projects, which can be extended as necessary. Offerors are not required to use the form itself as part of their proposal, but the information requested for Factor 2 must be in the offeror’s proposal and should be in the same format as the template.

The following information is required for each submitted project experience:

a. Project Title

b. Location

c. Contract Number

d. Type of Contract: Indicate Firm Fixed Price; Cost Plus Fixed Fee; etc.

e. Total Dollar Amount at Award and Completion: Total amount of the proposing firm’s contract or subcontract

(if a key subcontractor)

f. Project Delivery Method: Indicate Design/Bid/Build; Design/Build; Integrated Design; Design Only; etc.

g. Role of Proposing Firm: Prime contractor or key subcontractor. If a subcontractor, state who is the prime contractor. State if the example project represents a Joint Venture. If a Joint Venture, name the Joint Venture’s parties. Indicate type of work and percentage of work performed by the parties.

h. Brief Description of Project: Provide a narrative with details about the proposing firm’s role and the relevancy to this project

i. Project Relevancy: Address any relevancy of the submitted project using, at a minimum, the relevancy criteria

(a) through (g) below

j. Construction Start and Completion Dates: Project construction must be identified as complete or substantially complete. If a proposing firm presents a project that is substantially complete, the proposal must include an explanation of why that project should be considered.

k. Customer / End User’s Primary Point of Contact: Name, relationship to project, agency/firm, phone number, and e-mail address. The Government may contact and interview project references. Reference information will not be revealed to other parties.

l. Procuring Activity Point of Contact: Name, relationship to project, agency/firm, phone number, and e-mail address. The Government may contact and interview project references. Reference information will not be revealed to other parties.

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate each submitted project’s extent of recent and relevant experience compared to this project’s size, scope of work, and performance requirements. The Government will categorize the proposal with one (1) combined technical evaluation for this factor.

A recent project is a project that is complete, or substantially complete within 6 years of this request for technical proposal issue date. If a proposing firm submits a project as substantially complete within the 6-year period, the proposal must include an explanation why that project should be considered substantially complete.

The relevancy of a submitted projects must be substantiated by the proposing firm’s role, work, size, scope, and complexity similar to the requirements in this project. In making this determination, the Government will use the following criteria to establish the acceptable relevancy of a submitted project (this is not an exclusive list and each relevant project does not need to meet all of the criteria):

a. Experience with construction utilizing (>50,000 CY) of Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC).

b. Experience with construction utilizing (>30,000 CY) soil cement.

c. Experience with development of mix designs for RCC and Soil Cement.

d. Experience with site characterization for dewatering to include: drilling and sampling methods, well/piezometer installations, aquifer pumping test methods and field data evaluation methods.

e. Experience with dewatering system design such as: determination methods for well point spacing, depth, pumping rates and durations; well point installation and development methods; pumping methods; equipment and piping setup and routing; discharged water energy dispersion and erosion control, required operational duration; power sources; monitoring components for flow rate, sediment concentration, groundwater level;

excavation stability relative to dewatering factors; physical safety concerns; permitting requirements;

component and well point abandonment methods.

f. Experience with dewatering system installation and operation to include factors such as those listed under item e above.

g. A large (>500,000 CY) earthwork project.

Minimum Acceptability Criteria:

A firm’s acceptable proposal for this factor must include:

a. Each project experience must include at least three of the similar scope criteria listed above in a through g.

b. Each of the submitted projects must have a contract value of at least $25M.

c. One (1) submitted project must include item f. (experience with dewatering system design and installation), and one (1) submitted project must include item a (experience with construction utilizing (>50,000 CY) of Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC).

d. Determined to meet the recency requirements above.

e. Determined to meet the relevancy requirements above.

The project descriptions and relevancy narratives must clearly articulate the relevancy in sufficient detail to determine technical capability. The more similarities an example project has with the prospective contract, the greater the degree of relevancy.

Factor 3 – Construction Approach

Submission Requirements:

The proposing firm must clearly communicate its proposed construction approach for the solicited project which meets the attached 95% technical specifications and construction drawings. The proposal must include, as a minimum, the following elements:

1. Construction approach to include but not limited to:

a. RCC mix design, placement, and testing.

b. Approach to satisfying dewatering requirements as specified in the contract documents.

c. Approach for site characterization, installation of instruments, and collection of data as specified in the contract documents.

d. Approach to satisfying data management and reporting requirements as specified in the contract documents.

e. Describe your QC system and testing approach.

f. Approach to coordinate between subs.

2. Conceptual Schedule Management:

a. Sequencing and managing important construction activities and milestones that demonstrates a firm understanding of how to schedule and manage the project’s construction, earthwork, dewatering, and data management.

b. The schedule must include durations in calendar days that meets the contract requirements. (Note: this is a concept schedule used to assure the contractor understands the scope and sequencing of the project and is not considered a post award construction submittal).

c. Coordination between features of construction/sequencing work/staging.

3. Staffing and Management Plan:

a. Include a key staff and management organization chart of proposing firm (prime contractor) and key subcontractors.

b. Shall include the work assignments of specialized skills and trades.

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the construction approach in its entirety and categorize the proposal with one (1) combined technical evaluation for this factor.

The proposing firm’s construction approach narrative must be in an organized manner that acceptably addresses the elements and sub-elements listed in the submission requirements. The proposed construction approach must meet all of the attached draft plans, specifications, and contract requirements, and be commensurate with this project’s size, scope, and complexity.

Minimum Acceptability Criteria:

1. The proposing firm’s Construction Approach must, at a minimum, include and address all the elements and sub-elements listed in the submission requirements.

2. A proposing firm demonstrates an acceptable construction approach by meeting the minimum submission requirements for this factor and providing the Government with a construction approach that meets all of the attached plans, specifications, and contract requirements, commensurate with this project’s size, scope, and complexity.

Factor 4 – Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

Submit past performance information on each project submitted for Factor 2. DO NOT provide Past Performance references for projects other than those project examples provided for Factor 2. The quantity of projects submitted for this factor is the same as the quantity of projects submitted for the Factor 2 submission requirements, a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5).

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment B) is provided for the offering firms to submit to the client of each project the offering firm includes in its submission requirements for Factor 2. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client’s point of contact. The completed PPQs should be submitted with the Step-One technical proposals. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, wayne.c.weidenhamer@usace.army.mil via email prior to the Step-One technical proposal closing date and time.

Note: If any of the projects are Government contracts with a completed CPARS, please only complete blocks 1 through 5 of the PPQ form (Attachment B) and attach it to the front of the CPARS rating. Be sure to include the POC’s information of the client and the contract number of the project.

Evaluation Criteria:

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. The Government will at a minimum, evaluate the successful performance of all project examples submitted for Factor 2 and categorize the proposal with one (1) combined evaluation for this factor.

The burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the proposing firm. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or of the team member. The prime contractor will be rated on its own performance. A prime contractor may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity.

In accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305, the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis only.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror will be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating will be considered “acceptable.”

The Government may also review past performance information from any sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other databases using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The evaluation may take into account the number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken, and the overall work record.

Minimum Acceptability Criteria:

Past performance information must be submitted for each project submitted for Factor 2. This amounts to the same Factor 2 minimum of three (3) example projects and a maximum of five (5) example projects completed within the last 6 years from the date of the Step-One solicitation issuance date demonstrating the proposing firm’s recent, relevant experience.

The recency and relevancy of each submitted project’s past performance evaluation will use the same determination made during the Factor 2 evaluation. Any additional recency and relevancy determinations of past performance information from other sources available to the Government will follow the same criteria used during the Factor 2 evaluation.

A proposing firm demonstrates acceptable past performance by meeting the minimum submission and past performance solicitation requirements and based on the offeror’s satisfactory or higher performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required efforts in the requirements. The Government will have confidence in the firm’s probability to successfully supply products and services that meet all the contract’s plans, specifications requirements.

7. STEP-TWO INVITATION FOR BID, EVALUATION, AND AWARD

Step-Two in the process involves the submission of sealed priced bids by those who submitted acceptable technical proposals in Step-One.

The Step-Two Invitation for Bid (IFB) will be issued to the acceptable firms as an amendment to the solicitation and include the final 100% technical specifications and construction drawings, final bid schedule, and other final bidding information. The priced bids will be due no later than the date and time listed in the amendment. The bids submitted in Step-Two will be evaluated and the award made in accordance with Subparts 14.3 and 14.4.

In Step-Two, only bids based upon technical proposals determined to be “acceptable”, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Each bid in Step-Two must be based on the bidder's own technical proposal that was submitted, evaluated, and determined to be acceptable in Step-One.

Bidders must comply with the final technical specifications and construction drawings and the bidder’s acceptable technical proposal. Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in the bid submissions.

The inclusion of any terms and conditions in the bid that conflicts with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in a determination that the proposal/bid is unacceptable and thus ineligible for Step-Two and award.

Resolve questions about the terms and conditions or technical requirements of the solicitation prior to submission of the proposal/bid; see “Proposal Inquiries and Questions”, located above in Section 00 21 00.

Attachment A Experience in Relevant Projects

Attachment B

EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS

<<Picture>>

Contractor’s Name:

Project Title: Project Location: (City, State)

Contract Number:

Type of Contract: (Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, etc.)

Total Dollar Amount at Award: (Total amount of the proposing firm’s contract or subcontract (if a key subcontractor))

Total Dollar Amount at Contract Completion: (Total amount of the proposing firm’s contract or subcontract at completion (if a key subcontractor))

Project Delivery Method: (Bid/Build; Design/Build, etc.)

Role of Proposing Firm: (Prime contractor or key subcontractor. If a subcontractor, state who is the prime contractor. State if the example project represents a Joint Venture. If a Joint Venture, name the Joint venture’s parties.

Indicate type of work and percentage of work performed by the parties.)

Brief Description of Project: (Provide a narrative with details about the proposing firm’s role and the relevancy to this project.)

Explanation of the Project’s Relevancy: (Reference the Factor 2 evaluation criteria and the criteria that may be used to establish the acceptable relevancy of a project.)

Construction Start and Completion Dates: (Project construction must be identified as complete or substantially complete. If a proposing firm presents a project that is substantially complete, the proposal must include an explanation of why that project should be considered.)

Customer / End User’s Primary Point of Contact: (Name, relationship to project, agency/firm, phone number, and e-mail address. The Government may contact and interview project references. Reference information will not be revealed to other parties.)

Procuring Activity Point of Contact: (Name, relationship to project, agency/firm, phone number, and e-mail address.

The Government may contact and interview project references. Reference information will not be revealed to other parties.)

OFFERORS MAY INCREASE SPACING IN FORM AS NECESSARY (please attach additional pages if necessary)

Past Performance Questionnaire

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

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS 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.