00 22 00 Am-0001.pdf

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

This solicitation is restricted to Small Business participation.

All Offerors, including joint ventures, must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM).

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

Government and will not be returned. After evaluation of proposals, the original will be retained for the official contract file. Electronic copies of the awardees’ proposal will be submitted to the Field and Area Offices in support of their contract administration functions.

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

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

3. BIDDER INQUIRY

Reference BIDDER INQUIRY (Section 00 21 00) for bidder question instructions and procedures.

4. FORMAT SIZE OF SUBMISSIONS

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

5. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically via email directly to:

Brianna Boehne: Brianna.Boehne@usace.army.mil Daniel Monahan: Daniel.D.Monahan@usace.army.mil

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

5.1. Proposal Submittals

Each submittal must contain Volume 1 and Volume 2 files named and structured as outlined below. Note the company name may be abbreviated.

5.1.1 Volume 1: Technical Proposal and Past Performance Information FILE NAME: W9128F23R0002_Company Name_Volume_1_Technical_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Table 1- Proposal Submittals

Location Description Vol. 1. TAB A Factor 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Vol. 1. TAB B Factor 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Vol. 1. TAB C Factor 3 – PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

AND EXPERIENCE

5.1.2 Volume 2: Price Proposal, Cost Information and Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors

FILE NAME: W9128F23R0002_Company Name_Volume_2_Price_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Table 2: Price Proposal Requirements

Location Description Vol. 2 TAB A Factor 4 - PRICE (Standard Form

1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

Vol. 2 TAB B Evidence of Bondability

Vol. 2 TAB C Required Pre-Award Information

5.2. Late Submissions

For the purposes of determining whether the proposal was received “late”, in accordance with FAR 15.208, the date and time the file(s) are received via email by the Contract Specialist(s) will be the time and date the Government received the proposal.

6. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

Electronic proposals shall be received by the USACE Contracting Activity no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

7. PROPOSAL CRITERIA

Offerors shall submit a proposal that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of these Specifications through the replacement, modification or refurbishment of components identified in 00 10 00, PRICING SCHEDULE, of this solicitation.

8. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

8.1. Basis for Evaluation

All proposals and documentation which have been properly submitted will be evaluated. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the factors stated in the solicitation to select the responsible Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government. Because of the number of proposals anticipated, uniformity of all proposals is essential to assure fair and accurate evaluation. All proposals must comply with the instructions in the solicitation.

Proposals that do not generally conform to the RFP requirements may be considered to have a “deficiency”, i.e. a defect that cannot be remedied by exchanges and/or permitted proposal revisions. If a proposal is suspected of having a deficiency, it will be brought to the immediate attention of the appropriate authority who will determine if there is a deficiency. If the determination is made that a deficiency exists, the proposal will not be evaluated further and will be eliminated from further consideration. The affected Offeror shall be promptly notified of the decision.

Properly conforming proposals will be forwarded to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for evaluation.

If, after award, the key personnel or subcontractors identified in the proposal are replaced, replacement personnel or sub-contractors with similar skills and experience equal to those presented in the proposal shall be presented to the Contracting Officer for approval. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitutions for these designated personnel or subcontractors.

Information obtained from owners, contract administrators, or other points of contact provided by the Offeror may affect the evaluation rating given for the factors related to the information provided.

Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Tradeoff Process, FAR 15.101-1. Volume 1, Factor 1 will be a rated IAW paragraph 8.4 of this section, and Factors 2 and 3 will be rated using a color and adjectival methodology with a narrative assessment. Volume 2 (Factor 4 - Price) will be evaluated after consensus scoring Factors 1 through 3. Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the Offeror's ability to perform the resultant contract successfully. Proposals will be evaluated to determine ratings supported by narratives, and to identify strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposed approach in each proposal.

8.2. Evaluation Definitions

8.2.1. Strength

A substantive aspect, attribute, or specific item in the proposal that exceeds the solicitation requirements and enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

8.2.2. Significant Strength

An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or that will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

8.2.3. Weakness

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

8.2.4. Significant Weakness

A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk.

8.2.5. Deficiency

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

8.2.6. Omission

A failure to provide information required by the solicitation and depending on the nature and extent of the omission it may be evaluated as a weakness, a significant weakness or a deficiency.

8.2.7. Clarification

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award without discussions is anticipated, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

8.2.8. Communications

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

8.2.9. Discussions

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition and take place after establishment of the competitive range. Discussions are tailored to each Offeror's proposal and shall be conducted by the Contracting Officer with each Offeror within the competitive range.

8.3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating

The application of a scale of colors and adjectival description will be used in conjunction with narrative to denote the degree to which the proposal has met the standard for a non-cost factor. Ratings will be applied at the factor and subfactor level, as appropriate for this solicitation. If, at any factor or subfactor level, an Offeror’s proposal is evaluated as not meeting a minimum requirement (that is, below the level of “Marginal”), this fact must be included in the rating and narrative assessment at that level and at the factor level. Therefore, an unacceptable rating at any level may be carried to the factor level. The following ratings will be used to evaluate Factors 2 and 3:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

8.4. Past Performance Rating

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluations result in two (2) ratings: relevancy and overall confidence. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in construction activities that are needed to meet the contract’s requirements. The Past Performance factor submission requirements and the method that the Government will use to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance is detailed in Factor 1 -Past Performance description below.

There are three (3) aspects to past performance: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). While relevancy is also evaluated individually, all past performance aspects will be used to develop an overall confidence assessment rating for the Past Performance factor.

As an example of a past performance rating, a proposal evaluated as meeting the solicitation past performance criteria may be assessed ratings of “Relevant” and “Satisfactory Confidence.”

8.4.1. Recency

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. With respect to recency, more recent past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than less recently completed projects. Recency criteria related to this solicitation is outlined in the Past Performance Submission Requirements section.

8.4.2. Relevancy

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the work required by this solicitation. The relevancy aspect focuses on evaluating the applicability of the Offeror’s previous work in relation to the solicitation requirements. Consideration shall be given to the features of an Offeror’s contract history that best demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to satisfy the current procurement requirements. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below.

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.

8.4.3. Quality

The third past performance aspect is quality. The Quality evaluation will examine how well Offerors have performed on previous projects considering such criteria as workmanship, timeliness, safety, customer service, adherence to budget, subcontractor management (timely payment to subs or suppliers), relations between owner and contractor, as well as the level of support provided for As-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, and warranty work. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. The Offeror will be rated on its own performance. The Government may ask for Owners/References.

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

8.4.4. Performance Confidence Assessment

A final performance confidence assessment rating will be based on the evaluation of recent and relevant past performance information and the assessment of the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts. The Government will review the past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the Table below.

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.

For Past Performance, an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating will be awarded when no past performance records are available. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a)(2)(iv), “In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance." On the recommendation of the Source Selection Advisory Council, the Source Selection Authority may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is rated more favorably than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

9. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of the factors listed below will be basis for award. The requirements specified in the solicitation are considered minimum requirements. A more favorable evaluation rating may be given for exceeding the minimum requirements. Note: Volume 1 Factors level of importance are noted below. Volume 2 (Price) is significantly less important to all of the combined Factor elements contained in Volume 1.

Basis for Award – See table below for relative importance of selection factors.

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL FACTORS

Factor/ Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance FACTOR 1 Vol. 1. TAB A PAST PERFORMANCE Most Important Factor

FACTOR 2 Vol. 1. TAB B TECHNICAL APPROACH 2nd Most Important Factor (less important than Factor 1)

FACTOR 3 Vol. 1. TAB C PERSONNEL

QUALIFICATIONS AND

EXPERIENCE

Equal to Factor 2

VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor/Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance FACTOR 4 Vol. 2 TAB A PRICE (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than Price. Price is the least important factor.

Note: An “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for any factor, or combination of different factors, may cause the proposal to be evaluated as “Unacceptable”. Volume 2 - Price will be evaluated in accordance the requirements listed in paragraph 15, Volume 2, Factor 4 - PRICE.

9.1. VOLUME 1 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

Offerors shall submit the original of their Volume 1 file containing the following factors:

Factor 1 – Past Performance Factor 2 – Technical Approach Factor 3 – Personnel Qualifications and Experience

9.2. VOLUME 2 - PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

In the Volume 2 file, Offerors shall submit their price proposal along with the other information requested in Vol 2 - Price Submission Requirements.

Volume 2 shall include a cover letter stating that the proposal complies completely with all terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the solicitation. A proposal that does not comply with all terms, conditions, and specifications in the solicitation will be automatically rejected and not considered for award.

Volume 2 shall contain the Solicitation/Contract Form and Pricing Schedule (Section 00 10 00), Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors (Section 00 45 00), Pre-Award Survey Information and Small Business Information.

Please Note: The Government will not pay for the provision of any information nor compensate any Offeror for the development of the required information outlined in the solicitation required for inclusion in the Offeror’s proposal.

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

Note: Offerors that do not want the data submitted below disclosed by the Government must follow the procedure specified in Section 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION. Please note, portions of the winning proposal will be incorporated into the contract and are subject to disclosure notwithstanding restrictive markings.

10. FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

[This factor is designed to verify the past performance of the Offeror having been regularly engaged in structural steel fabrication similar in nature to this project. Emphasis should also be placed on demonstrating successful work history, including quality, of executing work.].

10.1. Submission Requirements

10.1.1. Project Narratives

The Offeror shall submit information for 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. Each project narrative shall be no more than two (2) pages detailing the project and providing specifics as noted herein.

Project narratives shall include the following information:

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

b. Project name.

c. Project cost.

d. Project description must include:

1) Location.

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

3) Description of work performed demonstrating Structural Steel Fabrication experience, particularly hydraulic structural steel.

4) Total contract value.

5) Specific fabrication experience relating to this proposed project.

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

7) Key personnel information for each project, including but not limited to the fabricator’s Quality

Control Personnel and Project Manager.

If the past performance of a subcontractor is used to meet the minimum requirements, no more than two (2) of the submitted narratives should demonstrate subcontractor past performance. A binding Letter of Commitment between the prime and subcontractor shall be included and contain the following:

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

b. Signatures of both the Offeror and subcontracting entity.

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

A maximum three (3) projects will be evaluated. If an Offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than three (3) projects, only the first three (3) projects will be evaluated. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can assess the projects against the evaluation criteria described in the RFP. Substantially complete is defined as being 50% construction progress completed by the date that proposals are due. If an offeror submits a project that it represents as “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 50% construction progress complete. If an Offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 50% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project.

For evaluation purposes, “similar” is defined as work performed at a powerhouse or industrial facility for the following areas of work. Projects of similar size and scope consists of having fabricated and installed Hydraulic Steel Structures (HSS) with the following minimum requirements:

a. Weight of 2-Tons or greater.

b. Member thicknesses of ½-inch or greater.

c. Geometry of structure 5-ft by 10-ft or greater.

d. Maximum tolerances of +/- 1/8-inch out of parallel over at least 15-ft.

A submitted project does not need to address all areas of work to be considered relevant, but when combined, the submitted projects must collectively address ALL of the following :

a. Fabrication

1) 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.

2) Experience applying the vinyl 5-E-Z paint system.

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

b. Bulkhead Installation

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

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

c. The total cost of one (1) of the projects must be valued at more than $250,000.00.

Contractor shall provide a copy of the Joint Venture agreement if offeror proposes to use a Joint Venture.

10.1.2. Performance Appraisals

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

10.1.2.1 Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS)

For projects constructed for other Government or commercial entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by the respective Government or commercial entity. For each project that may be private industry work or other Government entity not covered in the CPARS database, submit Form PPQ-0 (Attachment 1) completed by an owner or owner’s representative not affiliated with the Offeror’s firm. Offerors are advised to ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the Client point of contact. (Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is available). Offeror should explain any past performance resulting in significant cost and/or time growth.

The Government reserves the right to obtain copies of all CPARS records contained in the CPARS database. The Government reserves the right to contact the evaluator on previous Government or Private Sector work to verify the Offeror’s past performance. Firms are requested to retrieve their past performance information directly from CPARS at https://www.cpars.gov. CPARS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major Federal performance reporting systems. Logging onto CPARS will require the following:

All firms must have purchased and installed a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificate. Firms without this certificate cannot access company information. Additional information about the PKI certificate is posted in red at the top, center portion, of the https://www.cpars.gov web page. The company Unique Entity ID (Generated by SAM.GOV) number and Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) are needed to log onto CPARS. The MPIN number was selected by the company representative that registered the firm in the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov. If the company MPIN number is not known, contact the SAM help desk via the email link on the http://www.sam.gov help page. Please be aware, the help desk will only release the MPIN number to the company representative that originally registered the firm.

The two (2) additional ways to obtain a copy of CPARS evaluations are as follows: (1) Contact the Government point of contact for the project in question to request a copy of the evaluation, or (2) Apply for “Contractor Corporate Senior Management Representative” access on the CPARS web site: http://www.cpars.gov. This access is issued to only one individual within the firm, typically a member of senior management. In addition to the firm’s completed CPARS performance evaluations, the status of evaluations which have not yet been completed is also available. Logon information and access instructions will be emailed upon receipt of the application request.

Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate Offeror past performance. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided.

The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to rectify problems identified in the proposal. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested risk rejection or less favorable performance rating by the Government.

10.1.2.2 Past Performance Questionnaire

For any contract identified for which no CPARS is available, a Past Performance Questionnaire, Form PPQ-0 (Attachment 1), shall be completed and submitted with the proposal.

Offerors shall include in their proposal the written consent of the proposed subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractors’ past performance evaluation with the Offerors during any discussions. The Government will verify/validate information on both prime and subcontractors that an Offeror provides in the proposal. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to contact each reference to: 1) obtain authorization to release the information identified in the past performance submission and 2) provide authorization to the references to release performance information to the Government.

If an Offeror has no relevant past performance history, the Offeror must affirmatively state that the firm possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance

10.2. Evaluation Method

In accordance with Paragraph 8.4 and the following criteria, the Government will evaluate the submitted Past Performance information in the areas of recency, relevancy, and quality. Proposals not meeting the three (3) project submission requirement or failing to include the required project narratives for proposed subcontractors will be rated less favorably. No more than three (3) projects should be submitted. If more than three (3) projects are submitted, only the first three (3) projects listed in the proposal will be evaluated.

If an Offeror proposes to use a Joint Venture or a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience, the proposal may receive more weight under this factor if it contains evidence of the Joint Venture entity working successfully together previously on relevant projects. If a binding Letter of Commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

10.2.1. Recency

For this solicitation, recent projects are those completed or substantially complete within the timeframe required in the Past Performance submission requirements. For the purpose of this solicitation, substantially complete is defined as being 50% construction progress complete or fully complete by the proposal submission due date. If an Offeror submits a project that is identified as “substantially complete,” the Offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 50% complete. Where applicable, at the Government’s discretion, projects submitted without the required 50% completion explanation may not be evaluated.

10.2.2. Relevancy

Project submissions must collectively demonstrate past performance in each of the areas of work defined in Paragraph 10.1.1. A single submitted project does not need to address all areas of work to be considered, but when combined, the submitted projects must collectively address ALL of the required areas of work. Project submissions that do not meet the requirement to demonstrate the past performance of all areas of work may be rated less favorably.

Higher evaluation ratings may be given for those project examples that are similar in function, scope, complexity, dollar value, degree of subcontractor teaming, and clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to construct a project of this nature and execute the project successfully while containing costs and maintaining schedule. In addition, projects constructed for the Federal Government will be rated more favorably. Projects performed as the prime contractor may be given higher ratings.

Projects that do not meet the similarity criteria identified in Paragraph 10.1.1 may be rated less favorably than those projects meeting the stated criteria. Further, such characteristics as size, complexity, number and types of trades employed, and whether the Federal Government was the customer may be indicative of similarity. Omission of requested information will result in less favorable ratings than submissions containing all the required information.

10.2.3. Quality

The Quality evaluation will examine how well Offerors have performed on previous projects considering such criteria as timeliness, safety, responsiveness to customer concerns, and adherence to budget. The Contractors Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) will be queried to determine the past performance of the Offeror’s for similar projects. The Government will evaluate the relative merits of each Offeror's past performance and may, at its discretion, contact references cited to verify the information contained therein. All aspects of an Offeror's performance history will be considered, with greater weight given to projects similar in nature, magnitude, and complexity to this project as well as, projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges, where the contractor employed innovative methods to successfully resolve problems.

Projects indicating less than satisfactory performance in the areas of workmanship, timeliness, safety, customer service, adherence to budget, subcontractor management (timely payment to subs or suppliers), relations between owner and contractor, as well as the level of support provided for As-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, and warranty work may be rated less favorably. Projects showing significant cost and time growth will be rated less favorably than those that maintain the contract completion date and the original award amount.

The Government places a higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation (CPARS, other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge). CPARS ratings will be given more weight than equivalent performance ratings for other types of evaluations. For Past Performance, an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating will be awarded when no past performance records are available. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a)(2)(iv), “In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance." Omission of rating sheets will result in lower ratings for this factor. If an evaluation is unattainable, a written explanation regarding the omission shall be provided.

10.2.4. Performance Confidence Assessment

Recency, relevancy, and quality past performance aspects will be used to develop an overall confidence assessment rating for the Past Performance factor. More relevant and recent past performance will typically be considered a stronger predictor of future success and may have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating. Evaluation of quality on more recent and relevant projects may have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating.

11. FACTOR 2 - TECHNICAL APPROACH

11.1. Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall demonstrate capability to successfully complete this project and fabrication quality requirements by submitting a detailed Management Plan that includes the key elements noted below. For proposal evaluation purposes only, the Offeror should use an arbitrary, non-binding Notice to Proceed (NTP) date of 01 August 2023.

The Management Plan shall be limited to no more than 50 pages; therefore, any content beyond page 50 will not be evaluated.

The Management Plan shall include, at a minimum:

a. Any special work restrictions or phasing identified in the solicitation documents.

b. A detailed narrative of the quality control and the methods which will be utilized to complete this specific project. Identify key quality control personnel throughout the fabrication process. 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.

c. 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. Adequate crane capacity capable of picking and maneuvering the structures within fabrication building.

Maneuvering the individual bulkhead sections includes any rotating about any axis of the structure that may be required for fabrication and weld distortion control.

d. Describe means and methods used for the removal of existing draft tube bulkheads, fabrication, and installation of the new draft tube bulkheads. Include intended transportation method for delivery of bulkheads to site.

e. Describe means and methods used for the reverse engineering, design, fabrication, and testing of the new draft tube below-the-hook lifting device. Include a narrative which describes the Contractor's understanding of the new tandem hook actuating mechanism.

f. 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

g. A project schedule in Gantt Chart format that includes the following major activities:

1) fabrication sequencing

2) identified hold points

3) Preparation and disposition of non-conformance reports

4) Shop testing

5) Delivery

6) Field operational testing

The Gantt Chart shall not exceed the maximum contract duration as indicated on the solicitation SF 1442. The proposed duration shall become the contractually binding completion period.

h. 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. In addition, the organization chart shall identify all sub-contractors anticipated to work on this solicitation. This includes but is not limited to: Fabrication, painting, shipping, and on-site installation.

i. Sub-Contractor Management

j. Contract Close-out

11.2. Evaluation

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following elements when evaluating the Offeror’s Management Plan.

Higher evaluation ratings may be assessed for a Management Plan that provides detailed information that demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the scope of work and the challenges to be encountered during fabrication and installation of the bulkheads. The omission of required project information or insufficient detail may result in less favorable ratings.

A detailed quality control narrative specific to this project, including both the prime and proposed subcontractors, will be rated more favorably than a generic company quality control plan.

The quality of the Offeror’s Organizational Chart will be evaluated for clarity and completeness, to include proposed subcontractors. Higher evaluation ratings may be assessed for an Organizational Chart that clearly defines prime and subcontractor roles, responsibilities, and delineates project lines of authority. Omission of the required certification documentation will result in less favorable ratings.

12. FACTOR 3 - PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

12.1. Submission Requirements

The Offeror should submit the names and resumes for key project personnel that will be assigned to this project.

Each resume shall be limited to two (2) pages. In addition, a summary must be provided that clearly indicates the separate duties and responsibilities for each individual. This factor should include data on the following key personnel:

Contractor Quality Control (CQC) Manager Project Manager Weld Inspector(s) Fabricator Paint Contractor

The proposal should clearly present the credentials of each person and show that each meets the requirements listed below. Each resume shall include the following information:

a. Name.

b. Role in contract.

c. Years of experience.

d. Education and/or other relevant qualifications.

e. Professional registration and/or certifications applicable to the personnel’s project role.

f. Experience (including what role or capacity the individual served on each project), as well as the dates

(month and year) employed on each project in that capacity, the monetary size of each project cited as experience, and a point of contact familiar with each project. Resumes should be listed in reverse chronological order, with the latest experience listed first, and time gaps on each resume fully explained.

The proposal should clearly present the credentials of each person and show that each possesses the following qualifications.

Contractor Quality Control (CQC) Manager: The contractor quality control (CQC) Manager, including a list of projects performed. Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) project descriptions that clearly illustrates the proposed CQC Manager’s experience. Each project does not need to address all areas of work; however, when combined, the submitted projects must address the entire scope of work defined above.

Project Manager: The proposed Project Manager should have a minimum of five (5) years of experience within the last ten (10) years performing as a Project Manager on construction projects similar in function, scope, complexity, size, and contract value as this solicitation.

Weld Inspector(s): 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.

Fabricator: Offeror shall submit certification for the Fabricator that demonstrates the fabrication facility where the work is to take place is certified to one of the following AISC Quality Certification Programs: Major Bridge Fabrication (CBR); Certified Bridge Fabricator – Advanced (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 (FCE).

Paint Contractor: 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.

If, after award, the key personnel identified in the proposal are not able to be utilized on this project, replacement personnel with similar skills and experience shall be presented for acceptance and written approval by the Contracting Officer. Before making any substitutions for these designated personnel replacement individuals for this project shall be required to have qualifications and experience meeting or exceeding those identified in the proposal.

12.2. Evaluation

Qualifications of key personnel assigned to this project will be considered. More favorable evaluation ratings may be given for personnel with experience on projects similar to this project as well as length of experience at the position being proposed. Personnel that do not meet the requirements identified above may be rated less favorably.

Prior experience on Federal construction projects is preferred and may be evaluated more favorably.

13. Volume 2 - Price

13.1. Submission Requirements

The Offeror should submit the following information in Volume 2 (Price).

13.1.1. Cover Letter

The Offeror shall submit a cover letter stating that their proposal/offer complies completely with all the terms, conditions and specifications contained in the solicitation. A proposal/offer that does not comply with all terms, conditions and specifications in the solicitation will be automatically rejected and not considered for award.

13.1.2. Section 00 10 00, Solicitation/Contract Form and Pricing Schedule

The Offeror shall include the completed SF Form 1442 (Pages 00 10 00-1 and 00 10 00-2) of the RFP, along with the completed CLIN Pricing Schedule.

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

13.1.4. System for Awards Management

The information requested in this Section needs to be fully completed along with completion of System for Award Management per FAR 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS and DFARS 252.204-

7007 ALTERNATE A, ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS.

13.1.5. Pre-Award Survey Information

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

(1) Financial:

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

Name and phone number of financial individual (primary and alternate) to be contacted.

(2) Bonding Information:

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

(3) Small Business Information.

If an Offeror is a Joint-Venture entity, the Offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement.

All of the information required for Volume 2 (Factor 4), other than items (2) and (3), will not be used in the best value trade-off analysis; however, this information is required as part of the Offeror’s proposal. A contract cannot be awarded to an Offeror that fails to submit/comply with all of the information requirements.

13.2. Evaluation

13.2.1. Evaluated Price

The total evaluated price will be the summation of CLIN prices (to include option CLINs) proposed by the Offeror in the CLIN Pricing Schedule (refer to Section 00 10 00). The total evaluated price will be the price used for purposes of conducted the best-value tradeoff analysis. The total evaluated price will not be scored or rated.

13.2.2. Price Reasonableness

Price analysis of the individual proposed CLIN prices will be performed using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b). Cost analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(c) may also be used to evaluate data other than certified cost or pricing data to determine cost reasonableness when a fair and reasonable price cannot be determined through price analysis alone. Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether the CLIN prices proposed by the Offeror are reasonable. Because the price evaluation will represent a portion of the total evaluation, it is possible that an Offeror will not be selected for award for proposing unreasonable prices.

13.2.3. Unbalanced Pricing

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

14. COMPETITIVE RANGE

Upon completion of initial proposal evaluation, if discussions are determined to be needed, the Government may establish a competitive range for the purpose of conducting written discussion. The competitive range shall be determined on the basis of the factors stated in the solicitation and shall include all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is reduced for reasons of efficiency. The Government intends to award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. Notwithstanding, the Government may conduct written discussions with all responsible Offerors who submit proposals and are considered within the competitive range.

Offerors submitting proposals determined outside of the competitive range (lacking a reasonable chance of being selected for contract award) will be notified in writing prior to the initiation of discussions.

15. CLARIFICATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

For definitions of the Evaluation terms referenced below, see paragraph 8.1 above. The information provided in this paragraph includes procedural information associated with clarifications and discussions.

Clarifications. During the evaluation, if a proposal requires clarification for the Board to complete its evaluation, a written list of questions and/or comments will be provided to the Offeror by the Contracting Representative or Contracting Officer. Any request for clarifications will be issued by letter. Contractors will not be permitted to change their proposals in response to a request for clarifications. All contact with Offerors will be through the Contracting Division. There will be no direct contact by the SSEB with any Offeror(s).

Communications. Communications, as defined in paragraph 8.1.6 above, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range, will not occur without the participation of the Contracting Officer.

Discussions. If discussions, as defined in paragraph 8.1.7 above, are necessary, written and/or verbal, they will be conducted with all firms in the competitive range once a written Determination to hold such discussions has been approved by the Contracting Officer.