PPQ-0.pdf

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 1

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION, AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3. BIDDER INQUIRY

4. FORMAT SIZE OF SUBMISSIONS

5. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

Proposal Submittals Late Submissions

6. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

7. PROPOSAL CRITERIA

8. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Basis for Evaluation Evaluation Definitions

9. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

VOLUME 1 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

VOLUME 2 - PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

10. FACTOR 1 - EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements Evaluation

11. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements Evaluation

12. FACTOR 3 - TECHNICAL APPROACH

Sub-Factor 3.1: Project Management Plan Sub-Factor 3.2: Equipment ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

13. FACTOR 4- PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements Evaluation

14. VOLUME 2 - PRICE

Submission Requirements Evaluation

15. UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

Eligibility Requirements for Participating as a Member of the Small Business Community (SBC) Definitions Contractor Team Arrangements Joint Ventures and Affiliation Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB Joint-Venture Requirements Joint Ventures/SAM Registration

16. COMPETITIVE RANGE

18. CLARIFICATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

19. FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

20. DEBRIEFING

ATTACHMENT 1

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 3

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

This solicitation is for a small business set-aside.

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 Section 00 21 00, paragraph 1.17.1, BIDDER INQUIRY 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:

Constance Ellard: Constance.R.Ellard@usace.army.mil

Nadine Catania: Nadine.L.Catania@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.

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: W9128F21R0004_Company Name_Volume_1_Technical_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Table 1- Proposal Submittals

Location Description

Vol. 1. TAB A Factor 1 - EXPERIENCE

Vol. 1. TAB B Factor 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE mailto:Constance.R.Ellard@usace.army.mil mailto:Nadine.L.Catania@usace.army.mil

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 4

Vol. 1. TAB C Factor 3 - TECHNICAL

APPROACH

Vol. 1. TAB D Factor 4 - PERSONNEL

QUALIFICATIONS AND

EXPERIENCE

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

Offerors

FILE NAME: W9128F21R0076_Company Name_Volume_2_Price_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Table 2: Price Proposal Requirements

Location Description

Vol. 2 TAB A Factor 5 - PRICE (Standard Form

1442, Proposal Data Sheet And

Contract Line Item Schedule)

Vol. 2 TAB B Required Pre-Award

Information

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

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.

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 5

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. Factors 1, 3 and 4 will be rated using a color and adjectival methodology with a narrative assessment, Factor 2 will be a rated IAW paragraph

8.1.9 of this section, and Volume 2 (Factor 5 - Price) will be evaluated after consensus scoring Factors 1 through 4.

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.

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. Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk.

8.2.3. 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.

8.2.4. 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.

8.2.5. 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.

8.2.6. Communications

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

8.2.7. 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.

8.2.8. 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. 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 1, 3, and 4 :

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 6

Color Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

8.2.9. Past Performance Evaluation

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

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

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The second aspect of the past performance factor, confidence, is an evaluation to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts and give a performance confidence assessment. This assessment is conducted through evaluation of information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. Past performance information may be provided by the Offeror, as solicited. Past performance information may also be obtained from questionnaires. Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the 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. The Source Selection Evaluation Board will review this 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

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 7 the ratings as indicated 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 Volume 1, Factor 2, Past Performance, an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating will be awarded when no past performance records are otherwise unavailable. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a)(2)(iv), “In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance."

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 – Volume 1 Technical Factors 1 – 4 when combined are significantly more important that Volume

2 Factor 6, Price.

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL FACTORS

Factor/ Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 Vol. 1. TAB A EXPERIENCE Volume 1, Factors 1-4 are of equal importance

FACTOR 2 Vol. 1. TAB B PAST PERFORMANCE Volume 1, Factors 1-4 are of equal importance

FACTOR 3 Vol. 1. TAB C TECHNICAL APPROACH Volume 1, Factors 1-4 are of equal importance

FACTOR 4 Vol. 1

TAB D

PERSONNEL

QUALIFICATIONS AND

EXPERIENCE

Volume 1, Factors 1-4 are of equal importance

VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor/Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 5 Vol. 2 TAB A PRICE (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And

Contract Line Item Schedule)

All evaluation factors in Volume 1, when combined, are considered significantly more important than

Factor 5 - Price.

Note: An “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for any factor, or combination of different factors, may cause the

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 8 proposal to be evaluated as “Unacceptable”. Volume 2 - Price will be evaluated in accordance the requirements listed in paragraph 15, Volume 2, Factor 5 - PRICE.

VOLUME 1 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

Offerors shall submit the original of their Volume 1 file containing Factors 1-5.

Factor 1 – Experience

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Technical Approach

Factor 4 – Personnel Qualifications and Experience

VOLUME 2 - PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Offerors shall submit their price proposal, along with the other information requested in Paragraph 15.1, in their

Volume 2 file.

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, paragraph: INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—

COMPETETIVE 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 - EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements

Offeror shall submit four (4) examples of construction projects performed in the past ten (10) years which best illustrate the experience of the construction contractor on projects of similar function, scope, complexity, and size as this project. Each project summary shall consist of a narrative of the example project, discussing the project and providing specifics as noted herein. Narratives are limited to no more than four (4) pages.

The Government will evaluate which projects demonstrate various aspects of function, scope, complexity and size.

Offerors are encouraged to submit a combination of projects demonstrating experience with as many similar aspects as possible. Similar projects are those that have one or more aspects as listed below:

1. Modification or reconstruction of state or federal highway vehicular bridges with the scope of work including structural concrete, bridge beams, bridge bearings, painting, and engineered shoring systems used in the performance of the work

2. Construction of new state or federal highway bridges with the scope of work including structural concrete, bridge beams, bridge bearings, painting and engineered shoring systems used in the performance of the work

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 9

This factor is designed to verify the experience of the Offeror having been regularly engaged in electrical industrial installations similar in nature to this project. Emphasis should also be placed on demonstrating successful work history of planning and executing work on existing systems while minimizing outages. “Project Narrative” on each project cited for experience shall include:

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:

i. Location.

ii. Description of work performed demonstrating Electrical & Mechanical Industrial

Installation experience.

iii. Total contract value.

iv. Specific experience relating to the project.

v. Date of completion.

vi. Name of customer, agency, or firm.

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

If an Offeror proposes to use a Joint Venture or a subcontractor to demonstrate Construction Experience, the proposal may receive more weight under this sub-factor if it contains evidence of the Joint Venture entity working successfully together previously on relevant projects. The proposal will also be given more weight under this sub-factor if it contains an enforceable commitment in the form of a letter of commitment (LOC) between the prime contractor and the subcontractor.

Evaluation

The Construction Contractor's experience in construction of facilities similar to this project will be evaluated. No more than four (4) projects should be submitted. If more than four (4) projects are submitted, only the first four (4) projects listed in the proposal will be evaluated. Evaluation will be based on the project narratives provided in the

Offeror’s proposal. The proposal must meet all of the following minimum acceptability standards to receive an

"acceptable" rating on this factor:

a. Submission of four (4) project narratives demonstrating Industrial Installation experience on projects as described in the bulleted items above. For this factor, each of the bulleted items listed above are not required to be contained in each project submitted; rather the Offeror must collectively demonstrate experience in each criteria over all projects submitted; and

b. The total cost of one (1) of the projects must be valued at more than $2,000,000.00.

Higher evaluation ratings may be given for those project examples that are similar in function, scope, complexity, and size to this project, and clearly demonstrate a contractor’s capability to construct a project of this nature and execute the project successfully while containing costs and maintaining schedule. In addition, those offers that include Federal Government construction projects and design/build projects will be rated more favorably than those without such construction similarities. Projects performed as the prime contractor may be given higher ratings.

Projects that do not meet the similarity criteria identified in Paragraph 10.1 may be rated lower 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. Projects that are not yet complete may be rated lower than completed projects. 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. Projects cited which indicate the Offeror was not the prime contractor will be evaluated less favorably. Omission of requested information will result in lower ratings than submissions containing all the information identified in the paragraph above.

11. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 10

The Offeror shall provide Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings or contact information and questionnaires for the past performance when CPARS were not completed of for all projects submitted for evaluation on Factor 1, Experience. The contact information will be used at the discretion of the source selection team to aid in the determining past performance.

11.1.1. Past Performance Rating Submission

All Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings for all Corps of Engineer projects constructed by the Offeror in the past ten (10) years should be submitted. For projects cited in Factor 1 which were constructed for other Government or commercial entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that

Government entity. For each project cited in Factor 1 that may be private industry work or other Government entity not covered in the CPARS database, submit Form PPQ-0 (a blank copy is attached to this section) completed by an owner or owner’s representative not affiliated with the Offeror’s firm. 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. 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 DUNS 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 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. Also of note, the

DoD requires a PKI certificate to access the CPARS system.

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 than acceptable performance rating by the

Government.

11.1.2. Past Performance Questionnaire

For any contract identified in Factor 1 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.

https://www.cpars.gov/ https://www.cpars.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.cpars.gov/

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 11

11.1.3. New Corporate Entities

New corporate entities may submit data on prior relevant and recent contracts (within the last 3 calendar years) involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Past performance information on work for state and local Governments, private sector clients, and subcontractors that are similar to the

Government requirement will be evaluated equally with similar federal contracts. Offeror may submit information on key personnel, major subcontractors, and work performed as part of a team or joint venture and other previous reincarnation of its current organization.

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.

The Government will evaluate only the information provided. The evaluation of past performance will examine how well Offerors have performed on previous projects considering such criteria as quality, timeliness, safety, responsiveness to customer concerns, and adherence to budget. Higher evaluation ratings may be awarded for excellent evaluations. In descending order, lower ratings may be given for past evaluations of Above Average, Average, Marginal, and Unacceptable. If an Offeror has no past performance ratings in CPARS, other Construction

Performance Rating Systems, Performance Evaluation Worksheets including Form PPQ-0, or no other past performance is available, a neutral rating will be given. CPARS ratings will be given more weight than equivalent performance ratings for other types of evaluations. The Government may, at its discretion, contact references cited to verify the information contained therein. The Government will evaluate the relative merits of each Offeror's past performance. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror's performance history, but will attribute more significance to work that was similar in nature, magnitude, and complexity to this project.

Omission of Rating Sheets for Factor 2 projects will result in lower ratings for this factor. If an evaluation is unattainable, a written explanation regarding the omission shall be provided.

Offerors will be evaluated on past performance by review of the past performance questionnaires, with the option of contacting end users using the contact information provided.

In addition, the Contractors Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) will be queried to determine the past performance of the Offerors for similar projects. The Government reserves the right to contact the evaluator on previous Government or Private Sector work to verify the Offeror’s past performance. Offerors without any evaluations in CPARS, or for which no Past Performance Questionnaires were returned will be assigned a neutral rating.

12. FACTOR 3 - TECHNICAL APPROACH

Sub-Factor 3.1: Project Management Plan

12.1.1. Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall provide a comprehensive Project Management Plan (PMP) developed specifically for this project for evaluation purposes only to verify Offeror’s experience in understanding in the project scope, submittal schedules, equipment procurement and delivery, offsite fabrication and repair, key milestones and contract required schedule constraints. For proposal evaluation purposes only, the Offeror should use an arbitrary, non-binding

Notice to Proceed (NTP) date of November 1, 2024. The PMP shall be limited to no more than 50 pages; therefore, any content beyond page 50 will not be evaluated.

The PMP should include an explanation of the management approach for the design/construction team, clearly showing how the prime contractor will manage the construction of the project to insure a well-coordinated quality product, completed on time and with a minimum amount of contract modifications. The management approach should include an organizational chart and address the interaction between the designers, construction prime and subcontractors during the design phase and construction phases of the project, including controls and revisions to the accepted design, requests for information, and shop drawings/submittal reviews.

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 12

At a minimum, the PMP shall address the activities outlined below in the areas of Management Approach, Schedule

Constraints and Major Activities.

Management Approach:

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

b. Organizational Chart

c. Sub-Contractor Management

d. Contract Close-out

Schedule Constraints:

a. Pre-Construction Submittals submitted/approved within 90 calendar days after Notice To Proceed being issued

b. Design drawings and install procedures completed and submitted 60 days prior to the start of any construction

c. Construction work may be completed between April 15 and October 31, 2025.

Major Activities:

a. Pre-construction submittals

b. Design drawings

c. Shoring design and erection

d. Jacking of the bridge structure

e. Selective demolition of existing structure(s) to accommodate repairs

f. Concrete repair of structure(s)

g. Installation of bridge bearings

12.1.2. Evaluation

Proposal must meet all the following minimum standards to receive an “acceptable” on this factor:

a. Management Approach, including any special work restrictions or phasing identified in the solicitation document

b. Organizational Chart

c. The submitted schedule complies with and includes all of the listed Schedule Constraints and identifies all of the listed Major Activities above.

The quality of the Offeror's PMP will be evaluated. A PMP that addresses all requested items in a thorough and comprehensive manner, and demonstrates an effective plan for construction and project closeout within the project timelines may receive higher ratings. Feasible schedules that shorten outage durations may be rated more favorably.

13. FACTOR 4- PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

The Offeror should submit the names and resumes for key design and construction 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 personnel:

Design Engineer(s)

Installation Supervisor

Project Manager

The proposal should clearly present the credentials of each person and show that each meets the requirements listed

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 13 below. Each resume shall include the following information:

a. Name, assignment for this project, and company employing the person

b. Past project 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 all time gaps on each resume fully explained.

Prior experience on Federal construction projects and projects of similar scope, type, complexity and size may be evaluated more favorably.

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

Design Engineer(s): The Design Engineer should have a minimum five (5) years of experience over the past ten

(10) years performing as an engineer on projects of similar size and scope as the Fort Peck Spillway Bridge Pier

Repair Project. The proposed design engineer shall be a registered Professional Engineer with a Bachelor of

Science. If more than one (1) Design Engineer is to be used, roles and responsibilities must be clearly delineated and individual resumes provided.

Installation Supervisor: The proposed Installation Supervisor should have a minimum of ten (10) years construction related experience of working as an installation supervisor on construction projects similar in size and scope as this project. Offeror shall submit a minimum of four (4) project narratives that clearly illustrates the proposed Installation Supervisor’s experience with new construction or modification/reconstruction of highway bridges.

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 monetary value as the Fort Peck Spillway Bridge Pier Repair Project.

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.

Qualifications of key design and construction personnel assigned to this project will be considered. More favorable evaluation ratings may be given for personnel with past experience on projects similar to this project as well as length of experience at the position being proposed. Personnel meeting the qualification requirements identified above will be rated more favorable than those not meeting the qualifications. Prior experience on Federal construction projects is preferred and will be evaluated more favorably.

14. VOLUME 2 - PRICE

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

14.1.1. 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.

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 14

14.1.2. 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.

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

14.1.4. 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.

14.1.5. Joint Venture Agreement

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

Evaluation

14.2.1. 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.

14.2.2. 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.

14.2.3. 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).

15. UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

Eligibility Requirements for Participating as a Member of the Small Business Community (SBC)

(1) To be eligible for membership, a concern must represent itself as a small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, or woman-owned small business concerns.

(2) To represent itself as a member of the SBC, the concern must meet the appropriate definition as indicated at the solicitation clause 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns and documented at Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Parts 2.1 and 19.001.

Definitions

(1) Small Business Concern means a concern, including its affiliates, that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of operation in which it is bidding on government contracts, and qualified as a small business under the criteria and size standards in 213 CFR Part 121 – Small Business Size Regulation. The term, hereafter referred to as the “Small Business Community (SBC)”, encompasses the following members:

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 15

a. Small Business Concern (SB)

b. Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns (SDB)

c. Historically Underutilized Business Zone SB (HubZone)

d. Service-Disabled Veteran Owned SB (SDVOSB)

e. Veteran Owned SB (VOSB)

f. Woman owned SB (WOSB)

g. Historical Black Colleges & Minority Institution (HBCU/MI)

(2) Other than Small Business Concerns are all other entities including Large Business Concerns, State and local governments, Non-profit organizations, Public Utilities, Educational institutions and foreign-owned firms that are awarded Federal contracts for performance within the United States.

(3) Prime Contractor means any agreement (other than one involving an employer- employee relationship) entered into by the Federal Government with a contractor calling for supplies or services required for performance of the contract.

(4) Not Used

(5) Subcontract means any agreement (other than one involving an employer-employee relationship) entered into by a prime contractor or subcontractor calling for supplies or services required for performance of the contract or subcontract. The Government does not have privity of contract with subcontractors.

(6) Not Used

(7) Contractor Team Arrangements as used in this solicitation, resultant proposals and contracts means 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 or more other companies to have them as its subcontractor for the requirement indicated in this solicitation.

(8) Joint-Venture, for the purpose of this solicitation, is an association of individuals and/or concerns with interests in any degree or proportion by way of contract, express or implied, consorting to engage in and carry our no more than three specific or limited-purpose business ventures for joint profit over a two year period, for which purpose they combine their efforts, property, money, skill, or knowledge, but not on a continuing or permanent basis for conducting business generally.

Contractor Team Arrangements

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 16

Joint Ventures and Affiliation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB Joint-Venture Requirements

At time of initial offer, the Service-Disabled Veteran Owned (SDVOSB) must be small within the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the solicitation. A joint venture of at least one SDVOSB and one more business concerns may submit an offer as a small business for a competitive SDVOSB procurement so long as each concern is small under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the contract provided:

(1) For a procurement having a revenue-based size standard, the procurement exceeds half the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the contract.

(2) For a procurement having an employee-based size standard, the procurement exceeds $10 million.

(3) For sole source and competitive SDVOSB procurements that do not exceed the dollar levels identified in 1 and 2 above, an SDVOSB entering into a joint venture agreement with another concerns is considered to be affiliated for size purposes with the other concern with respect to performance of the SDVOSB contract. The combined annual receipts or employees of the concerns entering into the joint venture must meet the size standard for the NAICS code assigned to the SDVOSB solicitation.

(4) Every joint venture agreement to perform an SDVOSB contract must contain provisions (i) setting forth the purpose of the joint venture (ii) designation the SDVOSB as the managing venture and its employee as the responsible project manager for performance (iii) 51% of the net profit earned by the joint venture will be distributed to the SDVOSB.

(5) The Joint-Venture Entity must be registered in System for Award Management at www.sam.gov.

(6) The resultant contract will be executed in the name of the joint venture entity.

(7) The joint-venture agreement must be provided with submission of the initial offer to the solicitation.

Joint Ventures/SAM Registration

No contract may be awarded to a joint venture that is not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM).

Joint ventures may register in the following way:

a. The firm that will be the recipient of payments should be registered in SAM and have a DUNS number.

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 17

This firm is considered in the SAM to be the “mother firm.” If no money is to go to any other firm in the joint venture, the mother firm may make the other firm in the joint venture a “child.” This child will be assigned the mother firm’s SAM number with an additional four (4) numbers attached. Since the child firm is not receiving any payments, they do not need to get a DUNS number. HOWEVER, in order to cover all possibilities, it might be advisable to have each firm registered in SAM.

b. Call SAM at 1-866-606-8220, choose option “0” to get the mother -child relationship set up. DUN &

Bradstreet phone number is 1-800-333-0505. See Section 00 21 00 Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors for Internet and Fax Registration options.

c. If the joint venture has a newly created name, then it must have its own DUNS number and register as such in SAM.

d. In the cover letter of your proposal, provide the complete names, addresses, and phone and fax numbers of the two firms in the joint venture.

e. Signature requirements: SF 1442, SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (pages 00 11 00-1 and 00 11

00-2), Block 20 requires that the name and title of the person…