W9128F25RA050 GDSM Stoplog Mod Solicitation Attachment 01.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:

Karen Caskey: Karen.L.Caskey@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: W9128F25RA050_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 – FABRICATOR CERTIFICATION

5.1.2 Volume 2: Price Proposal, Cost Information and Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of mailto:Karen.L.Caskey@usace.army.mil mailto:Nadine.L.Catania@usace.army.mil

Offerors

FILE NAME: W9128F25RA050_Company Name_Volume_2_Price_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Table 2: Price Proposal Requirements

Location Description

Vol. 2 TAB A Factor 3 - 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

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.

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 Factor 2 will be rated using a color and adjectival methodology with a narrative assessment. Volume 2 (Factor 3 - Price) will be evaluated after consensus scoring Factors 1 and 2. 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

Strength

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

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.

Weakness

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

Significant Weakness

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

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.

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.

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.

Communications

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

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.

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 Factor 2:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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 approximately equal 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 Technical Factor

FACTOR 2 Vol. 1. TAB B FABRICATOR CERTIFICATION 2nd Most Important Technical

Factor

VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor/Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 3 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 approximately equal to price.

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 3 - PRICE.

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 – Fabricator Certification

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—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 – PAST PERFORMANCE

This factor is designed to verify the past performance of the Offeror having been regularly engaged in mechanical 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.

Submission Requirements

Project Narratives

The Offeror should submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) narratives for projects completed or substantially complete within the past six (6) years that best illustrates the Offeror’s experience on projects similar in scope, dollar value and complexity for the modification or fabrication of stoplogs, bulkheads, gates, or similar structures. Each project narrative shall be no more than two (2) pages detailing the project and providing specifics as noted herein. Project narratives will 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:

i. Location.

ii. Description of work performed demonstrating Electrical & Mechanical Industrial

Installation experience.

iii. Total contract value.

iv. Specific mechanical installation 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 is proposing to utilize a subcontractor fabricator to perform the stoplog seal modifications at least two

(2) of the submitted narratives should demonstrate the offeror past performance and at least two at least two (2) of the submitted narratives should demonstrate the subcontractor fabricator past performance. In addition, the offeror must submit a binding letter of commitment to use the proposed subcontractor on the project, signed both by the subcontractor and the offeror. The commitment letter must be submitted even if the subcontractor is in some way affiliated with the offeror (for example, the subcontractor is a subsidiary of a joint venture partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the joint venture partner is also a subsidiary). Include the subcontractor letters of commitment in

Volume 1, Factor 1, Past Performance. The binding Letter of Commitment between the prime and subcontractor must be included and contain the following:

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

2. 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 of six (6) projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than six projects, only the first six (6) projects will be evaluated. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess the projects against the evaluation criteria described in the RFP.

Substantially complete is defined as being 75% 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 75% construction progress complete. If an Offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 75% complete, the

Government reserves the right to reject the project.

For evaluation purposes, “similar” is defined as projects of similar size and scope consists of having modified or fabricated Hydraulic Steel Structures (HSS) with the following minimum requirements:

a. Similar in scope, dollar value, and complexity for the modification or fabrication of stoplogs, bulkheads, gates, or similar structures.

b. Weight of 2-Tons or greater.

c. Member thicknesses of ½-inch or greater.

d. Geometry of structure 2-ft by 20-ft or greater.

e. Machining a plane surface to maximum tolerances of 1/16-inch or less out of parallel over at least

20-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:

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 3-A-Z or 5-E-Z paint system.

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

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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 minimum three

(3) project submissions or failing to include the required project narratives for proposed subcontractors will be rated less favorably. No more than five (5) projects should be submitted. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) 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 sub-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.

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 75% 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 75% complete. Where applicable, at the Government’s discretion, projects submitted without the required 75% completion explanation may not be evaluated.

Relevancy

Project submissions must collectively demonstrate past performance in each of the areas of work defined in Paragraph

10.1.1. A submitted project does not need to address all areas of work to be considered, but when combined, the submitted projects must 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.

http://www.cpars.gov/

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 may 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 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. Omission of requested information will result in lower ratings than submissions containing all the information identified in the Paragraph

10.1.

Quality

The Quality evaluation will examine how well Offerors have performed on previous projects. 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.

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 – FABRICATOR CERTIFICATION

Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall submit copies of the AISC certificate indicating that the fabrication plant meets the specified structural steelwork category.

The fabricating plant and fabricator shall be certified under the AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction)

Quality Certification Program, and must be designated an AISC Certified Plant, Category

• CBR: Major Bridge Fabrication,

• IBR: Certified Bridge Fabricator - Intermediate,

• ABR: Certified Bridge Fabricator – Advanced, or

• HYD: Certified Metal Hydraulic Fabricator.

The certification shall include a fracture critical endorsement (FCE) at time of bid and for the duration of the contract.

Evaluation

In accordance with Paragraph 11.1, the Government will evaluate the submitted Fabricator Certification information.

Proposals that demonstrate the required fabrication plant AISC certification with FCE will be rated Green –

Acceptable. Proposals that do not demonstrate the required fabrication plant AISC certification with FCE will be rated Red – Unacceptable.

12. Volume 2 - Price

Submission Requirements

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Joint Venture Agreement

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

Evaluation

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.

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.

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).

13. 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:

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)

(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.

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 (2) exists.

(3) A joint venture of two (2) 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 (2, 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. 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 authorized to sign the offer for the joint venture be provided.

f. Corporate certificate: Ensure that the joint-venture portion is completed by both firms.

g. In the case of a joint venture, the following is required: A contract with joint ventures may involve any combination of individuals, partnerships, or corporations. The contract shall be signed by each participant in the joint venture in the manner prescribed below for each type of participant. When a corporation is participating, the Contracting Officer shall verify that the corporation is authorized to participate in the joint venture.

(1) Individuals. A contract with an individual shall be signed by that individual. A contract with an individual doing business as a firm shall be signed by that individual, and the signature shall be followed by the individual’s types, stamped, or printed name and the words “an individual doing business as ” [insert name of firm].

(2) Partnerships. A contract with a partnership shall be signed in the partnership name. Before signing for the Government, the Contracting Officer shall obtain a list of all partners and ensure that the individual(s) signing for the partnership have authority to bind the partnership.

(3) Corporations. A contract with a corporation shall be signed in the corporate name, followed by the word “by” and the signature and title of the person authorized to sign. The Contracting Officer shall ensure that the person signing for the corporation has authority to bind the corporation.

(4) In addition to the requirements stated above, and to assure a single point of contact for resolution of contractual matters and payments, the Contracting Officer shall obtain a certificate signed by each participant in the joint venture as follows: In the proposal include the following statement:

“The parties hereto expressly understand and agree as follows:

a. (name, title, and company) is the principal representative of the joint venture. As such, all communications regarding the administration of the contract and the performance of the work thereunder may be directed to him or her. In the absence of (same name, title, and company), (enter name, title, and company of alternate) is the alternate principal representative of the joint venture.

b. Direction, approvals, required notices, and all other communications from the Government to the joint venture, including transmittal of payments by the Government, shall be directed to (enter name, title, and company of principal),…