SF30 W912BU21R0001 Amendment 0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Amendment 0002 hereby incorporates changes listed in SF 30 continuation sheet.

All other Terms and Conditions remain unchanged.

Only a w arranted Contracting Officer (either a Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), or an Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)), acting w ithin their delegated limits, has the authority to issue modifications or otherw ise change the terms and conditions of this contract. If an individual other than the Contracting Off icer attempts to make changes to the terms and conditions of this contract you shall not proceed w ith the change and shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 22

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Jan-2021

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912BU21R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Dec-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

13-Jan-2021

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PHILADELPHIA

CONTRACTING DIVISION

WANAMAKER BUILDING

100 PENN SQUARE EAST

PHILADELPHIA PA 19107-3390

W912BU 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912BU21R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

SF30 CONTINUATION SHEET

Revisions as follow:

1- Updates to Section L part (v) VOLUME IV – Factor 5 – Price

2- Paragraph deletition Section M- EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD FACTOR 3 - Past Performance

3- Contractor shall adhere to the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC)

Level 1 requirements, processes, and practices as specified on the provided website in DFARS 252.204-7021. The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will periodically check to ensure the federal contract information for this project is safeguarded per these procedures.

4- Answers to contractors questions are provided as an attachment.

5- Solicitation has been extended until April 2, 2021 NLT 4:30 PM EST. The cutoff date for the receipt of RFI’s will be 14 days prior to the closing of the Request for Proposal

(W912BU21R0001).

Attachments:

1- Q&A Amendment 0002

Contracting Officer Notes:

Receipt of Requests for Information (RFI’s) – Contractor requesting clarifications of specifications, or questions regarding evaluation elements, or any questions related directly to this solicitation shall direct those inquiries to the following individuals ONLY:

Maria Figueroa-Gomez - maria.m.figueroa-gomez@usace.army.mil Michael J. Hunter - michael.j.hunter@usace.army.mil

Response to all RFI’s will be accomplished by Amendment to the Solicitation and will appear in beta.SAM as an attachment to the Solicitation. Timing for the Amendments will be determined by the difficulty and volume of the RFI’s. RFI’s received after the cutoff date will not be considered or answered.

The cutoff date for the receipt of RFI’s will be 14 days prior to the closing of the Request for Proposal (W912BU21R0001).

Only a warranted Contracting Officer (either a Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), or an Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)), acting within their delegated limits, has the authority to issue modifications or otherwise change the terms and conditions of this contract. If an individual other than the Contracting Officer attempts to make changes to the terms and conditions of this contract you shall not proceed with the change and shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer.

In accordance with FAR 52.204-10, “Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards,” contractors are required to report information on subcontract awards for all awards over $25,000.00. The contract shall follow the instructions and report the required information at http://www.fsrs.gov. The contractor is responsible for notifying its subcontractors that the required information will be made public.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 16-Feb-2021 04:30 PM to 02-Apr-2021 04:30 PM.

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS & INSTRUCTIONS – SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a Best Value Trade Off (BVTO) procurement where the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed priced supply contract to the Offeror who represents the best overall value in accordance with all the requirements in the solicitation. The principal objective of the evaluation process is to award a single firm fixed price contract to a single contractor. The award will be made in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 “Trade off Process” based on proposals that are determined to be the best overall (i.e. best value) that is the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to all of the evaluation factors identified below. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror or to other than offerors with the highest technical rating if the Contracting Officer determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government.

The Government’s intent is to make the award without conducting discussions, but the Government reserves the right to set a competitive range and discuss aspects of proposals with Offerors if the Government determines it to be necessary to do so. Offerors should be aware that the Government may make award without discussions, clarifications, or any contact concerning the proposals received; therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint.

Offerors should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating to each factor, with the exception of “price”, and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. Overall proposals will then be evaluated by combining the factors, as detailed below.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Product – Each offeror’s proposal will be reviewed and evaluated in accordance with Section E.1 of this document. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph E.1 of this section.

Factor 2: Concept of Technical Approach - Each offeror’s concept of technical approach will be reviewed and evaluated in accordance with Section E.2 of this document. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph E.2 of this section.

Factor 3: Past Performance - Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed and evaluated to determine recency, relevancy and quality to perform a confidence assessment in accordance with paragraph E.3 of this section.

Factor 4: Small Business Participation – Each offeror’s small business participation plan will be reviewed and assessed in accordance with paragraph E.4 of this section.

Factor 5: Price – Price will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph E.5 of this document.

C. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVALUATION FACTORS

All non-price factors when combined (Factors, 1,2,3, and 4) are approximately equal to Price (Factor 5).

The four non-price factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1 – Technical Product Factor 2 - Concept of Technical Approach Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

Factor 1 (Technical Product) is more important than Factor 2 (Concept of Technical Approach). Factor 2 (Concept of Technical Approach) is more important than Factor 3 (Past Performance). Factor 3 (Past Performance) is more important than Factor 4 (Small Business Participation).

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-price Factors except Past Performance. Past Performance must be rated other than “No Confidence.” Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

D. DEFINITIONS:

1. ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTIONS:

The Technical Product Factor Ratings (Factor 1) and Concept of Technical Approach Ratings (Factor 2), excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and risks of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical Factor requirements.

The Past Performance Factor Ratings (Factor 3), excerpted below focus on the level of Confidence the Government has that Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The Government will make a Performance Confidence Rating for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the “Performance Confidence Assessment” chart below. As part of the process to determine the Past Performance - Factor 3 (Performance Confidence) rating, the Government considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Although not rated separately, relevancy and recency will be evaluated as part of the process. The tables to be utilized for assessing recency and relevancy are also provided below.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Definition

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

RATINGS FOR FACTOR 1 and FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL/RISK

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

Past Performance Recency Assessment

Very Recent For Projects reflecting design efforts: Present/past performance effort was performed within the past five (5) years from the date of this solicitation. The five-year threshold date is based upon when the completed design was provided to the customer.

For Projects reflecting production efforts: Present/past performance effort was performed within the past five (5) years from the date of this solicitation. The five-year threshold date is based upon when the completed vessel was delivered to the customer.

Recent For Projects reflecting design efforts: Present/past performance effort was performed within the past ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation. The ten-year threshold date is based upon when the completed design was provided to the customer.

For Projects reflecting production efforts: Present/past performance effort was performed within the past ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation. The ten-year threshold date is based upon when the completed vessel was delivered to the customer.

Somewhat Recent

For Projects reflecting design efforts: Present/past performance effort was performed within the past twenty (20) years from the date of this solicitation. The twenty-year threshold date is based upon when the completed design was provided to the customer.

For Projects reflecting production efforts: Present/past performance effort was performed within the past twenty (20) years from the date of this solicitation. The twenty-year threshold date is based upon when the completed vessel was delivered to the customer

Not Recent For Projects reflecting design efforts: Present/past performance effort was performed beyond (20) years from the date of this solicitation. The twenty-year threshold date is based upon when the completed design was provided to the customer.

For Projects reflecting production efforts: Present/past performance effort was performed beyond (20) years from the date of this solicitation. The twenty-year threshold date is based upon when the completed vessel was delivered to the customer

Past Performance Relevancy Assessment

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 Small Business Participation Factor Ratings (Factor 4) are excerpted in the table below

2. DEFINITIONS OF GENERAL TERMS IN ADJECTIVAL RATING STANDARDS:

Significant Strength - an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has significant merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength - an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance Weakness - a flaw in an offeror's proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (Per FAR part 15.001)

Significant Weakness - a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (Per FAR part 15.001)

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 (Per FAR part 15.001)

Risk - The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

E. EVALUATION APPROACH

The information submitted by the Offeror in accordance with Section L of the specification will be evaluated by the Government in accordance with the procedures set forth within this section and using the tables listed earlier in this section.

1. Factor 1 – Technical Product

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical proposal submission in accordance with the three

(3) vessel characteristics identified below.

For each of the three aspects of design listed below, both a minimum requirement and an objective capability are stated. In order to satisfy the requirements of the RFP, the Offeror must demonstrate that the minimum requirement is met. An offeror may receive extra consideration if the proposed capability exceeds the minimum and achieves up to the objective capability. In order to receive a Strength or Significant Strength for capability above the minimum, the Offeror’s proposal must successfully demonstrate that this enhanced capability can be achieved. Strengths will be assessed depending upon the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed capability exceeds the minimum requirement, and to the extent that the increased capability is deemed to be beneficial to the Government.

All evaluations for the hopper characteristics below will be based upon the dredge operating in its “Departure” condition, with full stores and consumables, crew and effects as identified in Section C-160 of the specification:

Hopper Capacity: The Offeror must demonstrate that its proposed vessel will at least achieve the minimum of 5,000 cubic yards volume at 1.8 specific gravity. The Government has an objective hopper carrying capacity of 6,000 cubic yards volume at 1.8 specific gravity. Offerors are reminded that the capacity by volume cannot exceed 6,000 cubic yards to the maximum overflow height. If the hopper volume exceeds 6,000 cubic yards, the entire proposal will be considered non-responsive to the solicitation.

Once the minimum requirement of 5,000 cubic yards at 1.8 specific gravity has been satisfied, additional volume up to 6,000 cubic yards is considered advantageous to the Government even at lesser specific gravity than 1.8.

Hopper Loading Time: The Offeror must demonstrate that its proposed vessel will at least achieve the loading time minimum requirement to fill the hopper within 75 minutes with heavy sand at 1.8 specific gravity when dredging at 65 ft with 20% overflow. The Government has an objective to fill the hopper within 45 minutes with heavy sand at 1.8 specific gravity when dredging at 65 ft with 20% overflow.

Pump out Time: The Offeror must demonstrate that its proposed vessel will at least achieve the pump out time minimum requirement of sand and gravel with cobbles material at 1.8 specific gravity with hopper fully loaded from over the bow connection, through 150 feet of 28-inch Inside Diameter (ID) submerged steel pipeline, and 1.5 miles including a geodetic head increase of 75 ft of shoreline –29-inch ID steel pipeline within 240 minutes.

The Government has an objective pump out time of sand and gravel with cobbles material from over the bow connection, through 150 feet of 28-inch ID submerged steel pipeline, and 1.5 miles including a geodetic head increase of 75 ft of shoreline –29-inch ID steel pipeline within 120 minutes.

2. Factor 2 – Concept of Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach to the project and understanding of the requirements in order to assess the degree to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates reduced technical risk. The Government has the objective of reducing technical risk in the design and production of the vessel based on the bulleted items below. The Offeror’s Concept of Technical Approach submittal will be evaluated for risk reduction based on the sufficiency of resources, level of understanding of the work, use of proven relevant technology, and the degree to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates capabilities closely aligned to the requirements of this vessel. The offeror may receive a Strength or Significant Strength in any of the following technical approach aspects, depending upon the degree to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements that reduces risk of unsuccessful performance in a way that is considered beneficial to the Government:

Overall approach and understanding of this project with specific emphasis on the design and production process.

Design Basis & Development:

o Design Maturity; including use of proven dredge features, components and automation system design.

o Design considerations demonstrating preparedness for the Ready Reserve mission.

Technical Capability to be applied to this project, demonstrated by the Offeror’s project team and their key personnel as reflected by any or all the following:

o Capability in designing Ocean-going hopper dredges over 200 feet in length, o Capability in the production of Ocean-going self-propelled steel vessels in the United

States over 200 feet in length.

o Capability with integrating complex control and monitoring installations for machinery, equipment, and automation into steel vessels over 200 feet in length.

3. FACTOR 3 - Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the Solicitation. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality. The evaluation of this factor will result in a single “Performance Confidence Assessment” rating (details below).

[Paragraph Deleted January 13, 2021]

The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s identified teaming arrangement’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts in their proposals. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and his current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar products.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Recency is not separately rated, but the criteria listed in the table earlier in this section will be used to establish what is recent.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; but the criteria listed in the table earlier in this section will be used to rate relevancy, which shall include the similarity of design effort compared to the hopper dredge design effort required by this project, the scale and scope of production efforts compared to the production of this hopper dredge, and the integration of complex control and monitoring systems compared to the efforts required for this hopper dredge. Projects that include more than one of the aspects identified above may receive greater consideration.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The Government will assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and documented assessments or reviews from other Federal contracts. The baseline for quality for past performance is a satisfactory or above. Therefore, anything below will be considered unacceptable. Quality is not separately rated; however, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

(iv) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The Government will make a performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the table listed earlier in this section. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

4. FACTOR 4 – Small Business Participation

The Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated in accordance with the table identified earlier in this section to assess the offeror’s best effort in utilizing small business and the various subcategories of small business identified in the submittal requirements in Section L of this solicitation, to best support the use of small business. Plans that identify formal commitments, signed teaming agreements, or other assurances of small business participation will be considered more significant than just stated intentions.

5. FACTOR 5 - Price

The principal objective of the evaluation process is to award a firm fixed price contract. The government will compare each offerors proposal against the competition, historical data, and an Independent

Government Estimate (IGE) to determine if the price is fair and reasonable and has no signs of unbalanced pricing.

The Government will evaluate price proposals, represented by the completed bid schedule (Section B of the specification) for all line items to determine whether the offered price reflects a sufficient understanding of the contract requirements and the risk inherent in the offeror’s approach. Proposals found to have an unreasonable price may be deemed to be unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. Price will also be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions and in making the final best value determination for award.

F. DISCUSSIONS:

GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held; should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 3 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. When discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least two (2) business days prior to their discussion session. The discussion sessions will take place via conference call, or by written notification. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1. INTRODUCTION

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically, as described below. The RFP will provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal. The Offeror’s proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

NOTE: The only authorized transmission method for proposals in response to this solicitation is via electronic upload to the DOD SAFE website (address provided below). NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHODS (EMAIL, FACSIMILE, REGULAR MAIL, HAND CARRIED, ETC) WILL BE ACCEPTED. The DOD SAFE user guide will be provided for prospective Offeror’s convenience.

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that their full proposal is received by the Government in the DOD SAFE system by the date/time specified in the solicitation. Offerors shall submit their proposals using the following link:

https://safe.apps.mil/

Please send proposals using the link above to Contract Specialist Maria M. Figueroa-Gomez at Maria.M.Figueroa-Gomez@usace.army.mil, Michael Hunter at Michael.J.Hunter@usace.army.mil, and to Contracting Officer Robert Hutcheon at Robert.W.Hutcheon@usace.army.mil.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS:

To reduce paperwork and cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically through the SAFE site.

Submission should be in Adobe PDF format, except for the price worksheets, which should be submitted in Excel format (ex. xlsx). You are limited to a maximum of five (5) files per upload (total size cannot exceed 2GB). If you have many files, the Government recommends that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading to the SAFE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE: Offerors must email Contract Specialist Maria M. Figueroa-Gomez at Maria.M.Figueroa-Gomez@usace.army.mil, Michael Hunter at Michael.J.Hunter@usace.army.mil, AND to Contracting Officer Robert Hutcheon at Robert.W.Hutcheon@usace.army.mil no later than five (5) working days prior to the proposal due date to receive a request code which will allow for file uploads via the SAFE site. The code will expire 14 days after the Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer sends the code via the SAFE site. Offerors that fail to email to request a code five (5) working days before proposal submission date may not be able to receive a request code in time to upload their submission.

FILE DESCRIPTION: Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.) Submission should be in Adobe PDF format.

INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW ON THE DoD SAFE WEBSITE:

1. Once at the SAFE website select the “Drop-off” icon. Offerors should access the DoD SAFE site as a guest.

2. After selecting the “Click Here” link you will be prompted to add your personal information, file information, recipient (Government representative) information and email settings.

3. When completing your file information for transmittal via the SAFE website, you will be required to enter the email address for all recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients are the Contract Specialists and the Contracting Officer. The Contract Specialists for this solicitation are Maria.M.Figueroa- Gomez@usace.army.mil and Michael.J.Hunter@usace.army.mil. The Contracting Officer is Robert.W.Hutcheon@usace.army.mil. The email address of the Government Employee who initiated the request code will be automatically entered. The Offeror must enter the E-Mail address for both the Contracting Officer and Specialists. The Offeror can enter an additional E-Mail address if desired. After entering the email address, click the ADD button to add the person(s) email to the “Recipients List” of your proposal. When your proposal is submitted, a notification will be sent to the recipients you added.

NOTE: Drop-Off File button should only be used after all proposal submission files are uploaded. SAFE codes and links will expire once Drop off is completed. Do NOT send the SAFE site packages to group email accounts.

Even if you successfully upload your proposal to the SAFE site, notification will not be sent to the Government recipients until you verify your email address. Entering an incorrect email may result in the rejection of your submission for lateness. An Offeror can confirm proper submission by the ‘Drop-Off Completed” screen which generates based on proper file submission.

NOTE: It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the SAFE website when using a Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that Offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS: For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. For proposals larger than the 2GB capacity of the SAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases.

The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipients. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

The offeror’s proposal shall consist of four (4) volumes. The volumes are:

Volume I – Technical Product and Concept of Technical Approach (Factors 1 & 2) Volume II – Past Performance (Factor 3) Volume III – Small Business Participation (Factor 4) Volume IV – Price (Factor 5)

No cost information shall be included in Volumes I, II and III to allow for a fair and impartial “non-price factor” review.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the technical requirements of the specifications with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

Offerors may submit multiple proposals. All proposals must be complete, clearly identified, and fully independent of any other proposals (self-contained).

BID BOND SUBMISSION: Bid Bond must be received by USACE Contracting Division on or before the proposal due date and time of solicitation closing, or the proposal will be deemed non-responsive. Please send Bid Bonds to the following address:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, Philadelphia Contracting Division

ATTN: Robert W. Hutcheon Wanamaker Building

100 Penn Square east Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Each volume shall be submitted in digital format. Any pages that are changed (as a result of discussions or proposal revisions) shall be of a different color and shall have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its title.

b. Each volume shall be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape oriented.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Maximum Volume Title Pages

I – Technical Product and Concept of Technical Approach (Factors 1 & 2) 150 total II – Past Performance (Factor 3) N/A III – Small Business Participation (Factor 4) N/A IV – Price (Factor 5) N/A

NOTE: All pages submitted will be counted in the page calculation; except for Past Performance Questionnaires, CPARS records, resumes, drawings, letters of commitment, Joint Venture agreement or other teaming agreement, and catalog cut sheets. Pages that exceed the above noted page limitations will be removed, not read, and will not be evaluated by the Government. Any tables, pump curve charts, calculations, illustrations, or graphics included in the submittal shall be counted towards the total page count.

3. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format

The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date, and RFP solicitation number in the header and/or footer.

A Table of Contents should be created using the table of contents feature in Microsoft Word. Word files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Page Size, Width – 8.5 inches Page Size, Height – 11 inches

All drawings submitted for review shall be in a readable electronic format.

Page Size, Width – 11inches Page Size, Height – 17 inches

b. File Packaging

All of the proposal electronic files shall be submitted in PDF format, with the exception of the price worksheets, which shall be submitted in Excel format. All price breakdown information to aid in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007. CDs, DVD, Zip disks or USB drives are not permitted.

**Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable. ** Also, electronic links to website data are not acceptable; all information must be included in the body of the proposal.

c. Content Requirement

All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, the Narrative discussion, and drawings or catalog literature where appropriate. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

(i) VOLUME I – Factor 1 - Technical Product

The specific content shall be as identified below. Evaluation criteria is located in Section M. Hopper characteristics listed below shall be provided based upon the vessel departure condition, with full stores and consumables, crew and effects as identified in section C-160-B-1 of the specifications. The submission requirements are:

Hopper Capacity:

The Government considers hopper capacity to be critical and a function of both volume and weight of material that can be carried. The submission requirements are:

Hopper Capacity by Volume: In a narrative the offeror shall identify the hopper capacities by volume at the minimum and maximum overflow heights. Offeror’s are advised that hopper capacity may not exceed 6,000 cubic yards in volume based upon project restrictions. Any proposal with hopper capacity above 6,000 cubic yards will be considered non-responsive and rejected.

Hopper Capacity by Weight: The offeror shall develop and provide a table that displays hopper cubic yard capacity as a function of specific gravity (weight of material in the hopper) in conjunction with the overall weight of the vessel as well as including any explanatory notes. The table shall identify specific gravity versus hopper cubic yard capacity at maximum dredging draft. Maximum dredging draft shall be listed. The table range shall be from 1.5 to 1.8 specific gravity, in increments of 1/10th.

Hopper Loading Time:

In a narrative, the offeror shall identify and explain the projected hopper loading time as outlined in Section M, with supporting dredge pump curves, pump operating points, suction and discharge pipe diameters, and required pump power. Describe the process control in terms of variation in pumping rate verses overflow height for efficient loading with heavy sand at 1.8 specific gravity with overflow. Pump curves and operating points shall be displayed in graphical form.

Pump out Time:

In a narrative, the offeror shall identify and explain the projected time for the pump out configuration as outlined in Section M, with supporting dredge pump curves, pump operating points, suction and discharge pipe diameters, and required pump powers. Describe the process control in terms of alignment of pumps and pumping rates. Pump curves and operating points shall be displayed in graphical form.

(ii) VOLUME 1 – Factor 2 - Concept of Technical Approach

The specific content shall be as identified below. Evaluation criteria is in Section M. The submission requirements are:

Overall Approach:

In a narrative, the Offeror shall explain their overall approach to the project to include teaming arrangements, project planning and scheduling, design, and production process. Supporting information may be submitted with the narrative as attachments.

Joint Ventures and Team Arrangements - FAR Subpart 9.6 defines contractor team arrangements.

Contractor team arrangements means: (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 act as its subcontractor(s) under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. As applicable, the offeror shall provide specifics of organizational relationships that will be utilized to complete this project. All offerors shall identify any joint venture, key subcontractor(s) (performing 20% or more of the prime contract value), primary design agent(s) (regardless of contract value), or reliance on resources of a parent company/subsidiary/affiliate/other entity.

Offerors shall submit the following information in the front of both Volumes I and II:

Provide a listing of the team members’ corporate name (no abbreviations), address, point of contact, phone number, DUNS Number, and CAGE Code.

Submit a signed letter of commitment from each key subcontractor (performing 20% or more of the prime contract value) and primary design agent (regardless of contract value) or any other entity upon whose resources the offeror relies in this proposal. The commitment letter shall clearly identify the expected relationship, role and responsibility of the subcontractor/other entity (e.g., type and proportion of work to be performed) and shall be signed by the appropriate individual(s). Failure to comply with the foregoing requirement may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

Submit a copy of the Joint Venture agreement or other teaming agreement. For 8(a) Mentor-

Protégé, Joint Ventures, submit a copy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) approved Mentor-Protégé agreement. Copies of Joint Venture/teaming/Mentor-Protégé agreements submitted shall not be applied against the overall page limit.

All Joint Venture/teaming agreements shall:

Be signed by the appropriate individuals of each firm; and

Demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind the firm/joint venture/team.

Design Basis & Development:

The Offeror shall provide a design overview document consisting of a narrative design description, vessel profile and arrangement drawings, dredging system schematic drawing, and history/description of aspects of the design that are based on previous similar dredging applications to demonstrate maturity of the offered design. The design overview document (narrative and drawings together) shall explain and provide focus regarding technical risk reduction in the context of proven dredge features and components, automation system design, and preparedness for the Ready Reserve mission.

Technical Capability:

The offeror shall provide a narrative summary of their design, production, and integration capabilities for this project. The Technical Capability overview narrative shall address:

A description of the offeror’s ocean-going hopper dredge design capability, including a discussion about technical coordination between designers and production staff for integration into the production process. The offeror shall include a list of key personnel participating in the design, their qualifications, and their relationship to the requirements for the design of this vessel. For any capability being offered and not being provided by the prime contractor, evidence of a committed relationship for key personnel shall be provided. (If already provided as part of the “Overall Approach” submittal above, the evidence need not be repeated here).

A description of the offeror’s production capability and facilities in the United States to produce self-propelled ocean-going steel vessels over 200 feet in length. Production capability shall address approach to resources, such as staffing, trades availability, supply chain and purchasing management, key subcontractors, and facilities. The offeror shall include a list of key personnel participating in the production effort, their qualifications, and their relationship to the production process of this vessel. For any key capability being offered and not being provided by the prime contractor, evidence of a committed relationship for key personnel shall be provided. (If already provided as part of the “Overall Approach” submittal above, the evidence need not be repeated here).

A description of the offeror’s capability to manage the integration of complex control and monitoring installations for machinery, equipment, and automation into steel vessels over 200 feet in length in the United States.

(iii) VOLUME 2 –Factor 3 - Past Performance

The Proposal must include at least three (3), but no more than seven (7) projects using the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) forms (in Section J of the specification), representing the key members of the Offeror’s proposed team’s recent and relevant Past Performance. In lieu of submitting Past Performance questionnaires, offerors may provide completed questionnaires from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) on a “one for one” basis. In other words, one (1) completed CPARS questionnaire shall satisfy the requirement for one (1) PPQ.

Past performance pertains to how well an Offeror has performed relevant past work that is an indicator of future performance. Past performance information is not the same as experience information. Experience information pertains to what types of work an Offeror has performed. Past performance pertains to how well an Offeror performs project work. As used in this paragraph, “relevant” refers to projects that include some or all of the following:

Projects that included the design of steel ocean going hopper dredges over 200 feet in length.

Projects for the production of self-propelled ocean-going steel vessels over 200 feet in length in the United States.

Projects that involved integration of complex control and monitoring into steel vessels over 200 feet in length in the United States.

Offerors are encouraged to submit Questionnaire’s that collectively reflect projects which contain all of the aspects discussed above, but at least two must address the past performance of the designer, at least two must address performance of the prime contractor, and at least two must address the organization constructing the vessel; whether as prime contractor or key subcontractor. In cases where one firm may serve more than one role in the teaming arrangement, additional questionnaire’s do not need to be submitted (i.e. if the production facility is also the prime contractor, two of the above requirements may be addressed by one questionnaire).

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project that the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 3 (Past Performance).