W912BV-16-R-0116_Amendment_3_of_8-5-16.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

Install Expansion Joint System at Wister Lake

This amendment publishes attachments for Section 00 22 10 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, BASIS OF AWARD ONE-STEP-BEST VALUE, DESIGN-BUILD (SINGLE AWARD). Tw o attachments w ere missing from the respective RFP section.

No other changes are made and the proposal due date remains 12 August 2016 by 2:00 PM CT.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 23

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Aug-2016

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 W912BV-16-R-0116

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Jul-2016

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 is extended, X is not extended.

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

05-Aug-2016

CODE

CONTRACTING DIV

USACE, TULSA 1645 S 101 E AVE

TULSA OK 74128-4609

W912BV 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912BV-16-R-0116

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 11 00 - SF 1442 AND CLIN SCHEDULE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, BASIS OF

AWARD ONE-STEP-BEST VALUE, DESIGN-BUILD (SINGLE AWARD)

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. 0 OVERVIEW

This is a competitive lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) solicitation for a construction contract for the Construction and Installation of Expansion Joints at Wister Lake, Le Flore County, OK. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible firm whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the lowest evaluated price to the Government.

1.1 WHO CAN SUBMIT

a. Firms formally organized as construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors.

b. Organization Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Disclosure: The Offeror shall provide a disclosure statement with its proposal which concisely describes all the relevant facts concerning the past or present organizational conflicts of interest relating to work on this project. In the same statement, and if applicable, the Offeror shall provide information to assure the Government that the conflicts of interest have been mitigated and/or neutralized to the maximum extent possible. If a conflict of interest is discovered after award of this contract, the Contracting Office will make a decision whether to terminate the contract.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

Award will be made to the acceptable proposal meeting or exceeding the technical acceptability standards for non-cost factors and is the lowest price of all acceptable proposals and is found fair and reasonable by the Contracting Officer. Tradeoffs are not permitted. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using non-cost/price factors. The Government will not award a contract to a Firm whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. The Government reserves the right to reject any offer if the offer is not in the best interest of the Government.

3. 0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS

Submit electronic proposals via AMRDEC SAFE web site (https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/).

The following email addresses must be entered for notification of proposal receipt and download availability:

brian.j.abel@usace.army.mil diane.cianci@usace.army.mil punnie.chittchang@usace.army.mil

Proposals may, alternately, be submitted via email if ALL email attachments, together, are less than 10MB. Proposals must be made available via AMRDEC or email before the time and date shown on Standard Form SF 1442 or as amended on SF30.

3.1.1 Deviations, Exception and Assumptions

Deviations and exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation are not allowed. Should the offer include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may be deemed “unacceptable” and thus ineligible for award. Should the Offeror have any questions related to specific terms and conditions, these must be resolved prior to submission of the offer. If the Offeror must make any assumptions prior to submitting the proposal, the Offeror shall list and describe in detail the assumptions on the first page of each Tab. All assumptions shall be fully supported with the Offeror’s rationale and shall fully explain the impact, if any, on the performance and/or specific requirement of the RFP. The Offeror shall clearly describe on the Proposal Cover Sheet submitted with the Price Proposal any assumption to the contractual and/or technical terms and include the monetary impact on the solicitation with the price proposal. This information will not be evaluated separately but may impact the evaluation of other factors.

3.2 DISCUSSIONS

The Government does not intend to enter into discussions with offerors prior to making an award.

Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. However, in accordance with FAR Part 15.306, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and offerors notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency in accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 15.306(c)(2).

3.3 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.

3.3.1 Submit the electronic files specifically authorized and/or required elsewhere in this section. Do not submit excess information, to include audio-visual materials, electronic media, etc. All pages should be numbered.

3.3.2 “Confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must be clearly marked in accordance with the instructions at FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”.

3.3.5 For submissions with page limitations, the pages will be counted as follows: tables of content, proposal cover letters, and tabs between proposal information do not count toward any page limitations in the proposal.

3.3.6 Proposal revisions shall be submitted as page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g., bold face print, highlighting or underlining. The source of the revision, e.g., Error, Omission, or Clarification, or amendment shall be included and be annotated for each revision. Proposal replacement pages shall be numbered, shall be clearly marked “REVISED.

3.4 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME 1)

3.4.1 The Offeror shall provide the text portion of the complete technical / past performance proposal as a single PDF file. Sections of the proposal shall be bookmarked (linked to the index) in logical order.

Do NOT scan documents into a PDF file.

3.4.2 Page Limitations. The following page limitations are established for each Factor:

Factor 1 – Specialized Experience – Limited to 20 pages (1 page per project; maximum 5 forms per contactor/subcontractor, see paragraph 5.1)

Factor 2, Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule – No page limitation

Factor 3 - Past Performance – No page limitation

3.5 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL – FACTOR 4 (VOLUME 2)

3.5.1. Size Restrictions and Page Limits. There are no page limits set for the Price Proposal. However, limit your response to information required by this solicitation. Excess information will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation.

3.5.3 Format and Contents of the Price Proposal and List of Tabs. The Price Proposal shall be appropriately labeled as such and shall be organized as indicated in the following chart. The Offeror shall provide the text portion of the complete price proposal as a single PDF file. Sections of the proposal shall be bookmarked (linked to the index) in logical order. Do NOT scan documents into a PDF file. Note:

If the Offeror is not required to submit any information under a listed Tab in accordance with the instructions below, that tab can be omitted. However, do not renumber the subsequent tabs.

4.0 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Factor LOCATION DESCRIPTION

FACTOR 1 Vol 1 Tab A Specialized Experience

FACTOR 2 Vol 1 Tab B Proposed Contract Duration And Summary Schedule FACTOR 3 Vol 1 Tab C PAST PERFORMANCE

VOLUME 2 – PRICE PROPOSAL

Factor

LOCATION DESCRIPTION

N/A Vol 2 Tab 1 Proposal Cover Sheet

N/A Vol 2 Tab 2 SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments FACTOR 4 Vol 2 Tab 3 SECTION 00 11 00, PRICING SCHEDULE N/A Vol 2 Tab 4 Bid Guarantee (Bid Bond)

N/A Vol 2 Tab 5 Representations & Certifications N/A Vol 2 Tab 6 JV Agreement (if applicable)

5.0 VOLUME 1

5.1 VOLUME 1 – TAB A: FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1.1 Submission Requirements:

Demonstrate the specialized experience of the Offeror and/or proposed team on projects same/similar in size and complexity to that described in the solicitation for same/similar construction services.

The Contractor shall complete a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5) “Experience Information” forms, attached at the end of this section (Attachment 1), in response to this factor per contractor/subcontractor. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current, and complete. All projects submitted must be at least 50% complete and completed within the last 5 years. If the Offeror’s firm has multiple locations, projects should have been completed by the regional office that will be performing the work. The Government preference is that project examples submitted be of completed projects (i.e., construction complete). At least two (2) of the projects provided must be valued at over $200,000.

5.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

a. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the Offeror (including subcontractors) in regard to their role on this project. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience. The Government will evaluate the experience submitted to see that it demonstrates capability to execute projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement. Projects still under construction will be evaluated only if they are at least 50% complete.

(1) The Offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, related experience in construction, for the project (which may include similar state or local government or private counterparts) included in this solicitation. Recent experience includes projects well underway (see above criteria) or those completed and turned over within 5 years of the proposal issue date for this RFP for construction experience. Joint Venture partners should each demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project or how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project. If any of the information required is not included in the form (Attachment 1), then the Contractor will be considered non-responsive and evaluated as unacceptable.

(2) The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

(5) The Government will consider extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience to this project, demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. Some examples of relevancy to this project may include, but not be limited to:

(a) Number, size, type work, complexity, location

(b) Dates (well under way or completed no more than 5 years preceding date of Solicitation)

(c) Firm's role and extent of work self-performed.

5.2 VOLUME 1 - TAB B: FACTOR 2 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

5.2.1 Submission Requirements:

a. The Offeror shall propose a contract duration in the appropriate location on the Pricing Schedule not to exceed the maximum contract duration specified in the SCR entitled COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION AND COMPLETION OF WORK. The proposed duration shall become the required contract duration.

b. Submit a summary level schedule for construction including any construction phasing. Schedules or diagrams may be provided separately in a size that is easily read, but shall be bound and clearly labeled as Tab 2.

Summary schedule may be presented as an 11”x17” foldout sheet, counted as one (1) page. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE. The summary schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented. The proposed summary schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration. Give attention to the following features:

(1) Show the overall construction phase for major item(s), for the site work, and for utilities (if applicable).

(2) Show turnover of the project. Identify any proposed phased turnovers (if applicable). The time to complete the project and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

(3) Show as-built submissions.

(4) Constraints: Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented

(e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.). Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

c. The Offerors shall provide a narrative explanation to include the following:

(1) Proposed Phasing Plan

(2) Crew Assembly and Work Schedule(s)

(3) Safety Plan

The intent is to provide enough detail to demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the project;

however, it is not the intent for the Offeror to provide the amount of detail that will be required in the pre-work submittals contained in Division 01 of this RFP.

5.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

a. Proposed Contract Duration: This duration will become the contractually binding completion period.

The Government will evaluate the contract duration, as proposed by the Offeror in the Pricing Schedule, not to exceed the maximum allowed duration shown in the SCR entitled COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION AND COMPLETION OF WORK. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the Government may take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports the proposed duration, as well as use other information, such as but not limited to independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. The Government will consider an unreasonably condensed contract duration, which places additional cost or schedule risk on the Government or which may create a risk of contract or performance failure, as a deficiency, depending upon the evaluators' judgment. b. Summary Schedule: The Government will evaluate the summary schedule for construction. The length of the schedule must match the proposed contract duration. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it offers no advantage to the Government because it is non-binding, only representing a preliminary planned schedule. A schedule shorter than the proposed contract duration may indicate the Offeror is placing additional risk on the Government for any delays between the scheduled completion date and the required contract completion period.

Both parties shall assume field overhead costs are included in the contract price for the full proposed contract duration. Therefore, the Government believes that there is no valid need to shorten the schedule less than the full proposed contract duration. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g., permitting, long lead items, phasing, etc. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with coordinating submittals, the firm's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule.

c. Narrative: The Government will evaluate the narrative for realism and logic in regard to the proposed phasing plan, work crew assembly and work schedule, and safety plan.

6.0 VOLUME 1 –TAB C: FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 Submission Requirements:

a. For the projects listed under Factor 1 – Experience, the Government will query the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (to include ACASS, CCASS, and CPARS) to validate past performance ratings on Department of Defense contracts and any other past performance information the Government deems necessary to evaluate a contractor’s past performance.

b. For each project that does not have an ACASS, CCASS, or CPARS evaluation, Offerors shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included at Attachment 2 to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 2) which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Contract Specialist identified via email prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

c. The information contained in the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the offeror’s past performance. If any negative past performance information is received, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal. Each contractor shall provide at least three (3) past performance ratings. Any rating an offeror has in CCASS for the projects listed under Factor 1 will count toward this requirement. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the KO has received a minimum of three (3) questionnaires prior to that date/time or has provided written notification to the KO that they have current ratings in CCASS. Entities that have no past customers shall notify the KO in writing, prior to the date and time established for the RFP closing, that they have had no previous clients and that the minimum number of questionnaires cannot be provided. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that the reference documentation is provided, as the Government may not make additional requests for past performance information from the references. The evaluation form shall be provided to the Contract Specialist directly from the reference. Do not request past performance questionnaires on projects that have final CCASS evaluations. If a past performance questionnaire is received on a project where a final CCASS evaluation exists, the CCASS evaluation will serve as the official rating of record for evaluation purposes.

d. The Government may contact references provided as part of Factor 1 – Specialized Experience, for information regarding the Offeror’s past performance on the project and for the purposes of assessing and verifying the scope of the work performed. Offerors should provide accurate, current, and complete contact information for references provided in the project descriptions.

e. The Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other sources not provided by the offeror.

f. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

6.1.1 Joint Venture Submission Requirements. Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV) shall obtain a DUNS number and be registered in the CCR as the offering Joint Venture. The Offeror must provide three (3) to five (5) "recent", "relevant" projects performed by the JV that reflect the JV's ability to perform the work required in this solicitation as required by paragraph 5.1 “Specialized Experience”.

a. If the Offeror cannot provide a sufficient number of projects as the JV to meet the minimum requirement, the Offeror must provide those "recent", "relevant" projects that it has performed as the JV, and then supplement the record with additional "recent", "relevant" projects performed by each JV member in their individual capacities. In such instance, each JV member must satisfy the minimum requirement of three (3) projects, to include any performed as the JV.

b. If the JV has no "recent", "relevant" projects performed by the JV, then each member of the JV must provide three (3) to five (5) "recent", "relevant" projects performed by the JV member that reflect the JV member's ability to perform the work required in this solicitation as required by paragraph 5.1 “Specialized Experience”.

c. In addition to the examples of "Company Specialized Experience" and "Past Performance Surveys", the Joint Venture shall provide a brief narrative (not to exceed 1 page) stating the roles that each partner of the Joint Venture will perform on this project. The attached "Specialized Experience" and "Past Performance Survey" forms shall be used by the Joint Venture or the JV partners. Explain how the JV is structured.

d. Verification: The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects not submitted by reviewing the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS, or other Government appraisal systems or to interview owner or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. An Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to reply to or explain adverse performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to address.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will review all CPARS, ACASS, CCASS evaluations regardless of project and past performance questionnaires for projects submitted under Factor 1. The Government may contact points of contacts listed on the “Experience Information” forms submitted under Factor 1. Offerors must demonstrate the following minimum acceptability standards:

All past or current references must have overall ratings of satisfactory or above.

FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) requires if the KO determines that a small business' past performance is not acceptable, the matter is referred to the SBA for a COC determination.

Failure to demonstrate the minimally acceptable criteria under this factor will result in an “Unacceptable” rating and elimination from further consideration for contract award. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

7.0 VOLUME 2 – PRICE PROPOSAL

7.1 GENERAL

Submit the Price Proposal (Volume 2) in a separate envelope labeled “Volume 2 – Price Proposal”.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

a. Volume 2, TAB 1: Proposal Cover Sheet. The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1(2) (c) (i)-(v) and must be submitted by all Offerors. This provision, titled “Instructions to Offerors— Competitive

Acquisition,” and the format for the proposal cover sheet as shown here:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number:

2. The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror (and electronic address if available):

3. Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation:

4. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

5. Tax Identification, DUNS and CAGE numbers of Offeror(s).

b. Volume 2, TAB 2: SF1442. The SF1442 is to be completed by all Offerors and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with FAR 4.102. Provide Signed SF1442 with all amendments acknowledged by all Offerors in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation.

c. Volume 2, TAB 3: FACTOR 4 – PRICING SCHEDULE. Section 00 11 00, Pricing Schedule, is to be completed in its entirety by all Offerors. See Section 00 11 00 with attached notes, for further instructions. Include price breakdown information behind the Pricing Schedule.

d. Volume 2, TAB 4: Bid Guarantee. Provide an ELECTRONIC COPY of a fully executed Bid Bond as required by FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee. The Contracting Officer may request the original bid bond if necessary, prior to award.

e. Volume 2, TAB 5: Representations and Certifications: All Offerors must have electronically completed the annual representations and certifications on the “System for Award Management” (SAM) website.

The Offerors are responsible for ensuring that these on-line Representations and Certifications are updated as necessary to reflect changes, but at least annually to ensure that they are kept current, accurate and complete. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, all participants must separately complete both the SAM Representations and Certifications.

f. Volume 2, TAB 6: Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable): If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), include a copy of the JV Agreement. If a JV Agreement has not yet been finalized/approve, indicate its status. JV Agreements must clearly indicate the percentage of the JV participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party, and a clear delineation of responsibilities and authorities between the JV parties.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

a. The Price Proposal will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for completeness, fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Firms are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, sub-contracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

b. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

c. The Government will request a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance Army FAR Supplement Appendix DD and with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9 from the apparent successful offeror. This requirement must be completed by the apparent contract winner prior to receiving the award.

To be acceptable, subcontracting plans must:

(1) Adequately address the required statutory elements.

(2) Provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to answer affirmatively questions A through H of Appendix DD, Part 2, number 8, (Army FAR Supplement 19.705).

(3) A subcontracting plan that is rated 70 percent or less under the AFARS evaluation system will not be considered acceptable. The Government will review those areas where the plan is deficient with the Offeror with the goal of correcting deficiencies.

(4) As part of the evaluation, the Government will compare the small business subcontracting opportunities in the plan with the goals established in the solicitation with additional consideration given for a proposed subcontracting plan that exceeds the goals established in Section 00 21 00 of this solicitation. The Government will give additional credit for a plan which is more specific in nature as to the proposed subcontracting opportunities for Small Business Community (small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), woman-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone business (HUBZone), and service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB).

d. Award cannot be made for project cost for construction exceeding the cost amount authorized by Congress.

8.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions required, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

8.2 Evaluation:

a. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor), except that performance risk ratings are assigned to past performance (see below).

b. The Government intends to award without discussions. Firms are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Firms should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it.

c. A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that the Government decides that discussions with competing firms are required or are considered to be in the Government’s best interests. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

8.3 General Technical Criteria: The term “technical”, as used herein, refers to non-price factors and other than past performance. More than one “technical” factor can be used and titled to match the specific evaluation criteria appropriate for this RFP. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. Some of the aspects affecting an offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements may include technical approach, key personnel and qualifications, facilities and others. Once the minimum requirements are established the team shall evaluate the offeror’s proposal against these requirements to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outline in table C-1, Table C-1

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Methods

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

8.3.1 Past Performance: The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products/and or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Past performance shall be used as an evaluation factor within the LPTA process, unless waived by the PCO in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii). It shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and

DFARS 215.305.

However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table C-2.

Past performance should be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each LPTA source selection. Therefore, the solicitation shall establish the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement being procured. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract performance history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the requirements of the contract that is contemplated to be awarded as a result of the evaluation of proposals in the current procurement. Second, the past performance evaluation should determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

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

Table C-2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note above).

Unacceptable Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

C.3 Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation

Sources are as follows:

• Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

• Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition.

• Past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Past

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials.

The past performance evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. See FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) for treatment of past performance relative to small business.

C.4 Small Business Participation: In LPTAs, small business participation is not required to be part of the evaluation in accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i). However, in the event that it is an appropriate evaluation factor, it should be considered one of the “technical” factors/sub-factors, and the Rating Method in Table C-1 shall be used (see FAR 15.101-2(b)(1)).

C.5 Price proposal evaluation: The LPTA procedure is applied to known, firm requirements, usually readily available in the commercial marketplace where a fair and reasonable price determination is based on adequate price competition. Therefore, price analysis will normally be used to determine the reasonableness of total evaluated price to support the selection of the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror. Although in exceptional cases when the determination of fair and reasonable price requires additional information, the PCO may conduct analysis to support the determination of whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable. Regardless of the specific evaluation methodology, in order to enable offerors to make informed decisions on how best to propose, every solicitation will provide an adequate description of the cost or price evaluation. The price proposal will be analyzed for reasonableness and balanced pricing among the contract line items (CLINs). It may also be analyzed to determine whether it is realistic for the work to be performed and reflects a clear understanding of the Government’s requirements.

C.6 LPTA decision : In the event of a tie between Contractor’s; The Government will review all CPARS, ACASS, CCASS evaluations regardless of project and past performance questionnaires for projects submitted under Factor 1. The Government may contact points of contacts listed on the “Experience Information” forms submitted under Factor 1. Offerors must demonstrate the following minimum acceptability standards:

All past or current references must have overall ratings of satisfactory or above.

FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) requires if the KO determines that a small business' past performance is not acceptable, the matter is referred to the SBA for a COC determination.

Failure to demonstrate the minimally acceptable criteria under this factor will result in an “Unacceptable” rating and elimination from further consideration for contract award. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability. “Unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”. If there continues to be a tie with the approval of the SSA, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions with all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). At the conclusion of discussions, the offeror with the lowest technically acceptable offer shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision and possibility of award.

ATTACHMENT 1

EXPERIENCE INFORMATION

(To be completed by Contractor)

1. Contractor:

Name:

Address:

2. Contract /Task Order(TO) /Purchase Order (PO) Number:

3. Contract/TO/PO Dollar Value:

4. Contract/TO /PO Status: Active Complete

Completion Date (w/ extensions):

5. Project Title:

Location:_____________________________________________________________________________________________

6. Project Description-- to include the role of the contractor on the project and specific responsibilities of the contractor in performance of the effort:

7. How is the project (above) relevant to the project contained in the RFP?

8. Project Owner or Project Manager for the Client – provide:

Name:

Address:

Telephone Number and E-mail:

ATTACHMENT 2

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

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in…