W912BV18R0030_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

Stop-Logs

The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the offer due date to Noon CST on 10 September 2018 and to remove the references to ISO located at SECTION L under 3.1.2. Sub-Factor 2 (TAB 1B) - Quality Control, and to remove the references to ISO located at SECTION M under 2.4.1.2. Sub-Factor 2 – Quality Control.

The POC for this action is Douglas Buffington, 918-669-7173, Douglas.D.Buffington@USACE.Army.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 22

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Sep-2018

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 W912BV18R0030

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Aug-2018

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 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-Sep-2018

CODE

CONTRACTING DIV

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, TULSA DISTRICT

2488 E. 81ST STREET

TULSA OK 74137-4290

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912BV18R0030

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 07-Sep-2018 09:00 AM to 10-Sep-2018 12:00 PM.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

STOP-LOG AND LIFTING BEAM PROCUREMENT

ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM

SOLICITATION NUMBER: W912BV18R0030

1 July 2018

1. OBJECTIVE

This requirement is to procure at least eighteen (18) stop-logs (a hydraulic steel structure which could also be called a portable bulkhead or portable water retention gate) and at least one (1) lifting beam as a supply contract in support of the Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam near Sallisaw, Oklahoma.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Proposal Submittals.

All offers shall be submitted to Mr. Douglas D. Buffington copying Ms. Amy C. Feemster via AMRDEC (see attached AMRDEC Instructions). Offers shall not be submitted to any other Government Official. Proposals received after the due date/time shall be considered “late” and will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition (JAN 2017). If an offeror wishes to receive a separate delivery receipt the request should be emailed to the Government Officials listed below.

Douglas D. Buffington contact information:

Douglas.D.Buffington@USACE.Army.mil Tel: 918-669-7078

Amy C. Feemster contact information:

Amy.C.Feemster@usace.army.mil Tel: 918-669-7173

The proposals must be received at or before 2:00 pm (Central Standard Time) on Tuesday, 21 August 2018.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS 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.

Proposal Information.

a) The Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by this section and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Specifications and its attached enclosures. Non-conformance with the instructions provided may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

b) The proposal should be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but rather should provide adequate detail to explain how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors should assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s capabilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

c) It is the Offeror’s responsibility to check FedBizOpps (www.fbo.gov) and/or Army Single Face to Industry (ASFI) websites for any amendments to this Request for Proposal

(RFP).

d) The submission of a proposal in response to this RFP does not commit the Government to reimbursement of any costs incurred in preparation and submission of the proposal.

e) There will be no public opening of the proposal for this solicitation.

f) Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

g) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one (1) electronic copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of unsuccessful proposals.

h) Volume I – Technical Factors shall include technical data and drawings; specialized experience; proposed contract duration and summary schedule; manufacturer quality control; and past performance. Cost or price information shall not be included in Volume

I. All pricing information should only be provided in the Volume II – Cost or Price Information.

i) Each Volume shall be submitted in separate files. Each Volume needs to be written such that the volume is complete without cross-references to the other Volume(s) of the proposal. In addition, the information therein needs to address the elements of that specific factor without cross-referencing to information contained in other factors.

Electronic files shall be bookmarked. At a minimum, bookmarks shall delineate responses to each evaluation factor. Attachments to the electronic copy are not permitted.

Offerors are responsible for submitting electronic documents that are virus free.

j) Electronic copies of each volume shall be compatible with the following available Government equipment and software products:

Windows compatible PCs Adobe Acrobat Reader 9.0 Microsoft Office 2007 Microsoft Project 2007

k) Unless otherwise specified, pages shall be 8.5” x 11”, Arial or Times New Roman 11 point or greater font size, with margins of at least 1” on all four sides. Text in tables, charts, graphs, and figures can be smaller font than 11 point font, but MUST be legible for a REASONABLE person to read. 11” x 17” pages can be used for the following and are not subject to page count limitations: Technical Summary Table, Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), and MPS. 11”x 17” single sided pages may be used for large charts, graphs, figures, tables, schematics (i.e. not intended for text); each of these single-sided pages is subject to the page limitation and will count as one page. The Technical Summary Table should also be provided in Microsoft Excel compatible format. The spreadsheet shall not contain any hard-pressed numbers or locked cells or formulas. The spreadsheet shall include all calculations.

l) A Cover Letter of no more than three pages which provides the Offeror’s point(s) of contact, telephone number(s), email addresse(s), CAGE Code or DUNS Number, physical address, and complete list of proposed Subcontractor names, addresses, CAGE Codes or DUNS Numbers (if applicable), and the percentage of work performance (not including the cost of materials) shall be provided.

m) Proprietary statements, security markings, and page numbers can be included within the margin areas. The Offeror is responsible for appropriately marking any restrictions on disclosure and use of data.

n) The specific page limits are contained in Table 1 of this Section L. Should an Offeror exceed those page limits, the pages which exceed the page limit will not be considered or evaluated.

2.2. General Information.

2.2.1. Discrepancies (Bidders Inquiry)

If an Offeror believes that any element of the RFP is unclear or inconsistent, the Offeror is encouraged to submit an inquiry to the Bidders Inquiry System identifying their concern.

Instruction for the Bidders Inquiry System and the deadline for submission of any inquiries will be provided via the document entitled: Inquiries-Offerors Questions and Comments use of Bidders Inquiry in the RFP.

2.2.2. Points of Contact

The Contracting Officer (KO) and Contracting Specialist are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have, that are not appropriate for Bidders Inquiry, to the Contracting Specialist and the KO. Written concerns should be sent to the e-mail addresses below. The KO and Contracting Specialist for this acquisition are as follows:

Mr. Robert E. Reed (Contracting Officer) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District 2488 E. 81st Street.

Tulsa, OK 74137-4290 Phone: 918-669-7088

E-mail: Robert.E.Reed@usace.army.mil

Mr. Douglas D. Buffington (Contract Specialist)

2488 E. 81st Street.

Tulsa, OK 74137-4290 Phone: 918-669-7078

E-mail: Douglas.D.Buffington@USACE.Army.mil

Ms. Amy C. Feemster (Alternate Contract Specialist)

2488 E. 81st Street.

Tulsa, OK 74137-4290 Phone: 918-669-7173

E-mail: Amy.C.Feemster@usace.army.mil

2.2.3. Debriefings

The KO will notify Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the competition before award, if a competitive range is established. Upon such notice the Offeror may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors may request a pre-award debriefing or delay its debriefing until after award provided such a request is submitted in compliance with FAR 15.505. However, it should be noted that the Offeror will receive no more than one debriefing for this acquisition. The KO will notify all Offerors in the competitive range, if a competitive range is established, of the source selection decision. Upon such notification, the Offerors may request a post-award debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.506.

2.2.4. Oral Presentations

As part of the RFP, the Government reserves the right to conduct oral presentations, if necessary.

2.2.5. Communications

Exchanges of information between the Government and Offerors will be controlled by the KO.

2.3. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The Offeror will prepare and submit the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1). The titles and contents of the volumes will be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1.

The contents of each proposal volume are described in further detail later in this section.

Table 1 Proposal Organization

Volume 1: Technical Proposal Page Limit Cover Letter, Table of Contents, List of Table and Figures, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms.

N/A

Tab 1 – Factor 1: Experience 4 Sub-Factor 1: Key Personnel 2 Sub-Factor 2: Quality Control 5 Sub-Factor 3: Certification 5 Tab 2 - Factor 2: Past Performance 10 Tab 3 - Factor 3: Project Management Plan 10

Volume 2: Cost/Price Page Limit Cover Letter, Table of Contents, List of Table and Figures, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms.

N/A

Factor 4: Cost/Price N/A Tab 1 – SF33, Solicitation, Offer and Award N/A Tab 2 – Cost/Price Schedule N/A Tab 3 – Representations and Certifications N/A

Notes:

Cover Letter, Table of Contents, List of Table and Figures, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms do not count against the page limit.

One page is 8.5 x 11-inch. Each page shall be numbered. 11 x 17 inch page (count as one side of a page) may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, figures, and schematics and shall not be utilized for pages of text.

Pages shall be typed with, at minimum, single line spacing.

The font shall be Arial or Times New Roman, no smaller than 11 point for general text.

Text in tables, charts, graphs, and figures can be smaller font than 11 point font, but MUST be legible for a REASONABLE person to read.

Margins, on all four edges of each sheet, shall be at least one inch.

Project summaries submitted and corresponding forms for Factor 1, Experience, shall be submitted within the Technical Volume.

If page limits are exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

Each Volume of the Proposal shall be provided on a separate electronic file. Offeror’s are responsible for submitting electronic copies that are virus free.

Responses to this RFP shall strictly adhere to the requirements set forth in the RFP.

Submissions that do not adhere to format and content requirements may be considered non-compliant to the RFP. The Government reserves the right to eliminate any such proposals from consideration for award.

3. VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTORS

3.1. Factor 1, Tab 1 – Experience.

The Offeror shall provide project information for the stated minimum number of recent and relevant projects. The Offeror must submit a letter of commitment for any subcontractor where subcontractor experience is used to demonstrate experience under a subfactor. Upon award, subcontractors proposed to be used in the manufacturing portion of the contract shall not be substituted without the Contracting Officer’s written prior approval.* Recent and relevant projects that are those projects completed or substantially completed** in the past 5 years that are comparable in size, scope, and complexity with this project, as described in Specification Section C DESCRIPTION OF WORK.

3.1.1. Sub-Factor 1 (TAB 1A) – Key Personnel

The Offeror shall submit a resume for the CQC System Manager which demonstrates compliance with SECTION C, TAB C, SECTION 01 45 00 CONTRACTOR QUALITY

CONTROL.

3.1.2. Sub-Factor 2 (TAB 1B) – Quality Control

The Offeror shall provide the following information: Failure to provide this information will result in an Unacceptable rating.

Quality Control Plan and location of manufacturing facility proposed to be used.

The Offeror shall not substitute any proposed manufacturing facility without the Contracting Officer’s written prior approval.

3.1.3. Sub-Factor 3 (TAB 1C) – Certification

The Offeror shall provide the following information: Failure to provide this information will result in an Unacceptable rating.

A copy of the certificate demonstrating AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction) Quality Certification Program and current designation as an AISC Certified Plant, Category IBR (Intermediate Steel Bridge), or Category ABR (Advanced Steel Bridge), or Category HYD (Hydraulic Steel Structure), and A copy of the Fracture Critical Endorsement (FC).

The Offeror shall not substitute any proposed manufacturing facility without the Contracting Officer’s written prior approval.

3.2. Factor 2 TAB 2 – Past Performance

The Offeror shall provide past performance information for projects listed in Factor 2 – Specialized Experience. The criteria for what is “recent and relevant” will be the same for Past Performance Factor as for the Experience Factor. The title of the project used in this factor shall be consistent with the title used in Factor 2. At a minimum, the narrative should address past performance information such as whether the project was completed on-time/budget, whether or not the Offeror encountered any performance issues or challenges, and key and/or best management practices the offeror employed to sustain successful performance for each past performance project submitted. If performance issues or challenges did arise, provide information on how they were addressed and outcomes.

The Offeror is requested to submit the completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (see Attachment L-3) for each Past Experience project identified in Factor 2. Completed PPQs are to be inserted into Volume 1 Tab 2. The responsibility to track and ensure the completion/submission of the PPQ rests solely with the Offeror. If the government does not receive one or more PPQs it will not result in Offeror disqualification. Offerors will receive a neutral rating if PPQs are not provided.

3.3.Factor 3, Tab 3 – Project Management Plan

The Offeror shall provide a summary schedule that shows key milestones and demonstrates an understanding of the overall contract duration. Gantt charts are appropriate for this submission.

Failure to provide a schedule with the contract duration will result in an Unacceptable rating.

4. VOLUME II – COST OR PRICE INFORMATION

This volume shall consist of all information required to support proposed prices. There are no page limitations for this volume.

4.3. Tab 1: SF1449, Solicitation, All Amendments and Offer.

This tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness. The SF1449 shall be filled out completely by the Offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company.

The Offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 1449 in Block 14 and the summary of changes.

4.4. Tab 2: Cost/Price Proposal.

Provide a complete Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices. Please submit a proposal indicating your proposed price, together with a breakdown of estimated costs used to arrive at your price. This breakdown shall be provided on an unlocked Excel spreadsheet showing all computations used to arrive at totals. The breakdown shall be provided with sufficient detail to allow for Government analysis.

4.5. Tab 3: Section K – Completed Representations and Certifications

The Offerors shall complete all Representations and Certifications, and also ensure current registration and updated annual Representations and Certifications on the System of Award Management (SAM) website, https://www.sam.gov.

5. OTHER INFORMATION

a) The Offeror is required to disclose any potential Organization Conflicts of Interest

(OCI) and provide a disclosure statement, including a mitigation plan, if OCI exists.

b) Any disclosure statement and OCI mitigation plan would be outside the RFP page count.

6. EXCHANGES

The Government intends to award without discussions and make an award based on initial proposals; however, technical and/or cost discussions may be held and result in a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). Therefore, it is in the Offeror’s best interests to submit its best proposal initially. If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will make a Competitive Range determination, Evaluation Notices (EN) may be issued to Offerors in the competitive range, responses will be requested from applicable Offerors, and discussions will be opened. The competitive range may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). Responses to ENs (if applicable), discussion items, and final proposal revisions would be considered in making the award decision.

Attachment L-1

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions: The respondent of the Past Performance Questionnaire shall submit to the requestor or directly to the Government’s contracting specialist point of contact, Jeff W. Morris at Jeff.W.Morris@usace.army.mil.

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.

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:

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 requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

Attachment L-2: Client Authorization Letter

SAMPLE SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING PARTNER CONSENT LETTER

FOR THE RELEASE OF PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

TO THE PRIME CONTRACTOR

Past performance information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor’s or teaming partner’s consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor/teaming partner past and present performance information to the prime contractor during exchanges. In an effort to assist the Government’s Past Performance evaluation team in assessing your recent past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that the following consent letter be completed by the major subcontractors/teaming partners identified in your proposal. The completed consent letters should be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume.

SAMPLE

Dear “Contracting Officer:”

We are participating as a (insert “subcontractor” or “teaming partner”) with (insert name of prime contractor or name of entity providing proposal) in responding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Tulsa District) Request for Proposal (RFP number – W912BV18R0030) for Stop-Log and Lifting Beam Supply Contract, RS Kerr Lock and Dam, Sallisaw, Oklahoma.

We understand that the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance in order to obtain best value in source selections. In order to facilitate the performance confidence assessment process we are signing this consent letter to allow you to discuss our past performance information with the prime contractor during the source selection process.

(Signature and title of individual who has the authority to sign for and legally bind the company)

Company Name:

Address:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

STOP-LOG AND LIFTING BEAM PROCUREMENT

ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM

SOLICITATION NUMBER: W912BV18R0030

1 July 2018

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award.

The award will be made based on the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal. In accordance with the requirements of Sections L, Section M; each offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated against the following evaluation factors to determine technical acceptability:

Factor 1 – Experience, Factor 2 – Past Performance, Factor 3 – Project Management Plan, and Factor 4 – Cost/Price. An unacceptable rating for any one factor will remove the offeror from further consideration. Only the lowest price proposal receiving an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/sub-factor will be evaluated for Factor 4 – Cost/Price to determine price reasonableness.

1.2. Award Without Discussions

The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if deemed necessary.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1. Factors to be Evaluated.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the contractor with the LPTA proposal.

Factor 1 - Experience Sub-Factor A – Key Personnel Sub-Factor B – Quality Control Sub-Factor C - Certification

Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Project Management Plan Factor 4 – Cost/Price

2.2. Evaluation Approach

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) in accordance with LPTA procedures as describe in Section M. Each offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated against the technical evaluation factors, as contained in the Section L of the Solicitation to determine technical acceptability. An UNACCEPTABLE rating for any one factor will remove the offeror from further consideration. Only the lowest priced proposal receiving an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/sub-factor will be evaluated for Factor 4 – Price/Cost to determine price reasonableness. Trade-off is not permitted for LPTA acquisitions.

2.3. Ratings

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the contractor’s proposed approach meets or does not meet the Government’s minimum performance and capability requirements through an assessment of the proposal.

An “unacceptable” rating at any Factor level will make an offeror’s proposal un-awardable.

2.3.1. Technical Ratings. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical Factor (Factors 1 through 3 shown above in 2.1) will receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and listed in the Table 1 below.

The term “Technical” refers to non-cost factors other than past performance that is used to assess the offeror’s proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirement.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.3.2. Past Performance Ratings.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each

Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

The Government will consider past performance information as submitted in accordance with Section L of this solicitation, and may also consider recent and relevant past performance information outside of the information provided by the Offeror and its customers. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not be limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources.

Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table A-2.

Table 2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description 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 below.)

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.

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, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

2.4. Technical Factors (Volume I).

2.4.1. Factor 1: Experience

This requirement is met when the information provided demonstrates Stop-Log and Lifting Beam manufacturing experience comparable in size, scope, and complexity with the Stop- Log and Lifting Beam manufacturing requirements for this project, as described in Specification Section C DESCRIPTION OF WORK.

2.4.1.1. Sub-Factor 1 – Key Personnel

This factor is met when information submitted for this factor demonstrates a CQC System Manager in compliance with SECTION C, TAB C, SECTION 01 45 00 CONTRACTOR

QUALITY CONTROL.

2.4.1.2. Sub-Factor 2 – Quality Control

This requirement is met when the Quality Control Plan is provided.

2.4.1.3. Sub-Factor 3 – Certification

This requirement is met with receipt of the current certificate demonstrating AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction) Quality Certification Program and current designation as an AISC Certified Plant, Category IBR (Intermediate Steel Bridge), or Category ABR (Advanced Steel Bridge), or Category HYD (Hydraulic Steel Structure), and a copy of the Fracture Critical Endorsement (FC) are provided.

2.4.2. Factor 2 – Past Performance

This factor is met when the Offeror provides past performance information for projects listed in Factor 2 – Specialized Experience that demonstrates a record of recent and relevant performance in supplying services similar to the requirements of this RFP in accordance with Section 3.4 of Section L of this RFP. Because offerors are required to submit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) for those projects submitted for Factor 1 – Experience, the criteria for what is considered recent and relevant is the same for Past Performance as for the Experience Factor.

The government will perform an integrated assessment of relevancy and quality of the offeror’s past performance using data provided by the Offeror in project summaries and potentially from data obtained from other sources in conducting the assessment. The Government may contact references for the identified projects and/or contracts at the Government’s discretion.

2.4.3. Factor 3 – Project Management Plan

This factor is met when the offeror provides a comprehensive schedule which outlines key milestones and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the Stop-Log and Lifting Beam manufacturing requirements and contract duration.

2.5 Volume II – Factor 4 – Cost/Price

To meet this Factor, provide a complete Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices. Offeror must submit a proposal indicating your proposed price, together with a breakdown of estimated costs used to arrive at your price. The breakdown shall be provided with sufficient detail to allow for Government analysis.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), the Government intends to perform a price analysis of offerors proposed price, inclusive of all CLINs/Sub-CLINs, to verify that the proposed CLINs/Sub-CLINs and overall FFP offered is fair and reasonable. The Government may use various methods in its price analysis of Offerors' price proposals including, but not limited to comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and to the average total evaluated costs amongst all competitive offerors, analysis of certified cost or pricing data or other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the offeror.

The initial price analysis will evaluate offeror’s bottom line price on a CLIN/sub-CLIN basis.

The total bottom line price consists of all of the Offeror's proposed sub-CLINs, regardless of year in which they may be exercised. A variance analysis may be performed utilizing the IGE and average of proposed pricing of all offerors with the same performance objectives for any given CLIN/sub-CLIN. Where the variance analysis or comparison to the IGE and average of all offerors indicate a discrepancy, a price realism analysis may be performed. Should a price realism analysis be warranted, a careful assessment of individual cost element backup and pricing assumptions will be performed to determine 1) whether the price indicates that the offeror does not understand the work and 2) whether the price poses a risk of poor performance.

A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business and the offeror’s proposed costs are 1) consistent for the work to be performed under the contract; 2) reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements and; 3) are tailored to the various elements of the offeror's specific proposed performance objectives and/or technical approach.

Following the price analysis, the government will examine offeror’s proposals for unbalanced pricing. Per FAR 15.404-1(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINS is significantly over or understated as indicated by the price analysis. If a proposal is unbalanced, the proposal may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

Price will not be adjectivally rated and will be deemed as either “Reasonable” or Unreasonable” based upon the Government’s price analysis. The Government may reject as “Unreasonable” any proposal evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, unbalanced pricing, or unreasonably high or low proposed prices, based on the price analysis, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

3. Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold technical or cost discussions, a Competitive Range will be established and responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place at a facility or in a manner of the Government’s choosing.

4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

5. Definitions.

“Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

“Proposal modification” is a change made to a proposal before the solicitation closing date and time, or made in response to an amendment, or made to correct a mistake at any time before award.

“Proposal revision” is a change to a proposal made after the solicitation closing date, at the request of or as allowed by a contracting officer, as the result of negotiations.

Uncertainty. Is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPPIS.”

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)