A.07.24_Amendment_0004.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

The purpose of this amendment is to:

a. Revise Section 01 10 00, paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3

b. Incorporate SCA Wage Determinations (Section 00 73 46)

c. Revise the "more credit" criteria for Volume I, Factor I (Section 00 24 00)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 71

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-May-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 W912DQ-16-R-3007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-Apr-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-May-2016

CODE

USACE, KANSAS CITY +

FEDERAL BLDG CT-H 601 E 12TH ST RM 647

KANSAS CITY MO 64106-2896

W912DQ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DQ-16-R-3007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFEROR

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1.0 GENERAL PROPOSAL INFORMATION

The proposal should be practical, legible, clear and coherent. Offerors are discouraged from providing information not required by the Solicitation.

2.0 GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

All offerors shall be required to submit a proposal with the minimum content as specified herein. Proposals without the minimum content may be rejected. Proposals will be received until the date and time indicated on Standard Form 1442 at the following address:

U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City Federal Building Room 647 ATTN: CECT-NWK-H/Josh Hill 601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896

3.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1. In order to be considered for award of a contract for the requirements of this solicitation, the offeror must submit a proposal with its offer. Failure to submit a complete proposal may result in the entire offer being rejected.

The proposals shall be submitted in Volumes as follows. Submit the proposal in tabbed, three-ring binders identified by the Solicitation Number, project title, name, address, and telephone number of the offeror.

Arrange tabs as follows:

Volume 1, Technical Proposal:

FACTOR 1 Company Experience FACTOR 2 Past Performance

Volume 2: Cost Proposal

FACTOR 3 Cost Proposal

2. Proposal Characteristics

a) Each Volume shall contain a table of contents and all pages of each factor shall be sequentially numbered. All text must be legible and easily read. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the offeror, in Volume 2. Offerors shall limit Volume 1, Technical Proposal, Factor 1, Company Experience, to a maximum of 10 pages (2 pages for each project), utilizing the form provided below. Pages in excess of 10 will not be evaluated. Factor 2 – Past Performance will not be counted towards this page limitation. All text shall be a minimum of size 10 font and 1 inch margins should be used.

b) Volumes shall be submitted in both hard copy and electronic copy in the following quantities:

Volume 1 – Technical Proposal - Original & 4 copies. Electronic copies shall be submitted in PDF format.

Volume 2 – Cost Proposal - Original & 1 copy. Electronic copies shall be submitted in Excel and PDF format.

Electronic copies should be equivalent to the printed original copy and be searchable or Optical Character Recognition (OCR) formatted. OCR is a common method of digitizing printed texts so that they can be electronically searched, stored more compactly, displayed on-line, and used in machine processes such as machine translation, text-to-speech, key data extraction and text mining.

c) Each Volume of the proposal shall be identified by the Solicitation Number (W912DQ-16-R-3007), project title (Former Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant – Explosive Decontamination and Removal of Outside Sewer Lines, DeSoto, Kansas), name, address, and telephone number of the offeror, and the following on the volume in bold letters:

VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

VOLUME 2: COST PROPOSAL

d) The Technical proposal shall not refer the reviewer to information contained in the Cost proposal.

e) Additional Information to be provided in Volume 1.

Tab 1 - For joint ventures, the information required by paragraph "Joint Ventures" (if applicable).

Tab 2 - Subcontractor letters of commitment as required by paragraph “Subcontractors” (if applicable).

Tab 3 - All offerors shall complete the resume template provided below for the proposed Senior UXO Supervisor. The resume shall not exceed 2 pages in length.

f) Additional Information to be provided in Volume 2.

Tab 1 - Adequate Accounting System, the information required by paragraph 12 below.

Tab 2 - Earned Value Management System, the information required by paragraph

12 below.

Tab 3 - Pro Forma Requirements. The following information should be submitted with Volume 2 and labled “Pro Forma Requirements”. This information consists of the following:

i. Offeror will submit a cover letter containing:

a. Solicitation number

b. Name, address, email, and telephone and fax numbers of the offeror

c. Names, title, email, and telephone and fax numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

d. Name, title and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal

e. A statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the Solicitation

f. CAGE Codes for the offeror, and all teaming partners who participated in the Factor 1 – Company Experience projects.

ii. The Offer (the SF1442) duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company. Include the offeror’s DUNS number in block 14.

iii. Acknowledgement of all amendments to the Solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 (amendment form).

iv. The completed Section 00 45 00 of the RFP (Representations and Certifications), Printed Entity Record from System for Award Management

(SAM).

4.0 INQUIRIES/QUESTIONS

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation shall be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at (https://www.projnet.org). To submit and review inquiry items, prospective offerors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective offeror who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email. Another email to the same address will notify the prospective offeror once the reply is available for viewing.

***Please Note: Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions shall be rejected.

The Solicitation Number is: W912DQ-16-R-3007 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: YVVH7Q-4U5T44

Instructions for first-time ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Instructions for future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be provided any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries at 4:00 pm, local Kansas City time on May 03, 2016 in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response to inquiries and amend the solicitation if necessary.

Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, and review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

The ProjNet call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago) or by appointment for OCONUS. The telephone number for the Call Center is 1-800-428-HELP. Email to staff@rcesupport.com.

5.0 JOINT VENTURES

Joint Ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities:

1) A certified copy of their Joint Venture agreement.

2) A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate.

a. The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

b. The management approach of the joint venture in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise and control the project and have custody and control of the assets of the Joint Venture and perform the duties necessary to complete the work.

c. The structure of the joint venture and decision-making responsibilities of the Joint Venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

d. Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the Joint Venture to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the Joint Venture.

e. Identification of party maintaining the Joint Venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the Joint Venture.

f. Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

g. Identification of party having overall control of the Joint Venture.

Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual Joint Venture parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the Joint Venture.

The Joint Venture parties’ experience and/or past experience will be included as the experience and/or past experience of the Joint Venture.

6.0 SUBCONTRACTORS

If an offeror wishes to receive credit for the experience or past performance of a subcontractor, the offeror must submit a letter of commitment to use the proposed subcontractor on the project, signed both by the subcontractor and the offeror. The commitment letter must be submitted even if the subcontractor is in some way affiliated with the offeror (for example, the subcontractor is a subsidiary of a joint venture partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the joint venture partner is also a subsidiary). Include the subcontractor letters of commitment in Volume 1, Factor 1, Company Experience. Subcontractor letters of commitment will not be counted towards the page limit for that Factor.

SAMPLE LETTER OF COMMITMENT to USE SUBCONTRACTOR

[COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

TO: Contracting Officer, Kansas City District, United States Army Corps of Engineers

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Contract for [insert project name]

Dear Sir or Madam:

[Insert name of offeror] and [insert name of subcontractor] hereby make the unequivocal commitment that, in the event that the company receives award of the Contract for [insert project name], [insert name of subcontractor] will perform the following work required by the Contract.

[Insert list of tasks to be performed by the subcontractor]

Sincerely, [Authorized Official]

[Legal Name of Offeror]

Date: __________

[Subcontractor]

[Legal Name of Subcontractor]

Date: ______

7.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government reserves the right to enter into discussions. In the event that discussions are not necessary then the Government intends to award without discussions, to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the Best Value to the Government, utilizing the tradeoff process.

The technical factors, when combined are significantly more important than the Cost Factor. All technical factors are listed in descending order of importance, with Factor 1 – Company Experience being the most important.

Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the offeror providing the lowest priced proposal.

8.0 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

All proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with informal source selection procedures. The principal objective of this process is to select a responsible offeror who submits the offer that is the Best Value to the Government, utilizing the tradeoff process. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all proposals received in response to this solicitation.

(a) Source Selection Organization

The source selection organization is established as a separate organization and management chain of command whose only purpose is to accomplish the objective above. The organization consists of a Source Selection Authority (SSA) and a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The SSEB is comprised of separate Technical Evaluation and Price Evaluation teams. The organization is designed to ensure active ongoing involvement of appropriate contracting, technical, logistics, legal, price analysis, small business, and other functional staff management expertise.

(b) Source Selection Procedure

The source selection procedures will begin with an initial review of proposals and continue with a technical and price evaluation conducted by the SSEB. The SSEB shall evaluate the proposals based solely on the evaluation criteria identified above. The proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated individually to select the most advantageous proposal. The Government reserves the right to consider and evaluate information regarding past performance from sources outside the proposal. The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the SSA, who will make the final source selection decision or determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications or communications prior to the establishment of a competitive range, or to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with those offerors that are included in the competitive range. All communications leading to establishment of the competitive range will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.306(b).

If a competitive range is established, discussions will be conducted with offerors who are included in the competitive range. After conclusion of discussions and receipt of final revised proposals (if applicable), the SSEB will complete the evaluation and establish the final technical ratings and present them to the SSA.

The SSA will then review the proposals and make the final source selection decision.

The Government is not responsible for information overlooked during the evaluation which is not located in the appropriate proposal section.

To ensure the evaluation credit is appropriately received for proposal material submitted, do not incorporate by reference documents not contained in the proposal.

9.0 DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors, and FAR

15.506 Post-award Debriefing of offerors.

10.0 FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

1. VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL

Factor Location Description Relative Importance FACTOR 1 Vol. 1 Company Experience Most Important Technical Factor

FACTOR 2 Vol. 1 Past Performance Least Important Technical Factor

3. VOLUME 2 – COST

Factor Location Description Relative Importance FACTOR 3 Vol. 2 Cost (Standard Form 1442 and

Proposal Bid Schedules)

Technical Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost

VOLUME 1, FACTOR 1 – Company Experience.

Submission Requirements

The offeror shall submit a project portfolio of up to five (5) relevant projects to be evaluated for this factor. If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects will be evaluated. A project is defined as work performed at one site, or at a single installation. An Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC) is not a project. The projects should describe the specific work, identify whether it was performed as the prime, or subcontractor. The projects should demonstrate experience with similar contaminants, materials and construction techniques necessary to complete the requirements included under this solicitation. Cost and schedule control methods employed during the projects should also be described. A project will be considered relevant only if it is similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work described in this solicitation. These projects must have been completed in the eight (8) year period preceding the date of this solicitation or started within the past eight (8) year period and be at least 50% complete at the time of this solicitation.

Projects included in the portfolio shall demonstrate the breadth and depth of the offeror’s experience as it relates to the work described in this solicitation.

The offeror shall use the form provided below in providing this information.

If the offeror is a Joint Venture combining two or more companies, state whether each project was performed by the same Joint Venture. Each member of a Joint Venture shall demonstrate experience commensurate with its proposed role on this project.

The Government may contact and interview project references. Reference information will not be revealed to other parties

Company Experience (Up to 5 projects)

SFAAP Outside Sewer and Foundation Removal – Similar Experience to SOW Project Name: Client: USACE USEPA Other Offeror: Prime SubContractor

If other than Prime Offeror, name of Team Subcontractor or Contractor:

Site Location (City/State):

Client Name/Company: Client Phone:

Start Date: mm/yyyy Completion Date: : mm/yyyy % of Project Compete: Project Cost:

Contract Type: Cost Reimbursable Firm Fixed Other – Describe:

Contaminant(s):

Media: : Soil Groundwater

Active Industrial Area: YES NO Dewatering & Water Treatment: YES NO Excavation Support: YES NO

Project Description

VOLUME 1, FACTOR 2 - Past Performance.

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 1, the offeror shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ) included in the solicitation to a representative of the owner that can provide the owner’s opinion of the offeror’s past performance for the project. Completed PPQ forms should be submitted with your proposal. The PPQ does not have to be sent directly from the client. 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, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Josh Hill via email at william.j.hill@@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the completed questionnaires are submitted by the closing date. If you have questions regarding the attached questionnaire, or require assistance, please contact the Contract Specialist at (816) 389-3827.

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 1, to ensure the agency has all relevant past performance information, the offeror also should submit copies of Federal/DoD/Navy/Army performance reviews that are likely already in the agency’s databases or likely within the agency’s arm’s reach, i.e., Contractor’s copy of CCASS or CPARS evaluations. To improve accuracy of database searches, the offeror will also provide the CAGE Codes for the prime contractor and all teaming partners, i.e. key subcontractors, Joint Venture Partners, whose experience is being relied upon for Factor 1.

Offerors should organize all Past Performance Information based on the Factor 1 Projects, which normally have project titles and are numbered 1-5, so that reviewers can match the owner’s opinion with the corresponding Factor 1 Project. There is no page limit for this factor.

The Government will evaluate the responses from the customers from which Past Performance Questionnaires have been received. The Government may contact and interview the owner’s representative on the PPQ, and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the owner’s representative, if the owner’s representative is not available. 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.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

At no time during this process, nor during the debriefing, nor after award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance be revealed to the offerors or to any other party. If discussions are held, offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references in accordance with guidelines identified in FAR Part 15.3. In this case, comments will be extracted and provided to the offeror. Copies of the questionnaires will not be furnished to the offeror and will remain confidential.

SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL LETTER

AND

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE

Date_______________ To: _________________________________

We have listed your firm as a reference for work we have performed for you as listed below. Our firm has submitted a proposal under a project advertised by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), an evaluation of our firm’s past performance will be completed by the Corps of Engineers. Your candid response to the attached questionnaire will assist the evaluation team in this process.

We understand that you have a busy schedule and your participation in this evaluation is greatly appreciated. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire as thoroughly as possible. Space is provided for comments.

Please respond in time for us to include the questionnaire with our proposal, which is due on _____________. Only one response from each office is required. If at all possible, we suggest that you individually answer this questionnaire and then coordinate your responses with that of _________________, to forge a consensus on one overall response from your organization. Please return completed questionnaires to the following:

If you would prefer to respond directly to USACE, your completed questionnaire may be sent to the following address:

U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City ATTN: CECT-NWK-M/Josh Hill Federal Building Room 647

601 East 12 th

Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896

The questionnaires can also be e-mailed to william.j.hill@usace.army.mil.

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. CLIENTS ARE

HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT

THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. 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 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):

VOLUME 2, FACTOR 3 – Cost

Offerors shall submit the bid schedule, supplemental bid schedule, and WAD summary page (Attachment 8) consisting of the original signed Standard Form 1442 “Solicitation, Offer, and Award” providing a cost for all line items in the corresponding bid schedule and acknowledgement of all amendments to the solicitation. Proposed costs must be entered for all items of the bid schedule and the supplemental bid schedule. The bid schedule, supplemental bid schedule and WAD summary page (Attachment 8) shall be submitted in excel format.

Offerors shall also submit a detailed cost proposal to cover all items described in the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) of the Scope of Work. The WAD summary page shall include a summary page (a template has been provided as Attachment 8) breaking out the cost elements for each line item in the Bid Schedule to include: 1) Direct labor hours; 2) Direct labor costs; 3) Direct materials and supplies; 4) Subcontractor costs; 5) Subcontractor Labor Hours; 6) Travel; 7) Other direct costs; 8) Overhead; 9) General and administrative costs; and 10) Fee. The offeror shall also submit any assumptions and detailed backup information for each WBS item including, but not limited to labor hours, labor rates and specific disciplines performing the task, specific subcontract costs and services provided under the subcontract, a breakdown of material quantities and unit rates, and travel costs upon which the cost proposal is based.

11.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN VOLUME 1

SUXOS RESUME

Name:

Company:

Currently Employed By:

Prime ____Yrs Team Member/Sub Contractor: _____Yrs

Education and Training (include relevant specialized training):

Professional Registration/Certification(s):

Please Demonstrate the Following Below:

1) 10 yrs experience as a SUXOS (multiple projects may be used to demonstrate experience)

2) A minimum of one (1) project which identifies role as either a UXO Technician II, UXO Technician III or SUXOUS, which required inspection, removal and thermal decontamination of explosive contaminated sewers and foundations from explosive production facilities.

Documented Years as a SUXOS:

Project Name and Location:(City and State):

Owner Name, Organization/Company, Contact Information:

Start Date: Completion Date:

Description And Specific Role:

Other Relevant Information/Experience

12.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN VOLUME 2

In accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(3), a cost reimbursement contract may be used only when the contractor’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order. In order to be considered for award, each offeror shall provide a recent adequacy determination (no older than 4 years than the due date of proposals) from either a Federal Government Cognizant Audit Agency, or any commercially recognized auditing or accounting firm, stating they the offeror’s accounting system is adequate. The adequacy letter shall also include a statement confirming that no changes have taken place since the issuance of the determination.

Each offeror shall submit evidence of an Earned Value Management System in accordance with the requirements included in DFAR clause 252.234-7001, paragraph (b), which is included as part of this solicitation. Failure to submit this information will be a responsibility matter and may prevent an offeror from being considered for award.

SECTION 00 24 00 - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 1 – Company Experience.

Evaluation Criteria

The Government will review the submitted projects to evaluate the extent and relevance of the offeror’s experience in order to determine how well they demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to successfully perform the requirements included in this solicitation. The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror demonstrates company experience using methods, materials, technologies, and construction techniques similar to those necessary to complete the current requirement. The Government will also evaluate cost and schedule control approaches presented in the project descriptions. In determining strengths and weaknesses, the agency will give more credit to the following:

a. Experience with the removal of underground sewers impacted with explosives and/or propellants.

b. Experience with the removal of explosively impacted building foundations.

c. Experience with the removal and disposal of explosively impacted soils.

d. Experience with the thermal treatment of explosive production facility sewers, foundation, and soils.

e. Experience with inspection, removal and thermal treatment of sewers at Nitrocellulose and

Nitroguanadine production facilities.

f. Prime contractor (not to include team subcontractor) experience with Cost Reimbursable contracts with the Federal Government.

1.1 TECHNICAL RATING

The evaluation ratings for the Technical Factors will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the particular strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The SST will use a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

1.2 DEFINITIONS

Rating: The rating for the Technical factor and sub-factors will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Strength: Any aspect of a proposal when judged against a stated evaluation criterion enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

2. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 2 – Past Performance Evaluation Criteria:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The past performance evaluation will consider each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance on the five (5) examples of similar projects submitted as part of Factor 1 – Company Experience. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying construction services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

In reviewing each past performance effort by the offeror, the SST will first evaluate how relevant the recent effort is to the work required by this solicitation. The relevancy determination will be based on the Factor 1 Evaluation Criteria above, e.g. Similar Scope, Similar Location, and Contract Value.

Each past performance effort will be assigned one of the levels of relevancy shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition Relevant Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

For each past performance effort, the SST will then evaluate how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation will 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 will gather information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

At the end of the performance confidence assessment, the offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offerors with no past performance information will not be rated favorably or unfavorably and will receive a neutral rating.

3. VOLUME 2, FACTOR 3 – Cost Proposal

Evaluation Criteria

Cost will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for realism through the use of cost realism analysis.

The cost realism analysis will be utilized to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror.

The probable cost determined by the Government will become the evaluated cost.

SECTION 00 73 46 - WAGE DETERMINATION SCHEDULE

WAGE RATES

**Note: The Senior UXO Supervisor, UXO Technician I, UXO Technician II, and UXO Technician III are covered by the Service Contract Act Wage Determinations below.

General Decision Number: KS160031 04/01/2016 KS31

Superseded General Decision Number: KS20150031

State: Kansas

Construction Type: Heavy

County: Johnson County in Kansas.

HEAVY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (including sewer/water construction).

Note: Under Executive Order (EO) 13658, an hourly minimum wage of $10.15 for calendar year 2016 applies to all contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act for which the solicitation was issued on or after January 1, 2015. If this contract is covered by the EO, the contractor must pay all workers in any classification listed on this wage determination at least $10.15 (or the applicable wage rate listed on this wage determination, if it is higher) for all hours spent performing on the contract in calendar year 2016. The EO minimum wage rate will be adjusted annually. Additional information on contractor requirements and worker protections under the EO is available at www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts.

Modification Number Publication Date 0 01/08/2016 1 04/01/2016

ELEC0124-009 08/31/2015

Rates Fringes

ELECTRICIAN......................$ 36.69 20.62

ENGI0101-014 04/01/2015

Rates Fringes

POWER EQUIPMENT OPERATOR

(1) Loader..................$ 35.23 15.53

IRON0010-016 04/01/2015

Rates Fringes

IRONWORKER (REINFORCING AND

STRUCTURAL)......................$ 31.25 27.60

* LABO1290-004 04/01/2016

Rates Fringes

LABORER

Asphalt, Includes Raker, Shoveler, Spreader and Distributor.................$ 29.14 14.77 Form Work Only..............$ 30.35 14.77

PAIN2012-006 05/01/2012

Rates Fringes

PAINTER (Spray Only).............$ 22.93 11.51

* PLAS0518-008 04/01/2016

Rates Fringes

CEMENT MASON/CONCRETE FINISHER...$ 31.12 16.60

PLUM0008-019 06/01/2015

Rates Fringes

PLUMBER..........................$ 41.64 20.34

TEAM0541-009 04/01/2014

Rates Fringes

TRUCK DRIVER

(1) Lowboy Truck............$ 30.71 13.20

SUKS2014-011 07/09/2014

Rates Fringes

CARPENTER........................$ 33.70 14.26

LABORER: Common or General......$ 26.05 13.19

OPERATOR:

Backhoe/Excavator/Trackhoe.......$ 32.06 14.10

OPERATOR: Crane.................$ 37.05 13.71

TRUCK DRIVER: Dump Truck........$ 30.41 13.13

WELDERS - Receive rate prescribed for craft performing operation to which welding is incidental.

Unlisted classifications needed for work not included within the scope of the classifications listed may be added after award only as provided in the labor standards contract clauses (29CFR 5.5 (a) (1) (ii)).

The body of each wage determination lists the classification and wage rates that have been found to be prevailing for the cited type(s) of construction in the area covered by the wage determination. The classifications are listed in alphabetical order of "identifiers" that indicate whether the particular rate is a union rate (current union negotiated rate for local), a survey rate (weighted average rate) or a union average rate (weighted union average rate).

Union Rate Identifiers

A four letter classification abbreviation identifier enclosed in dotted lines beginning…