Amendment 0002___Attachment 5.pdf

Solicitation No. W912DQ25R1004

ATTACHMENT 5

PHASE 2 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND EVALUATION

1. OVERVIEW / BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 This is Phase 2 of a two-phase RFP. It is being conducted in accordance with the two-phase design-build selection procedures authorized in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3. The intent of this RFP is to select one contractor for design and construction of a debris boom at Harry S. Truman Dam in Warsaw, Missouri.

1.2 Those offerors selected in Phase 1 are invited to submit a Phase 2 proposal as indicated below. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria described herein.

1.3 The Government’s intent is to award a single firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable with regard to pricing, and offers the best value to the Government using a tradeoff process considering the evaluation factors from both phases. The Government will not re-evaluate the Phase 1 proposals as part of the Phase 2 evaluation;

the results of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 evaluations will be included in the determination of best value.

The evaluation factors are as follows:

PHASE 1

Factor 1: Performance Confidence. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant performance of the prime offeror and team members and assign a performance confidence evaluation. There are three aspects to the performance confidence evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality assessment. The Government will evaluate these aspects to establish one performance confidence rating for this factor.

Factor 2: Management Approach. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s explanation of its proposed management capabilities for this project. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission and assign one combined management and risk rating for this factor.

PHASE 2

Factor 3: Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the offeror's explanation of its proposed technical approach to the project. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission and assign one combined technical and risk rating for this factor.

Factor 4: Price. The resulting award will be a firm-fixed-price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the firm-fixed-price effort.

1.4 The relative importance of the evaluation factors is described below in Table 1. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to obtain only slightly superior technical advantages;

however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals submitted.

Table 1

RELATIVE WEIGHT OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Phase(s) Factor Number Description Relative Importance

1 and 2 Factor 1 Performance Confidence Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2 and less important than Factor 3.

1 and 2 Factor 2 Management Approach Factor 2 is less important than Factors 1 and 3.

2 Factor 3 Technical Approach Factor 3 is more important than Factors 1, 2, and 4.

2 Factor 4 Price All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

1.5 The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

The Government intends to make an award (after Phase 2) without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions should discussions prove to be necessary or advantageous to the Government.

1.6 Offerors must submit a complete Phase 2 proposal to be considered for award. Failure to submit a complete proposal may result in the entire proposal being rejected.

2. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

2.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, permitted proposal revisions (if any), and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information.

2.2 Members of the SSEB will independently consider the information provided in the Phase 2 proposal.

Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will deliberate and assign a consensus rating for each rated evaluation factor applicable to Phase 2. Offerors’ proposed pricing will be reviewed separately by another designated member(s) of the SSEB. Price will not be rated.

2.3 The results of the SSEB evaluations and supporting documentation will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SSA will determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications, communications, or discussions. The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which offeror represents the best overall value to the Government in accordance with the criteria stated herein.

3. PROPOSAL FORMAT, REQUIRED COMPONENTS, AND PAGE LIMITS

3.1 General Proposal Format

3.1.1 All proposals received will stand alone and be considered complete and final. The Government will not consider any external information or data that is incorporated by reference, except as may be expressly permitted by this solicitation. Elaborate proposals, color brochures, and other excesses are discouraged. Offerors are cautioned that merely restating or “parroting” technical requirements with a statement of intent to perform will not demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the requirement(s).

3.1.2 Proposals shall be in electronic Portable Document Format, filename extension “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Each file should be compatible with optical character recognition (OCR). (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.)

3.1.3 All text must be legible and easily read. All text shall be typed single-spaced with a minimum size 10 font. Margins (1-inch) shall be clean and clear. A page is defined as text or information on one side of the paper.

3.1.4 Any proprietary information must be clearly marked.

3.2 Components of Phase 2 Proposals

3.2.1 Submit Volumes 4-6 as described below. Do not combine Volumes into a single electronic file.

Volume 4 -- Technical Volume:

• Must contain the information required to be submitted for Factor 3, Technical Approach. (This information consists of the project narrative, schedule, and drawings and renderings as described in more detail below in paragraph 4.1, “Factor 3 - Submission Requirements.”) Volume 4 must not contain any reference to the offeror’s proposed pricing.

Volume 5 -- Price Volume:

• Tab 1 – Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, completed and signed by authorized individual of the offeror. The offeror shall also include acknowledgment of all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 (amendment form).

• Tab 2 – Section 00 10 00, Proposal Price / Bid Schedule. The offeror shall fully complete this section.

• Tab 3 – Completed copy of the Field Office Overhead clause that appears in Section 00 21 00.

• Tab 4 – Bid/Offer Guarantee. The Bid Bond shall be at least 20% of the bid price but shall not exceed $3 million. See FAR 52.228‐1, Bid Guarantee.

3.2.2 Offerors who fail to submit a complete proposal may be excluded and thus receive no further consideration for award.

3.3 Proposal Content Limitations

3.3.1 Any extraneous materials submitted but not required by this solicitation, such as company brochures or other information, will not be considered part of the proposal or used to determine whether the proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

3.3.2 Page Limit: Volume 4 of the Phase 2 proposal shall not exceed 25 pages overall.

3.3.3 The page limit does not apply to the Price Volume (Volume 5). In addition, the following items if included in Volume 4 will not count toward the page limits provided they are clearly marked with the words “Cover Page” or “Table of Contents,” as applicable:

(a) any proposal cover page;

(b) table of contents; and

(c) any cover page at the beginning of an individual section or subpart within the Volume.

Note that information contained on any such cover page or table of contents page will not be evaluated.

3.4 Submission of Proposals

3.4.1 Proposals received after the date and time in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442) will be considered late and will not be considered for award. There will not be a public proposal opening.

3.4.2 If an offeror submits multiple proposals, the Government will only consider the last complete proposal submitted prior to the due date and time.

3.4.3 Do not assume submission will be instantaneous. File size and number of files submitted should be taken into account. Offeror/Teammate/Subcontractors should allow adequate time for submission completion because the entire proposal (i.e. offeror’s submission and all teammate/subcontractor independent submissions) must be received by the time and date specified in Block 13 of SF 1442, or SF 30 if applicable.

3.4.4 To avoid rejection of an proposal, the offeror must make every effort to ensure their electronic submission is virus‐free. Proposals, or portions thereof, submitted with the presence of a virus or which are otherwise unreadable will be treated as unreadable pursuant to FAR 15.207(c).

3.4.5 The requirement to submit a certain number of copies of the proposal along with the original proposal as stated in Block 13A of the SF 1442 is satisfied through the electronic submission.

Additionally, electronic submission of the bid guarantee, when a bid guarantee is required, is due with the proposal submission. (Do not physically mail the bid guarantee when submitting a proposal. If a contract is awarded, the awardee will be required to mail an original bid guarantee after award.)

4. EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 3TECHNICAL APPROACH

(VOLUME 4 OF PROPOSAL)

4.1 Factor 3 - Submission Requirements

4.1.1 Project Narrative: Submit a detailed narrative describing the offeror’s technical approach, sequence of work, and other management aspects of the project in order to ensure an on-time completion of the project. The narrative must be a comprehensive, start-to-finish discussion on the significant features of this work. The narrative must demonstrate a thorough and current knowledge of best practices in design and construction. The following elements must be addressed at a minimum and will be considered in the evaluation of each offeror’s submission:

• Approach for determining the size/strength needed for the debris boom and how this will be incorporated into the design process.

• Approach for assessing debris accumulation risk due to historic events at Truman Lake.

• Approach for validating load combination for the debris boom system.

• Approach for anchoring the debris boom into the concrete portion of the dam, or earthen embankment, or lake floor as required by design and applicable submittals required for each anchoring system chosen.

• Approach for ensuring compliance regarding key features of the project and the requirements of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Regulation 1110-1-1807, Drilling and Invasive Activities at Dams and Levees. Means and methods need to be described such that the applicability of a Drilling and Invasive Program Plan (DIPP) can be determined. If a DIPP will be required, describe the offeror’s approach to how this will be accomplished. If a DIPP plan will not be required, describe how drilling and invasive activities will be avoided.

• If the offeror’s approach includes a dive requirement, describe the offeror’s approach to achieve compliance with USACE Engineer Manual 385-1-1, Safety and Occupational Health Requirements.

• Offerors are encouraged to elaborate on other features of the work that the offeror considers relevant.

4.1.2 Schedule: Based on the project budget and scope, provide a Gantt Chart describing the construction sequence / process for successful completion of each phase of the project (Design, Construction, and Close-Out) within the duration shown in FAR clause 52.211-10. Offerors may propose a shorter duration for completion, but Government review times shall not be shortened. The schedule shall address at a minimum the following major milestones and tasks:

• The design phase showing the events associated with coordinating the design submittals and the proper handling of the review comments.

• Permitting Drilling and Invasive Program Plan (if required), and other approved product required by USACE Engineering Regulation or Engineering Manuals and Government reviews.

• A construction milestone for debris boom fabrication, site delivery, and product installation.

• The offeror should indicate the anticipated critical path on the schedule.

4.1.3 Drawings and Renderings: The offeror shall provide perspectives or other drawings showing views of the anticipated debris boom alignment, shop drawings of the anticipated products, and representation of the anchoring system to be used. Drawings must include titles, legends, and labels to tell what is being shown.

4.2 Factor 3 - Evaluation Method

4.2.1 The Government will rate this factor using a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies identified in the offeror’s proposal.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING METHOD

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

4.2.2 In evaluating this factor, the Government will utilize the risk descriptions in the following table:

RISK DESCRIPTIONS

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

4.2.3 Evaluation under this factor will include consideration of the following:

• Inclusion of the required elements described in paragraphs 4.1.1 to 4.1.3.

• How well the offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

o An understanding of the requirements of the USACE design-build process.

o An understanding of the project scope and technical requirements.

o The capability to complete the entire scope of work for both design and construction within the proposed contract duration.

• Proposals that demonstrate a clear understanding of the schedule impacts of the major milestones and tasks and provide a thorough approach for successfully completing the contract within the contract duration may be rated more favorably by the Government.

Schedules offering duration less than that shown in FAR clause 52.211-10 may receive a higher rating if the proposed schedule is shown to be realistic and achievable while still addressing the major milestones and tasks required without reducing Government review time.

• Proposals that provide an anchoring system that does NOT require a Drilling and Invasive Program Plan may be rated more favorably by the Government.

FACTOR 4PRICE

(VOLUME 5 OF PROPOSAL)

4.3 Factor 4 - Submission Requirements

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and shall complete and submit the CLIN schedule in Section 00 10 00. Proposed prices must be entered for all line items. The Standard Form 1442 will not be rated; it will be reviewed to determine if the required information has been provided and that the offer has been signed.

4.4 Factor 4 - Evaluation Method

4.4.1 The offeror’s proposed pricing in the CLIN schedule will be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness. Price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 and the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Price will not be rated but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the best value decision for award of any resultant contract.

4.4.2 The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.4.3 The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are unrealistically low. An offeror’s pricing will be considered unrealistically low if the Government determines that the pricing demonstrates a lack of technical understanding of the work to be performed or creates a risk that the offeror cannot satisfactorily perform at the proposed price. Any such determination will include consideration of the offeror’s proposed technical approach. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the unrealistically low pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1. DEFINITIONS

The Government will use the following definitions when evaluating proposals:

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. See FAR 15.001.

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

Strength ‐ An aspect of an offeror’s proposal with merit or that will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength ‐ An aspect of an offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or that will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness ‐ A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.