Part 2 of 6 -- Attachment 1 -- Proposal Content and Evaluation.pdf

Solicitation No. W912DQ25R1004

ATTACHMENT 1

PROPOSAL CONTENT AND EVALUATION

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 This request for proposals (“RFP”) seeks proposals from offerors interested in being selected for designbuild construction of a debris boom at Harry S. Truman Dam in Warsaw, Missouri. A general description of the project is provided in Section 00 10 00 of this solicitation under the heading “General Description of Scope.”

1.2 This is Phase 1 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. In Phase 1, offerors submit a qualifications proposal to demonstrate their capability to successfully execute design-build construction work under the contract resulting from this solicitation. This RFP is requesting submission of proposals under Phase 1 submission criteria ONLY. After evaluating Phase 1 proposals, the contracting officer will select the most highly qualified offerors and request that only those offerors submit proposals for Phase 2. It is the Government’s intention to advance up to three of the most highly qualified offerors from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Offerors shall not submit any proposals under Phase 2 submission criteria at this time. Phase 2 of the solicitation will be issued in an amendment directly to those offerors selected for Phase 2.

1.3 Pricing proposals should not be submitted in Phase 1.

1.4 At the conclusion of Phase 2, the Government’s intent is to award a single firm-fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government using a tradeoff process considering the evaluation factors from both phases. 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.

1.5 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.

1.6 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.

1.7 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. Members of the SSEB will independently consider the information in the Phase 1 proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will deliberate and assign a consensus rating for each rated evaluation factor applicable to Phase 1. The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which offerors will participate in Phase 2 of the solicitation. In no case will more than three proposals be included in the Phase 2 process.

2. PROPOSAL FORMAT, REQUIRED COMPONENTS, AND PAGE LIMITS

2.1 General Proposal Format

2.1.1 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).

2.1.2 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.)

2.1.3 All text must be legible and easily read. The page size of the offeror’s proposal shall not exceed 8-1/2 by 11 inches. Diagrams, charts and tables shall conform to the paper size. All text shall be typed single-spaced with a minimum size 10 font. Margins (1-inch) shall be clean and clear. If fold-out charts are unavoidable, and are to be utilized, all sheets shall be reproduced on 11 by 17 inch and folded to 8-1/2 by 11-inch size. A page is defined as text or information on one side of the paper. If it is printed double sided, each face will be counted as a page.

2.2 Components of Proposals

2.2.1 An offeror’s proposal must contain Volumes 1-3 with the elements described below. *Note: The three volumes should be separate electronic files. Do not combine them into a single electronic file.

Volume 1 -- Pro Forma Requirements:

• Completed Vendor Information Form. See Attachment 2 to this solicitation.

• Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, completed and signed by authorized individual of the offeror.

• Acknowledgment of all amendments to the RFP in accordance with the instructions on the

Standard Form 30 (amendment form).

• Representations, Certifications and other Statements of Offerors. The offeror shall complete all representations and certifications in Section 00 45 00 and also ensure current registration and completed/updated Annual Representations and Certifications on the System for Award Management website (https://sam.gov).

• If applicable, submit completed IRS Form W-14 along with executed FAR provision 52.229-

11. (See “Special Contract Requirements” in Section 00 70 00 for reference.)

• Bond Surety Letter. Offeror must provide a letter or other documentation from a surety appearing on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 (list of approved sureties) stating that the offeror is able to provide a bid bond for Phase 2 in the amount of at least $750,000.00 and obtain performance and payment bonds should they win the contract.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WILL RESULT IN INELIGIBILITY FOR

AWARD.

• Bank letter that verifies sufficient funds will be available to perform the work.

• If applicable, include letters of commitment for subcontractor or teaming partners.

• Offerors submitting proposals using a teaming arrangement shall submit a fully executed copy of the teaming agreement signed both by the subcontractor/teaming partner and the offeror.

• Offerors submitting proposals in the name of a joint venture shall include a copy of the joint venture agreement signed by each member entity.

• Offers submitted in the name of a joint venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

• Joint Ventures shall also submit the additional required documentation described below in paragraph 2.4 (Associations / Teaming Arrangements).

Volume 2 -- Performance Confidence:

• Must contain the information required to be submitted for Factor 1, Performance

Confidence. (The specific information to be included in Volume 2 is discussed later in these instructions.)

Volume 3 -- Management Approach:

• Must contain the information required to be submitted for Factor 2, Management Approach.

(The specific information to be included in Volume 3 is discussed later in these instructions.)

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

2.3 Proposal Content Limitations

2.3.1 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.

2.3.2 The following page limits apply to Volume 2 and Volume 3 of the proposal:

• Volume 2 (Performance Confidence): Maximum of 18 pages, with each project limited to a maximum of 3 pages. Note that the maximum number of projects is six projects, as stated in paragraph 3.1.1 below.

• Volume 3 (Management Approach): Maximum of 10 pages.

2.3.3 The following will not count toward the page limits:

• CPARS evaluations or PPQ forms submitted as part of Volume 2. (For additional details about submitting these items, please see paragraph 3.1.9 below. The PPQ form is also included as Attachment 3 to this solicitation.)

• Any cover page or table of contents for either Volume or for an individual section within either Volume, provided the page is clearly marked with the words “Cover Page” or “Table of Contents,” as applicable. Note that information contained on any such cover page or table of contents page will not be evaluated.

2.3.4 Do not cross reference past performance information. It is acceptable to repeat data, project information or experience in more than one part of the proposal as long as it satisfies the requirements of the factor.

2.3.5 Any proprietary information must be clearly marked.

2.4 Associations / Teaming Arrangements

2.4.1 Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms, or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or may include key team subcontractors. Any legally organized offeror may submit a proposal, provided the offeror or offeror’s teaming partner/subcontractor has or will have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines.

All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved. Contractor team arrangements must be identified and fully disclosed in the offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR subpart 9.6.

2.4.2 Any offeror submitting a proposal in the name of a joint venture shall include with the proposal a copy of the joint venture agreement signed by each member entity of the joint venture.

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

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

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

• 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.

• 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.

• The bonding responsibilities of the Joint Venture parties.

• 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.

• Identification of party maintaining the Joint Venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keeping the books and records, and paying applicable taxes for the Joint Venture.

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

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

2.4.4 Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the Joint Venture or of a specific party to the Joint Venture.

2.5 Submission of Proposals

2.5.1 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.

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

2.5.3 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.

2.5.4 To avoid rejection of a 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).

2.5.5 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.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SPECIFIC INFORMATION TO SUBMIT FOR EACH FACTOR

FACTOR 1--PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

(VOLUME 2 OF PROPOSAL)

3.1 Factor 1 - Submission Requirements

3.1.1 The offeror shall submit information describing at least two, but no more than six, complete or substantially complete projects that demonstrate the offeror’s experience performing projects of relevant scope and complexity and that were similar in size to the solicited project. (If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than six projects, only the first six projects will be evaluated.) At least two of the projects must demonstrate experience performing relevant design work and at least two of the projects must demonstrate experience performing relevant construction work. The projects demonstrating design experience can be the same projects that demonstrate construction experience, or they can be different projects. Information submitted for each project must include the information outlined in Attachment 4 to this solicitation, Offeror’s Experience Form.

3.1.2 Each project must have been completed, or substantially completed, within the last ten years.

“Substantially complete” is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time of proposal submission.

3.1.3 To be considered similar in size to the solicited project, each project must have been valued at $1,000,000.00 or more (present day value).

3.1.4 Projects will be considered more relevant to the extent they demonstrate any of the following attributes:

• Experience designing and installing debris booms.

• Experience with design-build projects.

• Experience with design/construction relating to dams and/or aquatic environments.

• Experience with construction projects for USACE.

• Technical competence in assessing and analyzing debris accumulation risk.

• Experience determining what size and strength of debris boom is appropriate for a specific site based on site-specific factors.

• Experience developing relevant site-specific load cases for debris boom sizing.

• Experience with Federal design-build criteria (e.g., Unified Facilities Criteria, Specs Intact).

• Established working relationship with the proposed DOR on previous design-build projects.

3.1.5 Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how well the projects submitted meet the evaluation criteria.

3.1.6 Instructions on the use of major subcontractor experience: Offerors may use the experience of major subcontractors to demonstrate experience. A “major subcontractor” is a subcontractor that the offeror proposes to perform 25% or more of the work required under the solicitation. If the offeror submits experience of a major subcontractor, the proposal must identify the firm/company as a major subcontractor and the offeror must submit a letter of commitment from the subcontractor on the letterhead of that firm to be subcontracted. The letter of commitment must be signed by an authorized individual from the subcontractor that is proposed to perform the work. If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered.

3.1.7 An offeror may include projects completed by predecessor or affiliate companies, as long as the relationship of the predecessor or affiliate company is clearly documented in the proposal. Offerors must demonstrate that the resources of the parent or affiliated company will be relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.

Describe in detail the involvement that will be included in this contract. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight of the information to this procurement.

3.1.8 Projects in which individual key personnel were involved do not qualify for consideration on that basis alone. For example, if one of the offeror’s key personnel worked on a project for a previous employer, that alone does not justify submitting the project under this Factor 1.

3.1.9 For each of the projects submitted (including any projects submitted that were performed by a major subcontractor), the offeror shall also provide information about the quality of its performance. The

Government seeks a contractor who maintains a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in its technical proposal.

• If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, the offeror shall submit it with the proposal.

• If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project. See Attachment 3 to this solicitation. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available.

o If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

o 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, Laura Hedrick, via email at laura.l.hedrick@usace.army.mil and copying Contract Specialist Erick Ottoson at erick.s.ottoson@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

o PPQs are source selection materials.

3.1.10 Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other procurements. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted past performance information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors may use previously completed PPQs and do not need to have one completed specifically for this project but must include it as part of the proposal document.

3.1.11 Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

3.1.12 In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the PPIRS (Past Performance Information Retrieval System) including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS (Commercial and Government Entity Code/Data Universal Numbering System) numbers or UEIs (Unique Entity IDs) of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), FAPIIS (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

3.1.13 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.

3.2 Factor 1 - Evaluation Method

3.2.1 The performance confidence evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance shall be considered.

Recency, relevancy, and quality of performance will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

mailto:laura.l.hedrick@usace.army.mil mailto:erick.s.ottoson@usace.army.mil

3.2.2 The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. For projects to demonstrate recent past experience of the offeror, they must have been completed or substantially completed (as defined above) within ten years of the date that proposals are due. Contracts which are comparatively more recent may be better predictors of likely future success than older contracts.

3.2.3 The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the work required by the solicitation. Each submitted project will be assigned one of the levels of relevancy shown in the table below.

RATING DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

3.2.4 With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. However, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating.

3.2.5 The third aspect is to evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review the past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. Note that the past performance information is not limited to the information submitted by the offeror but can also include information the Government obtains from other sources as described in paragraph 3.1.12 above. If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type and severity of the problems and effectiveness of corrective actions taken. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned;

rather, the Government will assign a final Performance Confidence Assessment rating for this factor based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Each offeror will be assigned one of the ratings using the table below.

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.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

3.2.6 In the case of an offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, and therefore may receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

3.2.7 At no time during this process, or during any debriefing, or after any 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 Subpart 15.3.

In that case, relevant comments will be extracted and provided to the offeror. CPARS evaluations that are part of the official record will be utilized as if the offeror has already had an opportunity to respond.

FACTOR 2--MANAGEMENT APPROACH

(VOLUME 3 OF PROPOSAL)

3.3 Factor 2 - Submission Requirements

3.3.1 Project Team Organization: Provide qualifications for the key personnel listed below. If the offeror does not use the nomenclature below but has an equivalent position (e.g., Safety Officer vs.

Safety Manager), it is acceptable to identify the key personnel using the title of their equivalent position.

However, in such case, the proposal must clearly identify which of the roles below is the equivalent of that position.

• Construction Team: Project Manager, Safety Manager, Quality Control Manager, and Superintendent.

• Design Team: Project Manager, Debris Boom Design Engineers, Designer of Record, and Design Manager (Technical Lead).

The qualifications of the above key personnel shall include the following:

• The person’s title

• Number of years with this firm and with other firms

• Number of years in this position or role

• Any professional registration(s) (Type and State Registration) held

• Personnel’s specific experience in current role and other experience relevant to this project

• Provide individual’s current assignment and the offeror's plan to ensure that the named personnel will be used on this project; however, if the named person isn't available upon award, a person with the same or better qualifications shall be substituted and approved by the Government.

• All key personnel qualifications as required by specification sections:

o 01 30 00 o 01 33 16.00 10 o 01 35 26 o 01 45 00

3.3.2 Design Organization: The offeror shall discuss its organizational structure for the design process. The offeror shall discuss how the Design Team will integrate within the Construction Team throughout the project life to include design refinement after award. The offeror shall identify the areas they intend to design through consultants. The narrative shall state why your design firm is uniquely qualified to undertake this project and its approach to the process of working with the customer during the design phase. The offeror shall also discuss how they have successfully designed to be within firm project budgets.

3.3.3 Construction Organization: The offeror shall discuss its construction organizational structure to build the facilities. The narrative shall state why your construction firm is uniquely qualified to undertake this project. Provide the Management approach to integrating the Design and Construction Teams throughout the Design and Construction Phases of the project to include design refinement after acceptance of lssued For Construction (IFC) sets. Describe the items the offeror will self-perform.

3.3.4 Organizational Chart: The offeror will submit an organization chart identifying the proposed team that will execute this project. The proposed organizational chart shall identify the members or entities of the organization and show the lines of authority and communication of all members of the design and construction entities. This chart should clearly indicate who the ultimate decision maker is for the proposed team. The charts shall indicate communication between design team and contractor. This organization chart should include the offeror's key personnel and key subcontractors. The organizational chart shall show the relationship of each entity to the offeror.

3.3.5 Quality Management Control System: The offeror shall describe how they intend to manage quality through the design development and construction of the project. Discuss quality management methods proposed throughout the design and construction process. Discuss how you will implement the USACE Three Phase Quality Control Program. (See section 01 45 00 of the specifications for reference.)

3.3.6 Safety: The offeror shall discuss how they intend to manage and execute their Safety program for the contract. Include a discussion of the safety risks. Discuss how your program implements and/or adheres to USACE Engineer Manual 385-1-1.

3.4 Factor 2 - Evaluation Method

3.4.1 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.

3.4.2 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.

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

• The extent to which the proposal includes qualifications for the required disciplines and the level of experience reflected in the proposal for key personnel.

o For construction team disciplines, “level of experience” refers to experience with marine construction projects (i.e. number and magnitude of projects).

o For design team disciplines, “level of experience” refers to experience with debris boom projects (i.e. number of projects).

• The clarity and strength of the organizational structure and the extent to which it demonstrates the ability to successfully execute the design-build project, to include the integration of the Designer of Record and construction firms during design and construction.

Proposals demonstrating that construction personnel will be actively involved in the design process may be viewed more favorably by the Government.

• The offeror’s demonstrated capability and understanding with respect to quality control processes for both design and construction, to include the USACE Three Phase Quality Control Program.

• The offeror’s demonstrated capability and understanding with respect to managing and executing a safety program, to include implementation and/or adherence to USACE Engineer Manual 385-1-1.

4. 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.

Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, completed and signed by authorized individual of the offeror.