Solicitation Attachment A - INSTRUCTIONS.pdf

PHASE 1 RFP

LEVEE ACCESS MANHOLES PROJECT, FAIRFAX-JERSEY CREEK

LEVEE UNIT

SOLICITATION NUMBER: W912DQ26RA065

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 This is a request for proposals (RFP) for design and construction of access manholes at the Fairfax-Jersey Creek Levee Unit.

1.2 This is Phase 1 of a two-phase RFP. The RFP is being conducted using two-phase design-build selection procedures as described in RFO1 36.101-2. In Phase 1, offerors submit a qualifications proposal with no design or pricing proposal.

1.3 The two evaluation factors for Phase 1 are: (1) Performance Confidence; and

(2) Technical Approach & Qualifications. Price proposals are not submitted in Phase 1.

1.4 At the end of Phase 1, the Contracting Officer will select the most highly qualified offerors to submit proposals for Phase 2. The Government intends to select up to three offerors to participate in Phase 2. For reference, attached are draft specifications that will be finalized at the time Phase 2 is solicited (See Enclosure Draft Specifications).

1.5 At the end of Phase 2, the Government intends to award a firm-fixed-price contract. The construction cost limitation is $3,400,000.00. This means the contract award amount (including design and construction) will not exceed $3,400,000.00.

The Government intends to make award to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government using a tradeoff process considering the evaluation factors from both phases. For more information on the evaluation factors, see section 4 below.

2. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMISSION

2.1 General Proposal Format

2.1.1 Proposals are preferred to be submitted electronically in “pdf” format (Portable Document Format, filename extension “.pdf”) and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader.

2.1.2 All text must be legible. It is highly recommended to use the same formatting (page size and font) already provided in the templates.

1 “RFO” refers to the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul initiative (accessible at https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide).

2.1.3 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.

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

2.1.5 Any proprietary information must be clearly marked.

2.2 Submission of Proposals

2.2.1 Qualifications proposals are due by local date and time specified on the SF 1442. Proposals received after the date and time specified will not be considered for award.

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

2.2.3 Proposals, or portions thereof, submitted with the presence of a virus or which are otherwise unreadable will be treated as unreadable pursuant to RFO 15.108(c).

2.2.4 There will not be a public bid opening.

3. COMPONENTS OF PHASE 1 PROPOSALS

Attachments 1, 3, and 5 must be submitted. Attachments 2 and 4 must be submitted if applicable. See further details for each attachment below.

Note: Offerors must use the templates provided. No other forms are acceptable unless specified in the solicitation.

Attachment 1 -- Vendor Information Form. This must be completely filled out.

If any item does not apply, put “N/A” on that line.

Attachment 2 -- Letter of Commitment. All parties are required to sign this form if a subcontractor’s or teaming partner’s experience/past performance will be used for evaluation purposes. Submit one for each partnership.

Attachment 3 -- Offeror’s Experience Form. One form is required for each past project submitted under the 'Performance Confidence' factor. (See section 3.1 below for additional details.)

Attachment 4 -- Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). A Past Performance

Questionnaire (PPQ) is required for any project submitted under the 'Performance Confidence' factor that does not have a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation. (See section 3.1.10 below for more details about submitting PPQ forms.)

Attachment 5 -- Technical Approach & Qualifications Form. This form is required for submitting responses under the 'Technical Approach & Qualifications' factor. (See section 3.2 below for additional details.)

Acknowledgment of any amendments issued to the solicitation. Amendments are issued on Standard Form 30 (SF 30), which has instructions in Box 11 for how to acknowledge the amendment.

If a proposal includes additional documents that were not requested in these instructions, the additional documents will not be considered.

3.1 Performance Confidence Factor -- Details about What to Submit for this Factor

3.1.1 Definitions:

Substantially Complete: having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time of proposal submission.

Major Subcontractor: a subcontractor that the offeror proposes to perform 25% or more of the work required under this solicitation

3.1.2 This factor will be evaluated utilizing the Offeror’s Experience Form

(Attachment 3) with a corresponding CPARS or PPQ (Attachment 4). Keep the original formatting already utilized in the forms. To prevent any negative impact to the offeror’s rating, fill in and answer all fields in each form. If any project is missing one of these required forms, the offeror’s rating may be affected.

3.1.3 Submit information describing at least two, but no more than five, 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 submits more than five projects, only the first five will be evaluated.) At least two of the projects must demonstrate experience performing relevant design work and at least two must demonstrate experience performing relevant construction work. See Attachment 3 (Offeror’s Experience Form) to this solicitation.

3.1.4 Each project must have been completed, or substantially completed, within the last ten years. The offeror shall give the percentage of completion for each project submitted.

3.1.5 Projects valued at less than $50,000.00 (estimated or actual construction value) will not be considered similar in scope to the solicited project.

3.1.6 Indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts do not qualify as projects. A task order issued against an IDIQ contract can be submitted as a project.

3.1.7 Past performance projects will be evaluated and assigned a relevancy rating based on how similar they were to the solicited project in terms of scope and magnitude of effort and level of complexity. Describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how well the project meets the evaluation criteria. The following attributes will tend to increase the likelihood that a project will be considered relevant:

Experience designing and installing deep utility structures/manholes using minimally invasive (trenchless) excavation methods. (Note: Experience installing structures using standard open trench methods, including using shoring, will be considered less relevant.)

Experience executing construction activities on federal levees, to include the development, approval, and implementation of Drilling and Invasive Program plans (DIPPs) in accordance with Engineering Regulation ER 1110-1-1807, and the implementation of associated Temporary Flood Protection Plans.

Experience executing design-build projects specifically for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or other federal agencies, utilizing Federal criteria (e.g., Unified Facilities Criteria [UFC], SpecsIntact).

3.1.8 Instructions on the use of subcontractor experience:

3.1.8.1 If the designer of record (DOR) is a subcontractor, the DOR’s experience may be used to demonstrate experience performing relevant design work.

3.1.8.2 Otherwise, offerors may use the experience of major

subcontractors to demonstrate experience. List each major subcontractor on your Vendor Information Form (Attachment 2) if you wish to have their experience considered.

3.1.8.3 If subcontractor experience is submitted but a letter of commitment from that subcontractor is not submitted, the experience will not be considered.

3.1.9 An individual employee’s past project experience for a previous employer does not qualify as an appropriate project. The offeror itself (or the DOR / major subcontractor, if applicable) must have been involved in the project.

3.1.10 For each project submitted, the offeror must also provide information about the quality of performance. The Government seeks a contractor who is strongly committed to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in its proposal.

If a completed CPARS evaluation is available, the offeror must indicate that fact by checking the applicable box in Attachment 3. The offeror does not need to submit the CPARS evaluation.

If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the offeror must submit a PPQ for the project. See Attachment 4 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, the offeror must complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the project.

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, Contract Specialist Erick Ottoson at erick.s.ottoson@usace.army.mil, and copying Contracting Officer Laura Hedrick via email at laura.l.hedrick@usace.army.mil, prior to the proposal closing date.

The offerors must instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

o PPQs are source selection materials.

3.1.11 Do not incorporate by reference any PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other procurements. (It is okay to submit PPQs that have been previously submitted for other projects, but the PPQ must be included with your proposal, not incorporated by reference.) This does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted past performance information in the past performance evaluation.

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

3.2 Technical Approach & Qualifications Factor -- Details about What to Submit for this Factor

3.2.1 This factor will be evaluated utilizing the Technical Approach & Qualifications Form (Attachment 5). Keep the original formatting already utilized in the form. To prevent any negative impact to the offeror’s rating, fill in and answer all fields for each discipline listed, list of equipment (if applicable), and discussion questions on this form. Give details that will allow the Government to properly evaluate the offeror’s qualifications specific to that discussion topic. If any answer is missing on this form, it may affect the offeror’s rating.

3.2.2 Disciplines and Equipment Listed: The disciplines specified on the form and the list of equipment provided will be used to evaluate the offeror’s qualifications.

The offeror is required to submit information on the specified disciplines on Attachment

5. The offeror can reduce or expand on the spaces for a list of equipment. If the offeror is awarded the contract, the Government expects that the people and equipment proposed will be used for this project. If these specific people and/or equipment are not used for this project, the contractor is required to provide a replacement of equal or better qualifications or capabilities.

3.2.3 Organization Approach -- Discuss the offeror’s organizational approach and structure for the design and construction phases. Discuss how the design team and construction team will integrate, collaborate, and communicate throughout the project life to include design refinement after acceptance of lssued For Construction (IFC) sets.

Submit an organizational chart identifying the proposed team illustrating authority and communication approach of all members (design and construction teams).

3.2.4 Quality Management and Safety Approach -- Discuss the offeror’s quality management and safety approach. Describe how offeror intends to manage quality through the design development and construction of the project. Describe how the offeror will implement design quality control in accordance with USACE Engineer Regulation 1165-2-217 and construction quality control in accordance with the USACE Three Phase Quality Control Program. (For information regarding the USACE Three Phase Quality Control Program, see Unified Facilities Guide Specification 01 45 00.)

Discuss how the offeror’s safety program will be managed and executed, including discussion of safety risks. Discuss how your program implements and/or adheres to USACE Engineer Manual 385-1-1. Provide an example of how accidents will be reported to USACE.

4. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

4.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will be established to evaluate qualifications proposals received. 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 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.

4.2 The evaluation factors are as follows:

Phase 1 Factors

(1) Performance Confidence

(2) Technical Approach & Qualifications

Phase 2 Factors (Not applicable to Phase 1)

(3) Design Concepts

(4) Small Business Participation

(5) Price

4.3 The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows:

Phase Factor # Description Relative Importance

2 Factor 3 Design

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

1 and 2 Factor 1 Performance Confidence

Factor 1 is less important than Factor 3 and more important than Factors 2 and 4.

1 and 2 Factor 2 Technical

Approach & Qualifications

Factor 2 is less important than Factors 1 and 3 and more important than Factor 4.

2 Factor 4 Small Business

Participation Factor 4 is less important than Factors 1, 2, and 3.

2 Factor 5 Price All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

4.4 The Government intends to make an award (after Phase 2) without negotiations but reserves the right to conduct negotiations should negotiations prove to be necessary or advantageous to the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to obtain only slightly superior technical advantages. The importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals submitted.

4.5 Evaluation Method for Factor 1 (Performance Confidence)

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

4.5.2 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.

4.5.3 The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the work required by the solicitation. This includes consideration of relevancy attributes described in section 3.1.7 above. Each submitted project will be assigned one of the relevancy ratings 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.

4.5.4 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.

4.5.5 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.

The past performance information can include information the Government obtains from sources other than the offeror’s proposal as described in section 4.5.6 below. 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.

4.5.6 In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance of offeror or any team members or affiliated entities identified in offeror’s proposal, including but not limited to CPARS, FAPIIS (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), or other databases, inquiries of owner representatives, 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. 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.

4.5.7 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.

4.5.8 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 negotiations are held, offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references, in which case the 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.

4.6 Evaluation Method for Factor 2 (Technical Approach & Qualifications)

4.6.1 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.

4.6.2 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.

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

The clarity and detail of the organizational chart, including whether it shows the full team as proposed and shows lines of authority.

Strength of integration of design and construction teams, including quality management.

The extent to which the proposal demonstrates clear lines of communication and collaborative communication processes.

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.

5. DEFINITIONS FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES

The Government will use the following definitions when evaluating proposals:

Deficiency ‐ Any part of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of a RFP. A material requirement is one that affects price, quantity, quality, or delivery, or that the RFP requires to be met at the time of proposal submission. See RFO 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 RFO 15.001.

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