W912DW-12-D-0041-0003.pdf

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE

RUSSELL BERGT

PH: 253-967-4237 FAX: 253-966-4561

RUSSELL.C.BERGT@USACE.ARMY.MIL

FORT LEWIS WA

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

Amendment to Solicitation W912DW-12-R-0041, Competitive 8(a) Single Aw ard Task Order Contract (SATOC) for Multi-Disciplinary Maintenance, Repair, and Minor Construction Work in Support of the Fleet Logistics Center -- Puget Sound and Other Customers Supported by the Seattle District Corps of Engineers.

See Purpose of Amendment 0003 and Summary of Changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 37

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Oct-2012

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 W912DW-12-R-0041

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Sep-2012

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

11-Oct-2012

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE

ATTN: CECT-NWS

4735 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH

SEATTLE WA 98134-2329

W912DW 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE W912DW

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

AMENDMENT 0003

W912DW-12-R-0041

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT 0003

A. The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Issue a revised Section 00 24 00, Proposal Submission and Evaluation. Paragraphs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 have been revised.

2. Issue a revised Section 01 35 26, Government Safety Requirements. Paragraph 1.6.1.1 has been revised.

Paragraph 1.6.1.2 has been added.

3. Issue a revised Section 01 45 01, USACE Quality Control. Paragraph 3.4.2 has been revised. Paragraph 3.4.3 has been added.

B. The due date for receipt of proposals is changed to 18 October 2012 at 11:00 AM Pacific Time.

C. NOTICE TO OFFERORS: Offerors much acknowledge receipt of this amendment by number and date on the Standard Form 1442, BACK, Block 19.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 16-Oct-2012 11:00 AM to 18-Oct-2012 11:00 AM.

SECTION 00 24 00 - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 24 00

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION

Competitive 8(a) Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) for Multi-Disciplinary Renovation, Maintenance, Repair, and Minor Construction Work in Support of the Fleet Logistics Center-Puget Sound and Other Customers Supported by the Seattle District Corps of Engineers

Solicitation Number W912DW-12-R-0041

1. Introduction.

1.1 Your firm is invited to submit a proposal in response to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. entitled Competitive 8(a) Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) for Multi-Disciplinary Maintenance, Renovation, Repair and Minor Construction Work in Support of the Fleet Logistics Center-Puget Sound (FLCPS) and Other Customers Supported by the Seattle District Corps of Engineers. This RFP establishes project requirements and provides procedures, format, and other data to assist Offerors in preparing their proposals.

1.2 The SATOC to be awarded under this solicitation will consist of a one-year base period and two one-year option periods. The total capacity of the contract for the base period plus two one-year option periods shall not exceed $30M. The task orders anticipated for this contract will be for FLCPS-supported installations, and other customers supported by the Seattle District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This type of contract vehicle is expected to help minimize design effort and related overhead expenditures and handle compressed delivery schedules. The task orders under this contract will range from a minimum of $2,000 to a maximum of $2,000,000 and will be for projects of varying size and complexity; most task orders are anticipated to range from $100,000 to $400,000. The task orders will include tasks in a variety of trades, such as civil work, road repair, carpentry, roofing, excavation, interior/exterior electrical, steam fitting, HVAC, plumbing, sheet metal, painting, fencing, asbestos and lead abatement, demolition, environmental clean-up (incidental to the work), concrete, masonry, and welding. Several of the task orders can be expected to require some incidental design effort by the contractor. Examples of typical incidental designs include, but are not limited to, fire alarm systems, fire sprinkler systems, HVAC system installation and balancing, communications systems, structural design of minor facilities or components and licensed professional engineer certification of site adaptation of pre-engineered structures. It has been determined that competition will be limited to 8(a) firms located within the geographical area of Washington, Oregon & Idaho, and other 8(a) construction firms with a bona fide place of business within the geographical competitive area, and the assigned NAICS code. All other 8(a) BD Participants are deemed ineligible to submit offers.

1.3 An Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ), Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) will be awarded to the contractor submitting the proposal that (a) conforms to this Request for Proposals (RFP), (b) is considered to offer the best value to the Government in terms of the evaluation factors, including price and (c) is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offerors should note that it is the intent of the Government to make award based upon initial offers, without further discussions or additional information.

2. Evaluation Factors. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of two factors, TECHNICAL and PRICE.

Award will be made to the Offeror who proposes the combination of price and technical factors that represent the best value to the government based on the evaluation factors listed below.

2.1 TECHNICAL. The technical factors are as follows:

A. Management Staff

B. Experience in Executing Multiple Simultaneous Construction Projects at Multiple Sites

C. Past Performance of the Prime Offeror

2.1.1 Summary of Order of Importance for Technical Factors.

Factor A is more important than Factor B; which is more important than Factor C.

2.1.2 Evaluation Standards for Technical Factors A and B. Technical evaluation factors will be rated rated using Methodology 1 as outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Methodology 1 is a combined Technical/Risk Rating and includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the ratings listed below.

Rating Definition 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

2.1.3 Rating Scheme for Past Performance. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. For purposes of this requirement, relevancy will be determined in accordance with the following table:

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Evaluators will review all past performance information deemed relevant and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment, as follows:

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.

Rating Definition Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

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 reasonable assigned.

2.1.4 Definition of Key Evaluation Terms (Strength, Weakness, Deficiency & Uncertainty). During evaluations, technical proposals will receive acknowledgment of any strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

When applying these terms to an aspect(s) of an Offeror’s proposal, evaluators will use the following definitions:

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

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

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

Significant Weakness A major flaw or combination of multiple flaws in a proposal that appreciably increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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.

2.2 PRICE. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Pricing will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis to aid in the determination of the Offeror’s understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract. Financial capacity and bonding ability will also be verified prior to award.

3. Proposal Contents. Proposals shall be submitted in two parts: (a) Technical Proposal and (b) Price Proposal.

Each part shall be submitted in a separate envelope/package, with the type of proposal (i.e., Technical or Price) clearly printed on the outside of the envelope/package. For ease of evaluation, submit the proposals following the same organization and title format as specified in paragraph 4.4 Summary of Technical Proposal Format (for the Technical Proposal) and paragraph 5.1 Summary of Price Proposal Format (for the Price Proposal).

4. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL.

4.1 A COVER LETTER should be the first page of the technical proposal and should include:

(a) Solicitation number.

(b) Name, address, electronic address, telephone and facsimile numbers of the firm signing the SF 1442.

(c) Firm’s CAGE code and DUNS.

(d) Names, titles, electronic addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the firm's behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

(e) Name, title, and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal.

(f) A statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any and all items upon which prices are offered at the proposed item prices.

(g) Final Proposal Revisions: If required to submit a Final Proposal Revision following evaluation of initial proposals, the cover letter accompanying the Final Proposal Revision must identify all changes made to the firm's initial proposal.

4.2 General Technical Proposal Requirements. Offerors submitting proposals for this solicitation should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing the information required herein. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper and bindings, and expensive/extensive visual and other presentation aids are unnecessary. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed and organized to clearly describe the Offeror’s experience and management capabilities to successfully complete the resulting contract.

4.2.1 Definitions: The following definitions are provided to aid in the preparation of your proposal:

“Multi-Disciplinary Renovation, Maintenance, Repair and Minor Construction” is defined as construction to, on, or within an existing building, plant, utility, or other struction. Note that the words “Renovation, Maintenance, Repair, and Minor Construction” may be used interchangeably within this solicitation.

“Relevant” is defined as experience on projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity to those that may be ordered under this contract. Further definitions and examples are provided as follows:

Relevant Scope and Complexity:

Experience with multi-disciplinary construction activities for renovations, maintenance, repairs, and minor construction of real property, and minor new construction of pre-engineered structures.

Examples include, but are not limited to following: Renovation, maintenance, repair, and/or minor construction work to building or plant structural systems, mechanical systems, communication line systems (SIPRNet and/or NIPRNet); renovation, maintenance, repair, and/or minor construction work to infrastructure projects, such as roadways, airfields, underground utilities, overhead utilities, electrical distribution systems, and minor new construction of pre-engineered structures.

Task Orders issued under this contract may also include, but are not limited to, the following types of work incidental to the project: environmental abatement, erosion control, earthwork, interior/exterior elements, steam welding, mechanical work, plumbing work, system testing, or incidental design.

Examples of typical incidental designs include, but are not limited to fire alarm systems, fire sprinkler systems, HVAC system installation and balancing, communications systems, structural design of minor facilities or components and licensed professional engineer certification of site adaptation of pre-engineered structures.

Relevant Size:

Projects up to $2,000,000 that meet the definition of relevant scope and complexity above will be considered relevant. Projects greater than $2,000,000 will not be considered relevant.

Note: Any reference to the Offeror throughout this solicitation is defined as the Prime Contractor submitting the offer. In the case of a Joint Venture, any reference to the Offeror includes all parties to the Joint Venture.

4.3 Minimum Submittal Requirements for Technical Proposal.

4.3.1 FACTOR A – Management Staff.

The submittal requirements and evaluation method for each factor are outlined below.

Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit data supporting the following elements of this factor:

The Offeror shall provide a list of proposed management staff (key personnel), their backgrounds, and their respective positions with regard to overall management of the SATOC. At a minimum, the offeror shall submit names and resumes for Project Managers, Contractor Quality Control Managers, Contractor Site Safety and Health Officers, and Contractor Site Superintendents demonstrating the qualifications as outlined below. Relevant personal experience shall be demonstrated from the month/year the individual started, to the month/year the individual completed, their serving in the indicated capacity for each personal experience reference contract; demonstrating total non-over-lapping experience in the relevant position. Overlapping experience will be applied towards the experience requirements only once [Example: Experience serving in the same capacity on one project from January to March and on another from February to May of the same year would result in five months of non-overlapping experience; with no additional credit for the February to March overlapping period].

Proposed Project Managers shall have A) a baccalaureate degree in engineering, architecture, construction management or equivalent and B) at least five (5) years non-overlapping experience AS a project manager simultaneously managing multiple construction projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work that may be ordered under the resulting contract; OR C) have at least ten (10) years non-overlapping experience AS a project manager simultaneously managing multiple construction projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work that may be ordered under the resulting contract.

Proposed Contractor Quality Control Managers shall have A) a baccalaureate degree in engineering, architecture, construction management or equivalent and B) at least five (5) years non-overlapping experience working AS a quality control manager on projects similar in size, scope and complexity to those which may be ordered under the resulting contract; OR C) have at least ten (10) years non-overlapping experience AS a quality control manager on projects similar size, scope, and complexity to those which may be ordered under the resulting contract.

The Contractor Site Safety and Health Officers shall have A) a baccalaureate degree in engineering, architecture, construction management or equivalent and B) at least five (5) years non-overlapping experience working AS an on-site project safety officer simultaneously on multiple projects similar in size, scope and complexity to those which may be ordered under the resulting contract; OR C) at least ten (10) years non-overlapping experience working AS an on-site project safety officer simultaneously on multiple projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to those which may be ordered under the resulting contract.

Proposed Contractor on-site Site Superintendents shall have at least seven (7) years non-overlapping experience AS an on-site project superintendent on construction projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work which may be ordered under the resulting contract.

REQUIRED RESUME FORMAT/CONTENT:

a. Name and Title

b. Proposed Duties/Functions for this project

c. (Employment) Firm Affiliation and Years Affiliated

d. (Specific Project Experience) Months/Years of Experience performing duties/functions as proposed for this project.

e. Education – School attended, Degree, Certification, Year Graduated, and Specialization

f. List Active Registrations (Professional or Technical Licenses/Certifications)

g. Describe Specific Qualifications for this project

h. List Projects worked on to include:

- Project Title & Location

- Scope, Size (total dollar value) and Complexity

- Duties/Functions assigned for each contract

- (Contract Info) Date of project (month/year contract began and ended)

- Dates assigned to contract for duties/functions described (Identify separate periods if multiple duties performed during a single contract).

- Current primary POC for the customer (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city and state, and phone number).

Evaluation Method: The Government will evaluate the extent to which Offerors have demonstrated a construction management team that will result in successful performance under the resulting contract. Offerors whose key management staff possesses a higher degree of experience relevant to the proposed acquisition may receive additional consideration. Offerors who propose multiple Site Superintendents who have also completed both a 30-hour OSHA construction safety class or equivalent within the past five years AND the course entitled “Construction Quality Management For Contractors,” may receive additional consideration. Additional consideration may be given for demonstrated project experience in maintenance, repair, and construction projects for Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) storage, distribution, dispensing and transfer systems (including waterfront/pier dispensing and transfer systems). Additional consideration may be given for demonstrated project experience with Federal Government projects, projects on military installations, and Corps of Engineers projects.

* Note to Offerors: The individuals proposed to fill the key positions identified under this factor will be the individuals who perform this work under the resulting contract. Any changes to the proposed individuals after award MUST be approved by the Contracting Officer. Proposed replacement personnel must meet the same requirements as the individuals included in the original proposal.*

4.3.2 FACTOR B – Experience in Executing Multiple Simultaneous Construction Projects at Multiple Sites. The submittal requirements and evaluation method for this factor are outlined below.

Submittal Requirements: Offerors are advised that very little “new construction” will be performed under this contract. Instead, as must as 95% of the projects executed against this contract will be for the renovation, maintenance, repair, and minor construction of existing structures/facilities. The Offeror shall provide a list of no more than seven (7) relevant contracts, projects or task orders, physically complete and accepted for customer’s use within the past five (5) years, that have a logical connection with the requirements in this RFP (i.e. are similar in nature, magnitude and complexity to the projects which may be ordered under the SATOC) and which demonstrate the following:

1) the offeror’s ability to manage small to medium scale repair/construction requirements using multiple trades of varying complexity and which require the coordination of multiple subcontractors;

2) the offeror’s ability to manage multiple projects at multiple sites in various regions concurrently; and

3) the offeror’s ability to coordinate, support and complete work in occupied facilities or where other contractors are concurrently working.

For each contract, project or task order provided to demonstrate the above experience, include the following information:

REQUIRED CONTRACT EXPERIENCE FORMAT/CONTENT:

a. Project Title & Location

b. Contract Number (if applicable) and agency that awarded the contract.

c. Project Type (e.g., repair, renovation, new construction, design-build, emergency work)

d. Dollar Value

e. Start & Completion Dates (Month/Year)

f. Role of Firm(s) (e.g., prime, sub) (address type of work performed and percentage of work by the proposed team, as applicable)

g. Brief Description of Project (address how this relates to solicitation project)

h. Customer Point of Contact (i.e., name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current phone no.)

i. Awards or recognition received (if applicable)

j. Firms on the proposed team that performed this project

j. Name of Firm or JV that performed this project; including their DUNS Number and CAGE Code

Evaluation Method: This factor will be evaluated for the extent and quality of experience demonstrated. The greater the relevancy of experience demonstrated for the offeror, the more likely the offeror will receive a higher rating during evaluations. Proposals that demonstrate a higher degree of practice in the especially relevant areas of experience, as identified in the Submittal Requirements above, may be evaluated more favorably. Additional consideration may be given for demonstrated project experience in maintenance, repair, and construction projects for Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) storage, distribution, dispensing and transfer systems (including waterfront/pier dispensing and transfer systems). Additional consideration may be given for demonstrated project experience with Federal Government projects, projects on military installations, and Corps of Engineers projects.

4.3.3 FACTOR C – Past Performance of the Prime Offeror. The submittal requirements and evaluation method for this factor are outlined below.

Submittal Requirements: Submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for each project submitted in Factor B, so that past performance can be verified. The PPQ is is included as Attachment B to this solicitation.

Ensure correct phone numbers and e-mail addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs shall be submitted with your proposal. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Russ Bergt, via e-mail at russell.c.bergt@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. The Government reserves the right to contact the evaluator on previous Government or private sector work to verify the performance of the Offeror.

Evaluation Method: Past Performance evaluation consists of two aspects, the first being relevance and the second being confidence. The Government will first evaluate each Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the projects that may be awarded under this SATOC. This evaluation will be made on a “relevant” or “not relevant” basis, with “relevant” defined in Paragraph 2.1.3 above, and evaluated in accordance with the table in the same paragraph. Secondly, the Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on how well the Offeror performed on recent and relevant contracts. This evaluation will result in a Past Performance Confidence Assessment with a rating in accordance with the table in Paragraph 2.1.3 above. Joint Venture Offerors will be evaluated based on recent and relevant past performance of each individual entity in the Joint Venture, as well as any recent and relevant projects completed by the Joint Venture. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of the firms’ performance history, but may attribute more significance to projects submitted in Factor B. Sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPARS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), 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. Note: A lack of past performance information will result in an “Unknown” rating during evaluations.

NOTE TO OFFEROR: Projects submitted in Factor B and C must have been performed by the Firm submitting an offer for this solicitation (same Cage Codes and DUNS numbers). Projects performed by a parent company, sister company, teaming partner, or business other than the specific firm submitting an offeror, will not be evaluated. Joint Venture Offerors must include at least three projects from each of the joint-venture firms.

4.4 Summary of Technical Proposal Format. As a minimum, each copy of the technical proposal should follow the general format specified below. It is preferred that pages be numbered consecutively throughout the technical proposal. However, giving each page a unique identifier within sections is acceptable (i.e., A-1 through A-5, then B-1 through B-5, etc).

Technical Proposal Format – (original and four (4) copies required)

Technical Proposal Cover Letter (see paragraph 4.1) Table of Contents (List all sections of the technical proposal) Management Staff Experience Executing Multiple Simultaneous Construction Projects at Multiple Sites Past Performance of the Prime Offeror

5. PRICE PROPOSAL.

5.1 Summary of Price Proposal Format. Offeror’s price proposals shall include the following information, in the general format specified below:

Price Proposal Format (original and one (1) copy required)

Standard Form 1442 Solicitation, Offer and Award (front and back) Corporate Certificate (use the certificate for joint venture if applicable) Bid Schedule Completed in its Entirety Section 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications including Pre-Award Information form

(Attachment A) Bank and Bonding Points of Contact $3 Million Bid Bond A letter from your federally approved bonding corporate surety certifying your bonding capacity at a minimum of $2M single project and $10M in the aggregate.

Joint Venture Information (if applicable) – Reference Paragraph 5.6.

NOTE: Offeror’s price proposals, including the bid bond, are DUE AT THE SAME TIME as technical proposals.

5.2 Price Evaluation Method.

5.2.1 General. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. A separate price evaluation team, consisting of a Contract Specialist and the Contracting Officer, will evaluate each Offeror’s Price Proposal. The failure of the Offeror to provide Indirect Cost Factors for the Base Period and each Option Period as required in the Bid Schedule may be cause for the proposal to be deemed non-responsive, and may result in the proposal being rejected.

5.2.2 Evaluation of Price. As required by the Bid Schedule, the Offeror must propose Indirect Cost Factors for all of the various geographic localities that are listed in the Schedule, both for work with a Standard Construction Management Team and for work with a Minimal Construction Management Team, as these terms are defined in the Statement of Work. For information only, the following approximate percentages represent the relative amounts of work that the Government estimates will be distributed among the geographical areas. Additionally, the Government estimates that approximately 25% of the work under this solicitation will require a Standard Construction Management Team, and 75% can be accomplished with a Minimal Construction Management Team. The type of management team for each task order will be specified in the task order, and the appropriate Indirect Cost Factor will apply to all work under that task order. The Bid Schedule also requires that the Offeror submit Indirect Cost Factors for each of the three years for this contract. The Government estimates that the work ordered during each of the three years will be approximately equal. Offerors are cautioned that this work allocation among geographical areas, among years, and between the two levels of management teams are estimates only, and that the actual work ordered under this solicitation may vary from those estimates.

LOCATION ESTIMATED % OF TOTAL WORK

Western Washington 45% Eastern Washington 25% Oregon 10% Idaho 10% Montana 10%

The proposed Indirect Cost Factors will be examined to determine that the Indirect Cost Factors are all fair and reasonable, and do not appear to be unbalanced. If the Indirect Cost Factors are determined to be unbalanced, or otherwise appear not to be fair and reasonable, it may result in a determination that the proposal is materially deficient, and cause the proposal to be rejected.

5.3 The price proposal must be signed by an official authorized to bind the organization. Note that the Standard Form 1442, Block 13D, states the minimum number of calendar days after the date offers are due for Government acceptance of the offer. All amendments must be acknowledged by number and date on the Standard Form 1442 BACK, Block 19. Offerors shall also note the following:

(a) Individuals. A contract with an individual shall be signed by that individual. A contract with an individual doing business as a firm shall be signed by that individual, and the signature shall be followed by the individual’s typed, stamped, or printed name and the words “an individual doing business as ……..”

[insert name of firm].

(b) Partnerships. A contract with a partnership shall be signed in the partnership name. Before signing for the Government, the Contracting Officer shall obtain a list of all partners and ensure that the individual(s) signing for the partnership have authority to bind the partnership.

(c) Corporations. A contract with a corporation shall be signed in the corporate name, followed by the word “by” and the signature and title of the person authorized to sign. The Contracting Officer shall ensure that the person signing for the corporation has authority to bind the corporation.

5.4 Provide the name, point of contact, phone number, and address for the bank and bonding company of firm signing the SF 1442.

5.5 Bid Bonds. In accordance with Section 00 72 00, FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee, a bid bond must accompany your offer in response to this solicitation and shall be in the amount of $3 Million. In accordance with FAR 28.101-3 (a) (b) (c) Authority of an Attorney-in-Fact for a Bid Bond, any person signing a bid bond as an attorney-in-fact shall include with the bid bond evidence of authority to bind the surety. An original, or a photocopy or facsimile of an original, power of attorney is sufficient evidence of such authority. For purposes of this section, electronic, mechanically-applied and printed signatures, seals and dates on the power of attorney shall be considered original signatures, seals and dates, without regard to the order in which they were affixed.

5.6 Joint Ventures. No contract may be awarded to a joint venture that is not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). Joint ventures may register by contacting the SAM.

5.6.1 In the cover letter of your proposal, provide the complete names, addresses, phone and fax numbers of all firms in the joint venture.

5.6.2 Signature requirements: SF 1442, SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (pages 00 10 00-1 and 00 10 00-2), Block 20 requires that the name and title of the person authorized to sign the offer for the joint venture be provided.

5.6.3 Corporate certificate: Ensure that the joint-venture portion is completed by both firms.

5.6.4 A contract with joint venturers may involve any combination of individuals, partnerships, or corporations.

The contract shall be signed by an individual or individuals authorized to bind the joint venture.

5.6.5 In addition to the requirements stated above, and to assure a single point of contact for resolution of contractual matters and payments, the Contracting Officer shall obtain a certificate signed by each participant in the joint venture. In the proposal include the following statement:

“The parties hereto expressly understand and agree as follows:

(a) (name, title, and company) is the principal representative of the joint venture. As such, all communications regarding the administration of the contract and the performance of the work thereunder may be directed to him or her. In the absence of (same name, title, and company), (enter name, title, and company of alternate) is the alternate principal representative of the joint venture.

(b) Direction, approvals, required notices, and all other communications from the Government to the joint venture, including transmittal of payments by the Government, shall be directed to (enter name, title, and company of principal), principal representative of the joint venture.”

5.6.6 The bid bond form, Block “Principal” requires that the name and title of the person authorized to sign for the joint venture be included.

5.6.7 After award, the performance and payment bonds, and the insurance certificate(s) provided shall be in the name of the joint venture.

6. General Submittal Requirements.

Proposals shall be submitted in two separate volumes: (a) Volume 1 – Technical Proposal (original plus four copies required) and (b) Volume 2 – Price Proposal (original plus one copy required). Each Volume shall be on 8½ x 11-inch paper, to the maximum extent practicable, and submitted in separate, standard letter-size, loose-leaf binders. Offerors must submit information for the above factors in sufficient detail to permit proper evaluation. Submittals must be in a format that follows the sequence of criteria set forth in the paragraphs above. Absence of information will be deemed as if no support for that factor is available. Contents of binders should be tabbed and labeled with a Table of Contents for easy identification, with all pages numbered sequentially. The Table of Contents page, cover letter, and tab dividers are not included in the page count. No material shall be incorporated by reference; any such material will not be considered for evaluation.

Technical submittals are not to exceed a total of 50 pages. Only the first 50 pages of a submission will be evaluated. Photographs and organizational charts will not be considered a page. However, a photograph with more than 6 lines of text (for caption purposes) counts as one page. Double-sided pages count as two pages.

Submitted Past Performance Questionnaires are not included in the page count. Proposals that contain overly elaborate presentations may be construed as an indication of the Offeror’s lack of cost-consciousness. The Government is specifically interested in the substance of an Offeror’s response to this section 00 24 00 and not a fancy presentation.

7. Evaluation Procedures.

7.1 Technical Evaluation. Technical proposals will be evaluated by a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers and the Fleet Logistic Center – Puget Sound.

Pricing data will not be considered during this evaluation. Technical factors for the technical evaluation are set forth in this section 00 24 00 and will be the sole basis for determining the technical merit of proposals. The SSEB shall use the order of importance definitions and technical merit ratings described earlier in this section to perform their technical evaluation. To be considered for award, proposals must conform to the terms and conditions contained in the RFP. No proposal will be accepted that does not address all criteria specified in this solicitation or which includes stipulations or qualifying conditions unacceptable to the Government.

7.2 Price Evaluation. As previously stated, all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Pricing will be evaluated, but not rated or scored. Pricing will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis to aid in the determination of the Offeror’s understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract. The price evaluators will also check for the appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Financial capacity and bonding ability will also be verified prior to award.

8. Selection and Award. Subject to the provisions contained herein, award of an Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite- Quantity (IDIQ) Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) will be made to the contractor whose offer represents the best value to the Government in response to this RFP.

8.1 Best Value Analysis. In determining the best value to the Government, the tradeoff process of evaluation will be used. You are advised that greater consideration will be given to the evaluation of technical proposals rather than price and that all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. However, the tradeoff process of evaluation, as set forth in FAR Part 15, permits tradeoffs among price and technical factors, and therefore the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The closer the total evaluated non-price ratings are to one another, the greater importance of the price evaluation in making the Best Value determination.

The closer the final price evaluations are to one another, the greater the importance of the total evaluated non-cost ratings in making the Best Value determination.

8.2 Selection and Award without Discussions. It is the intent of the Government to make award based upon initial offers, without further discussions or additional information. Therefore, initial proposals should be submitted based on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume there will be an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise proposals. If award is not made on initial offers, a competitive range will be established and discussions conducted as described below.

8.3 Competitive Range. If it is not in the Government’s best interest to make award on initial offers, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c) and conduct discussions with those firms within this range. When determining the competitive range, the Contracting Officer will consider the technical ratings and prices offered.

8.4 Discussions. Discussions are usually conducted in writing, but may also be by telephone or in person.

Discussions are tailored to each Offeror’s proposal and are only conducted with Offeror(s) in the competitive range. The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in this solicitation. If a firm's proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from consideration for award during discussions, no further revisions to that firm's proposal will be accepted or considered. Discussions will culminate in a request for Final Proposal Revisions, the date and time of which will be common to all remaining firms.

8.5 After Discussions. Revisions to the proposals submitted during discussions, if any, will be evaluated by the SSEB and, if warranted, an adjustment will be made to the rating previously assigned. The Contracting Officer will then perform a best value analysis based on the final prices and technical proposals. Selection will be made on the basis of the responsive, responsible firm whose proposal conforms to the RFP and represents the best value offer to the Government.

8.6 Debriefings. Upon written request, firms will be debriefed and furnished the basis for the selection decision and contract award in accordance with FAR 15.505 and FAR 15.506.

8.7 Proposal Expenses and Pre-Contract Costs. This solicitation does not commit the Government to pay costs incurred in preparation and submission of initial and subsequent proposals or for other costs incurred prior to award of a formal contract.

8.8 Release of Information. After receipt of proposals and until contract award, source selection information will not be furnished to any firm.

END OF SECTION 00 24 00

SECTION 01 00 00 - DIVISION 01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The following have been modified:

GOVERNMENT SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 01 35 26

GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

11/08

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 REFERENCES

The publications listed below form a part of this specification to the extent referenced. The publications are referred to within the text by the basic designation only.

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS (ASSE/SAFE)

ASSE/SAFE A10.32 (2004) Fall Protection

ASSE/SAFE A10.34 (2001; R 2005) Protection of the Public on or Adjacent to

Construction Sites

ASSE/SAFE Z359.1 (2007) Safety Requirements for Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Subsystems and Components

ASME INTERNATIONAL (ASME)

ASME B30.22 (2005) Articulating Boom Cranes

ASME B30.3 (2004) Construction Tower Cranes

ASME B30.5 (2007) Mobile and Locomotive Cranes

ASME B30.8 (2004) Floating Cranes and Floating Derricks

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

NASA NPG 8715.3 (2004) NASA Safety Manual

NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (NFPA)

NFPA 10 (2007; Errata 2007; AMD 1 2007) Standard for Portable Fire

Extinguishers

NFPA 241 (2004) Safeguarding Construction,Alteration, and Demolition Operations

NFPA 51B (2008) Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot

Work

NFPA 70 (2007; AMD 1 2008) National Electrical Code - 2008 Edition

NFPA 70E (2008) Electrical Safety in the Workplace

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE)

EM 385-1-1 (2003) Safety -- Safety and Health Requirements

U.S. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)

29 CFR 1910 Occupational Safety and Health Standards

29 CFR 1910.146 Permit-required Confined Spaces

29 CFR 1926 Safety and Health Regulations for Construction

29 CFR 1926.500 Fall Protection

1.2 SUBMITTALS

Government approval is required for submittals with a "G" designation; submittals not having a "G" designation are for Contractor Quality Control approval. Submit the following in accordance with Section 01 33 00

SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES:

SD-01 Preconstruction Submittals

Accident Prevention Plan (APP); G, Activity Hazard Analysis (AHA); G, Crane Critical Lift Plan; G, Proof of qualification for Crane Operators; G, SD-06 Test Reports

Reports

Submit reports as their incidence occurs, in accordance with the requirements of the paragraph entitled, "Reports."

Accident Reports

Monthly Exposure Reports

Crane Reports

Gas Protection

SD-07 Certificates

Confined Space Entry Permit

Hot work permit

License Certificates

1.3 DEFINITIONS

a. High Visibility Accident. Any mishap which may generate publicity and/or high visibility.

b. Medical Treatment. Treatment administered by a physician or by registered professional personnel under the standing orders of a physician. Medical treatment does not include first aid treatment even through provided by a physician or registered personnel.

c. Recordable Injuries or Illnesses. Any work-related injury or illness that results in:

(1) Death, regardless of the time between the injury and death, or the length of the illness;

(2) Days away from work (any time lost after day of injury/illness onset);

(3) Restricted work;

(4) Transfer to another job;

(5) Medical treatment beyond first aid;

(6) Loss of consciousness; or

(7) A significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health care professional, even if it did not result in (1) through (6) above.

d. "USACE" property and equipment specified in USACE EM 385-1-1 should be interpreted as Government property and equipment.

1.4 DELETED

1.5 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

In addition to the detailed requirements included in the provisions of this contract, comply with USACE EM 385- 1-1, and federal, state, and local, laws, ordinances, criteria, rules and regulations. Submit matters of interpretation of standards to the appropriate administrative agency for resolution before starting work.