W912DW18R0001_Amend_0007.pdf

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE

MONIQUE PAANO

PH: 206-764-6084 FAX: 206-764-6817

MONIQUE.A.PAANO@USACE.ARMY.MIL

SEATTLE 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

W912DW18R0001 Mud Mountain Dam Fish Passage Facility, Buckley, WA

See continuation page

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 47

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Nov-2017

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-18-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Oct-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

22-Nov-2017

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE

ATTN: CENWS-CT

4735 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH, BLDG. 1202

SEATTLE WA 98134-2388

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE W912DW

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DW-18-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SECTION 00 11 00 - SF 1442 AND CLIN SCHEDULE

CONTINUATION PAGE

1. This amendment seven (0007) provides for the following changes:

a. Revision to Section 00 21 00-A.

b. Revision to Section 00 22 00, with replacement/revision of Attachments A-C, and addition of Attachments

D and E.

c. Addition of FAR clause 52.217-7, Option for Increased Quantity, Separately Priced Line Item.

d. Revision to Section 00 73 00-A.

e. Revision to Section 01 57 19.

f. Revision to Section 26 05 00.00 25.

g. Revision to Section 31 32 11.

h. Revision to Section 31 68 13.

i. Revision to Section 32 93 00.

j. Revision to Plans (PDF drawings attached)

2. The proposal submittal time and date of December 22, 2017 at 1:00:00 p.m. LOCAL TIME remains the same.

3. The attached revised sections are to be replaced in their entirety. Specifications changes are generally identified, for convenience, either by strikeout for deletions, and double underlining of text for additions or a single dark line in the margin. All portions of the revised sections shall apply whether or not changes have been indicated.

5. NOTICE TO OFFERORS: As a reminder, Proj-Net will only be open until 2 December 2017. Offerors must acknowledge receipt of this amendment by number and date on offer.

Encl:

Section 00 21 00-A (revised) Section 00 22 00 (revised) Attachment A to 00 22 00 (replaced) Attachment B to 00 22 00 (revised) Attachment C to 00 22 00 (revised) Attachment D to 00 22 00 (new) Attachment E to 00 22 00 (new) Section 00 73 00-A (revised) Section 01 57 19 (revised) Section 26 05 00.00 25 (revised) Section 31 32 11 (revised) Section 31 68 13 (revised) Section 32 93 00 (revised) PDF drawings for Plans

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES TO OFFERORS

The following have been modified:

00 21 00-A

Section 00 21 00 Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offeror

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has a construction project titled, Mud Mountain Dam (MMD) Fish Barrier and Fish Passage Facility. Mud Mountain Dam is located at Enumclaw, WA. The USACE is designing facilities to replace the existing barrier and trap and haul facility with new facilities in accordance with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) October 2014 Biological Opinion (BiOp), and March 2016 Settlement Agreement.

Pre-Proposal SITE VISIT INFORMATION An organized site visit has been scheduled for:

October 24, 2017, meet at Federal Center South (FCS) at 8:00 AM (local time)

Federal Center South U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Salish Sea Room 4735 E. Marginal Way S, Bldg 1202 Seattle, WA 98134-2388

The tour will require approximately 6 hours. The tentative schedule is as follows:

0800 – Arrive at FCS for presentation of Proposal Requirements in Salish Sea 0900 – Buses depart FCS for MMD 1000 – Arrive at MMD for Left Bank, Right Bank, Release site tour 1300 – Leave MMD 1400 – Buses arrive back at FCS

Cameras are permitted to take photos of the fish trap and barrier. All participants will be required to sign an attendance list. The Government will not be providing lunch, and there will be limited restroom facilities. All attending personnel require government issued identification.

The purpose of the site visit is to familiarize Offerors with the scope of work and provide an opportunity to become familiar with the existing site conditions. It is the intent of the Government that all prospective Offerors visit the worksite for the purpose of acquainting themselves with local conditions. Non-technical questions will be addressed; however, technical questions regarding the solicitation’s drawings and specifications will be submitted via ProjNet, a web-based program that allows Offerors to post questions regarding the solicitation and to view all questions by other Offerors and answers by USACE. Attendance at the site visit is strongly recommended.

Point of Contact for the Site Visit:

Project Lead is:

Leah Hauenstein Phone: (206) 316-3169 E-mail:leah.j.hauenstein@usace.army.mil

Confirm Site Visit attendance by 4:00 PM on 19 Oct 2017.

Submit the following information via email to the email addresses listed.

a. Name of firm with complete mailing address.

b. Name, title, and phone number of each representative.

Send messages regarding the site visit only to Project Lead, and also e-mail contracting specialist.

Contract Specialist is Monique Paano. E-mail: Monique.A.Paano@usace.army.mil

Requests for attendance received after the above noted date and time may not be accepted. Due to limited field staff available for construction contractor site visits, this scheduled site visit will be the only one offered. Individual requests for site visits will not be granted. Offerors are urged and expected to visit the site and take such other steps as may be reasonably necessary to ascertain the nature and location of the work, and the general and local conditions which may affect the work or the cost thereof. Failure to do so shall not relieve Offerors from responsibility for estimating properly the difficulty or cost of successfully performing the work. The Government shall assume no responsibility for any understanding or representations concerning conditions made by any of its officers or agents prior to the execution of the contract, unless included in the Request for Proposal, the specifications, or related documents.

OFFEROR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS – Offeror Inquiry All inquiries regarding this solicitation are to be submitted via ProjNet-BID. Telephone and email inquiries will not be accepted. ProjNet-BID is a web-based program that allows bidders to post questions regarding the solicitation and to view all questions by other bidders and answers by USACE. ProjNet-BID can be accessed at https://www.projnet.org To access the ProjNet-BID website the first time:

1) Click the Quick Add menu in the upper right.

2) Enter the following information for access:

2.a) Select USACE as the Agency.

2.b) Input BID Key: UC4PMG-DDBFYD 2.c) Your email address.

3) Enter valid business contact information (e.g. First and Last Name, Company name, city and state, phone number, email address). (Required on first project only.)

4) Establish Secret Question and Answer which will be used as a password (required on first project only).

5) For subsequent access use your email address, the Key and response to the Secret Question to access the

ProjNet-BID Module.

6) Submit technical questions by clicking Post a New Inquiry. When an answer is posted to a question, the question and answer is then available for all other bidders to review.

7) For questions about ProjNet-BID, please contact the Call Center help desk toll free at 1-800-428-HELP

(4357), which operates from 8AM to 5PM (Central US time zone).

No response will be posted to inquiries after 4:00 PM on December 2, 2017. All bidders will be held to have reviewed the questions and responses in ProjNet-BID prior to bid submission. Nothing in the solicitation is changed unless an amendment is sent out.

PROPOSAL COMPOSITION AND SUBMISSION

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this Request for Proposal (RFP).

Absence of information demonstrates lack of support for a criterion. Proposals shall contain only data essential for evaluation of proposals to expedite both proposal preparation and evaluation. Data submitted must reflect the Offeror’s interpretation of criteria contained in the RFP.

Reference FAR Clause 52.204-4(b) Printed or Copied Double-Sided on Recycled Paper. In accordance with Section 101 of Executive Order 13101 of September 14, 1998, Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition, the Contractor is encouraged to submit paper documents, such as offers, letters, or reports, that are printed or copied double-sided on recycled paper that meet minimum content standards specified in Section 505 of Executive Order 13101, when not using electronic commerce methods to submit information or data to the Government.

There shall be no consideration of information incorporated by reference or reiteration of the RFP. Proposal presentation shall be in a manner which allows it to “STAND ALONE” without need for evaluators to reference other documents. It is allowable to combine arrangements, layout plans, and notes on single sheets in order to simplify presentation, so long as there is maintenance of clarity. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper and bindings, and expensive/extensive visual aids and other presentation aids are neither necessary nor wanted. Penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001. NOTE: Providing additional information that is not requested will not enhance a proposal’s chance for success. The ability to convey information as succinctly as possible is encouraged.

Offerors are required to meet ALL solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. The Offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this section and section 00 22 00 of the RFP at or before the exact time specified in the RFP. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being ineligible for award.

Content of Proposals: All proposals must be prepared in two volumes: A technical proposal (Volume I), a non-technical proposal (Volume II). Each of the volumes shall be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently from evaluation of the other. Proposals are to be on 8-1/2 x 11-inch paper, to the maximum extent practicable, and submitted in standard letter (8-1/2 x 11-inch), 3-ring loose-leaf binders.

Contents of binders shall be appropriately tabbed and labeled corresponding to the proposal table of contents, affording ease of identification. Electronic copies in portable document format (PDF) on CDs will also be required.

Any discrepancies between the electronic and paper copies shall give precedence to the paper copy.

The technical proposal (Volume I) must NOT contain reference to price. The narrative and content structure of the proposal shall follow the format shown under Volume I below. Offerors who fail to submit a complete proposal may be excluded and thus receive no further consideration for award.

Volume I – Technical (Non-Price) Factors

Provide one (1) original and four (4) copies and one (1) pdf file on a CD. Volume I shall consist of information for Factors 1-4-, listed in tabular form, as noted below.

1) Cover Letter: The Technical Proposal cover letter should be the first page of the technical proposal and include the following:

1 Solicitation Number 2 Vendor Legal Name 3 List any alternate business names or d/b/a (doing business as) 4 CAGE Code and DUNS Number

5 Mailing Address 6 Physical Street Address 7 Principal Office Location (City, State and Zip) 8 Acknowledgement of all “amendments” by number and date of issue.

9 Statement the Offer is acceptable for a period of 120 calendar days from the date of submission.

10 Person or Persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the

Government for this solicitation:

Name Title Phone Number, including Mobile Number if applicable Email address

2) Title Page: Each copy must include the Offeror’s name and address, phone number and email address, title of the solicitation, solicitation number and date of submittal clearly identified on the front cover of the binder.

3) Table of Contents: Include all sections contained in the Technical Proposal. Provide a separate section for each Evaluation Factor. Any additions or revisions to the proposal shall include an updated Table of Contents for each set.

4) Requisite Technical Data for Evaluation: Include all information required in Section 00 22 00. This section shall be specific and complete, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the requirements. It shall include, where applicable, diagrams and/or charts.

Tab 1 - Factor 1 Project Schedule

Tab 2 - Factor 2 Care and Diversion of Water Work Plan

Tab 3 - Factor 3 Company Experience

Tab 4 – Factor 4 Past Performance of the Prime Offeror

Volume II – Non-technical Proposal:

Provide one (1) original and four (4) copies and one (1) pdf file on a CD. Volume II shall consist of information for Factors 5 and 6, listed in tabular form, as noted below.

Tab 1 – Factor 5 Small Business Participation Submission shall include the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan with all information required in Section 00 22 00.

Tab 2 - Price ProposalFactor 6

The Non-technical Proposal shall be complete, detailed and submitted on forms provided in the Request for Proposal (RFP) (one (1) original, one (1) copy, and one (1) pdf. file on a separate CD from the Technical Proposal).

Offeror’s price proposal must be prepared in accordance with below paragraphs and must include:

Tab 2 - SF1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award.

The SF1442 shall be filled out completely by the Offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. Offeror shall provide pricing and complete all line items on Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442).The Offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 or Block 19 of SF1442.

Tab 3 – Price Schedule

The Offeror shall fully complete this section.

Tab 4 – MMD FPF CLIN 0008 Pricing Breakdown Schedule (from Amendment 0002)

The Offeror shall fully complete this section. Total price must match total price for CLIN 0008 on price schedule.

Tab 5 - 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 (SAM) website, www.sam.gov.

Tab 6 – Banking and Bonding points of contact.

The Government is required to determine Contractor’s responsibility; the Offeror shall provide contact information (Company name, point of contact, address, email, and phone number) for the offeror’s bank and bonding institutions.

Tab 7 - Bid/Offer Guarantee. The Bid Bond shall be at least 20% of the bid price, but shall not exceed $3million.

PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS

Proposals must be received no later than the date and time identified in the RFP. Plainly mark the proposal package “Proposals for Solicitation Number: W912DW18R0001, DO NOT OPEN.” There will not be a public proposal opening. In order for the proposal to be considered it MUST be prepared in ENGLISH, and must be submitted as a hardcopy original (Volume I and II) and four (4) copies (Volume I only) with the two (2) required electronic CDs.

Hand-delivery/Fed-Ex/UPS or other commercial carrier:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Attn: Monique Paano – CENWS-CTC 4735 E. Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98134-2388

Mail:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Monique Paano – Contract Specialist

CENWS-CTC

PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755

Note: Commercial carriers will not deliver proposals to P.O. Boxes.

ATTENTION: Due to heightened security, the method of Hand Delivery has changed and takes longer than the previous method of arriving at the Federal Center South building lobby to deliver your Proposal.

Please allow sufficient time to allow for heightened security at Government installations and to get to Building #1202. Allow time to park, pass through a metal detector, sign in, and receive a building pass at the Federal Center South Building. From there, you will be directed to the USACE Oxbow Building (#1202) which sits behind the Federal Center South Building. Allow additional time.

Report to the Security Desk in the lobby of the USACE Oxbow Building (#1202) and call Sonia Frees, Procurement Technician, at 206-764-3516, or Monique Paano, Contract Specialist, at 206-764-6084. A Contracting representative will come down and accept your Proposal.

A proposal is not received by the Government until it is in the physical possession of a representative of the Contracting office. Security guards and other non-contracting personnel are NOT authorized to accept proposals on behalf of the Government. Note that official receipt of a proposal shall be in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

Note: If delivery is by any means other than Hand Delivery, please check prior to the due date and time to ensure that your Offer, Bid, or Proposal has arrived on time.

Proposal Content Limitations.

The Offeror must confine the proposal to relevant information and documentation sufficient to provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal.

The page count is at the discretion of the Offeror, however each Volume may not be more than 150 pages double-sided. The proposal pages shall be number sequentially (1,2,3, etc). Any pages after page 300 will not be reviewed.

Proprietary information must be clearly marked.

RELEASE OF INFORMATION

After receipt of proposals, no source selection information will be available to any Offeror until contract award.

This includes, but is not limited to, the relative standing of the Offeror’s proposal or the number or identity of the participating Offerors.

PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

The Government is in no way responsible for costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred prior to the execution of a contract.

AWARD AND POST-AWARD PROCEDURES

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

There will be an evaluation of all technical proposals by a Source Selection Evaluation Board.(SSEB) . .

The Board’s duty is the assignment of a fair, unbiased technical rating for each proposal based solely on the merits of the proposal. Proposals that do not conform to the terms and conditions contained in the RFP, or those that include stipulations or qualifying conditions unacceptable to the Government, are not eligible for award. There will be no consideration of pricing data during the technical evaluation.

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, submit your proposal on the most favorable terms from a technical standpoint. Do not assume you will have an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise your proposal.

If award is not possible from initial offers, the Contracting Officer may establish a competitive range prior to either written or oral (i.e. telephonic) discussions with all Offerors in the competitive range. As a result, Offerors may be asked to revise their initial offers. If an Offeror’s proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from the competitive range during discussions, further revisions to that Offeror’s proposal will neither be accepted nor considered. Discussions will culminate in a request for a Final Proposal Revision (FPR), the date and time of which will be provided to all Offerors.

After discussions and the subsequent receipt of Final Proposal Revisions, the Board will evaluate supplemental information provided by Offerors and adjust previously assigned technical ratings, if applicable.

SELECTION AND AWARD

This solicitation is an unrestricted competitive acquisition using Best Value Tradeoff source selection process for the award of a firm fixed-price contract. Selection will be on the basis of the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the RFP requirements, demonstrating high technical capability and low risk, presenting the most advantageous offer to the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

DEBRIEFINGS

PRE-AWARD

Offerors excluded from the competition before award will receive a notice and may request a debriefing before award by submitting a written request for a debriefing to the Contracting Officer within three (3) calendar days after receipt of the notice of exclusion from the competition. (FAR 15.505)

POST-AWARD

Unsuccessful Offerors may request a post-award debriefing within three (3) calendar days after the date on which the Offeror received notification of contract award. There will be no point-by-point comparisons with other Offerors’ proposals and debriefings will not reveal any information that is not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). (FAR 15.506)

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

ATTACHMENT D

SECTION 00 22 00 - ATTACHMENT D

LETTER OF COMMITMENT OF SUBCONTRACTOR - SAMPLE

(Submit on Subcontractor’s Company Letterhead)

TO: Contracting Officer

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Contract for

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby indicate my commitment that, in the event of a contract award to (Fill in name of Offeror), (insert name of Subcontractor) will fulfill the duties of (state role on a project).

Sincerely, (Include Name, Title and Signature by Authorized Official)

Date: __________

Submit with signatures of both the Prime Offeror and the Subcontractor

ATTACHMENT E

The following have been modified:

00 22 00

Section 00 22 00 Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The objective of this evaluation is to evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and award a firm fixed price construction contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall “Best Value Tradeoff” to the Government in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1.

The Offeror’s proposal shall contain a response to all Factors (Project Schedule, Care and Diversion Water Work Plan, Company Experience, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Price);. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the Evaluation Factors.

In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(3) the Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. An Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR

15.001. Penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

DEFINITIONS:

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

Relevant: “Relevant” means having a logical connection with the requirements in this RFP; that is, featuring work that is similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the current requirement.

Risk: 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 criterion may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, ecological damage and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

Strength: An aspect of a proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors will consider the following:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

TECHNICAL FACTOR RATINGS: The Technical Factor Ratings, identified in Table 1 below, reflect the degree to which the proposal meets, or does not meet, the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each factor as it applies to the scope of work defined in this solicitation.

During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. Table 1 will be used to evaluate Factors 1-5.

Table 1. Risk Ratings for Evaluation Factors 1-5

Rating Description

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 that 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 clearly demonstrated adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses that 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 non-awardable.

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Reference Evaluation Factors Table below regarding relative importance of Factors.

Table 2. Relative Importance of FACTORS

LOCATION DESCRIPTION RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

FACTOR 1 VOLUME 1, TAB 1 PROJECT SCHEDULE Most important.

FACTOR 2 VOLUME 1, TAB 2

CARE & DIVERSION OF

WATER WORK PLAN

Less important than Factor 1

FACTOR 3 VOLUME 1, TAB 3 COMPANY EXPERIENCE Less important than Factor 2

FACTOR 4 VOLUME 1, TAB 4 PAST PERFORMANCE Less important than Factor 3

FACTOR 5 VOLUME 2, TAB 1

SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION

Less important than Factor 4

FACTOR 6 VOLUME 2, TAB 2 PRICE

Significantly less important than all other Factors combined

Note: Factors 1 and 2 combined are significantly more important than Factors 3, 4, and 5 combined. All technical factors combined are significantly more important than price. Price will not be rated, but will be evaluated for reasonableness through the use of price analysis, and if necessary, for price realism.

VOLUME I

TECHNICAL (NON-PRICE) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION METHOD

FACTOR 1 (TAB 1) – Project Schedule

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Proposed Project Schedule will be used to evaluate the offeror’s construction plan. The schedule submittal will also be used to assess the Offeror’s understanding and the capability to execute the project.

Schedule requirements:

a. Follow all submission requirements as described in the Proposed Project Schedule, Section 01 32

01.00 10, (Attachment C).

b. Scheduled durations shall not exceed those specified in FAR clause 52.211-10, “Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work.”

c. Schedule shall reflect all work restrictions identified in Solicitation Specification 01 14 00.

d. For proposal evaluation purposes only, the Offeror should use 15 April 2018 Notice to Proceed

(NTP) date.

e. Include no less than 75 activities and no more than 300 activities. Activity steps are not to be used for the Proposed Project Schedule.

f. Schedule shall be submitted in Gantt chart layout printed 11x17 (folded) in color and shall be submitted on a CD/DVD in .xer format.

g. Schedule narrative that describes the schedule and explains the Offeror’s approach to the individual activities and overall plan for this project.

EVALUATION METHOD:

The Government will evaluate the schedule and schedule narrative to assess if the schedule is reasonable and achievable by verifying the Offeror’s understanding of the project scope, submittal schedules, equipment procurement, construction methodology, key milestones, and contract-required schedule constraints and restrictions.

The strength of understanding of the project scope; restrictions which must be considered in the schedule (e.g. lead items, etc.) will also be taken into account.

The following will be evaluated:

Adheres to Section 01 32 01.00 10, Proposed Project Schedule (Attachment C)

Phase durations do not exceed those in “FAR clause 52.211-10, Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work”

Schedule includes contract-required constraints and restrictions Schedule methodology is realistic and achievable Activity durations appear reasonable compared to activity’s magnitude and complexity

Relationships appear reasonable and are in-line with industry construction processes

A Proposed Schedule will be considered more favorable if it includes a shorter-than-required operational Fish Passage Facility completion (see 01 10 10.00 25 para 1.2.1), accounted in reduction of full 180 day increments.

FACTOR 2 (TAB 2) – Care & Diversion of Water Work Plan (C&DW):

The Offeror shall submit :

A) A work plan that matches Specs 01 56 00 & Vol 10. C&DW; OR

B) An alternate work plan that matches the same criteria for C&DW and temporary fish passage per Specification 01 56 00.

Either submission must explain what C&DW features will be accomplished by key subcontractors listed under Factor 3.

The C&DW Work Plan shall include both a narrative (8.5 x 11) and/or drawing sheets (11x17 folded) in sufficient detail to affirmatively demonstrate that the Offeror’s proposal is workable and the end results achievable. A complete submission will include the following:

1. Care and Diversion of Water (SPEC 01 56 00) :

a. C&DW Phasing: construction sequencing, methodology, equipment

b. Cofferdam System: material type, plan, detail, elevation view

c. Fish barrier during construction: materials, operations, repairs

d. Diversion: location, flow capacity

e. Dewatering System: concept of operations, method of treatment, capacity to adequately manage infiltration,

f. Environmental controls: Draft Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Environmental Protection Plan (in-water work plan)

g. Temporary Facilities

i. Temporary Facilities for Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT) Hatchery: hatchery effluent capacity,

ii. Water supply to Cascade Marine Alliance (CWA) Diversion

h. Risk Management Plan

2. Temporary Fish Passage Facilities:

a. Water Supply & attraction flow

b. Fish ladder

c. Fish lifting & Truck Loading facilities

d. Fish handling & sorting facilities

3. Key Personnel: Fish Passage Engineer (see 01 56 00, para. 3.2.5.3)

a. This individual shall have a valid, active Professional License (P.E.) from the State of Washington.

b. Resume shall show significant experience (see 01 56 00, para. 3.2.5.3) designing fish passage projects.

c. The Offeror shall submit a letter of commitment for this individual, signed by both the individual and the offeror, demonstrating that he/she is available for the duration of the project.

The C&DW Plan narrative and drawings will be evaluated against the following four criteria:

1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Turbidity, Maintaining minimum flow, number of Fish Rescue required, number and Duration of in-water work, (Best Management Practices (BMP)’s to reduce contaminants to the river)

Minimum requirements: See 01 57 19 (draft Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Environmental Protection Plan with in-water work plan) More Favorable: Proposals that demonstrate proposed improvements over water quality standards and/or reduce the number of required in-water work windows will be evaluated more favorably.

2. FISH BARRIER

Minimum requirements: Pass 5 kcfs over the fish barrier with the ability to recover the fish barrier as flows recede below 3.6 kcfs (01 56 00, para 3.2.4) More Favorable: Pass 6.5 kcfs over the fish barrier with the ability to recover fish barrier as flows recede below 3.6 kcfs

3. MAXIMUM DESIGN FLOW

Minimum requirements: 6.5 kcfs (See 01 56 00, para 3.2.2) More Favorable: C&DW plan allows for greater than or equal to 8 kcfs maximum river flow during construction.

4. TEMPORARY FISH PASSAGE

Minimum Requirements: CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS (01 56 00, para 3.2.5) including key personnel.

More Favorable: An adaptable fish passage plan that includes: additional attraction flow, multiple fish entrances, and/or an ability to respond to varying river conditions and fish behaviors.

FACTOR 3 (TAB 3) – Company Experience

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

For this Factor, the Offeror shall submit five (5) project examples. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) will be evaluated in the order they are presented in the proposal. Information submitted for each project must include the information outlined in Attachment B, Company Experience Form.

To be evaluated, all projects must have been completed within ten (10) years of the date that proposals are due. One

(1) project must be construction of a fish passage facility valued equal to or greater than $3M as either a prime or subcontrator. The remaining four (4) projects may be either a fish passage facility or heavy marine/riverine construction, but the total project value of each must be valued equal to or greater than $50M.

Two (2) of the five (5) projects shall have been performed as the Prime contractor.

The other three (3) projects may have been completed AS a subcontractor or BY a subcontractor with a subcontracted valued equal to or greater than $15M, excluding the single required fish passage facility.

If the offeror submits a project(s) demonstrating experience by a subcontractor, i.e. a firm that is not the prime contractor or part of a joint venture, the offeror shall submit a letter of commitment signed by both the subcontractor and the prime contractor. If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered or evaluated. Reference Attachment D – Letter of Commitment of Subcontractor.

Offerors shall describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess whether the projects submitted meet the requirements of this solicitation.

Additionally, submit Past Performance information for each of the five (5) projects. The Past Performance evaluation information must be included with each project example.

Submit a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation with each project if available.

If a CPARS evaluation is not available, offerors may submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal ONLY if a CPARS is not available.

For the purpose of this project, the following relevancy definitions will apply:

1. Fish Passage Facilities: Any project that includes but not limited to fish ladders, upstream or downstream fish passage, construction of Research, Monitoring, & Evaluation facilities, and/or trap & haul facilities.

2. Heavy Marine/ Riverine Construction: Any project that involves In-Water or Underwater Construction.

Examples include, but are not limited to bridges, dams, coffer dams, piers, locks, seawalls, wharves, riverine work.

There are four additional relevancy areas: Care & Diversion of Water, Fish Mitigation, Mechanical Experience, and Geographic Location. (See below matrix)

Using a matrix similar to that shown below, clearly identify to which additional relevancy area(s) each project example pertains (i.e. Project 1 for the Prime Offeror may qualify and be listed only for C&DW; Project 5 demonstrating experience of the Prime Offeror or a Subcontractor on a Fish Passage Project; etc):

Relevant Experience Matrix

Project Title

C&DW

Fish Mitigation

Mechanical Experience

Geographic Location

Prime Offeror, Project 1

X

Prime Offeror, Project 2

X X

Prime Offeror or Sub, Project 3

X X X

Prime Offeror or Sub, Project 4

X X

Prime Offeror or Sub, Fish Passage Project 5

X

This factor will be evaluated for quality of experience demonstrated. The more relevant the prior project experience to this solicitation, the higher the rating assigned for the experience. . Experience with the following four relevancy areas may be evaluated more favorably:

1. Care & Diversion of Water in Riverine Conditions including construction of coffer dams and river diversions.

2. Fish Mitigation: projects including fish exclusion or fish rescue and/or permanent or temporary fish passage.

3. Mechanical Experience: Large diameter pipes, valves, tainter gates, hydraulic gates, and/or water control gates.

4. Geographic Location: Project located in the Pacific Northwest

FACTOR 4 (TAB 2) – Past Performance of the Prime Offeror

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the prime offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the scope of work as outlined in the solicitation requirements

Each offeror’s past performance will initially be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the solicitation. Recent and relevant projects are those projects completed within the past six (6) years from the solicitation response due date featuring work that is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to what is required in the solicitation. Note that for the purposes of this solicitation, relevant project magnitude is defined as projects valued equal to or greater than $50M ($3M for Fish Passage Facility) and that are similar in scope and complexity to the work in this requirement. Next, the past performance will be evaluated to determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts. If the proposal is from a Joint Venture or Partnership, Past Performance information for each partner will be reviewed.

At a minimum, the Government will review past performance information from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), when available.

Additional sources of Past Performance information for evaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:

Offeror may submit past performance information using the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for projects completed within six (6) years submitted under Factor 3, Company Experince.

The Government may obtain past performance information from other established systems such as the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) or other databases; as well as from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror. Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

Evaluation Method:

The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the project outlined in the solicitation requirements.

There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality, which will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment for each offeror.

The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period (six (6) years) during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the solicitation.

The third is to assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on recent and relevant efforts. . The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to ensure previous work performance satisfactorily met the contract requirements, performance schedules, prescribed quality of work, safety requirements,.

The Government reserves the right to obtain or verify offeror’s past performance information from references and other sources available to the Government.

Past performance under Factor 4 will be evaluated using the four (4) levels of relevancy as stated in Table 2, and five (5) levels of confidence as stated in Table 3:

Table 2. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

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.

The Past Performance evaluation will result in a single Performance Confidence Rating for each offeror, an assessment of the probability an offeror will meet contract requirements should that offeror be awarded a contract.

The Rating results from the merging of assessment information on (a) the extent of relevance/recency of prior contracts, and (b) the quality of prior performance.

Table 3. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE RATINGS

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.

In the case of an offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the Factor of past performance. A rating of Unknown Confidence (Neutral) will be assigned. ”

VOLUME II

NON-TECHNICAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION METHOD

FACTOR 5 (TAB 1) – Small Business Participation

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Plan to be evaluated under Small Business Participation. The plan shall identify the extent to which small businesses will participate in the performance of the proposed acquisition. In accordance with FAR clause 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications, the NAICS code for this acquisition is 237990, with a small business size standard of $36,500,000.

Large business Prime Offerors may achieve the small business participations goals through subcontracting to small businesses.

Small business Prime Offerors may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a Prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses.

The District has provided the following draft Seattle District Small Business goals as a reference to model the offeror’s targeted objectives. Once submitted in the proposal, the Plan is a commitment and will be compared to the awardee’s post-award Subcontracting Plan submittal (if applicable).

The proposal must identify the extent to which Small Businesses (SBs), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), Woman-Owned SBs (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) SBs, Veteran Owned SBs (VOSBs), and/or Service Disabled Veteran Owned SBs (SDVOSBs) would be utilized in the performance of this contract opportunity (as small business Prime Offerors and/or small business Subcontractors).

Seattle District Goals:

Small Business 35% Small Disadvantaged Business 25% Woman Owned Small Business 9% HUBZone Small Business 1% Veteran Owned Small Business 2% Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 12%

Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall provide a Small Business Participation Proposal. Reference Attachment E for a Small Business Participation Proposal to be completed.

Small Business Participation Plans will be evaluated on the basis of:

a. The…