W912DW18R0001_Amend_6.pdf

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

1. This amendment (0006) provides for the follow ing changes:

a. Revision to Section 00 22 00 Evaluation Factors for Aw ard (outlined in red).

b. Attach the follow ing documents for informational purposes only:

Pre-proposal Site Visit Attendees 11/07/2017

Pre-proposal Site Visit Attendees 11/13/2017

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-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

14-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

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DW-18-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 11 00 - SF 1442 AND CLIN SCHEDULE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

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.

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, and Price); shall be in the form prescribed herein;

and shall meet the minimum submittal requirements stated.

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 nature, 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.

Team: The Offeror’s “team” is the Key Personnel and any subcontracting firms, taken as a whole.

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

TECHNICAL MERIT RATINGS: The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets, or does not meet, the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. Proposals will receive ratings in accordance with the adjectival descriptions below. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings for Evaluation of Factors

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.

Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for reasonableness through the use of a price analysis, and if necessary, for price realism.

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The basis of contract award will be the Tradeoff Process in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

15.101-1. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of evaluation Factors described below. Reference Technical Evaluation Factors Table below regarding relative importance of Factors.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

LOCATION DESCRIPTION RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

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

FACTOR 2 VOLUME 1, TAB 1

CARE & DIVERSION

WATER WORK PLAN

Less important than Factor 1

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

FACTOR 4 VOLUME 1, TAB 2 PAST PERFORMANCE Less important than Factor 3

FACTOR 5 VOLUME 1, TAB 3 SMALL BUSINESS Less important than Factor 4

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.

Volume I – Technical (Non-Price) Submission Requirements and Evaluation Method:

FACTOR 1 (TAB 1) – Schedule

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Proposed Project Schedule will be used to evaluate strengths, weaknesses, and the offeror’s construction plan and strategy. The schedule submittal will also be used to assess the Offeror’s understanding and the capability to execute the project by verifying the Offeror’s understanding the project scope, submittal schedules, equipment procurement, construction methodology, key milestones, and contract-required schedule constraints and restrictions.

Schedule requirements:

a. Follow all submission requirements as described in the Proposed Project Schedule (Attachment C).

b. Scheduled durations shall not exceed those specified in Special Clauses, Section 00 72 00, “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 shall not 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 shall be included 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. 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 Proposed Project Schedule (Attachment C)

Phase durations do not exceed those in Special Clauses, Section 00 72 00, “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 normal 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 1) – Care & Diversion of Water Work Plan:

The Offeror shall submit :

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

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

01 56 00. Offerors should explain what C&DW features will be accomplished by key subcontractors listed under

Factor 3.

The C&DW Plan shall include both a narrative (8.5 x 11) and drawing sheets (11x17 folded). The following items shall be included:

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

a. C&D 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 MIT Hatchery: hatchery effluent capacity,

ii. Water supply to 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. The applicant must be currently licensed in another state and must be a licensed

Washington State PE by the time of award. Applicant must still meet the minimum experience requirements.

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

c. Offerors shall submit a signed letter of commitment for this individual 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, 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)

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

FACTOR 3 (TAB 1) – Experience

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

For this Factor, the Offeror shall submit five (5) project examples. If more than five are submitted, only the first five will be evaluated. Information submitted for each project must include the information outlined in

Attachment B, Offeror’s Experience Form.

To be evaluated, 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 over $3M. The other four (4) projects may be either a fish passage facility, or heavy marine/ riverine construction, but they must be valued over $50M each.

Two of the five projects must have been performed as the Prime contractor. The other three may have been performed as a Sub-Contractor.

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.

For the purpose of this project, the following 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

Offeror or

Sub, Project

Offeror or

Sub, Project

Offeror or

Sub, Fish

Passage

Project 5

This factor will be evaluated for the quantity and quality of experience demonstrated. The more relevant the prior project experience to this solicitation, the higher the rating assigned for the experience during evaluations.

Demonstration of experience in completing projects that were similar in scope, size, and complexity to the proposed project will be evaluated more favorably. Experience with the following four types of projects will be evaluated more favorably:

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

2. Fish Passage: 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

The offeror shall provide past performance information for each project listed by the offeror under Factor 3, Experience. Recent and relevant projects are those projects completed within six (6) years of the date that proposals are due that are valued over $50M ($3M for Fish Passage Facility) and that are similar in scope and complexity to the work in this requirement.

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal. Offerors shall not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available. If both are submitted, only the CPARS will be evaluated. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal

ONLY if a CPARS is not available. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ

(Attachment A), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Monique

Paano, via email at Monique.A.Paano@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line. The PPQs are Source Selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an e-mail confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is their responsibility to follow up to ensure the government has received the information.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted past performance information in the past performance evaluation.

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

In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance.

Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the PPIRS, including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s),FAPIIS, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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.

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 aspects to the past performance evaluation.

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

The second is to evaluate whether the offeror’s past performance is relevant or not relevant to the project (Relevancy

Rating).

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts (Performance Confidence Rating). 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, and other customer expectations on these projects.

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 shall be evaluated using the four levels of relevancy as stated in Table 2, and five 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.

Table 3. PAST 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 offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

FACTOR 5 (TAB 3) – 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 Evaluation Factor. The offeror shall articulate how the offeror intends to meet the small business objectives described in the Small Business Evaluation Factor below:

Small Business 50%

Small Disadvantaged Business 40%

Woman Owned Small Business 12%

HUBZone Small Business 3%

Veteran Owned Small Business 4%

Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 17%

Small Business Participation Plan (Form)

(1) Check the applicable size and categories for the PRIME offeror -- Check all applicable boxes:

{ } Large Prime or

{ } Small Business Prime; also categorized as a

{ } Small Disadvantaged Business

{ } Woman-Owned Small Business

{ } HUB Zone Small Business

{ } Veteran Owned Small Business

{ } Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

(2) Submit the total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors):

Example: If Prime proposes a price of $1,000,000 (including all options), and small business(es) will provide $250,000 in services/supplies as a prime or subcontractor, the % planned for small businesses is 25%; and 75% for large business equaling 100%.

Note: When combined, Large and Small Business totals must equal 100%.

Percentage of Total Contract Dollars/Price

Total Percentage planned for Large Business(es) _______%

Total Percentage planned for Small Business(es) _______% = $ _______

Total: 100%

Note: When combined, Large and Small Business totals must equal 100%.

(3) Please indicate the total percentage of participation to be performed by each type of small business. The percentage of work performed by Small Businesses that qualify in multiple small business categories may be counted in each category:

Example: Victory Prop Mgt (WOSB and SDVOSB) performing 2%; and Gentleman Concierge (SDB, HubZ and

WOSB) performing 3%. Results equate to: SDB 3%; HubZone 3%; WOSB 5%; SDVOSB 2%; VOSB 2%; 0%

HBCU/MI). SDVOSBs are also VOSBs automatically; however VOSBs are not automatically SDVOSBs.

Small Business _____%

Small Disadvantaged Business _____%

Woman Owned Small Business _____%

HUBZone Small Business _____%

Veteran Owned Small Business _____%

Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business _____%

(4) List principle supplies/services to be performed by Small Businesses:

Example: If a Small Business qualifies also as a WOSB and a SDVOSB, and you can add them to each category below in which they qualify.

Name of Company Identify Type of Service/Supply

Small:

Small Disadvantaged:

Women-Owned Small:

HUB Zone Small:

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

a. The extent to which Small Business (SB) firms are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to SB firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

c. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to be perform;

d. Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of

Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan; and

e. The extent of participation of SB firms in terms of the percentage of total contract value and the extent of which the proposals meets or exceeds the small business participation goals for this acquisition.

The rating method in Table 1, Combined Technical/Risk Ratings for Evaluation of Factors, above, shall be used in assigning ratings for Small Business Participation.

Volume II - Price.

Price Evaluation

Award will be made 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.

The Price Proposal will be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness.

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

(End of Section 00 22 00)

(End of Summary of Changes)

Name Firm Position Phone # Arrival Release

Site?

Left Left Bank?

Sean Bova Ascendent Demolition Estimator 253-405-0146 900 No release left Rick Estes Ascendent Demolition Estimator 253-273-3153 900 No release left Bob Dempsey Elcon Corporation VP-Estimating 425-760-1062 1000 no release left Keith Dews Elcon Corporation Senior Estimator 425-609-3451 1000 no release left Hamilton Puangnak GEO Engineers Geo technical Engineer (417) 455-3389 900 no release left Colt Savage Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. Project Engineer 808-425-2150 900 release left Joel Harwood Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. Superintendent (425) 512-4916 900 release left Chris Hansen Nisqually Construction Services, LLC Project Manager/Estimator 253-722-5928 900 N/A Kevin Randich Nisqually Construction Services, LLC Estimator 360-791-1956 900 release left Steve Spencer Pacific Pile & Marine Chief Engineer (425) 444-3495 900 no release left Steven Parshall Tunista Construction Senior Project Manager (253)-212-6982 900 release left Robert Jordan Tunista Construction Civil Project Engineer (206)-578-2809 900 release left Walt Schwartz Nova Group, Inc. Vice President - Pacific NW Operations206-714-9289 930 release left John Phillips Nova Group, Inc. Senior Estimator 253-579-8233 930 release left Greg Larson Nova Group, Inc. Quality Control Manager 707-210-7194 930 N/A

Attended No Show

MMD FPF Site Viewing November 7, 2017

Name Firm Position Phone # Arrival Release Site?

Dillion Pigman Barnard Construction Project Engineer 406‐586‐1995 900 yes Nate Sayre Barnard Construction Project Engineer 315‐530‐3718 900 yes Craig Henke DBM Contractors, Inc General Superintendent 206‐730‐3547 900 no Jim Sexton DBM Contractors, Inc Construction Manager 206‐730‐3554 900 no Todd Borah DBM Contractors, Inc Superintendent 206‐730‐4585 900 Mike Kostenko F.D. Thomas, Inc. Vice President/estimator 541‐324‐4348 900 yes Ed Donahue, PE Fisheries and Environmental Consulting, LLC Biologist 360‐710‐6741 900 Jalen Johansen Johansen Excavating, Inc. President (360) 829‐6493 900 no Shane Webley Johansen Excavating, Inc. Vice President of Operations (360) 829‐6493 900 no Derrick Sas Johansen Excavating, Inc. Project Manager (360) 829‐6493 900 no Steve McClung Mike McClung Construction Co. Manager 360‐761‐7695 900 yes Kelson McClung Mike McClung Construction Co. Project Manager 360‐761‐7695 900 yes Dennis Kreutz Northern Electric, Inc. Vice President Business Development (303) 888 9960 900 yes Walt Schwartz Nova Group, Inc. Vice President ‐ Pacific NW Operations206‐714‐9289 900 no John Phillips Nova Group, Inc. Senior Estimator 253‐579‐8233 900 Greg Larson Nova Group, Inc. Nova Group, Inc. 707‐210‐7194 900 Randy Scarbrough NW Metal Fabricators Inc Special Projects Manager (541) 720‐8137 930 no Casey Gaughan Shimmick Construction Estimator 510‐750‐0169 900 yes Tom Hawken Tunista Construction Lead Estimator 206‐5952603 900 no Frank Immel Global Diving & Salvage, Inc. Business Development Account Executive 1000 no Tony Malin Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. Project Manager (925) 348‐0964 1000 yes Justin Jenkins Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. Construction Manager (707) 439‐7300 1000 yes Jim Studer Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. Project Sponsor 925‐525‐6189 1000 Jim Shellooe, PE Amec Foster Wheeler Environmental Compliance Manager 425 985 6835 1030 yes Courtney Soyring Titan Demo Manager 253985185 900 no Greg Nickell Titan Project Manager 2067301627 900 no

Attended No Show

MMD FPF Site Viewing | Monday November 13, 2017