W912DW21R0028 Amendment 0001.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

Amendment 0001

(Please see continuation sheet)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 22

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Jun-2021

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 W912DW21R0028

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-May-2021

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, 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

04-Jun-2021

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:

W912DW21R0028

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

1. This amendment provides for the following changes:

a. Section 00 21 00 is revised.

b. Section 00 21 16 is revised.

c. Section 00 22 00 is revised.

2. The attached revised sections are to be replaced in their entirety. All portions of the revised sections shall apply whether or not changes have been indicated.

3. NOTICE: Offerors must acknowledge receipt of this amendment by number and date on offer.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFEROR

1. General Description of Work

2. Disclosure of the Magnitude of Construction

3. Copies of Solicitation Documents and Amendments

4. Offeror’s Questions and Comments

5. Small Business Size Standard / NAICS Code:

6. Proposal Expenses and Pre-Award Costs

7. Pre-Proposal Site Visit

8. Accuracy in Proposals

9. Proposal Submittals

10. Bid Guarantee

11. Subcontracting Plan

12. Solicitation Provisions

1. General Description of Work:

Contract Title: Chief Joseph Dam Intake and Tailrace Crane Replacement, Bridgeport, WA.

Libby Dam Intake Crane Replacement, Libby, MT.

Libby Dam is located on the Kootenai River, a tributary of the Columbia River and located near the town of Libby, Montana. The existing intake crane was designed and fabricated by Fulton Shipyard and installed in 1973.

Design, fabricate, transport to site, install, and commission a new intake gantry crane.

o The new crane will have 3 hoists, located on 2 trolleys at two different levels. The main hoist trolley will support the 100-ton Main Hoist. The Aux and Trash trolley will support the 70-ton Aux Hoist and 15-ton Trash Rack Hoist. Hoist functions are largely identical to existing.

o The new crane will have an onboard emergency generator fueled by liquid propane.

Design, fabricate, transport to site, and test five new lifting beams for the new intake gantry crane o Main Hoist Lifting Beam o Sluiceway Emergency Closure Gate Lifting Beam o Penstock Bulkhead Lifting Beam o Penstock Trash Rack Lifting Beam o Selective Withdrawal Lifting Beam

Remove existing gantry crane and lifting devices from site.

Remove existing rail heaters and replace with new rail heaters, including removal and re-installation of asphalt in the rail pockets.

Remove existing crane electrification system and replace with new crane electrification system.

2. Disclosure of the Magnitude of Construction:

In accordance with DFARS 236.204(ii) “Disclosure of the Magnitude of Construction Projects,” the magnitude of the project is estimated between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000.

3. Copies of Solicitation Documents and Amendments:

Copies of the solicitation and amendments are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All solicitation documents will be posted to the U.S.

Government’s Contract Opportunities website at: https://Beta.SAM.gov under Solicitation Number W912DW21R0028. A list of interested vendors (potential offerors and subcontractors) is available on the web site (registration required) with the solicitation announcement.

NOTE: Beta.SAM.gov is the new official U.S. Government website for Contract Opportunities.

It shall be the contractor’s responsibility to check the websites for any amendments. The Offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation.

4. Offeror’s Questions and Comments:

Offeror Inquiry

I. Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.projnet.org/projnet.

a. To submit and review bid inquiry items, offerors will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system. To self-register go to web page, click BID tab select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter Key for this solicitation listed below, and your e-mail address, click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that information on next screen is correct and then click continue.

b. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add inquiry.

c. Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

d. The Solicitation Number is: W912DW21R0028

e. The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 4Z4ATT-TH7JRE

II. The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquires 3 business days prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary.

III. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

IV. The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM

U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

V. Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

5. Small Business Size Standard / NAICS Code:

See Section 00 45 00, Provision 52.204-8 for the NAICS code and small business size standard.

6. Proposal Expenses and Pre-Award Costs:

This Request for Proposals (RFP) does not commit the Government to pay, as a direct charge, any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal.

7. Pre-Proposal Site Visit:

A pre-proposal Offeror conference and site visit WILL NOT be conducted due to the COVID19 national emergency.

All Department of Defense travel is restricted due to the COVID19 national emergency. A bidder site visit cannot be supported until the travel restrictions are lifted. In lieu of a site visit, you are invited to download selected photographs highlighting areas provided to the successful Offeror for storage, staging, and disposal presented in a following document that will be provided withing several days of the release of this RFP. Comments and questions may be submitted Using ProjNet as instructed on page 10 (https://www.projnet.org)

8. Accuracy in Proposals:

Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP (including attachments). The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

9. Proposal Submittals

In strict compliance with guidance relating to the current situation with COVID-19 and social distancing, the only authorized transmission method for proposals in response to this solicitation is electronically via EMAIL Proposals must be submitted to the following email address:

alex.r.marcinkiewicz@usace.army.mil

10. Bid Guarantee:

The Standard Form (SF) 24, dated 08/2016, shall be used for the submission of your bid bond and can be obtained from https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms#SF. Submit the bid bond via email with your proposal.

Submit an electronic bid bond with your proposal. Bid Bonds (SF24) must be accompanied by a Power of Attorney containing an original or electronic signature from the surety, which must be affixed to the Power of Attorney after the Power of Attorney has been generated. Computer generated and signed Powers of Attorney will be accepted if accompanied by a certification from a current officer of the surety attesting to its authenticity and continuing validity.

NOTE: Digital scans, or photographed or otherwise reproduced images, of ink signatures are not considered acceptable "electronic signatures." If a required submitted document does not contain electronic signatures, you must submit original hard-copy documents.

11. Subcontracting Plan

Submission Requirements (NOTE: This Requirement only applies to the otherwise successful Offeror if it is other than a Small Business.

If the Offeror proposing on this solicitation is a large business concern, in accordance with the definition as identified in FAR Clause 52.219-1, “SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REPRESENTATION”, upon notification that it is the apparent successful Offeror, the firm must submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (Jan 2002) The goals established for small business, small disadvantaged business, woman-owned business, HUBZone business, Service disabled veteran-owned small business participation are:

1) 10% of total contract dollars will be placed with all small business concerns. For the purpose of this subcontracting plan, Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-owned Small Business (WOSB), HUBZone Small Business, Veteran-owned Small Business, and Service Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business concerns are subsets of small business concerns.

2) 1% of total contract dollars will be placed with small disadvantaged business concerns or Historically Black Colleges and Universities or Minority Institutions. To be considered a small disadvantaged business concern, business must be certified by the Small Business Administration in addition to meeting the definition under FAR Clause 52.219-8(3).

3) 1% of total contract dollars will be placed with small women-owned business concerns. Women-owned business concerns may meet the definition of a small disadvantaged business. If so, it will also be considered a subset of a small disadvantaged business concern.

4) 1% of total contract dollars will be placed with HUBZone small business concerns.

To be considered a HUBZone small business concern, business must be certified by the U.S. Small Business Administration in addition to meeting the definition under FAR Clause 52.219-8(3).

5) 1% of total contract dollars will be placed with Service Disabled Veteran-owned small business concerns.

6) 2% of total contract dollars will be placed with Veteran-owned small business concerns.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be thorough, complete, and in accordance with AFARS Appendix DD and FAR Clause 52.219-9, as it will be incorporated into the contract upon award of the contract to the Offeror, if acceptable and upon final approval of the Contracting Officer. The Plan shall include a description of the types of services the firm proposes to subcontract with small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), woman-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), along with the proposed percentages of their participation, to demonstrate a plan to meet the subcontracting goals that will apply to these contracts. If practical, the Offeror shall provide specific information on proposed subcontracted effort for this project.

12. Solicitation Provisions

See the applicable Provisions for this Solicitation in Section 00 21 00 and Section 00 45 00.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Your firm is invited to submit a proposal in response to Request for Proposal (RFP) Number W912DW20R0028 for the project entitled “Libby Dam Intake Crane Replacement, Libby Dam, MT”. The Government intends to procure this requirement on a competitive basis in accordance with the provisions set forth in FAR Part 15 Contracting by Negotiations and within this Request For Proposal (RFP).

1.2. A firm fixed-price contract will be awarded to the Offeror submitting a proposal that (a) conforms to this Request for Proposal (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 are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2. GENERAL PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Proposal Format

The proposal shall be organized into the following two volumes:

a. Volume 1: Technical Proposal, 1 electronic copy (defined in paragraph 3 of this Section)

b. Volume 2: Price Proposal, 1 electronic copy (defined in paragraph 3 of this Section)

2.2 Content – General

The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP. Absence of information will be deemed as if no support for that criterion was provided. Offerors submitting proposals should limit submission to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and money is expended in preparing information required by the Request for Proposal (RFP). Penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001. Technical proposals must be limited to a total of 50 pages in length.

2.3 Table of Contents

A Table of Contents should be incorporated within all Volumes.

2.3 Page Numbering

All pages of each volume shall be appropriately identified with complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer.

3. ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

3.1 File format

The electronic proposal shall be Portable Document Format, filename extension: “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Text must be searchable.

3.2 Number of files

The proposal contents shall be presented as a separate PDF file for each Volume – (1) Technical Proposal, (2) Price Proposal .

3.3 Method of submission: The proposals shall be submitted via email to alex.r.marcinkiewicz@usace.army.mil

4.REQUIRED SECTIONS FOR SUBMITTAL

Proposals shall be organized as indicated below:

REQUIRED SECTIONS FOR VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Table of Contents

Factor 1: Work Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Experience

Subfactor 1: Design

Subfactor 2: Manufacturing

Subfactor 3: Installation

REQUIRED SECTIONS FOR VOLUME 2: PRICE PROPOSAL

Table of Contents Factor 4 Price Proposal

Tab 1: SF33, Solicitation, Offer and Award Cover Letter

Tab 2: Price/Bid Schedule SF1442, Solicitation, All Amendment and Offer Tab 3: Representations and Certifications Price Schedule Tab 4: Completed Representations and Certifications

5. DETAILED CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Technical Proposal, Volume 1: Consists of three factors with sub-factors. This section shall be specific and complete, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the requirements. It shall include, where applicable, diagrams and/or charts. Repeating or restating the specifications without sufficient elaboration will be considered as an indication of a lack of understanding of the requirement.

Factor 1: Work Plan

The factor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the required scope of work, identifying the major tasks and outline all major work necessary to complete those tasks. The work plan will be separated into three sections 1) Schedule; 2) Contractor Roles; 3) Narrative.

Section 1 – Schedule.

Develop a project schedule for the entire project duration from contract award to contract closeout. The schedule must be in PERT and GANTT format and shall not exceed two 11- by 17-inch pages, when printed.

This DRAFT schedule shall be a high-level schedule demonstrating the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements in this solicitation. It should include the completion of all base-bid items of work and depict nodes and activities necessary to complete each phase of work (design, manufacture/fabrication, and installation) as described in the specification and correspond to the offeror’s discussion of critical path and assumptions. For proposal purposes only, the offeror should use Notice to Proceed plus ‘x days.’ The schedule shall include the technical content listed below in P6 Primavera PERT and GANTT or Microsoft Project. Schedules not in one of these two formats (e.g., document table or spreadsheet) will not be evaluated.

1. For each line or activity on the schedule, identify the tasks and milestones listed below.

a. Activity name and/or description and durations strictly reflecting the Monday through Thursday 10-hour days at Libby Dam

b. Start and finish milestones

c. Float in days

2. Show tasks in successor order with relationships (e.g., start to start and start to finish) to successor activities

3. Clearly identify critical path activities

4. The following milestones must be clearly represented on the schedule.

a. Notice to proceed

b. Beneficial occupancy

c. Existing crane removal

d. Contract completion

5. The following phases or specific tasks must be represented on the schedule.

a. Design, including submittals preparation and Government submittals review (accounting for contract defined submittal review times; 30-days)

b. Manufacturing/Fabrication, including equipment procurement and delivery, identifying items with particularly long lead times

c. Installation, including new crane erection, testing, and commissioning; rail heater repairs; and old crane removal

d. Government personnel training

e. Preparation, submittal, and Government operation and maintenance manual and as-built drawings review

Section 2 – Contractor Roles:

Identify whether the offeror will be self-performing, or sub-contracting the major sub-portions of work indicated below:

New crane Design New crane Manufacturing New crane Installation

If the Offeror proposes a subcontractor for the design, manufacturing, and/or installation of the new crane, the Offeror must submit a signed letter of commitment from the subcontractor. The letter of commitment must clearly identify the role of the subcontractor and what portion of the work they will be performing.

The work plan does not need to identify sub-contractors performing minor portions of the work such as: load test weights, purchased items such as gearboxes, motors, or variable frequency drives, or transportation to the job site.

If the Offeror proposes a joint venture for the design, manufacture, and/or installation of the new crane, the Offeror must submit a joint venture agreement signed by all participating firms. The agreement must identify the role of each party.

Section 3 – Narrative:

The narrative must not exceed 15, single sided, 8.5- by 11-inch sized pages when printed. The narrative must include and/or address the technical content listed below.

A detailed narrative for accomplishing the work for each major tasks of work required by this RFP.

o New crane design o New crane components fabrication o New crane shop assembly o New crane shop testing o New crane transportation to the Libby Dam project site o New crane on-site installation and assembly o New crane inspection and load testing o Existing crane removal.

Address the likely risks and challenges completing design; manufacturing; and installation, certification, and cutover in the required contract period of performance and the Offeror’s plan for managing these risks.

Supporting discussion of the schedule Plan for managing subcontractors (if applicable).

Factor 2: Past Performance

If a completed CPARS evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the standard Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for USACE shall be submitted, Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11) is provided as Attachment A to the solicitation. PPQ-0 is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal under Factor 2, Past Performance, and for which a completed CPARS evaluation is not available. (Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.) Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available.

Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. 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, Alex Marcinkiewicz, via email at alex.r.marcinkiewicz@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. 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 PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer 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.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five seven years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. In addition to the above, the Government may review any 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 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 detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Factor 3: Experience

Offerors shall provide project information on relevant projects that best demonstrate the breadth and depth of an Offeror’s and/or their Subcontractor’s relevant new crane design, manufacturing, and installation experience.

If a sub-contractor is identified in Factor 1, the experience of that sub-contractor must be represented in the submitted project information. If a sub-contractor’s experience is included in Factor 3, that sub-contractor must be identified in Factor 1.

For each sub-factor in Factor 3, submit a minimum of one and maximum of three relevant projects. Projects must have been completed within seven years of the date of issue of the RFP or ongoing. For ongoing projects, the minimum level of completion is specified in each sub-factor. If the proposal includes more than three projects for each sub-factor, only the first three projects, in the order they appear in the proposal, will be evaluated.

The projects submitted for each sub-factor do not have to be the same. The combined experience demonstrated by the submitted projects must cover the general relevancy requirements and the specific relevancy requirements of each sub-factor.

The general relevancy requirements and definitions are as follows:

Submitted projects should involve the design, manufacture, and installation of new traveling cranes, including gantry cranes, semi-gantry cranes, or overhead (bridge cranes). All crane definitions are per

ASME B30.2.

The crane for each project submitted should have at least one hoist with a load rating of 50 tons or greater.

The crane for each project submitted should be custom designed or engineered to the specific installation.

Experience involving cranes that are considered “off-the-shelf” or “pre-engineered” items is considered not relevant.

For each project submitted, included the following information:

1. Project title and location

2. Dollar value of Project

3. Construction period (month/year start/end)

4. Customer point of contact (POC). Include: Name, title, email address, and telephone number.

5. Detailed project relevance narrative that, at a minimum, provides a description of how the project is relevant. Include information regarding the following, at a minimum:

a. Type of crane

b. Capacity of each hoist on the crane,

c. Number of trolleys

d. Identify the firm or firms that performed work and the role and extent of work for each firm.

e. Include a detailed description of the design, manufacturing, and/or installation experience involved with the project. See sub-factors for additional relevancy requirements that the narrative should address. Any engineering drawings and sketches must be accompanied by narrative explaining the drawings and sketches

Sub-factor 1: Design

Submit relevant project information for experience in designing new cranes. Submitted information should cover experience with design of the features in the list below.

Gantry frames Trolley frames End trucks Hoists Travel drives Operator’s cabs Crane controls and associated electrical equipment

For projects that are ongoing, the design must be 100 percent complete and crane fabrication begun. For design, 100 percent complete is defined as all crane design submittals and/or documentation have been approved by the owner/customer and released for construction. Projects that do not meet this level of completion will not be evaluated.

Sub-Factor 2: Manufacturing

Submit relevant project information for experience in manufacturing new cranes. Submitted information should cover the experience with the manufacture, fabrication, and shop assembly activities listed below.

Gantry frames Trolley frames End trucks Hoists Travel drives Operator’s cabs Crane controls and associated electrical equipment Integrated shop testing of new hoists, travel drives, end truck, crane controls, drives, and associated electrical equipment

For projects that are ongoing, the manufacturing must be 100 percent complete and the crane shipped to the work site. Projects that do not meet this level of completion will not be evaluated.

Sub-Factor 3: Installation

Submit relevant project information for experience in installing new cranes. Submitted information should cover experience with on-site activities listed below.

Gantry frame assembly Hoist trolley placement Field surveys Inspections Load testing Acceptance testing

For projects that are ongoing, the assembly and commissioning must be 100 percent complete and the owner/customer must have beneficial occupancy of the crane. Projects that do not meet this level of completion will not be evaluated.

6. DETAILED CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUME 2: PRICE PROPOSAL

This volume shall consist of all information, required to support proposed prices.

Price Proposal, Volume 2 (TABS 1-4)

TAB 1: Cover Letter: Submit a cover letter as the first page of this volume. The cover letter shall reflect the following information:

a. RFP number.

b. Name, address, e-mail address, and telephone numbers of the firm signing the SF 1442.

c. Names, titles, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers of person(s) authorized to negotiate on the firm's behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

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

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

f. A statement indicating compliance with all insurance requirements stated herein and that evidence of such will be provided after Contract award.

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

h. Prime Offeror: If the Offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture (JV), the DUNS and CAGE

Code for each firm representing the JV must be included.

TAB 2: SF1442, SOLICITATION, ALL AMENDMENTS AND OFFER

This tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness. The SF1442 shall be filled out completely by the offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. The offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in Block 19 of the 1442.

TAB 3: Bid Price Schedule

Section 00 10 00. Provide a completed bid Price schedule.

TAB 4: COMPLETED REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications and Pre-Award information, fill in all information to include company information, banking information and bonding/surety information of the firm signing the SF1442.

PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

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

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. BASIS OF AWARD

Award of the contract will be made based on the best-value, trade-off source selection process, as outlined in FAR 15.101-1. The Government may award to other than the lowest priced offeror or to other than the highest technically rated offeror. The Government will consider trade-offs among price and non-price factors. The non-price factors, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price. The closer the total evaluated non-price ratings are to one another, the greater the importance of the price evaluation in making the best value determination.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the Contract without discussions. However, if discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals and conduct discussions with those Offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range.

If the Contracting Officer determines the number of proposals which would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. For these reasons, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Non-Price Evaluation Factors:

• Factor 1 – Work Plan

• Factor 2 – Past Performance

• Factor 3 – Experience

2.2 Non-Price Evaluation Factors:

• Factor 4 – Price

2.3. Summary of Order of Importance for Evaluation Factors:

The following table reflects the relative importance of all factors that will affect contract award.

TECHNICAL FACTORS RELATIVE IMPORTANCE___

Volume I – Technical Proposal; Factors 1-3 are equally rated Factor 2 subfactors are equally rated. The non-price factors, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price.

Factor 1 – Work Plan

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Experience

Volume II – Price Proposal; The non-price factors, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price.

Factor 4 – Price Proposal

2.4 Technical Rating Method – Factors 1 and 3:

Technical Rating Evaluation Processes. 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. The Government will use the combined technical/risk ratings set forth in Table 1 and the technical risk descriptions set forth in Table 2 for Factors 1 and

3. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1: COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is un-awardable.

TABLE 2: TECHNICAL RISK DESCRIPTIONS

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2.5 Past Performance Rating Method – Factor 2:

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Past Performance rating method that will be used is included under Factor 2.

2.6 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. See FAR 15.001.

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ 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. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

3. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The Government will evaluate proposals as set forth below:

3.1 Factor 1 –Work Plan:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Work Plan for how well the plan demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the scope of work, including challenges inherent in the work, and a detailed plan addressing issues specific to this project.

In determining strengths and weaknesses of the Offeror’s Work Plan the Government will consider the attributes included in the list below.

How well the Work Plan addresses the essential work tasks needed to complete the project, including critical path items, provides a realistic schedule duration for each work task, and sequences work tasks in a logical order.

The feasibility of the Offeror’s plan for managing and coordinating the tasks and durations included in the list below.

o The new crane design, shop fabrication and testing, delivery/transport/handling, field erection and assembly, crane acceptance, load testing, and demolition of existing crane o Submittal review periods o Completion, including removal, within the contract required period of performance o Long lead items.

How well the plan identifies risks/challenges and reasonableness of the Offeror’s plan to manage those risks/challenges

How well the plan describes the subcontractor coordination and communication necessary to successfully complete the work.

3.2 Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Government seeks a contractor who maintains a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in its technical proposal. In doing so, be mindful that “past performance” and “past experience” are not the same. Past experience measures what you have done and how many times, or for how long, you have done it. Past performance, however, measures how well you have performed.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: 1) recent (within ten (10) seven (7) years of the date of the solicitation submission period), 2) relevancy (including context of data), and 3) quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

1) The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. For this solicitation, recent projects are those projects completed or substantially completed within ten (10) seven (7)years of the date that proposals are due.

2) The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the work required by the solicitation.

a. There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below.

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 Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude

Relevant 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.

b. In assessing the relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance, the Government will consider the extent to which the projects are comparable in size, scope, and complexity with the solicited project, as further described under Factor 3.

c. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

3) The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed on the recent and relevant projects. If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type, and severity of the problems and effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

Based on a consideration of those three aspects for each project, the Government will assign a final Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be given for this factor. The Government will review the past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the Table below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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 be able to 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 relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may receive a Neutral Confidence rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable; it is considered neutral.

Note: The Government reserves the right to consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

Important Note: In addition to information provided in the technical proposal, the Government may consider other sources of past performance information including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (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), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), references and personal knowledge. These other sources may include telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the Offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability, and any other sources of past performance information. The Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey. However, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or other evaluations completed by entities other than the end customer, including self-completed evaluations will not be evaluated. The Government reserves the right to verify information provided in the past performance submissions While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

3.3 Factor 3 – Experience:

In determining strengths and weaknesses for Factor 3 and all Subfactors, the Government will consider the extent to which the Offeror’s past projects are relevant and similar in type, size, scope, and complexity to the solicited project, with particular emphasis on the following:

For the purposes of this RFP, a similar crane is defined as a new gantry crane that runs on rails and is operated outside of an enclosed structure with the following features:

o An overall height of 30 feet or greater o At least one hoist with a load rating of 50-tons or greater.

o At least one hoist on a movable trolley o An enclosed operator’s cab o Uses a programmable logic controller (PLC) for crane controls o Uses variable frequency drives (VFD) to allow for multiple hoist and travel speeds

Relevancy of crane type, to include whether the crane as designed for outdoor service. The following types of cranes are considered most relevant to the solicited project and are listed in descending order of relevance:

o Outdoor gantry cranes o Outdoor semi-gantry cranes o Indoor gantry cranes o Indoor semi-gantry cranes o Outdoor bridge cranes o Indoor bridge cranes o Other types of traveling cranes o All other types of cranes.

Cranes having the features or capabilities listed below are considered more relevant than those without.

o Multiple independent hoists (i.e,. main and auxiliary hoists) o Multiple trolleys on multiple levels (vertical) or runways.

o Cantilevered trolley runway where the runway extends transversely beyond the gantry runway on one or both sides.

o Ability to hoist equipment in and out of a dynamic river water environment.

o Ability to handle loads subject to hydrodynamic loading (aka hydraulic downpull).

o Ability to withstand year-round outdoor operation under varying extreme weather conditions ranging from sub-freezing temperatures to 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

o Multiple power sources, such as shore power and on-board generator.

Similarity of crane phases. The extent to which each project, and all projects combined, demonstrate that the Offeror has experience with all three major project phases: design, manufacture, and installation.

Projects that demonstrate successful experience with all major project phases may be considered more relevant than projects that do not.

Similarity of crane contract values. The extent to which each project demonstrates that the Offeror has experience with crane projects similar in complexity and risk as indicated by comparability to the expected magnitude of construction for this requirement. Projects that demonstrate successful experience with contract values in the same range or greater may be considered more relevant than projects that do not.

3.4 Factor 4 – Price:

The Price Proposal will be evaluated using price analysis techniques to determine price reasonableness.

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or sub-line 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 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 Summary of Changes)