W912DW21R0033 - Amendment 0003.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 0003

(Please see the continuation sheet)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Jan-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 W912DW21R0033

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Dec-2020

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 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

28-Jan-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:

W912DW21R0033

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 0003

1. This amendment provides for the following changes:

a. Section 00 21 16 “Factor 1” is revised.

b. Section 01 22 00 is revised with additional information.

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.

Attch:

Section 00 21 16 (revised) Section 01 22 00 (revised)

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

The proposal submission instructions are contained in Section 00 21 16 of the Request for Proposal (RFP). Section 00 21 16 of the solicitation contains specific information on what must be furnished with the proposal and identifies evaluation criteria that will be used in evaluating proposals received.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Your firm is invited to submit a proposal in response to Request for Proposal (RFP) Number W912DW20R0033 for the project entitled “Chief Joseph Dam Intake and Tailrace Crane Replacements, Seattle District: Chief Joseph Dam, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)”. 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. 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: Experience

Subfactor 1.1: Design Experience

Subfactor 1.2: Manufacturing Experience

Subfactor 1.3: Installation Experience Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Work Plan

REQUIRED SECTIONS FOR VOLUME 2: PRICE PROPOSAL

Table of Contents Factor 4 Price Proposal

Tab 1: SF33, Solicitation, Offer and Award

Tab 2: Cost/Price Schedule Tab 3: 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: Experience

The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate relevant crane replacement experience, by themselves or their subcontractor, that is similar in scope and complexity by providing project examples of relevant work performed in Factor 1. Relevant crane replacement experience includes the design, manufacturing, and installation work performed in order to provide new or replacement gantry cranes, semi-gantry cranes, or special service cranes (such as container cranes or portal cranes). Similar in scope and complexity is defined as a project involving the design, manufacture, and installation of a new gantry crane with a minimum crane rating of 50 tons.

The proposal shall contain details of at least one (1), but no more than THREE (3), relevant projects performed by the Offeror or their subcontractor and completed or at least 75% physically complete prior to bid submission within the past SEVEN (7) years TEN (10) years. The COMBINED experience demonstrated by the submitted projects must cover the experience required by the SUBFACTORS below.

SUBFACTOR 1.1: Design expertise in designing new Gantry Cranes. An acceptable submission would be at least one completed project where the Offeror or subcontractor successfully designed a NEW gantry crane (including, but not limited to, gantry frames, trolley frames, hoists, drive trucks, gantry and trolley drives, operator cabs, hoist and travel controls), and associated electrical equipment. At least one completed project must show design experience with slewing or rotating crane hoists.

SUBFACTOR 1.2: Manufacturing expertise in manufacturing new Gantry Cranes. An acceptable submission would be at least one completed project where the Offeror or subcontractor successfully manufactured a new gantry crane (including, but not limited to, gantry frames, trolley frames, hoists, drive trucks, gantry and trolley drives, operator cabs, hoist and travel controls); assembled, integrated, and tested new crane controls, drives, and associated electrical equipment; fabricated and assembled new crane hoists, and new gantry drive truck assemblies (including, but not limited to truck frames, drive shafts, gear reductions, torque arm assemblies and equalizer pins).

SUBFACTOR 1.3: Installation expertise in installing new Gantry Cranes. An acceptable submission would be at least one completed project installation, including, but not limited to gantry frame field assembly, hoist trolley placement, field surveys and inspection, equipment balancing, no-load performance tests, and load testing and other commissioning activities.

The required information for each relevant project example is presented in the table below.

1. Project Title and Location

2. Dollar Value of Construction

3. The name of the Person Responsible for Performance

4. Designer of Record

5. Construction Period

a. Month/year START to month/year END.

b. Projects with missing dates are not responsive.

6. Customer Point of Contact (POC)

a. At a minimum, include the customer POC name, title, email address, and telephone number, accompanied by a description of the customer’s relationship to project, customer’s agency/firm affiliation.

7. Design Experience: Written description of the design effort required for the project.

Description must include all aspects and features of SUBFACTOR 1.1 above.

Supplemental drawings may also be included but are not an acceptable substitute for the written description.

8. Manufacturing Experience: Written description of the manufacturing capabilities employed for the project. Description must include all aspects and features of SUBFACTOR 1.2 above. Supplemental drawings may also be included but are not an acceptable substitute for the written description.

9. Installation Experience: Written description of the installation capabilities employed for the project. Description must include all aspects and features of SUBFACTOR 1.3 above. Supplemental drawings may also be included but are not an acceptable substitute for the written description.

Instructions on the use of subcontractors to fulfill the work: If the Offeror is proposing to subcontract design, manufacturing, and/or installation, the Offeror must submit information for its subcontractor to demonstrate the subcontractor’s experience performing work similar in scope, and complexity to the work required by this solicitation. The Offeror must submit a letter of commitment from the subcontractor on the letterhead of the firm to be subcontracted. The letter of commitment must be a signed by an authorized individual from the subcontractor that is proposed to perform the work. If a letter of commitment is not submitted and signed, the experience will not be considered.

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 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: Work Plan

The Offeror shall submit a work plan consisting of a schedule and project management plan.

a. Schedule – Submit a schedule, in Gantt chart format, showing all essential work tasks needed to complete the project. Clearly indicate critical path items, durations for each task, and task sequencing (i.e., clearly depict which tasks are performed concurrently and which tasks are performed consecutively).

b. Project Management Plan – Submit a project management plan that includes the following:

- A supporting discussion of the schedule and a detailed narrative for each major project phase (design, manufacture, installation/testing, and removal). Include the name of the firm that will be performing each project phase if other than the Offeror;

- The likely risks/challenges to be encountered on the project and the Offeror’s plan for managing those risks/challenges; and

- The Offeror’s plan for managing subcontractors if applicable.

The Project Management Plan shall not exceed 10, single sided pages, when printed.

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 Schedule

Section 00 10 00. Provide a completed bid 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

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

B. 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 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 – Experience

• Factor 2 – Past Performance

• Factor 3 – Work Plan

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 and 3 are equally important and more important than Factor 2. All non-price factors, when combined, are more important than price.

Factor 1 –Experience

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 –Work Plan

Volume II – Price Proposal; All factors, other than price, when combined, are 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:

CLARIFICATION NOTE about this Best Value Trade Off evaluation:

Per Section 00 21 16, paragraph A5, offerors must clearly demonstrate "relevant crane replacement experience," which is further defined as "the design, manufacturing, and installation work performed in order to provide new or replacement gantry cranes, semi-gantry cranes, or special service cranes (such as container orportal cranes)."

Within the context of this definition, the word "new" refers to cranes designed, manufactured, and installed on new facilities as part of a larger new construction project. The word "replacement" refers to cranes designed, manufactured, and installed on existing facilities as part of a crane replacement or other smaller scale construction project. The design, manufacture, and installation of new or replacement cranes is more complex and poses challenges not faced in crane rehab or refurbishment projects. It is in the Government's best interest to award this solicitation to a Contractor with experience designing, manufacturing, and installing new or replacement cranes, hence the requirement to clearly demonstrate experience with new or replacement cranes. Provided that an offeror's past experience satisfies the definition of "relevant crane replacement experience", it will then be evaluated by the Government in accordance with Section 00 22 00, paragraph B3. Note that this paragraph describes how the Government may assign strengths or weaknesses based on the similarity of an offeror's past experience to what is outlined in paragraph B3.1. For example, past experience with mostly indoor cranes may be viewed as a weakness since the cranes in this solicitation are outdoor cranes and pose challenges not associated withindoor cranes. Likewise, experience with a much taller or much higher capacity crane may be viewed as a strength since that would represent a more complex crane than those in this solicitation and would therefore demonstrate the offeror's ability to complete more complex projects.

3.1 Factor 1 –Experience:

In determining strengths and weaknesses for Factor 1 and all Subfactors, the Government will consider the extent to which the Offeror’s past projects are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the solicited project, with particular emphasis on the following:

o Similarity of crane type, to include whether the crane was designed for outdoor application.

The following types of cranes are considered most similar to the solicited project, listed in descending order of relevance: Outdoor general gantry cranes, outdoor semi-gantry bridge cranes, and outdoor special purpose service cranes.

o Similarity of crane height (in ft.) and load capacity (in tons). The largest of the solicited cranes is approximately 69 ft. tall with a main hoist rated load capacity of 50 tons.

o Similarity of Project Components: The extent to which the project demonstrates the design, manufacture, and/or installation/testing of similar crane components and support systems (i.e., electrical, mechanical, structural). Projects demonstrating successful completion of on-site electrical work, such as converting 3-wire conductor systems to 4-wire conductor systems, completion of cranes with multiple independent hoist trolleys, and completion of cranes with rotating or slewing hoists will be given more weight.

o Similarity of crane capabilities. For purposes of this evaluation, the key capabilities of the solicited project are as follows:

- The crane’s ability to withstand year-round outdoor operation under varying and extreme weather conditions (i.e., sub-freezing to 100 degrees Fahrenheit);

- The crane’s inclusion of a multiple independent hoists (e.g., main and auxiliary hoists)

- The crane’s ability to hoist equipment in and out of a dynamic river water environment;

- The crane’s hook lift range.

o 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/testing. Projects demonstrating successful design and manufacture of more than one crane at a time will be given more weight than projects that show sequential crane design and manufacture. Projects that demonstrate successful experience with all major project phases may be given more weight than projects that do not.

NOTE: Although each project submitted need not demonstrate experience in all three major project phases (design, manufacture, installation), the Offeror’s Factor 1 proposal in its totality must demonstrate that the Offeror has experience in all three major project phases: design, manufacture, and installation.

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) 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) 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 1.

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. 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 – Work Plan:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Work Plan for how well it demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the scope of work, to include the challenges inherent in the work, and provides 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 following:

o 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. Consideration may be given to proposals that show how the design and manufacturing stages for each crane will be sequenced in order to minimize the total installation period for both cranes. Shorter installation durations for each crane individually and for both cranes combined may also be given consideration over longer installation durations.

o The feasibility of the Offeror’s plan for:

- The new crane design, shop fabrication and testing, delivery/transport/handling, field erection and assembly, field welding, crane acceptance, load testing, and demolition of existing crane.

- Submittal review periods.

- Long lead items.

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

o If subcontractors are used, how well the plan describes the coordination and communication necessary to successfully complete the work.

3.4 Factor 4 – Price:

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

For evaluation purposes, the total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the total price for all optional items to the total price for the base requirement. Evaluations of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

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)