22R00080002.pdf

W912DW22R0008

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

The purpose of this amendment is to update the follow ing:

1. Evaluation criteria Section 00 22 00.

2. Attachment 00 72 00

3. Updated Draw ing

No further changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 26

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Aug-2022

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 W912DW22R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Jul-2022

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

19-Aug-2022

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The following have been added by full text:

EPA

CLIN ITEM MATERIAL NOT‐TO‐EXCEED QUANTITY

(IN U.S. POUNDS)(1)

PRICE PER POUND (IN USD) (2)

0001 Track Plates, Rollers, Roller Chain Links, Roller Pins

Stainless Steel 16950

0001 Track and Guide Spring Bolts Steel 900

0001 Guide Springs Steel 1050

0001 Corrosion Protection System Steel 900

0001 Corrosion Protection System Magnesium 5100

0009 Track Plates, Rollers, Roller Chain Links, Roller Pins

Stainless Steel 5650

0009 Track and Guide Spring Bolts Steel 350

0009 Guide Springs Steel 400

0009 Corrosion Protection System Steel 300

0009 Corrosion Protection System Magnesium 1700

0011 Track Plates, Rollers, Roller Chain Links, Roller Pins

Stainless Steel 5650

0011 Track and Guide Spring Bolts Steel 350

0011 Guide Springs Steel 400

0011 Corrosion Protection System Steel 300

0011 Corrosion Protection System Magnesium 1700

0013 Track Plates, Rollers, Roller Chain Links, Roller Pins

Stainless Steel 5650

0013 Track and Guide Spring Bolts Steel 300

0013 Guide Springs Steel 350

0013 Corrosion Protection System Steel 300

0013 Corrosion Protection System Magnesium 1700

0017 Track Plates, Rollers, Roller Chain Links, Roller Pins

Stainless Steel 5650

0017 Track and Guide Spring Bolts Steel 300

0017 Guide Springs Steel 350

0017 Corrosion Protection System Steel 300

0017 Corrosion Protection System Magnesium 1700

0019 Track Plates, Rollers, Roller Chain Links, Roller Pins

Stainless Steel 5650

0019 Track and Guide Spring Bolts Steel 300

0019 Guide Springs Steel 350

0019 Corrosion Protection System Steel 300

0019 Corrosion Protection System Magnesium 1700

0021 Track Plates, Rollers, Roller Chain Links, Roller Pins

Stainless Steel 5650

0021 Track and Guide Spring Bolts Steel 300

0021 Guide Springs Steel 350

0021 Corrosion Protection System Steel 300

0021 Corrosion Protection System Magnesium 1700

0025 Track Plates, Rollers, Roller Chain Links, Roller Pins

Stainless Steel 5650

0025 Track and Guide Spring Bolts Steel 300

0025 Guide Springs Steel 350

0025 Corrosion Protection System Steel 300

0025 Corrosion Protection System Magnesium 1700

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award of this Contract will be made to the responsible Offeror submitting the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) offer in accordance with FAR 15 procedures. This solicitation will result in the award of a fixed price with economic adjustment construction contract.

The evaluation of each proposal will be solely on the basis of evaluation factors found in this section (00 22 00). The Government will evaluate each proposal on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis only with respect to the evaluation factors (criteria) described herein. In order to be considered for award, a proposal must be rated Acceptable in every non-price factor. Award will be to the Offeror who presents the Acceptable technical proposal (Factors 1 through 3) with the overall lowest price (Based on a total of all line items on the Bid Schedule)

The Offeror’s proposal shall contain a response to all factors and 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 shall contain the Offeror’s best offer/terms. Penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

FACTOR 1 - Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy and quality.

FACTOR 2 – Offeror Capabilities: Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address the technical approach and schedule as it applies to the Summary of Work (SOW). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign a rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

0027 Track Plates, Rollers, Roller Chain Links, Roller Pins

Stainless Steel 5650

0027 Track and Guide Spring Bolts Steel 300

0027 Guide Springs Steel 350

0027 Corrosion Protection System Steel 300

0027 Corrosion Protection System Magnesium 1700

FACTOR 3 – Project Schedule: Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address the technical approach and schedule as it applies to the Summary of Work (SOW). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign a rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

FACTOR 4 – Price: The resulting contract will be fixed-price with economic price adjustment. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the proposal. Offers will also be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

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

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. The Non-Price Evaluation Factors are as follows:

2.1 Factor 1- Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to the required work during performance of the awarded contract. The past performance evaluation considers an offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services required to meet the contract’s requirements. The recency and relevancy of project information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality of performance (including general trends in contractor performance and source information). These will be combined to establish one past performance rating for each Offeror.

2.1.1 Relevancy of Past Performance, Tab 1a

The Offeror shall submit information on at least three (3) projects, but no more than five (5) projects to demonstrate the offeror’s recent and relevant experience. If more than five (5) projects are submitted only the first five projects will be evaluated. Relevant means that submitted projects are similar in terms of scope, and complexity as work described in Section 01 11 00.00 26 Summary of Work of the solicitation.

The relevancy of each Offeror’s submitted Past Performance projects will be rated based on the completeness and technical details of each project’s narrative describing the work performed (i.e. how well the project’s scope is described)and how pertinent the work is to the Section 01 11 00.00 26 Summary of Work, as well as the depth and breadth of each project’s scope (i.e. how many of the Section 01 11 00.00 26 Summary of Work technical requirements are covered by the project’s scope).

Offerors shall ensure each project meets the definition of a ‘project’ below.

2.1.2 Past Performance Relevant Experience Submission Criteria

Criteria for the Offeror’s Factor 1:

a. Submit information of at least three (3), but no more than five (5) projects to demonstrate the offeror’s relevant past work experience and subsequent performance. Experience must be demonstrated for 1) Welding Repairs, 2) Coating or Recoating, and 3) Gate Repairs and Fabrication. The projects submitted to demonstrate experience for all three 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.

b. Ensure submitted projects are relevant to the work requirements noted in Section 01 11

00.00 26 of the RFP individually or in combination thereof.

c. Ensure each submitted project meets the definition of a ‘project’, as defined below; AND

d. Submitted projects shall be at least 75% physically completed, not based on amount invoiced, within the last seven (7) years prior to the solicitation issue date. At least 75% physically completed means at least 75% of the contractual requirements have been accomplished.

e. Submit Past Performance Project Relevancy Information Summary Form (Attachment A) for each submitted project. 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:

Include a detailed description of the work performed on the project, including transportation of large loads, recoating, weld repairs, weld inspections and procurement of materials. See additional relevancy requirements that the narrative should address in below relevancy definition. Any engineering drawings and sketches must be accompanied by narrative explaining the drawings and sketches.

For Welding

The submitted project descriptions must include the information listed below.

1. Type and quantity of welding

2. Qualifications/ Requirements meeting the definition of relevant experience as defined below.

For Coating or Recoating

1. Type of coating system and size of structures painted with that coating system.

For Gate Repairs and Fabrication

1. Type of repairs or replacements

f. All submitted information for each project provided in Tab 1a should be limited to four (4) pages per project.

2.1.3 Definitions

a) Scope is defined as:

The transportation of large and heavy loads in order to perform repairs or replacements such as: weld repairs, weld inspections, recoating, fabrication of components similar to roller chains or tracks, installation of roller chains, repairs of roller track assemblies or similar.

b) An Offeror is defined as:

For the purpose of past performance evaluation, an ‘Offeror’ shall be defined as the Prime submitting the proposal. The past experience and past performance record of each firm meeting the definition in the business arrangement may be evaluated by the Government.

c) Prime is defined as:

For the purpose of past performance evaluation, a ‘Prime’ shall be defined as the Firm orany of the Firms making up a Joint Venture (JV) submitting a proposal in response to thissolicitation.

d) A Project is defined as:

In order to be deemed a ‘project’, it must meet one, and only one, of the following:

a. 1 single Task Order against an IDC (a “D” contract) covering work performedat one single site;

b. 1 single Task Order against an IDC (a “D” contract) covering work at multiplesites within one single installation or facility;

c. 1 single “C” type contract (not a “D” contract) covering work performed at one single site (the following also will qualify as a non- ‘D’-type: a Cooperative Agreement or Grant; single BPA/BOA Call; single order against a GSA Schedule;or Purchase Order);

d. 1 single “C” type contract (not a “D” contract) covering work performed at multiple sites within one single installation or facility (the following also will qualify as a non-‘D’-type: a Cooperative Agreement or Grant; single BPA/BOACall; single order against a GSA Schedule; or Purchase Order);

e. 1 single Task Order against an IDC (a “D” contract) covering work performedat multiple but separate installations, meaning the installations are in different cities, states, etc.; OR

f. 1 single “C” type contract (not a “D” contract) covering work performed at multiple but separate installations, meaning the installations are in different cities,states, etc. (the following also will qualify as a non- ‘D’-type: a Cooperative Agreement or Grant; single BPA/BOA Call; single order against a GSA Schedule;or Purchase Order)

e) Recent is defined as:

Project that has been completed within seven (7) years of the solicitation issue date, or onewhere the construction is at least 75% complete (measured by performance period days) as of the solicitation issue date. (Offerors are responsible for providing start and completion dates for each completed project, or the start and scheduled completion datesfor projects currently under construction.)

f) Relevant is defined as:

Projects that are similar in scope (type, size, complexity and dollar value) to the project described in this solicitation. For a project to be assessed any degree of “relevancy”, it must reflect performance of construction type work similar to the project required by this solicitation. Experience involving repairs or replacements that are considered “off-the-shelf” or “pre-engineered” items is considered not relevant.

Welding Experience

Welding experience on steel structures similar to what is requested per the RFP, using qualified welders as described in Section 05 59 20.01.

Coating or Recoating

Experience performing coating or recoating of a large steel structure (similar to area equivalent to the gates surface areas described in the RFP), using a vinyl system, and application method similar to the requirements in the RFP, using qualified paint applicators as described in Section 09 97 02.

Gate Repairs and Fabrication

Experience performing repairs or fabrication of large, heavy gates or steel structures including: transportation, fabrication of parts, performing repairs or replacements of roller chains, tracks or other type of mechanical assembly similar to the requirements in the RFP.

A project of similar scope is:

Projects which involved:

The transportation and repair of large gate or steel structural components of similar size.

Welding repairs on similar steel structures, including inspection and using qualified welding personnel.

Procurement and installation of assemblies such as roller chains, tracks, seals, or guide springs that are similar in size or composition.

A project of similar complexity is:

Projects which required:

Coordination with an active facility to ensure operations are not affected.

Transporting large, heavy items using public roads to reach an offsite facility.

Coordination of inspections or repairs with the Government, Owner or Client during the course of the work.

Fabrication or rehabilitation of large mechanical structures, or large steel structures, to the level of precision indicated in the

RFP.

Coating large steel structures using coating system, and application method similar to the requirements in the RFP.

A project of similar dollar value is over $5Million $ 1 million or more.

g) Quality of Performance is defined as:

The offeror’s quality or work, as well as the offeror’s management of a quality control program, while performing as a contractor on past contracts. Quality will be reviewed forall past performance information collected to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance. The evaluation of quality will be used to determine if the offeror has demonstrated consistent quality of performance that conformed to contractual requirements. Specific to construction contracts/orders, the evaluation of an offeror’s quality of performance may include and consider the following aspects based on information obtained from past projects:

- Has a quality product been provided?

- Did the contractor maintain a quality control system during contract performance?

If yes, how well were the following areas performed:

Contractor’s ability to maintain quality control Performance of accessory testing Implementation of 3-phase inspection process CQC (Contractor Quality Control) documentation Identification and correction of deficient work Reviews of materials and shop drawings Whether there was incorporation of unspecified materials

For establishing the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance, the evaluation conducted does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers and through review of assessment reports (i.e. CPARs) to determine how well the offeror performed on past contracts. A separate quality assessment rating will not be given, rather, Factor 1 Past Performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall evaluation of recency, relevance, and quality of performance.

2.1.4 Past Performance Project Relevancy Information Summary:

The Past Performance Project Relevance Information Summary Form (Attachment A) must be used, completed in its entirety, and submitted as part of Factor 1 for each project. The information obtained from this form is required to evaluate relevancy. Offerors may expand the form as necessary to accommodate the required project information; however, the use of an alternate form will not be accepted.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (See FAR 3.104)

Attachment A:

Past Performance Project Relevancy

Information Summary Form Project Name:

Project Location:

Address:

Installation Name (if applicable)

Owners/Client Point of Contract (POC):POC Name:

POC Phone Number:POC E-mail:

Contract Number: Task Order Number (if applicable):

Was the project terminated early, were cure/show-cause letters issued or were Liquidated Damages assessed?

Yes or No (if yes, explain)

Offeror’s Role: (Prime or Subcontractor) [What specific items of work did you perform as the prime or subcontractor]

Percentage of total value of contract performed by the Offeror: (If the Offeror was the Prime, what percentage was subcontracted; if the Offeror was the subcontractor, what dollar amount and percentage of the total project amount, as well as the total contract amount, was awarded to the subcontractor?)

Date Contract and/or Award began: Original Completion Date:

Actual Completion Date (or ongoing, if applicable):

Initial Award Amount: Final Contract Amount:

Amount added by modification(s): Percentage the project is physically complete to date:

Explanation (reason) of any cost growth:

Explanation of any late finish or time extensions:

General Project Narrative: [General scope. Provide a description of the project. Be sure to include features of this project that make it comparable in type or nature to the proposed project described in this request for proposal. At a minimum provide a brief explanation of what was designed, manufactured, and installed including the rating, size, and type of equipment applicable to this experience criterion. Discuss specific details of the project, at a minimum, describe what was constructed and clearly explain the aspects that are similar to construction of this solicitation.]

Performance Issues Encountered: [Describe any performance issues encountered. This could include technical, cost/schedule, health and safety issues, regulatory/stakeholder issues, and other performance issues, as well as what was implemented to overcome these issues and the results.]

Applicable Section 01 11 00.00 26 Criteria: [highlight specific elements from the Section 01 11 00.00 26 of this RFP that encompasses each submitted past performance project]

Major Project Accomplishments:

END OF ATTACHMENT A

2.1.5 Past Performance Questionnaires, Tab 1b

For each submitted project, the Offeror shall request a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment B), from those Government agencies or private sector companies’ Point of Contact identified for each project. These agency or company contacts must have detailed information concerning the performance of the project in order to accurately complete the PPQ for the Offeror. The POCs may be contacted by the SSEB to assess the scope of work performed and to evaluate performance of the projects listed under the previous experience tab of this volume, if necessary; therefore, it is imperative to ensure correct telephone and email addresses are identified for the client POCs on each PPQ.

The Offeror may also provide a narrative for each project which a PPQ submitted under Tab 1b Past Performance Questionnaire that could include past performance information such as if it was completed on-time/budget, whether or not the Offeror encountered any performance issues or challenges, and key and/or best management practices the Offeror employed to sustain successful performance for each past performance project submitted. If performance issues, customer dissatisfaction or challenges did arise, provide information on what corrective action was implemented or how they were addressed and outcomes. All submitted information for each project provided in Tab 1b should be limited to 2 pages per project. The narrative information will count toward the page limit; however, the PPQs are excluded from the page count.

Completed PPQs shall be submitted with your proposal by the proposal due date.

Offerors shall follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. However, if the Offeror’s client requests, he/she may submit the questionnaire directly to the Contract Specialist, Charles Idle, via email at Charles.D.Idle@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

PPQs previously completed for projects in Tab 1a by the project’s POC may be submitted in lieu of requesting the POC to re-complete the form; however, Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

CPARS evaluations shall not be submitted by the Offeror in place of a PPQ

If one or more of the client’s POCs do not reply to the Offeror’s request to complete the PPQ, the Government may elect to contact them utilizing the reference information provided for each submitted project. Therefore, the Offeror must ensure the information provided for each project is accurate (i.e., POC name, telephone number, email address, etc.).

In addition to the PPQs, the Government may review and consider any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE Codes/UEI 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), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror (including information from Government personnel and databases).

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.

The Government intends to assess the relative risks associated with the Offeror’s performance based on the past performance information provided in the proposal and, if applicable, information obtained from available sources identified previously.

A significant achievement, unexplained or unresolved problem, or lack of relevant data may significantly impact the risk rating by the Government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to include all relevant information, including demonstrated corrective actions, in its proposal.

In addition to the project information requested in this section, the Offeror shall also provide notification and information concerning any projects where it’s right to proceed was terminated for the convenience of the Government or for default/cause during the last six (6) years, or so state that there were none. If any contracts were terminated, whether for convenience or default/cause, the Offeror shall list each, providing the contract number, title, brief type of work effort, and the reason for the termination.

2.1.6 Past Performance Ratings

2.1.6.1 Relevancy Assessment

The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess relevancy of the projects submitted. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance information in the Past Performance Project Relevanc Information Summary Form to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be performed under this contract. The projects submitted will be evaluated to determine relevancy based on the completeness and technical details of each project’s narrative describing the work performed (i.e. how well the project’s scope is described and how pertinent the work is to the Section 01 11 00.00 26 Summary of Work, as well as the depth and breadth of each project’s scope (i.e. how many of the Section 01 11 00.00 26 Summary of Work technical requirements are covered by the project’s scope). Criteria establishing what is recent and what aspects are considered relevant is stated in section 2.1.3. Relevancy is not separately rated.

2.1.6.2 Confidence

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the relevant projects. The past performance evaluation performed in support of the source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance information will be reviewed to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance confidence assessment.

Offerors with no recent/relevant past performance record, or whose performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the quality of past performance as defined in. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable” as long as all of the other Past Performance relevancy criteria described above have been submitted.

The Government will consider past performance information as submitted in accordance with Section 00 21 16 Instruction to proposers of this solicitation and may also consider recent and relevant past performance information outside of the information provided by the Offeror and its customers. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the Offeror as their Past Performance for evaluation, as well as information that may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS, CPARS, or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources.

In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the below.

TABLE 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING

METHOD

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Attachment B (PPQ-0)

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

(Form PPQ‐0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1‐4)

d. Contractor Information

Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: UEI Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other(Explain)

Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information

Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy): Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):Explain Differences:

d. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5‐8)

5. Client Information

Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE.

PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND

ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E

VG

S

M

U

N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff(including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on‐site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVAL RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back‐up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes

No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

END OF ATTACHMENT B

2.2 Factor 2 – Offeror Capabilities: This factor evaluates the Offeror’s capabilities to execute the construction work as required by the solicitation. Reference drawings will not apply to the page limit. The Offeror shall demonstrate specific minimum experience in the following areas:

2.2.1 Transfer of the gate from the AFD spillway to the mode of transportation

Demonstrate by: Providing the list of equipment that will be utilized for the transfer, including the capability to handle the size and weight of the spillway gate.

2.2.2 Transportation including any oversize restrictions to the offsite facility

Demonstrate by: Providing the list of equipment that will be utilized for the transportation, including the capability to handle the size and weight of the gate and the ability to obtain oversize permits to move the gate from AFD to the offsite location.

2.2.3 Coating removal and inspections

Demonstrate by: Providing the list of equipment and the facility that will be utilized for removal of the coating, including the capability to perform lead-based paint abatement. Provide qualifications of inspectors as specified in the RFP.

2.2.4 Weld repairs and inspections

Demonstrate by: Providing the list of equipment and the facility that will be utilized for weld repairs.

Provide qualifications of welders and weld inspectors. Qualifications must meet the specifications within the RFP.

2.2.5 Roller track assembly repairs

Demonstrate by: Providing the list of equipment and the suppliers that will be utilized for roller track assembly repairs. Provide qualifications for repairs on carbon steel and stainless-steel components and provide equipment that will be used to fabricate and or mill the steel components according to the tolerances specified.

2.2.6 Roller chain replacement

Demonstrate by: Providing the list of equipment and the supplier that will be utilized for roller chain replacements and provide equipment that will be used to fabricate and or mill the steel components according to the tolerances specified.

2.2.7 Seal Replacement

Demonstrate by: Providing the list of equipment and the supplier that will be utilized for seal replacements, including all components required in accordance with the RFP.

2.2.8 Recoating

Demonstrate by: Providing the list of equipment and the facility that will be utilized for application of the coating. Include qualifications of coating applicators in accordance with the RFP.

TABLE 2 – OFFEROR CAPABILITES ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE

RATING METHOD

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

A rating of Acceptable will be given if all the criteria for Factor 2 are met.

A rating of Unacceptable will be given if any of the criteria for Factor 2 are not met.

Should the offeror receive an Unacceptable rating for any portion of Factor 2, the overall Factor shall be rated Unacceptable.

2.3 Factor 3 - Project Schedule: Develop a project schedule for the entire project duration from contract award to contract closeout. See FAR clause 52.211-10 for project durations. This draft schedule shall be the basis for the contractor’s schedule submission and comply with SECTION 01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT

SCHEDULE.

For proposal purposes only, the offeror should use the arbitrary, non-binding Notice to Proceed date of 15 October 2022. Consistent with the PROJECT SCHEDULE Specification. The offeror’s DRAFT schedule must include the following specific tasks:

2.3.1 Submittal preparation and Government submittal review (accounting for contract defined submittal review times; 30-days)

2.3.2 Repair and replacement work for each gate starting with transportation from Albeni Falls Dam and ending with return for reinstallation. For each gate (base and options) show the following activities:

a. Transportation of the gate to and from Albeni Falls Dam

b. Removal of coating and inspections including hold times for Government inspections

c. Weld repairs and inspections

d. Repairs and replacements of roller chains, tracks, guide springs, seals, and appurtenances.

e. Recoating

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

2.3.4 Contract Completion

TABLE 3 – PROJECT SCHEDULE ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING

METHOD

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

A rating of Acceptable will be given if all the criteria for Factor 3 are met.

A rating of Unacceptable will be given if any of the criteria for Factor 3 are not met.

Should the offeror receive an Unacceptable rating for any portion of Factor 3, the overall Factor shall be rated Unacceptable.

2.4 Factor 4 – Price:

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the RFP requirements and is technically acceptable. The Government reserves the right to accept the next lowest priced offer, if the lowest price offer is not technically acceptable, or to reject all offers.

This Source Selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition – normally competition establishes price reasonableness and a comparison of proposed prices will satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices are fair and reasonable as described in FAR 15.305(a)(1).

All offers with separately priced line items or subline items will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced (FAR 15.404-1(g)). Offers may be rejected if the Source Selection Authority determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Administrative Requirements (Including Price). Prior to making an award, the Contracting Officer must determine that any Offeror is responsible both financially and technically and has the capability to properly manage the contract during performance and complete the work on time.

The Offeror is to submit the following information: (1) Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment C) and acknowledgement of all amendments, (2) proposal price schedules, (3) representations and certification, and (4) most recent Financial Statement. In Volume II, Offerors shall also submit the required pre-award information, which includes but is not limited to:

2.4.1 A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within the organization who are familiar with company’s performance. For a newly formed Joint Venture (JV), each JV partner must submit a list of present commitments.

2.4.2 The proposed price on this solicitation exceeds $1,000,000.00; therefore, the Offeror shall also submit a certified statement listing: (1) each contract awarded to the Offeror within the preceding three-month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded to the Offeror within the preceding three-year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

2.4.3 Bid Bonds as required by Section 00 21 16.

2.4.4 Representations and Certifications as required by Section 00 45 00.

2.4.5 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Disclosure: The Offeror shall provide a disclosure statement with its proposal that concisely describes all the relevant facts concerning any past or present OCIs relating to this solicitation. If applicable, in the same statement, the Offeror shall provide information to assure the government that the conflicts of interest have been mitigated and/or neutralized to the maximum extent possible. If a conflict of interest is discovered after award of this contract, the Contracting Officer will decide on whether or not to terminate the contract. If no conflicts of interest exist, the Offeror shall provide a statement stating no Conflicts of Interest exist.

2.4.6 Pricing Schedule (proposal pricing schedule).

Financial Statement. Submit a copy of your most recent financial statements. The statements must include a Balance Sheet and Income Statement. Include the names of banks or other financial institutions with which business is conducted (mailing addresses, points of contact and phone number). If the financial statements are more than 60 days old, attach a certificate stating that the financial condition is substantially the same, or if not the same, describe the changes which have taken place since the financial statements were prepared.

Bank Letters. Provide evidence of adequate financing arrangements, such as commitments from lending institutions, etc., to perform this contract. Include the names of banks or other financial institutions with which business is conducted (mailing addresses, points of contact and phone number). Reference letters should include, but is not limited to, the following information: (1) the date the Offeror’s account was open with the financial institution, (2) the average balance for the last 12 months on the offeror’s account (i.e., balance in the xx digits), (3) if there is a credit line established with the financial institution, what is the credit amount and how much is available at this time? If not, would the financial institution be willing to establish a line of credit for the offeror? And if so, for how much (i.e., low xx figure range), (4) how the financial institution evaluates the offeror as a customer (i.e., poor, fair, very good, excellent, etc.), and (5) the financial institution should declare whether the offeror’s account is in good standings. This information will be treated confidentially but may be checked for verification.

Price Breakdown Requirements. The Government requires a “price breakdown” of the line items, including the base items and any options. The format of the breakdown will be left up to the Offeror. However, at a minimum, provide pricing for the major categories of work, i.e., site improvements, landscaping, electrical, and mechanical, etc. This information shall be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal by the proposal submission due date.

Further price breakdowns may be requested at the discretion of the Government if discussions are opened.

Factor 4 Rating Methodology and Standard.

Award will be made to the offeror who presents the Acceptable proposal (Factors 1-4) with the overall total lowest price (based on the total of all line items on the Bid Schedule).

(Attachment C) PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Also include the required, completed, and signed SF 1442 in addition to this Proposal Data Sheet.

1. Name of Solicitation:

2. Offering Firm’s Name As Appears on the SF 1442:

Offering Firm’s UEI number as it appears on the SF 1442:

3. Mailing Address:

4. Telephone Number:

5. Fax Number:

6. E-mail Address to use for all correspondence:

7. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. The Offeror represents that the following person(s)are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

List name(s), title, and telephone numbers of authorized negotiator(s).

Name of Person(s) Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator’s Address:

Negotiator’s Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

(End of Summary of Changes)