Amendment R0002.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

The purpose of Amendment R0002 is to issue an updated ProjNet inquiry deadline, revised evaluation factors, revised NDA for Attachment 13 - As-Builts, and revised Attachment 12 - Bulkhead Inspection SOW. See the Continuation Page for additonal details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 32

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-Apr-2024

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 W912DW24R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Mar-2024

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

12-Apr-2024

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:

W912DW24R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

R0002

Summary of Changes in Amendment No. 2 (R0002)

Note: Track changes used in the updated documents.

1. Revised ProjNet inquiry deadline in PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS (SECTION 00 21 16). Inquiry deadline is revised to fourteen days before proposal submission deadline.

2. Revised evaluation factor under SUPPLEMENTARY PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS (SECTION 00

22 16). Contract Award date under Factor 1 – Construction Management Approach revised to 9/25/2024.

3. Revised NDA for contractors to request access to Attachment 13 – As Builts

4. ATTACHMENT 12 – BULKHEAD INSPECTION SOW

Changes: Clarified requirements for bulkhead inspection, dewatering, equipment cleaning and water quality standards. Added requirement for draft reports for government review. Added requirement for bulkhead assessment during conservation pool. Adjusted formatting.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS (SECTION 00 21 16)

For clarity, the addressed section shall reference the Solicitation. The identified sections are in accordance with (IAW) the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) pursuant to the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers Desk Guide (UDG) 5114.201-1.

Section 00 21 16 of the Solicitation (Request for Proposal (RFP)) contains the proposal submission instructions. Section 00 21 16 includes specific information on what must be furnished with the offer and identifies evaluation criteria that will be used in evaluating proposals received. Section 00 22 16 contains the basis of award and evaluation methods/ratings.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Solicitation is an unrestricted full and open competitive acquisition using the

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 36, Construction and Architect- Engineer Contracts, and FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Source Selection Process (i.e., Best Value Tradeoff). One solicitation will be issued for the acquisition consisting of a Request for Proposal (RFP) pursuant to FAR 15.101-2 best-value tradeoff (BVTO) source selection process to award an Integrated Design and Construction (IDaC) contract.

1.2. Pursuant to Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)

236.204, the magnitude of construction is over $500 million.

1.3. The primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the acquisition is 237990 – Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction.

Small Business Size Standard of $45 million.

1.4. Selection will be made based on the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the Solicitation requirements, demonstrating high technical capability and low risk, presenting the most advantageous offer to the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest-priced offer or to reject all proposals.

1.5. The Government shall not reimburse any cost incurred or associated with preparing and submitting any responses to the Solicitation. Oral explanations or instructions to Offerors are not binding. Any information given to an Offeror which impacts the Solicitation and/or offers will be provided in the form of a written amendment to the Solicitation. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to acknowledge all amendments in its proposal submission.

1.6. The Offeror shall not modify the terms and conditions of the Solicitation in their technical proposals or add conditions or qualifications to their offers. If an Offeror include terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the Solicitation, the Offeror may be determined ineligible for award. Any questions related to specific terms and conditions contained within the Solicitation should be resolved prior to the submission of an offer.

1.7. All proposals received will be considered complete and final. The evaluation board will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference or referred to other sources outside the respective proposal volumes and factors responses. The successful Offeror will be selected solely based on the stated evaluation factors. Accordingly, proposals submitted in response to the Solicitation should provide clear, complete, concise, and straightforward responses to the evaluation factors. Elaborate proposals, color brochures, and other excesses are discouraged.

1.8. Proposals that reiterate “Parroting” the contents of the Solicitation, or contain only superficial responses, may be considered unacceptable. Evidence of experience, capability, and qualifications demonstrating and supporting the Offeror’s claims is essential. The absence of such evidence will adversely influence the evaluation of the proposal.

1.9. References to “confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal.

The Offeror including confidential information in its proposal that they do not want to be disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall clearly mark their proposals IAW the instructions at FAR Clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors –Competitive Acquisition, paragraph (e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data.

1.10. Use of the words “shall” or “must” indicate a mandatory requirement for which failure to comply at the time and date for submission of proposals may result in the Offeror’s proposal being disqualified from consideration for the award, or a deficiency or weakness being assessed for the factor. Failure to comply with non-pricing or pricing requirements annotated with the words “should” or “may” can result in an unacceptable rating, affecting the Offeror being selected for the contract award. The Government may elect during discussions with Offerors, to provide a means by which appropriate corrections by the Offeror(s) can be made.

If stated as a number of days, time periods are calendar days unless otherwise specified.

1.11. Project Labor Agreements (PLA) Executive Order 14063, Use of Project Labor

Agreements for Federal Construction Projects, issued 04 February 2022, provides that it shall be the policy of the Federal Government to use PLAs in connection with large-scale construction projects (defined as projects where the total cost to the Federal Government of the project is at least $35 million (using appropriated funds)) to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.

Offerors shall submit an offer subject to Project Labor Agreement (PLA) requirements IAW FAR 22.504, General requirements for project labor agreements. Any PLA reached pursuant to the PLA requirements in the solicitation does not change the terms of the contract or provide for any price adjustment by the Government.

2. E-BUSINESS REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

2.1. System for Award Management (SAM). The Offeror shall be registered in SAM at the time an offer is submitted. Failure to have an active and completed registration in SAM [https://sam.gov/] may determine an Offeror ineligible for the award and removed from the competition. A successful Offeror with incomplete or expired registrations at the time of award may not be eligible for a contract. In such instances, the Government will award to the next successful Offeror who is eligible for the award. Information contained within an Offeror’s registration shall be current and valid. The responsibility of maintaining current information contained in an Offeror’s registration rests solely on the Offeror.

2.2. Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). The Offerors shall submit its proposal through the PIEE Solicitation Module [https://piee.eb.mil/].

Note: Only those with a PIEE vendor registration role as ‘Proposal Manager’ may upload an offer.

Point of Contact for Vendor Registration/Technical System issues Email:

disa.global.servicedesk.mbx.eb-ticket-requests@mail.mil | Phone: 866-618-5988

The Offerors are cautioned to log into PIEE Solicitation Module with sufficient time to ensure the electronic proposal package is completely uploaded and time-stamped in the system by the due date and time specified for receipt of proposals.

2.3. Solicitation Inquiries

All inquiries regarding the Solicitation are to be submitted via ProjNet:

https://www.projnet.org/.

Telephone and e-mail inquiries will not be accepted. ProjNet is a web-based program that allows offerors to post question regarding the Solicitation and view all question by other offerors and responses by the Government.

a. The Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions will be rejected.

b. The Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of its question(s) via e-mail, followed by an answer to its question(s) after it has been processed. The Offerors may view all inquiries through ProjNet.

c. Inquiries shall be submitted seven-fourteen calendar days prior to the proposal due date. The Offerors will not be able to submit inquires after this date.

To submit and review inquiries, offerors will need to use the inquiry key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access.

The Inquiry Key is: 4M4T85-UNCM3X

Specific Instructions for ProjNet inquiry access:

a. From the ProjNet home page link: https://www.projnet.org/projnet/ click on

Quick Add (upper right side of the screen).

b. Identify the Agency: This should be marked as “USACE.”

c. Key: Enter the Inquiry Key listed above.

d. E-mail: Enter the e-mail address you would like to use for communication.

e. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found, and it will ask you to create one using the provided form.

f. Enter your first and last name, company, city, state, phone, e-mail, secret question, secret answer, and time zone. Make sure to remember your secret question and answer, as they will be used from the point you access the ProjNet system.

g. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

2.4. Submit questions or review questions and answers. An Offeror who submits a question will receive an automated e-mail notification that its question has been received. When an answer is posted to a question, the question and answer are then available for all other offerors to review.

2.5. Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit. A formal site visit will be conducted. The Offerors are encouraged to visit the site prior to submitting a proposal.

2.6. Late Proposals. Any proposals, amendments, or revision received by the

Government after the exact time specified for receipt offers is “late” and will not be considered unless it is received before award is made, the KO determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition, and 1) if it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the Solicitation, and it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure no later than 4:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time), one calendar day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals; or 2) there is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received at the Government installation designated for receipt of offers and was under the Government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of offers; or 3) it is the only proposal received. However, a late amendment of an otherwise successful proposal that makes its terms more favorable to the Government will be considered at any time it is received and may be accepted.

2.7. Joint Venture. A joint venture (JV) is defined as a legal business entity formed between two or more companies to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. The Offerors proposing as JV shall provide evidence that the JV as a legal entity has been duly formed. The JV shall include a copy of the legal JV agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the

JV, with the Chief Executive of each entity identified. The Government will not evaluate the capability of any firms that are not included in the JV agreement. If submitting a proposal as a JV, the experience of each of the JV partners can be submitted for the JV entity. The experience of either JV partner will be considered the experience of the JV entity. Prospective Offerors that submit proposals may not change their JV firms, if selected for award. If an Offeror is a JV, the JV entity shall have a valid registration representing the JV as one business/firm/entity in SAM. The Government will not accept separate registrations and licenses from each separate entity representing the JV.

2.8. Subcontractor Substitutions. Approval will not be given unless the KO considers the proposed substitute equal or better in all respects to the originally proposed subcontractor and that the substitution is in the Government’s best interests. If the Offeror’s proposal includes the use of subcontractors, the Offeror may only change subcontractors with the KO approval. If the Offeror proposes to change subcontractors after award, the Offeror may not change subcontractors or Letter of Commitment (LOC) without the KO’s approval.

2.9. Unsuccessful Offerors will be notified IAW FAR Subpart 15.5. An unsuccessful offeror may request a pre-award debriefing or a delayed debriefing after award (post-award debriefing) by submitting a written request to the KO within three-calendar days after receipt of the notice excluding an offeror from the competition and award. The Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal (e.g., pre- or post-award debriefing).

3. PROPOSAL VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS, REQUIREMENTS, CONTENTS, AND

FORMAT

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

3.1. Content – General.

An Offeror’s proposal without the minimum content may be determined ineligible for award and removed from the competition. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government may reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration.

All information intended to be evaluated as part of the technical proposal shall be submitted within the technical proposal. Do not include references to material or information not found within its respective volumes. Information submitted in the wrong volumes could lead to an Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable if materially incomplete in any aspect.

The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified within each evaluation factor. Elaborately prepared proposals are optional, and any material over what is requested, such as corporate marketing information, will not be considered.

The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. The Offeror’s proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by the Solicitation. Absence of information will be deemed as if no support for that criterion was provided. The 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 Solicitation.

Penalty for making false statements in its proposal is prescribed in Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1001.

3.2. File Format

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted via electronic – Portable Document Format, filename extension “.pdf,” suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader, and text must be searchable.

3.3. Proposal Format

Cover Page: A cover page shall appear at the beginning of each volume and, at a minimum, shall consist of the following information:

a. Solicitation Number

b. The Offeror’s name, physical mailing addresses, telephone number, and email address of the official having the authority to bind the Offeror contractually.

c. The Offeror’s (if a JV provide each firm’s) Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, and Tax Identification Number (TIN).

Table of Contents: The Offeror shall provide a table of contents, placed in each volume, and shall identify major areas by title, volume location, and page number.

Volumes: The Offeror shall provide three separate proposal volumes: Volume I – General and Contract Documentation, Volume II – Technical Proposal, and Volume III – Cost/Price

Proposal volume organization, number of copies, and page limits. The Offeror shall prepare its proposal as set forth below. The Government will not evaluate any pages that exceed the page limitations identified in the Solicitation.

VOLUM

E

TAB VOLUME TITLE

DIGITAL

COPIES

PAGE LIMIT

(Any pages over the page limit will not be reviewed)

I General and Contract Documentation

1 No limit

II

Technical Proposal

Factor 1: Construction Management Approach

20 pages, including the

GANT Chart

2 Factor 2: Past Performance 1 15 pages Project

Descriptions

3 Factor 3: Pre-Construction Services 1

20 pages Pre- Construction Services Management Plan and

Design Review

4 Factor: Small Business Commitment 1 No Limit

III Factor 5: Cost/Price 1 No Limit

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors is in descending order Factor 1:

Construction Management Approach, Factor 2: Past Performance, Factor 3: Pre- Construction Services, and Factor 4: Small Business Commitment. The non-priced factors when combined are significantly more important than price.

***Evaluation Criteria for PLA: The PLA will not be an evaluation factor, but it will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer to ensure the PLA addresses the requirements of FAR Provision 52.222-33. The PLA must address the requirements of FAR 52.222-33 or the offer will be unacceptable for an award.

Volume I – General and Contract Documentation

Volume I shall be clearly marked “VOLUME I – SOLICITATION W912DW24R0004 – General and Contract Documentation.”

a. Signed Solicitation, Offer, and Award (Standard Form (SF) 1442) with Blocks

14 thru 20c completed, including acknowledgement of all amendments.

b. Completed Representation and Certification (Section 00 45 00)

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

d. Bid Bonds (see reference to FAR Provision 52.228-1)

e. Proof of Bonding Capability. The Offeror must provide a letter or other documentation from a surety appearing on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 (list of approved sureties) stating that the Offeror is able to obtain performance and payment bonds in at least the amount of the offered total evaluated price of the construction services appearing on the proposal schedule. Before the construction option CLIN is converted into an FFP construction CLIN, the contractor shall furnish payment and performance bonds to the KO in the amount equal to 100 percent of the final construction price.

f. 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 JV, each JV partner must submit a list of present commitments.

g. 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 the 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 the award, the KO will decide on whether to terminate the contract. If no conflicts of interest exist, the Offeror shall provide a statement stating no Conflicts of Interest exist.

h. 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.

i. 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 where business is conducted (mailing addresses, points of contact, and phone numbers). Reference letters should include the following information: (1) the date the Offeror’s account was opened 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 does the financial institution evaluate 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.

j. Project Labor Agreements. All Offerors are required to submit a complete and signed Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for evaluation by the Contracting Officer. Any PLA submitted with the offer must comply with the requirements of FAR Provision 52.222-33. (A PLA is defined as a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project and is an agreement described in 29 U.S.C. 158(f)).

Volume II – Technical Proposal

Volume II shall be clearly marked “VOLUME II – SOLICITATION W912DW24R0004 – Technical Proposal.”

Volume III – Cost/Price

Volume III shall be clearly marked “VOLUME III – SOLICITATION W912DW24R0004 – Cost/Price.”

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SUPPLEMENTARY PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS (SECTION 00 22 16)

BASIS OF AWARD

1. EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to conduct discussions as part of its evaluation of Offerors’ proposals IAW DFARS 215.306.

1.1. Compliance with Terms and Conditions. The Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the Solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s proposal adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements as specified in the Solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether each requirement has been sufficiently addressed in the proposal IAW the proposal submission section of the Solicitation. The SSEB must not assume that an Offeror’s performance includes the requirements of the Solicitation that are not specified in the Offeror’s proposal.

1.2. Adequacy of Response. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the proposal adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements as specified in the Solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether each requirement has been sufficiently addressed in the proposal IAW the proposal submission section of the Solicitation. The SSEB must not assume that an Offeror’s performance includes the requirements of the Solicitation that are not specified in the Offeror’s proposal.

1.3. Rejection of Proposals. The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated and determined to be unacceptable or fails to comply with the Solicitation terms and conditions.

1.4. The Offeror’s proposal shall meet the criteria stated in the Solicitation in order to be eligible for award, to include responsibility, and technical acceptability.

1.5. Discussions. The Government reserves the right to allow proposal revisions during discussions. The SSA will include only those firms determined to be the most highly rated; those whose proposals are reasonably susceptible to being made acceptable; but not those that are so deficient as to essentially require major revisions or a total re-write of their proposal. In certain circumstances, the Government may limit Offers in the competitive range to a number that will permit an efficient competition. The SSEB will follow the evaluation process herein until discussions are closed. Upon the conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still within the competitive range will be afforded an opportunity to revise their proposals and submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) for evaluation.

The Offerors are required to submit their responses to comments electronically and detailed instructions on responses will be provided. Electronic submissions shall meet the submission deadline set forth by the Government during discussions or indicated in the Amendment requesting the FPR. The KO will notify all the Offerors in the competitive range, in writing, how and when interim revisions and FPR are to be submitted.

1.6. Selection Process. The Solicitation contains certain mandatory or minimum requirements to be met for evaluation. The Solicitation also contains within the described factors certain documents for submission. Failure to satisfy any mandatory or minimum requirement may result in a determination that an offer is unacceptable. (A final determination that an offer is unacceptable means that an award to the Offeror involved cannot be made.)

All of the submission items to be evaluated pertain to the Prime Offeror, whether a single contractor entity, partnership, or a JV. The Government will consider information provided concerning primary subcontractors (those performing the likelihood that the proposed subcontractor will be available for the Solicitation project), then that submitted information will largely be diminished in the evaluation and selection process. At the same time, an Offeror that intends to have a significant on-site subcontractor participation (20% or more of the total on-site management and construction efforts) should provide information pertaining to those subcontractors IAW the Solicitation, Section 00 21 16.

1.7 Project Labor Agreements (PLA): All Offerors are required to submit a complete and signed Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for evaluation by the Contracting Officer. Any PLA submitted with the offer must comply with the requirements of FAR Provision 52.222-33. (A PLA is defined as a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project and is an agreement described in 29 U.S.C. 158(f)).

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD AND METHODOLOGY

The SSEB composed of the USACE personnel and as necessary, technical advisors will conduct the evaluation. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors. The SSEB will evaluate proposals, using the factors and evaluation criteria described in this section.

The evaluation process consists of three parts: Proposal Compliance Review, Non-Price Factor Evaluation, and Cost/Price Evaluation.

Proposal Compliance Review. This is an initial check by Contracting Division to ensure that all required forms are complete, and in compliance with all administrative and submission criteria.

Non-Price Factor Evaluation. IAW the Solicitation, each member of the SSEB will conduct an independent review of the proposals. The review will be an in-depth, systematic evaluation of the proposal against the submission criteria and evaluation factors. After these reviews, the SSEB, by consensus, will provide a rating for each evaluation factor supported by a justifying narrative. The Offeror’s ratings are confidential and will remain in the KO’s files. Upon completion of the evaluations, the results will be provided to the SSA in the form of a Proposal Analysis Report.

Cost/Price Evaluation. The Government will initially review pricing independently from the factor evaluation. Price is not rated but will be analyzed for fairness and reasonableness through the use of cost and price analysis. The price analysts will also check for appearance of unbalanced pricing. Per FAR 15.404-1(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government may reject an offer as nonresponsive if it is materially unbalanced. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed price. If adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested. However, if at any time during this competition the KO determines that further analysis is needed, detailed cost breakdowns may be requested.

PLA Evaluation: The PLA will not be an evaluation factor, but it will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer to ensure the PLA addresses the requirements of FAR Provision 52.222-33. The PLA must address the requirements of FAR 52.222-33 or the offer will be unacceptable for an award.

Factor 1: Construction Management Approach

The Offeror shall describe the construction management approach to executing the project in narrative form, under a construction management and quality control plan and a preliminary construction schedule. The Offeror will provide as much detail as possible in describing a thorough understanding of the requirements.

a. Construction Management and Quality Control Plan:

Describe the proposed management structure for the team during the construction phase, i.e. how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. The main elements include (1) Organizational structure, (2) Quality Control approach, (3) Safety approach, (4) Change management approach and (5) Subcontractor Selection. The Offeror shall describe its organizational structure for and approach to the construction of the project, to include assumptions regarding self-performed work. The Offeror will provide an organization chart and narrative of roles for key members of the construction team. Key member should include at a minimum, the Project Manager, Quality Manager, Safety Health Officer, and Site Superintendent. The Offeror shall provide minimum qualifications the company requires for each key position, including education, specialized experience, and certifications. The narrative must state why the Offeror's construction team is uniquely qualified to undertake the project. Identification of specific individuals and/or resumes is not required as part of this submission, however, after award as required by the specifications.

Describe the team’s quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the construction. Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan. Provide information on how you will handle shop drawings, progress meetings, inspections, deficiencies, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation.

Describe the team’s safety approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain safety requirements during construction. Describe the proposed safety organization, including the proposed staffing plan.

Describe the overall change management approach for the project during the Construction phase.

The Offeror must describe its approach to major subcontractor selection for the project. The Offeror shall include a description that explains what factors are considered for selection of key subcontractors. Describe any retention or incentive programs the Offeror plans to implement for their staff and subcontractors. The Offeror must describe the strategies it intends to employ to address the challenges associated with U.S.- only companies and citizens as it relates to its workforce and subcontractors.

b. Preliminary Construction Schedule:

The Offerors shall be required to submit a detailed GANT chart construction schedule using professional scheduling software with a descriptive narrative that identifies the major phases of work and construction sequencing associated with the Construction Option. The schedule and narrative shall identify anticipated risk, anticipated downtime, critical path elements, predecessors and successors, task duration, and anticipated lead times for materials for full completion of the contract work.

The schedule narrative will explain the schedule logic, include a description of the construction sequencing and work site access including land and in-water work. The narrative should address any schedule constraints such as; in-water work windows, seasonal reservoir elevations, approach to working in multiple areas and shifts on the limited site conditions. The plan shall include procedures for safely securing site protecting work and equipment during high water events. The Offeror shall clearly articulate any assumption made in its plan to sequence and manage key activities and any constraints, such as resourcing, and limited site laydown, that may be levied on the proposed schedule. The Offerors shall provide plans for site layout and construction sequencing as necessary to explain the schedule logic.

The Offeror shall provide a narrative description of how it plans to schedule construction activities to execute a project of this size within the incremental funding profile and within the period of performance.

The Offeror shall use the following assumptions. These assumptions are non-binding and are solely for the purpose of proposal evaluation:

Contract Award (Start of Preconstruction Services) 9/25/202412/1/2024

Construction Option NTP 9/30/2025 Operational facility substantial completion no later than 9/27/2030 Assume in-water work window (July 1- Sept 30) Assume available workdays are 6 days a week and 20-hours/day Assume Federal Holidays are non-workdays Flood control operations (Approximately mid-October through early to mid-March) Conservation pool storage (Approximately early March through late October)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s construction management approach proposal as follows:

a. Construction Management and Quality Control Plan:

The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of the requirements as described in the solicitation and its capability to execute the project. The narrative must clearly demonstrate a reasonable approach to the contract and an understanding of the requirements. The Government will evaluate how well the overall organization is organized, structured, and staffed to execute the entire scope of work. If applicable, joint venture participants’ contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for construction. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the staffing plan to cover all required tasks and responsibilities. The Government will evaluate the narrative for reasonableness, applicability, logic, and understanding of the contractual requirements in regard to the safety plan.

An Offeror’s proposal that demonstrates the following may be provided greater consideration:

Change Management Plan includes provisions for personnel retention, continuity between pre-construction and construction phases, and consistency.

Narratives describing specific application of lessons learned related to quality control, safety, change management, schedule, and subcontractor selection, providing project examples is key for consideration.

b. Preliminary Construction Schedule:

Preliminary Construction Schedule- The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the complexity of the project and importance of developing a logical sequence of work based on the Construction Schedule.

An Offeror’s proposal that demonstrates the following may be provided greater consideration:

A comprehensive and reasonable strategy for arranging construction activities in a logical sequence to maximize efficiency.

For Factors 1 and 3, the Government will evaluate the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and/or uncertainties in the submission and assign one combined technical and risk rating for this Factor IAW Table 1.

Table 1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Note, the combined technical/risk rating is based on the consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

A significant strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that, when judged against the evaluation criteria, appreciably enhances the merit of the Offeror’s proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance by the Offeror.

A strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

A weakness is a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

A risk as it pertains to source selection is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

Low risk. 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 risk. 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 risk. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses, which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. It 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.

Factor 2: Past Performance

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. The past performance shall include the following, if applicable to the Solicitation:

Subcontractor Consent;

Teaming arrangements; and Joint Venture agreements.

The first (a) Relevant Company Effort is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant and recent efforts accomplished by the Offeror are to the effort of the Solicitation. The evaluation will result in the assignment of a Past Performance Relevancy Rating, as identified in Table 2.

a. Recency and Relevancy: The Offeror shall submit information on a up to five (5) projects demonstrating the Offeror’s recent/current, relevant experience in scope and magnitude to that required by the Solicitation. For each project, the Offeror shall furnish the information specified below. Attachment A, Past Performance Project Relevancy Information Summary Form, may be used to present the information.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to identify, detail and demonstrate the relevancy of the submitted projects to the Solicitation criteria elements. The SSEB will not make assumptions. If the Offeror’s proposed projects do not address the below minimum requirements, the Offeror’s proposal will still be evaluated; however, it may demonstrate a potential increased risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

For each project, the Offeror shall furnish the information specified below.

Attachment A, Past Performance Project Relevancy Information Summary Form, may be used to present the information. The construction effort shown does not have to be a task order under an Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC), but where it is, clearly indicate so. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) projects presented will be evaluated. An Offeror who submits less projects to demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to perform may be rated lower.

The Offeror shall provide the following information:

i. Company Name

ii. Name of project

iii. Location of project

iv. Project owner

v. General scope of project

vi. The Offeror’s role in the pre-construction or construction type work--self-performed on site other than Construction Management Services (CMS)

vii. Construction cost of the single project.

viii. Extent and type of work subcontracted out

ix. Construction Period (start and completion/scheduled completion dates (provide month/year)

x. Termination or Liquidated Damages information; comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not IAW the contract terms and conditions.

Recent means completed within the past twenty (20) years as of the date the Solicitation was issued, or one where the construction is at least 80% complete (measured by performance period days) as of the Solicitation issue date. Projects may also be considered where the overall completion is at least 50% if the Offeror has performed and completed pre-construction services. The Offeror is responsible for providing start and completion dates for each completed project, or the start and scheduled completion dates for projects currently under construction.

If an Offeror presents a project that is not complete, the proposal must include an explanation of why that project should be considered.

With respect to recency, more recent project performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than less recent project performance.

Relevant projects are projects of the same or close to the same scope, magnitude, and complexity to the Solicited, Section 01 11 00, Summary of Work. In terms of magnitude, a relevant project is one at or greater than $250 million; however, projects below this magnitude may be considered when similar in scope. For a project to be assessed, any degree of “relevancy” it must reflect the performance of requirements as described by the Solicitation.

The Offeror’s projects’ relevancy must demonstrate experience in the following areas:

Experience as a prime contractor or involved as prime contractor on a JV on a construction contract with a magnitude at or greater than $250 million.

Construction/Rehabilitation of spillway chutes or regulating outlets on a dam or similar structure.

Construction with the use of mass concrete exceeding a total placement of 5,000 cubic yards.

Experience in aquatic infrastructure construction, which may include in the wet construction methods, use of divers, unwatering/dewatering systems, or cofferdam installation.

Experience with excavation and tunneling that requires rock blasting.

Experience working adjacent to an active facility (e.g., dam, lock, spillway, powerhouse, selective withdrawal tower, bridge, or comparable) where construction activities cannot impact or limit operations.

Complex construction sequencing with limited/confined working space.

Individual projects may be assessed a higher relevancy if one or more of the following characteristics are met, and the overall past performance submission may receive additional consideration if the portfolio collectively satisfies multiple or all of these characteristics:

Construction of a fisheries facility (this does not include culverts and fish barrier systems) and/or wastewater treatment plant facility with a magnitude greater than $5 Million.

Experience working as a contractor performing preconstruction services during design via early contractor involvement (ECI) or equivalent and construction efforts in an ECI or equivalent contract.

Experience with blasting and tunneling greater than 100 feet in length adjacent to critical infrastructure.

With respect to relevancy, more relevant project performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than project performance of less relevancy.

b. Quality of Past Performance:

i. The Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of their past performance for each project under Factor 2. For Federal Government projects, the Offeror shall provide a completed contractor performance evaluation, whether interim or final, found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) (www.cpars.gov/).