Amendment R0008.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 R0008 is to incorporate specific ProjNet inquiry responses by reference, re-issue Amendment R0006 revisions w ith track-changes, issue revised EPA requirements, issue corrections to the Basis of Aw ard, and issue a new w age determination. See Continuation Page for additional details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 31

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Jun-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 X is extended, is not extended.

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

07-Jun-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:

R0008

Summary of Changes in Amendment R0008

Note: Track changes used in the updated documents.

1. This amendment incorporates by reference the Government responses to the following ProjNet inquiries: 10740213, 10740225, 10740230, 10740233, 10740237, 10740240, 10740241, 10740244, 10740247, 10740250, 10753028, 10753930, 10753938, 10753939, 10753942, 10753943, 10753949, 10754063, 10754115, 10756808, 10756809, 10756811, 10756813, 10756815, 10756817, 10756823, 10756825, 10756830, 10756832, 10756841, 10756863, 10756868, 10756880, 10761046, 10767359, 10767503, 10774769, 10777621, 10777625, 10777626, 10777630, 10779071, 10786133, 10786136, 10786140, 10788848, 10790248, 10790249, 10790251, 10791944, 10791952, 10791958, 10791965, 10777631, 10820059, 10821437, and 10823170.

2. Re-issue Amendment R0006 document with track changes: No revisions issued, however sections of

Amendment R0006 were issued without track changes. Track changes document included with this amendment for offerors’ awareness.

3. 00 10 00 – PROPOSAL SCHEDULE

Changes: Updated language related to Economic Price Adjustments and associated table. Adjusted formatting for clarity.

4. SECTION 00 22 16 – EVALUATION CRITERIA - BASIS OF AWARD

Changes: Issue corrections to Basis of Award.

5. SECTION 00 72 00 – GENERAL CONDITIONS

52.216-4 – Economic Price Adjustment – Labor and Material is deleted. Offerors are advised the Government intends to add special clause “ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT – CLIN 0002 CONSTRUCTION OPTION FFP ADJUSTMENT” addressing EPA after initial offers / during discussions.

6. Updated Davis Bacon Wage Determination - WA20240125

7. NOTICE TO OFFERORS: Offerors must acknowledge receipt of amendments by number and date on offer.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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) 9/25/2024

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.

Demonstrated direct involvement and experience with the above project areas from a parent company, affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries, or key personnel of the offeror’s corporate entity as identified on the proposal SF1442.

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/). If a proper evaluation does not exist in CPARS, because it has not been completed or the project is a non-Federal Government project, the Offeror shall provide a completed Attachment B, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). If, at time of evaluation, a final contractor performance evaluation exists in CPARS, and yet the Offeror submits a PPQ, only the evaluation in CPARS will be considered.

ii. Past performance surveys/assessment/evaluation forms other than CPARS or PPQs are unacceptable and will not be considered or evaluated.

iii. Completed PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection. However, Offerors shall not incorporate such PPQs by reference. The Offeror must resubmit PPQs for each submitted project within their proposal as evidence of quality of past performance. This does not, however, preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the Past Performance evaluation. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing current, detailed, and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

iv. If the CPARS or PPQs for each submitted project within the proposal indicate that the Offeror was required to take corrective action for any substandard performance or experienced other performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc., the Offeror should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken within their proposal.

v. If an Offeror’s client/customer will only provide completed PPQs directly to

(USACE), Seattle District (NWS), Offerors must ensure the client/customer submits the PPQ by the proposal due date to the Points of Contact indicated in the solicitation. The solicitation number shall be included on the PPQ form. PPQs received after the proposal due date will be considered untimely and will not be considered during the evaluation.

vi. Like other Offerors, a JV Offeror shall comply with paragraph (a) by the JV that reflect the JV’s ability to perform the work required in the Solicitation. If the JV Offeror does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a), the JV may supplement its projects with recent, relevant projects performed by either member of the JV in their individual capacity. JV Offerors are not required to submit projects of both partners but the Offerors who fail to submit experience for each JV partner may be rated lower. Additionally, more consideration may be given for projects that were performed as a JV. Regardless, the total number of projects submitted by the JV shall comply with paragraph A, 2.7.

vii. All Business Entities. To satisfy paragraph a and b, information pertaining to the corporate entity listed on the SF1442 will be considered in the evaluation.

Information related to a parent company, affiliates, divisions, and subsidiaries, may also be considered.

viii. Verification. The Government reserves the right to verify the information on projects submitted for evaluation, and to review CPARS, or other Government project appraisal systems, for information on other projects performed by the

Offeror whether submitted as part of a proposal or not. The Government also reserves the right to contact project clients/customer, or other references. For any adverse performance information found for which the Offeror has not had an opportunity to address, the Offeror will be afforded an opportunity to explain.

Table 2 Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities the solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities the solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities the solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities the solicitation requires.

Table 3 Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so spare that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In the case of Offerors for which no recent and relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance report is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.”

Factor 3: Pre-Construction Services

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to pre-construction services during the design of the project. The Offeror shall submit a Pre-Construction Services Management Plan and conceptual design review narrative.

a. Pre-Construction Services Management Plan:

Pre-Construction Services Approach Narrative

The Offeror shall describe how it proposes to accomplish the pre-construction services requirements outlined in Section 01 11 00, Summary of Work. The Offeror’s narrative must state why its pre-construction services team is uniquely qualified to undertake the project.

Demonstrate the capability and approach to: provide iterative and accurate cost estimates as the design progresses; evaluate design documents for constructability;

utilize collaboration software; identify construction related problems or errors in design; provide recommendations on construction feasibility; provide recommendations on economic alternatives; develop and manage an overall project schedule; assist in value engineering; accomplish cost estimate reconciliation at each design milestones; encourage subcontractor/supplier interest; and identify and manage risk.

Demonstrate the approach to ensure continual and effective collaboration with the Designer of Record (DOR)-Government (USACE) and the level of effort required to be successful.

Demonstrate value added benefits to the proposed pre-construction services approach.

Pre-Construction Services Staffing plan (Key Personnel)

Provide an organizational chart depicting the hierarchical structure of the positions responsible for project execution throughout the life of the design through transition to construction, including the minimum Key Personnel identified in the Solicitation, Section 01 00 00.

Identify any JV/Teaming Partners, subcontractors and special inspectors/consultants and their roles/responsibilities. If the Offeror is a JV, identify the percentage of self-performance and type of self-performance of each JV partner. Describe in the narrative the organization of the pre-construction services team and the duties and responsibilities of the key personnel that will be assigned to the project. Offerors shall submit pre-construction service team resumes. The narrative for the key positions must describe how the assigned personnel meet the minimum identified qualifications for at least: Project Manager; Engineering Manager/Coordinator; Construction Superintendent; Lead Cost Estimator/Engineer; Lead Scheduler. The Project Manager and Superintendent for the Pre-Construction services are the same individuals for those roles during construction. The Offeror’s resumes shall establish minimum qualifications for all pre-construction services staffing so long as the qualifications exceed the Statement of Work.

Based on the attached pre-construction schedule, identify in a resource-loaded schedule how/when and to what level (part/full time) each staff position will be involved in the project. Include starts and finishes and any planned evolution of responsibilities (i.e., transition from single hat to dual hat or on and off the project). This schedule will be incorporated into the contract as the foundation of pre-construction support, to which the Offeror will be held accountable for the awarded contract.

Demonstrate value added benefits to the proposed staffing plan in the narrative.

Pre-Construction Services Cost Validation Plan and Methodology

Describe proposed plan and methodology (including primary and/or secondary methodologies) to continually validate costs of construction and reconcile estimates with the Government at required milestones, identify major milestones or decision triggers, identify, and assess cost tradeoffs, develop cost/risk mitigation strategies, and utilize planned software platform(s) and databases. Include details regarding how methodologies are selected and applied to different features of design, construction, logistics, etc. Demonstrate value added benefits to the proposed cost validation plan.

b. Conceptual Design Review:

The Offeror shall perform a review of the Conceptual Design Documentation Report/Concept Design included with the Solicitation. From that review submit a narrative addressing items such as, the evaluation of the design documents for constructability and value engineering; identification of any problems or conflicts in the design and design documents; recommendations on improved construction phasing and schedule; recommendations on construction materials; indication of any long lead items that could impact project schedule. The narrative shall identify project risks (probability and consequence) and mitigation measures.

Submit innovative solutions or industry standards not currently identified in the design documents that could realistically provide a cost savings or performance enhancement for the major features of work.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for Factor 2Factor 3 Pre- Construction Services as follows:

a. Pre-Construction Services Management Plan:

Pre-Construction Services Approach Narrative and Staffing Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan and understanding of the pre-construction services requirement and its ability to provide the required staffing. The

Government will evaluate Offeror’s proposal to ensure it accounts for all the major features of work and to incorporate subject matter expertise in each discipline to provide constructability input on the design submittals throughout the pre-construction phase. The evaluation will consider the depth and breadth of the approach.

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

Proposed personnel to fill the roles detailed in the Pre-Construction Scope of

Services exceed the minimum experience requirements and/or demonstrate experience with pre-construction services.

Proposed teams with pre-construction expertise with a greater range of major construction disciplines.

Application of lessons learned on prior work to proposed solutions for the project.

Pre-Construction Services Cost Validation Plan and Methodology

The Government will evaluate the narrative to ensure the Offeror demonstrates a complete and comprehensive approach to estimating in both pre-construction service phase as well as during construction activities.

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

Estimating systems that rely on direct pricing information, such as quotes or published price lists, rather than proposed reliance on parametric estimating methods.

Methodology to forecast escalation.

b. Conceptual Design review:

The Government will review the proposal to ensure it demonstrates understanding of the requirement and how effectively the Offeror’s team applied technical solutions to design and project execution challenges. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submitted design review, constructability review, and proposed value engineering for thoroughness, overall project understanding, risk mitigation and assessment of known or perceived risk. The Government will review the proposed solutions for demonstration of innovative means and/or methods for including, constructability, cost saving measures, labor and resource shortages, restricted site access, supply chain demands, long lead item procurement, etc.

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

Identify specific opportunities for design improvements, e.g., constructability, material selection, site utilization, sequencing.

Application of lessons learned on prior work to proposed solutions for the project.

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 above.

Factor 4: Small Business Commitment

Other than SB Offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed commitment by the U.S. SB in the performance of the Solicitation requirements relative to the objectives and goals established herein, as well as Offeror’s past performance complying with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The purpose of this Factor is to evaluate the amount of work proposed to be performed by SB in relation to the total contract (dollar) value of the project, the type of work SB will be performing and the extent of the commitment in using the identified SB firms (particularly major project phases – design, manufacturing, installation/testing, and demolition/removal).

Other than SB Offerors will be rated using the SB rating method in Table 4 below.

Note, per Title 13 C.F.R. § 125.3(g)(3), a SB offeror need not submit any information in connection with the SBC Factor and shall receive the maximum rating under the SBC evaluation factor.

Table 4 Small Business Rating Method

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Other than SB Offerors shall submit the following:

a. SB Commitment Document (SBCD). Complete and submit Attachment C, SBCD, to identify the extent to which SB will participate in the performance of the acquisition. This document utilizes percentages only based on total contract value without including pricing information.

Note that the total contract value is to be calculated based on the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 0001 for the Pre-Construction Services price plus Option CLIN 0002 for the Construction services Initial Target Price (Initial Target Cost plus Initial Target Profit).

b. Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR). Total SBC of 10% of the total contract value (through SB participation from small-, small disadvantaged-(SDB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVOSB), or Woman-Owned (WOSB) SB, and/or Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone)) has been assigned to the Solicitation. Offerors proposing an SBC percentage below the MQR will be considered deficient for this Factor.

In determining significant strengths, strength, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and/or uncertainties for this Factor, the Government will consider the following:

a. The extent of the Offeror’s proposed commitment of SB in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition expressed in percentage, only.

b. The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the MQR and the suggested socioeconomic category goals.

In addition to the MQR, the following goals are suggested for the individual socioeconomic categories and determined to be reasonable based on market research for this requirement. Goals are based on % of TOTAL contract value:

{8%} Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) {4%} Woman-Owned SB (WOSB) {2%} Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned SB (SDVOSB) {2%} Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone)

c. The extent to which proposed SB firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified by name in the SBCD (DFARS 215.304(c)(i)(C)). Firms must be listed in the subcontracting plan that is incorporated into the contract award.

d. The extent of commitment to use the identified SB firms (enforceable and/or long-term commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable commitments). Copies of written commitments must be provided.

*Note: an enforceable and/or long-term commitment is a written and signed agreement (by the Prime and subcontractor) that details that all parties have agreed to a business relationship for the Solicitation. The document must clearly show that both parties have defined and agreed to the extent of the relationship, including the type or types of work that the subcontractors/partners shall perform and what areas of the contract they will cover. The agreement shall be specific in nature.

e. The complexity and variety of the work SB are proposed to perform (for example:

work requiring specific certifications, i.e., welding, mechanical, electrical, manufacturing, supply, etc.) to expand competitive pool– particularly during major project phases like design, manufacturing, installation/testing and demolition/removal.

SB Past Performance. The Government will consider the past performance information provided, including that which indicates the extent to which the Offeror attained its goals for SB participation and demonstrated a “good faith effort” IAW FAR 19.705-7 for all Federal contracts listed that required Subcontracting Plans.

Other than SB shall submit the following information reflecting the Offeror’s past level of SB commitment, as a prime contractor, for each project listed by the Offeror under Factor 2, Past Performance, or for any other recent and relevant projects as a prime contractor:

a. If the project was performed for a Federal agency, all Individual Subcontract Reports

(ISRs) or Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) from the Electronic Reporting System (eSRS) for the project must be submitted. Copies of ISR’s and SSR’s will not count against the proposal page limitation.

b. If the project was not performed for a Federal Agency, please submit the following:

i. Name of the project and location.

ii. Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract’s total value that was SELF

PERFORMED AS THE PRIME.

iii. Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract’s total value that was

SUBCONTRACTED.

iv. Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract’s total value that was

SUBCONTRACTED TO SB(ES).

v. Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract’s total value

SUBCONTRACTED TO OTHER THAN SB(ES).

Subcontracting Plan. To be eligible for award, Other than SB will submit a SB Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR Clause 52.219-9 Alt II with their proposal. The SB Subcontracting Plan of the apparently successful Offeror can be negotiated to achieve acceptability. Failure to negotiate an acceptable SB Subcontracting Plan within the time limit prescribed by the KO will result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

Factor 5: Cost/Price

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

a. Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment D)

b. Proposal Pricing Schedules

The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s price proposal in order to identify risks to the Government based upon demonstration of the below:

a. The Offeror can…