amendment_0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Reference W912EE18R0002 for FC/MR&T, MATOC FOR FY 18 MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, CONSTRUCTION OF LEVEE ENLARGEMENTS AND BERMS. This solicitation is amended as follow s:

See continuation page for changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Jun-2018

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 W912EE18R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Apr-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

01-Jun-2018

CODE

VICKSBURG CONTRACTING OFFICE

4155 CLAY ST

VICKSBURG MS 39183-3435

W912EE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912EE18R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

BIDDING SCHEDULE: The Bidding Schedule is revised and replaced in its entirety.

SECTION 00130 – PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA: The 35 page limit as addressed in section E. PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS REQUIREMENTS has been updated from 35 pages to 70 pages. Section 00130 is revised and replaced in its entirety.

SPECIFICATIONS: Section 31 11 00.00 09 and Section 31 23 00.00 09 are revised and replaced. Specifications revised by this amendment have the notation "Revised by Amendment 0003" at the bottom of the page. Text added by this amendment is shown as underlined. Text deleted by this amendment is shown as overstruck.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

(End of Summary of Changes)

*Revised by Amendment 0003

SECTION 00010 – BIDDING SCHEDULE

FC/MR&T, 2018 MRL MATOC

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

WEST BANK MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES

YUCATAN TO LAKE BRUIN, LOUISIANA

LEVEE ENLARGEMENT AND BERMS

ITEM 398-R, PHASE I

ITEM DESCRIPTION EST UNIT UNIT AMOUNT

NO. QTY PRICE

0001 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION 1 JB FOR $_______________

0002 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 JB FOR $_______________

0003 GRAVEL SURFACING, EXISTING 1 JB FOR $_______________

0004 MOWING, TURFING, AND EROSION 1 JB FOR $_______________

CONTROL MATTING

0005 BERM EMBANKMENT, UNCOMPACTED 63,400 CY $_______ $_______________

0006 LEVEE EMBANKMENT, SEMICOMPACTED 474,370 CY $_______ $_______________

0007 BERM EMBANKMENT, SEMICOMPACTED 120,000 CY $_______ $_______________

0008 LEVEE SURFACING, CRUSHED STONE 7,270 TN $_______ $_______________

0009 CATTLE GUARDS 1 JB FOR $_______________

0010 DITCH 1 1 JB FOR $_______________

0011 TRAVERSES 1 JB FOR $_______________

0012 ENVIRONMENAL PROTECTION FEATURES 1 JB FOR $_______________

TOTAL $____________________

Section 00130 – Proposal Evaluation Criteria

In accordance with FAR 15.304, the following factors will be considered in evaluating the non-cost aspects of the proposals. Narrative color descriptors have been selected to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each Offerors proposal for each evaluation factor. In evaluating a contractor's proposal, evaluators must document the proposal's strengths and weaknesses. Using succinct, clearly stated narratives, evaluators will indicate the impact to the Government of the strengths and/or weaknesses, providing supporting facts and rationale.

If the proposal exceeds the Government’s expectations in relation to the evaluation criteria/standards, it forms the basis for "strength." If the proposal is below the Government's expectations in relation to the evaluation criteria/standards, it forms the basis for "weakness." A final narrative summary shall be employed when evaluating proposals in accordance with Section 00130 of the Request for Proposals.

Proposals will be evaluated by a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers.

This acquisition will be conducted using the Tradeoff Source Selection Process outlined in FAR 15.101-11. This trade-off process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a “best-value” contract award.

The Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between Technical Merit (Experience and Project Management Plan), Past Performance, and cost to the Government (i.e., price). Where competing technical proposals are determined to be substantially equal, price could become the controlling factor.

Award(s), up to four (4), will be made to the Offeror(s), determined by the Government, who can accomplish the requirements set forth in the RFP in a manner most advantageous to the Government considering both cost and non-cost factors. The Government reserves the right to award this Contract to other than the lowest price Offeror after consideration of all factors.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award up to four (4) contracts without discussions. Therefore, Offerors shall submit their best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint as Offerors may not be afforded an opportunity to revise their proposals.

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

Award(s), up to four (4), will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with established criteria in Section 00130 of the Request for Proposal (RFP); Experience (Sub factor 1, Prime Contractor Experience, Sub factor 2, Sub-contractor Experience, Sub factor 3, Key Personnel); Past Performance; Project Management Plan. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(b).

This best-value decision will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate each of the three (3) non-cost factors and rate the proposals. Non-cost factors are not all equal in importance.

Factor 1, Experience, is the most important factor. Subfactor 1 (Prime Contractor

Experience) is significantly more important than Subfactor 2 (Subcontractor Experience) and Subfactor 3 (Key Personnel), which are equal.

Factor 2, Past Performance, is less important than Factor 1 (Experience) but more important than Factor 3 (Project Management Plan).

Factor 3, Project Management Plan, is significantly less important than Factor 1 (Experience) and less important than Factor 2 (Past Performance).

Factor 1 and 3 will receive a Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(3), all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) and may become more significant in contributing to the source selection decision if competing proposals offer comparatively equal Experience, Past Performance and Project Management Plan.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following table is a description of the factors and overall relative importance.

COST FACTOR:

Price - Price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) and may become more significant in contributing to the source selection decision if competing proposals offer comparatively equal Experience, Past Performance and Project Management Plan.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

NON-COST EVALUATION FACTORS & SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

FACTOR 1 (VOLUME 1 - TAB 1). EXPERIENCE - RATED AS FOLLOWS:

1.1a TAB 1A – Subfactor 1 – Prime Contractor Experience

A. Submission Requirements

Factor/SubFactor

Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 Tab 1 Experience Most Important Factor.

Subfactor 1 Tab 1a Prime Contractor Experience

Significantly more important than Subfactor 2 and Subfactor 3.

Subfactor 2 Tab 1b Subcontractor Experience

Less important than Subfactor 1. Of equal importance to Subfactor 3.

Subfactor 3 Tab 1c Key Personnel Less important than Subfactor 1. Of equal importance to Subfactor 2.

FACTOR 2 Tab 2 Past Performance Less important than factor 1 but more important than factor 3.

FACTOR 3 Tab 3 Project Management Plan

Less important than factor 1 and factor 2.

The Offeror shall submit information describing a minimum of three and a maximum of five examples of relevant experience related to levee embankment construction completed within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The information must identify the portion of work self-performed and describe how the work is relevant to this project. The value of each submitted project should be a minimum of $1M. The Government will review the submitted construction projects provided by the Offeror and evaluate the recent relevant specialized experience of the Offeror on projects similar in scope, size, and complexity to Item 398-R identified in the solicitation as well as all aspects described in the Description of Work on the SF 1442. Offerors are encouraged to choose sample construction projects that closely resemble the scope, size, and complexity of the project identified in this solicitation. Emphasis should be on the capability and performance of construction, and should include project delivery within schedule, ability to adapt to changing requirements and conditions, and provide specific examples of challenges faced and solutions proposed and executed. The Offeror shall list project experience for each of the submitted projects that meets the following criteria:

• Location of previous levee embankment construction, organization work was performed for, and brief scope of work performed;

• Features performed by the offeror as a Prime Contractor (i.e. embankment, surfacing, turfing, relief wells, etc.);

• Contract value;

• Established completion date and the actual contract completion date and an explanation for any delays between the established and actual completion dates;

• List of the number of crews and subcontractors utilized for each contract;

• Method of material placement;

• Methods used to meet contract quality control requirements (i.e. equipment, testing methods, etc.); and

• Average material placement rates/day.

B. Evaluation Criteria

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating in this subfactor. Thorough, detailed and complete narratives will be rated more highly than a narrative not providing sufficient detail or discussion of the Offeror’s proposed approach.

Omission of requested information will result in a lower rating to include the possibility of an Unacceptable rating or rejected offer.

Performance on projects similar in scope, complexity, magnitude and schedule will provide a basis to assess strengths, weaknesses, and the overall performance risk associated with award to a particular contractor.

Offers will be evaluated on their demonstrated experience in production quality, contract administration skillfulness, and in meeting or providing the expertise requirements of proposed work under the contract. Offers that demonstrate performance on projects similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude of past and current Mississippi River Levees in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers mission will receive a higher rating. Offers demonstrating more experience with related work will receive a higher rating. Relevant embankment construction experience as a prime contractor will be considered more favorably than reliance on subcontractor experience in this area.

1.1b TAB 1B – Subfactor 2 – Subcontractor Experience

The Offeror shall identify and submit what work will be self-performed and what work will be subcontracted out. At a minimum, this should address embankment/earthwork, gravel surfacing, turfing, and relief wells.

The Offeror shall submit information describing a minimum of three and a maximum of five examples of relevant experience related to levee embankment construction features completed by the Offeror’s subcontractors that have been completed within the last five (5) years. The Government will review the submitted construction projects provided by the Offeror and evaluate the recent relevant specialized experience of the Offeror on projects similar in scope, size, and complexity to the project features identified in the solicitation. Offerors are encouraged to choose submitted projects that closely resemble the scope, size, and complexity of Item 398-R identified in the solicitation as well as all aspects described in the Description of Work on the SF 1442. The Offeror shall list project experience that meets the following criteria:

• Location of previous work and the organization work was performed for;

• Features performed by the Subcontractor (i.e. embankment, surfacing, turfing, relief wells, etc.);

• Contract value; and

• Methods used to meet contract quality requirements (i.e. equipment, testing methods, etc.).

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating in this factor. Thorough, detailed and complete narratives will be rated more highly than those not providing sufficient detail or discussion of the Offeror’s proposed approach. Omission of requested information will result in a lower rating to include the possibility of an Unacceptable rating or rejected offer.

Offers will be evaluated on the experience, qualification and capability of subcontractors proposed to work under the contract. The Offer shall demonstrate that its subcontractors have the necessary structure, experience, and qualified resources to effectively manage, control, administer and execute the integrated design and construction operations, and safety and quality control programs.

Offers with subcontractors that demonstrate experience on projects of same/similar scope, complexity, and magnitude of past and current Mississippi River Levees in support of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers mission will receive a higher rating. Offerors with subcontractors with more experience will receive higher ratings.

In the event the prime contractor is self-performing all work, this Subfactor will be rated Not Applicable (N/A). The prime contractor will then be rated on his experience alone in all features of work requested above.

1.1c TAB 1C – Subfactor 3 – Key Personnel

The Offeror must submit resumes of key personnel to include: Site Superintendent(s), Surveyor(s), Quality Control Manager and Safety Officer. Offeror shall provide a project specific organizational chart for the staff identified for participation on projects under this contract.

Resumes are limited to three (3) pages per position not including documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with relevant training, licenses, or certifications and should include the following for all key personnel:

• Name

• Position- Resumes of key personnel shall either state that the individual is a full-time employee of the offeror or shall have attached a signed letter of commitment from the sub-contractor. To demonstrate compliance with relevant training, license or certifications, Offerors must enclose a copy of the certification, license, or training completion certificate with their Offer.

• Experience (a minimum of 3 years required for all positions) - Must include dates (month and year), position(s) held, and responsibilities (with most recent experience listed first) directly related to performing the applicable position. The information provided should detail the personnel’s applicable construction/management experience on construction projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to those listed in the solicitation. Experience unrelated to the requirements in this solicitation should not be included. Should staffing issues prevent contractor from utilizing the person identified in the performance of the contract, Contractor shall submit for Contracting Officer approval the name and relevant documentation showing that the replacement also meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation prior to any changes being incorporated into the contract.

In addition, the following information is required to be demonstrated for each key position:

• Site Superintendent(s) – The Site Superintendent must have completed the Construction Quality Management for Contractors (CQM) course within the past 5 years.

• Surveyor(s) – The Contractor is required to obtain the services of a licensed professional surveyor licensed in the state of the task order performance. The surveyor’s resume should provide evidence of any professional licenses held such as Professional Surveyor (P.S.), degrees held, applicable training or certifications in topographic surveying.

• Quality Control Manager – The Quality Control Manager must have completed the Construction Quality Management for Contractors (CQM) course within the past 5 years and the QCM’s resume must demonstrate at least 3 years’ experience with use of Corps Resident Management System (RMS) software.

• Safety Officer – The Safety Officer must have completed an approved 30-hour OSHA safety course, and a professionally certified CPR/First Aid course within the past 5 years.

• Offerors shall provide examples of past projects managed by key personnel that demonstrate familiarity with projects of same/similar scope, complexity, and magnitude of the solicited project.

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating in this factor.

Thorough, detailed and complete resumes and other required submissions will receive a higher rating. Omission of requested information will result in a lower rating to include the possibility of an Unacceptable rating or rejected offer.

Offers will be evaluated on the quality, education, and experience possessed to meet or provide the expertise requirements of proposed work described in the solicitation. Offers shall demonstrate the necessary structure, experience, and qualified resources within its proposed organization to effectively manage, control, administer and execute the integrated design and construction operations, safety and quality control programs, and subcontracts.

Offers with key personnel that demonstrate experience on projects of same/similar scope, complexity, and magnitude of past and current Mississippi River Levees in support of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers mission will receive a higher rating. Offers with key personnel with more experience in the proposed positions will be receive a higher rating.

FACTOR 2 (VOLUME 1 - TAB 2). PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors will be evaluated on the quality of similar work performed, as a prime contractor, on three (3) to five (5) projects within the last five (5) years from issuance of solicitation, using the evidence provided by the Offeror. Performance on projects similar in scope, complexity, magnitude and schedule will provide a basis to assess strengths, weaknesses, and the overall performance risk associated with award to a particular contractor. The Government reserves the right to verify supplied information and references and further assess owner satisfaction. The Government may also use any other past performance information, from other sources, outside of the Offerors proposal in their evaluation. If fewer than three (3) projects are submitted, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Neutral” in this factor. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, the Government will evaluate the five (5) most recent projects submitted. The Offeror shall include the percentage of the final contract amount that was self-performed work along with a description of that self-performed work. Offerors shall include relevant past performance history that demonstrates experience in constructing levee enlargements, embankment berms, relief well installation, turf establishment, and levee surfacing. The Offeror shall include the following past performance information:

•Brief description of the submitted contract scope, complexity, and magnitude;

•For U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contracts, provide a copy of the signed Construction Contract Administration Support System (CCASS) and/or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation issued at the completion of the contract. For non-Corps of Engineers contracts, provide a copy of the performance rating issued by the Contracting Agency;

•For all cited past performance in an Offeror’s proposal, the Government strongly encourages Offerors to include a PPQ. The template for this survey is provided in this section as Attachment

1. The past performance questionnaire shall be filled out by the Offeror’s past client (Attachment 1, Client Information, Blocks 5-8). The Government may verify all past performance submitted as part of an offer and failure to include valid contact information will prevent that verification;

•Include performance recognition documents received within the last 10 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition; and •Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client’s point of contact.

B. Evaluation Criteria

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives a rating of "No Confidence" in this factor. Past Performance will be evaluated based on the results of work performed that is determined to be relevant to this requirement. Offerors will be evaluated on the quality of similar work performed, as a prime contractor, on three (3) to five (5) projects within the last five (5) years, using the evidence provided by the Offeror. Performance on projects similar in scope, complexity, magnitude and schedule will provide a basis to assess strengths, weaknesses, and the overall performance risk associated with award to a particular contractor. The Government reserves the right to verify supplied information and references and further assess owner satisfaction. The Government may also use any other past performance information, from other sources, outside of the Offerors proposal in their evaluation. If fewer than three (3) projects are submitted, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Neutral” in this factor. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, the Government will evaluate the most recently completed five (5) projects.

Higher evaluation ratings will be given for past performance on those projects that are same/similar in scope, complexity and magnitude of past and current Mississippi River Levees in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and clearly demonstrate an Offeror’s capabilities to successfully construct projects with similar schedules and budgets. Offerors with experience in excavation and embankment placement that demonstrates familiarity with the Mississippi River valley and the unique conditions of the soils in the Mississippi River valley region will be rated higher than those without. An Offeror’s past performance as a prime, self-performing Contractor will be evaluated more favorably than that for which the Offeror acted as a subcontractor.

Offerors with a higher percentage of self-performed construction work may be rated higher than those with a lower percentage. Projects that are not yet complete will be rated lower than those that are complete. Offerors that demonstrate that they provided innovation, cost control, and/or schedule advancement during previous construction projects will be rated higher than Offerors unable to demonstrate they provided innovation, cost control, and/or schedule advancement during previous construction projects.

1.3 TAB 3 – FACTOR 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

A. Submission Requirements

Offerors shall provide a detailed project management plan to include their project management philosophy and what tools and management procedures the Offeror will use to ensure that projects stay on schedule (scheduling tool used, meetings, look-ahead, schedule updates, etc); details demonstrating construction management for multiple concurrently operated phases of construction; details of their project safety philosophy and what tools they will use to ensure no lost time accidents will occur; strategies the Offeror will employ to regain schedule in the face of unforeseen delays; a narrative of their experience with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Resident Management System (RMS) – Contractor Mode or similar quality control systems, and a summary of their quality control plan, to include testing, labs, and reporting. The Offeror shall include the following in their submission:

•Narrative to address their Project Management Plan and •List of all exposure and accidents experienced for all work during the past two (2) years as well as an OSHA Form 300 or equivalent.

B. Evaluation Criteria

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating in this factor.

Thorough, detailed and complete narratives will be rated more highly than those not providing sufficient detail or discussion of the Offeror’s proposed approach. Omission of requested information will result in a lower rating to include the possibility of an Unacceptable rating or rejected offer.

Offerors that demonstrate that safety is a clear company value will be rated higher than those that do not. The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall project management plan and organization and how well it is structured to execute projects of same/similar scope, complexity, and magnitude of past and current Mississippi River Levees in support of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers mission.

D. Application of Ratings

Rating System for Factors 1 and 3: .

After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating to each factor and subfactor (except #2 Past Performance; see below in this paragraph for separate discussion), which reflects an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal The adjectival ratings for the combined Technical/Risk evaluation are:

Table 2. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS Color Rating Description BLUE Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

PURPLE Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

If at any level of evaluation, an offeror’s proposal is evaluated as not meeting a minimum requirement [that is, below the level of “Marginal)”], this fact must be included in the rating and narrative assessment at that level and each higher level of indentation. Therefore, an “Unacceptable” rating at any level must be carried to the factor level [as by definition in the RFP, a rating of “Unacceptable” means that a proposal is unawardable].

Factor 2: Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating System: Past Performance Ratings assess the offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation (aspects identified below), and one overall performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror.

The Government will first assess and rate recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope of work required by this contract [aspect number one] for overall application to the performance confidence assessment ratings described hereinafter. This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing an overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to this subfactor.

The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. See attached Section 00130 for the detailed elements considered in the evaluation of past performance.

The past performance relevancy ratings are described below:

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

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

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The SSEB will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required;

rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

At the conclusion of this process of evaluating past performance, an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating is assigned to each offeror. Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSAC may recommend and the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria. The possible ratings, along with their descriptions, are as follows:

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will 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.

COST/PRICE

The price submitted in response to this solicitation will not be rated. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) and may become more significant in contributing to the source selection decision if competing proposals offer comparatively equal Experience, Past Performance and Project Management Plan.

E. PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS REQUIREMENTS

Proposals shall be submitted in two (2) volumes. All Offerors are required to submit one (1) original, four (4) copies, and two CD/DVD’s (one for Volume 1 and one for Volume 2) containing all information submitted with the proposal. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and money will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the Offeror's Experience, Key Personnel, Past Performance, and Project Management Plan. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. All proposals shall be tabbed for each of the evaluation factors. An Offeror’s response to this solicitation is limited to seventy (70) 8.5” x 11” pages for Volume I, not including those items specifically excluded from the page limit, with the font size no smaller than 10pt. Drawings or other graphics (if applicable) shall be reduced only to the extent legibility is not lost. A page printed on both sides will be counted as two (2) pages. Pages shall be consecutively numbered.

Volume I shall include:

i. Experience as stated in Factor 1 with subfactor submittals.

ii. Past Performance as stated in Factor 2.

iii. Project Management Plan as stated in Factor 3.

Items that must be included in VOLUME I, but are EXCLUDED from the page limitation, are:

i. Title sheets and indices

ii. Table of Contents

iii. OSHA forms

iv. CCASS or CPARS, Past Performance Questionnaires

(See Attachment 1), and other Contracting Agency evaluation forms

v. Resumes of key personnel

vi. Letters of Recommendation, commendation, ratings, etc.

vii. Letters of agreement for equipment, labor and material availability and Letters of Commitment of Key Subcontractors.

viii. Letter Confirming Availability of Parent/Affiliate Resources (if applicable).

All other items are subject to the 70-page limitation as described above.

Volume II shall include:

i. Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer and Award.

ii. One completed Price Breakdown - Binding Rate Table (Appendix C) for G&A (General & Administrative) for the Home Office Program Executive Team. The proposed G&A rate will be binding for the term of the contract, as a maximum or ceiling rate, that may be proposed in any task order under this contract

iii. Section 00010, Bidding Schedule.

iv. Cost Breakdown of resulting prices submitted on the Bidding Schedule.

v. Standard Form 24, Bid Bond.

vi. Section 00600, Representations &

Certifications.

Items in Volume II are EXCLUDED from the page number limitation.

PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date, and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created.

b. File Packaging. Two separate discs shall be submitted, one will include the volume I content and the other will include content for volume II. All of the proposal files shall be submitted in read-only PDF format. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the Offeror’s name. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable. **If the hard-copy proposal differs from the electronic version the hard copy will govern.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file.

The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

F. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, Offerors shall submit their best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint as Offerors may not be afforded an opportunity to revise their proposals. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors will be allowed a minimum of 7 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions. If discussions are to be conducted, the PCO shall, with the approval of the SSA, establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria (see FAR 15.306(c)). Prior to the establishment of the competitive range, and after the decision to conduct discussions has been made, the PCO may enter into limited communications with offerors whose inclusion or exclusion from the competitive range is uncertain. These communications are limited in accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(1).

The establishment of the competitive range is formally documented by the PCO in a competitive range determination. The PCO will only enter discussions with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each Offeror will be notified of the time and place at least three (3) business days prior to their discussion session. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the Offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District Office, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Attachment 1 Past Performance Questionnaire

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

VICKSBURG DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

4155 CLAY STREET

VICKSBURG, MS 39183-3435

May 1, 2018

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF:

Vicksburg District Contracting Office

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Vicksburg District, Corps of Engineers is conducting a performance confidence assessment in anticipation of a possible contract award under the advertised request for proposal number:

W912EE-18-R-0002, MATOC FOR FY18 MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, CONSTRUCTION

OF LEVEE ENLARGEMENTS AND BERMS. An Offeror interested in proposing on this work has identified you as a Point of Contact (POC) on a past or present contract which the Offeror deems relevant to this effort. We are, therefore, requesting your assistance in completing the attached Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire so that we may evaluate the Offeror under the Factor of past performance. The Questionnaire has been developed for ease of electronic completion.

Description of the work required by the RFP is as follows: Features of the work may include providing all materials, labor, and equipment necessary to perform construction of compacted, semi-compacted, and uncompacted embankments for levees and berms utilizing Government furnished riverside or landside borrow areas as well as installation of relief wells along the toe of the levees and/or berms. Other project requirements may include surveying, testing, clearing and grubbing, ditching, furnishing and installing culverts and cattle guards, construction of drainage structures in borrow areas, establishment of turf, installing crushed stone or asphalt paving on the levee crown and ramps, and other work incidental to the levee projects. Work will be performed primarily along the Mississippi River levee system within the geographic bounds of the Vicksburg District, but may include other levee systems within the Vicksburg District, or on a more limited basis similar levee systems within the Mississippi Valley Division region.

Please provide your comments regarding the overall assessment of the Offeror’s performance on the contract identified and any additional information that your organization deems relevant to our evaluation team. It is important that your information be as factual, accurate and complete as possible to preclude the need for follow-up by the evaluators.

Please complete and submit the Questionnaire within 3 days of receipt via e-mail to Jason Carlock, Contract Specialist, at Jason.M.Carlock@usace.army.mil. If you have any questions relative to the enclosed Questionnaire, please contact Jason Carlock. We encourage you to provide the requestor a copy of your comments for his proposal package.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Robert E. Screws Contracting Officer

ATTACHMENT 1: PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information

Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as:

Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime

Prime Contractor

Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain)

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

4. Project Description:

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

RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION Respondent to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Respondent Information Organization:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number Address:

E-mail Address:

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

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

8. Respondent’s Signature:

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE RESPONDENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE

TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE

SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. AS A COURTESY, QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL ALSO BE

SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE GOVERNMENT’S POINT OF CONTACT VIA EMAIL AT

JASON.M.CARLOCK@USACE.ARMY.MIL PRIOR TO PROPOSAL CLOSING DATE THE GOVERNMENT

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or subelement being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY RESPONDENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2.…