A22_Amendment_0004_W912EE19R0002-0004___.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 Solicitation No. W912EE19R0002 for FY 19 Indef inite Delivery Indef inite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Aw ard Task Order Contracts

(Matoc) For The Lease of Multiple Cutterhead, Hydraulic Pipeline Dredges (Not Less Than 24-Inch Diameter), Fully Operated w ith Attendant

Plant And Personnel, With A Draf t Not to Exceed 9 Feet, for Construction And Maintenance Dredging Within the vicksburg District, Other

Districts Within the Mississippi Valley Division, or Districts Adjacent to the Vicksburg District.

Please see contionation pages 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 15-Jan-2019

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 W912EE19R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Dec-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, 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

15-Jan-2019

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:

W912EE19R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following items are applicable to this modification:

EXHIBIT A, SECTION 00130 – PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA is revised and replaced in its entirety.

Revisions to Section 0130 by this amendment have an astericks (*) in the margins before and after the changes to the previous issue as well as the notation “Revised by Amendment 0004” at the bottom of the page.

EXHIBIT A

RFP No. W912EE19R0002

INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) MULTIPLE AWARD

TASK ORDER (MATOC) CONTRACTS FOR THE LEASE OF MULTIPLE

CUTTERHEAD, HYDRAULIC PIPELINE DREDGES (NOT LESS THAN 24-INCH

DIAMETER), FULLY OPERATED WITH ATTENDANT PLANT AND

PERSONNEL, WITH A DRAFT NOT TO EXCEED 9 FEET, FOR CONSTRUCTION

AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING WITHIN THE VICKSBURG DISTRICT,

OTHER DISTRICTS WITHIN THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISION, OR

DISTRICTS ADJACENT TO THE VICKSBURG DISTRICT

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

"Revised by Amendment 0004"

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); Technical Capability, Subfactor 1 -Capability of Plant, Subfactor 2 - Management, Subfactor 3 - Experience, Subfactor 4 - Personnel, and Subfactor 5 – Safety, Environmental and Spill Response Plans, Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 - Small Business Participation 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.

When combined, factors 1, 2, and 3 are significantly more important than price.

Factor 1, Technical Capability, is the most important factor.

Factor 2, Past Performance, is less important than Factor 1 (Technical Capability) but more important than Factor 3 (Small Business Participation Plan).

Factor 3, Small Business Participation Plan, is less important than Factor 1 (Technical Capability) and Factor 2 (Past Performance).

All Subfactors are of equal importance.

Factor 1 and all subfactors 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.

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 Dredging Equipment, Experience and Past Performance.

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 Technical Capability and Past Performance.

Factor/SubFactor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 Tab A Technical Capability Most Important Factor Subfactor 1 Tab 1a Capability of Plant All subfactors are of equal importance

Subfactor 2 Tab 1b Management All subfactors are of equal importance

Subfactor 3 Tab 1c Experience All subfactors are of equal importance

Subfactor 4 Tab 1d Personnel All subfactors are of equal importance

Subfactor 5 Tab 1e Safety, Environmental, and Spill Response Plans

All subfactors are of equal importance

FACTOR 2 Tab B Past Performance Less important than Factor 1 but more important that Factor 3.

FACTOR 3 Tab C Small Business Participation Plan

Less important than Factors 1 and 2.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

NON-COST EVALUATION FACTORS & SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

TAB A – FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

TAB 1a – Subfactor 1 – Capability of Plant

A. Submission Requirements

Below are the items that shall be submitted for evaluation to determine the overall rating for subfactor 1:

1) Dredge and Attendant Plant Characteristics:

Offerors are required to complete Exhibit “B” Dredge and Attendant Plant Characteristic Sheets.

NOTE: The Federal Government reserves the right to verify by inspection any/all equipment submitted in this package. Failure to produce equipment for verification may result in contractor being rated as unacceptable, thus disqualifying them from contract award.

2) Production Capacity:

Offerors shall provide Daily Production Data from three (3) previous federal contracts of similar size, scope and complexity of which were completed by the dredge submitted in Exhibit “B”. The Daily Production Data shall demonstrate the plants ability to meet or exceed the minimum requirements as specified in the specifications in a riverine environment.

3) Plant Efficiency:

Offeror’s shall provide data demonstrating zero time versus actual pumping time from three

(3) previous federal contracts of similar size, scope and complexity of which were completed by the dredge submitted in Exhibit “B”. The data shall demonstrate the plants ability to efficiently dredge in a riverine environment.

B. Evaluation Criteria

The Government will review the submitted information to evaluate the offeror’s technical capability. In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will give a higher rating to the offeror who can provide the best value to Government.

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 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.

TAB 1b – Subfactor 2 – Management

A. Submission Requirements

Below are the items that shall be submitted for evaluation to determine the overall rating for subfactor 2:

1) 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, 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

• Detailed Organizational Structure explaining chain of command and identifying personnel who shall have authority to make contract and work related decisions

• Brief narrative showing successful management of federal contract

• 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.

2) Offeror shall provide documentation demonstrating their experience successfully managing federal contracts of similar size, scope and complexity.

3) Offerors shall provide documentation demonstrating adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 9.104-3(a), Ability to obtain resources. Except to the extent that a prospective contractor has sufficient resources or proposes to perform the contract by subcontracting, the contracting officer shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s ability to obtain required resources (see 9.104-1(a), (e), and (f)). Acceptable evidence normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase, or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, other resources, or personnel. Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall take into account the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Acceptable documentation will be a signed letter from the offeror’s bonding or surety company (on the appropriate letterhead) that indicates bonding capacity on a per contract basis as well as the aggregate amount.

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.

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 dredging projects, in a riverine environment, in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers mission.

TAB 1c – Subfactor 3 – Experience

A. Submission Requirements

A) Each Offeror shall complete three (3) projects ‘Prime Contractor Experience’ form(s), attached at the end of this section. All blocks must be filled-in and all data must be accurate, current, and complete. Submission requirements (in English) for experience are:

1) To meet Prime Contractor Experience, a Prime Contractor must have self-performed on-site at least 50% of the direct contract labor, exclusive of other general condition or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, design, or subcontractors.

2) At least three (3) projects demonstrating experience with Hydraulic Pipeline Dredging as a prime contractor.

3) Other projects provided shall demonstrate experience with a similar type of dredging as prime contractor as described in this solicitation. “Similar dredging”, for purposes of this solicitation is defined as Cutterhead, Hydraulic Pipeline Dredging of similar scope, complexity, size, etc]

4) Each project used to demonstrate experience must be at least 75% complete (work completed) or shall have been completed within the last five (5) years from the date of this solicitation.

5) Provide detailed project descriptions to demonstrate experience with ALL OF THE FOLLOWING construction facilities, features, or activities: Hydraulic Pipeline Dredging, 24” inch diameter or greater pipe, Dredging in Riverine Environments, Assembling and disassembling floating discharge pipeline, and Floating Plant Safety.

As stated above, each Offeror is required to submit three (3), ‘Prime Contractor Experience’ forms. Regardless of the number of forms submitted, the Offeror must demonstrate all of the above features/activities.

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.

Higher evaluation ratings will be given for experience on those projects that are same/similar in scope, complexity and magnitude of past and current hydraulic pipeline dredging in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and clearly demonstrate an Offeror’s capabilities to successfully dredge in a riverine environment. Offerors with experience in dredging in a riverine environment that demonstrates familiarity with the Federal navigation projects of the Mississippi River Harbors, the J Bennett Johnson Waterway (JBJ), and the Ouachita-Black Rivers will be rated higher than those without. An Offeror’s experience as a prime, self-performing Contractor will be evaluated more favorably than that for which the Offeror acted as a subcontractor.

TAB 1d – Subfactor 4 –Personnel

A. Submission Requirements

Below are the items that shall be submitted for evaluation to determine the overall rating for subfactor 4.

The Offeror must submit resumes of key personnel to include:

I. Overall Project Manager;

II. Dredge Captain;

III. Chief Engineer;

IV. Site Safety Health Officer (SSHO)

The Overall Project Manager, Dredge Captain, Chief Engineer, and SSHO must all possess:

1) A minimum of three (3) years of relevant experience, as demonstrated by resume, on similar dredging projects in a substantially similar job that they are to perform on this project.

2) Demonstrated experience with ALL OF THE FOLLOWING construction facilities, features, or activities:

1. Hydraulic Pipeline Dredging

2. Dredging in a Riverine Environment

3. Floating Plant Safety

3) Documentation identifying each person as a current full-time employee of the Prime Contractor or a letter of intent signifying their employment for this project.

Resumes must include the information on ‘Personnel Resume/Experience’ form attached at the end of this section. All information shall be filled in and all data shall be accurate, current, and complete. 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 equirements 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.

• Quality Control Manager – The Quality Control Manager must have completed the Construction Quality Management for Contractors (CQM) course within the past 5 years

• 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.

B. Evaluation Criteria

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.

The Offeror’s personnel will be evaluated on the quality, education, and experience possessed to meet or provide the expertise requirements of proposed work under the contract. The Offeror shall demonstrate that it has the necessary personnel within its proposed organization to effectively manage, control, administer and execute the dredging operations, safety and quality control programs.

Offerors with personnel that demonstrate experience dredging in a riverine environment and also demonstrate familiarity with the Federal navigation projects of the Mississippi River Harbors, the J Bennett Johnson Waterway (JBJ), and the Ouachita-Black Rivers in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers mission will be rated more favorably than personnel without such experience. Offerors with personnel with more experience in the proposed position will be rated more favorably than personnel with less experience.

TAB 1e – Subfactor 5 – Safety, Environmental, and Spill Response Plans

A. Submission Requirements

Below are the items that shall be submitted for evaluation to determine the overall rating for subfactor 5.

1) Accident Prevention Plan

2) Activity Hazard Analysis

3) Spill Response Plan.

** Reference EM-385-1-1for checklist indicating all information which shall be contained within each of these plans.

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.

Offerors will be evaluated on the quality and completeness of safety plans submitted. All safety plans shall comply with, and meet the minimum standards as defined in EM 385-1-1, Section A-1. The Offeror shall demonstrate that it has the necessary structure, experience, and qualified resources within its proposed organization to perform dredging operations safely and in adherence to environmental protection laws.

Offerors that demonstrate that safety and environmental responsibilities are a clear company value will be rated higher than those that do not.

TAB B – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

A. Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall provide past performance information in one of two formats for each project provided under Subfactor 3 - Experience.

1. Copies of Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs – also commonly referred to as CCASS reports) for projects performed for the U.S. Government. If the project provided has a CPAR, it must be used by the Offeror to demonstrate past performance. If CPAR submission is used to validate past performance, it will be the most recent evaluation in the system (i.e., for projects submitted as completed, the final 100% completed CPAR will be provided). If the Offeror submits a CPAR, they are not required to submit a separate Past Performance Questionnaire for the specific project.

2. If CPAR information is not available for a project provided for experience, a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), attached at the end of this section (Form PPQ-0), must be provided per the following guidance:

a) The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Subfactor 3 (Experience). Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

b) Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should still submit Form PPQ-0 with their proposal, only with blocks 1-6 filled out, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

c) Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Dustin Cannada, via email at Dustin.G.Cannada@usace.army.mil, with the subject reading “HYDRAULIC PIPELINE DREDGE PPQ” prior to the proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from independently utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

It is the Offeror’ s responsibility to ensure the Government will be able to contact the POCs using the contact information provided. Offerors are encouraged to send their request to the POC as soon as possible once a project is identified for experience under Factor 2.

The Offeror may also include performance recognition documents received within the last 5 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

B. Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation of past performance is a subjective assessment of the Offeror’s past performance on contracts of a similar nature, size, scope, and complexity, utilizing a comparable number of personnel with like skills. The Government will consider the Offeror’s previous and current record of contractual performance. In this context, Offeror refers to the proposed prime contractor and major subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as those intended to perform a critical contract function and/or whose annual subcontract revenue is expected to exceed (10% percent) of the anticipated prime contract revenue.

The Government will consider the combined Offeror’s and proposed subcontractor’s experience and performance in providing services consistent with the scope and complexity of the requirement. The Government will assess the Offeror’s team to determine whether the team displays the depth and breadth of experience necessary to demonstrate a satisfactory history of performance relative to the solicitation requirements in the scope of work.

The Government’s assessment will focus on contracts that meet the following conditions:

Recency. Only contracts that were performed or awarded within the last five (5) calendar years will be considered.

Relevancy. Only contracts which were/are relevant in size and scope of work will be considered.

The Government will examine the Offeror’s record of satisfying customer requirements, including consideration of the Offeror’s:

1. Technical performance, including technical performance, staffing, subcontractor management, quality control, safety, and commitment to customer satisfaction as evidenced by reasonable and cooperative behavior.

2. Cost Controls. Record of containing and forecasting costs on previously performed contracts.

3. Schedule. Record of adherence to contractual schedules/production rates.

Satisfactory Past Performance displays the depth and breadth of experience necessary to demonstrate a satisfactory history of performance relative to the solicitation requirements.

Any significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any element may result in an overall unsatisfactory determination. Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include all relevant past efforts, including demonstrated corrective actions, in their proposal. Offerors are directed to FAR 15.305 and advised that where they are without a record of relevant past performance, or where information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government will use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources. The Offeror is cautioned that while the Government will consider data from other sources, the burden of demonstrating satisfactory past performance rests with the Offeror.

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 hydraulic pipeline dredging in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and clearly demonstrate an Offeror’s capabilities to successfully dredge in a riverine environment. Offerors with experience in dredging in a riverine environment that demonstrates familiarity with the Federal navigation projects of the Mississippi River Harbors, the J Bennett Johnson Waterway (JBJ), and the Ouachita-Black Rivers 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 projects will be rated higher than Offerors unable to demonstrate they provided innovation, cost control, and/or schedule advancement during previous projects.

TAB C – FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

A. Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. A sample Small Business Participation Proposal (Format), Appendix A, is attached below.

The Government will evaluate:

1. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals.

2. The extent to which offers demonstrate substantive commitment to the small business firms identified in proposal, such as J/V, Mentor Protégé Agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e. binding commitments-even verbal-that could become enforceable after award) Enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones.

3. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform.

4. Past performance of the offeror’s compliance with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

5. Past performance of the offeror in complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (where applicable, only for large businesses)

6. The extent of the participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of percentage of the total contract value.

7. The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the Small Business Category Procurement Goals as identified below:

Small Business Category Procurement Goals:

Small Business (SB) 20% Small Disadvantaged Business 5% Women-Owned Small Business 3% HUBZone Small Business 3% Veteran Owned Small Business 1% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 2%

Small business prime offerors are hereby advised that their own participation as a prime counts towards the percentages set in this evaluation factor, and small businesses shall not be required to subcontract to other small businesses in order to achieve the small business participation goals.

NOTE: For Large Businesses only. No award can be made until an offeror required to submit a subcontracting plan has an acceptable plan in place. The plan’s goals must conform to the goals provided in the Small Business Participation Plan (taking into account total dollars subcontracted vs. total contract value as basis for development of the goals) and must contain the plan requirements outlined in FAR 19.704.

D. APPLICATION OF RATINGS

Rating System for Factor 1 and Subfactors 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5:

After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating to each factor (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. Therefore, an “Unacceptable” rating 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 factor.

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:

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 and 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.

Factor 3: Small Business Participation Plan:

The Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated using an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as shown below. Omission of requested information will result in an Unacceptable rating or rejected offer.

TABLE 2. SMALL BUSINESS RATING METHOD

Color Rating Description

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.

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

Proposal Risk Assessment:

This is a separate assessment based upon the information submitted, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the work required by this solicitation. A proposal risk rating will be applied to the Technical Proposal, Volume I, using the following adjectival risk assessment ratings:

1. Low: Any proposal/performance weaknesses have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor and Government monitoring will likely minimize any difficulties.

2. Moderate: Proposal has weaknesses that can potentially cause some disruption of the schedule, increase in cost or degradation of performance. However, special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely minimize any difficulties.

3. High: Proposal has weaknesses that have the potential to cause serious disruption of schedule, increase in cost or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

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 Technical Capability, Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan.

E. PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS REQUIREMENTS

Proposals shall be submitted in two (2) volumes. All Offerors are required to submit one (1) paper original, four (4) CD/DVD'S, for Volume 1 and one (1) CD/DVD’s 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 Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation 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.

Volume I shall include:

i. Technical Capability as stated in Factor 1 together with all subfactors, with submittals.

ii. Past Performance as stated in Factor 2 with submittals.

iii. Small Business Participation Plan as stated in Factor 3.

Volume II shall include:

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

ii. Section 00010, Bidding Schedule.

iii. Cost Breakdown of resulting prices submitted on the Bidding

Schedule.

iv. One completed Price Breakdown - Binding Rate

Table (Appendix B) 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.

v. Standard Form 24, Bid Bond.

vi. Section 00600, Representations & Certifications.

vii. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business Only)

viii. Most Recent Annual Subcontracting Report (Large Business Only)

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. Five separate discs shall be submitted, four 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.…