B.08.W912EE24R0002 Amendment 0002.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. W912EE24R0002 for MRL Construction of Levee Enlargement and Berms MATOC;

SEE CONTINUATION PAGE FOR CHANGES.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 31-Jul-2024

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912EE24R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Jul-2024

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

31-Jul-2024

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:

W912EE24R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

BID SCHEDULE

MULTIPLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT (MATOC)

FOR MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (MR&T)

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES (MRL) PROGRAM, CONSTRUCTION

OF ENLARGEMENTS AND BERMS

ITEM DESCRIPTION

EST

QTY U/M UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

MOBILIZATION AND

DEMOBILIZATION 1 JOB FOR $XXXX

CLEARING AND GRUBBING

1 JOB FOR $XXXX

GRANULAR SURFACING,

EXISTING 1 JOB FOR $XXXX

MOWING, TURFING, AND

EROSION CONTROL

MATTING 1 JOB FOR $XXXX

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION FEATURES 1 JOB FOR $XXXX

LEVEE EMBANKMENT,

SEMICOMPACTED 443,900 CY $XXXX $XXXX

BERM EMBANKMENT,

UNCOMPACTED 248700 CY $XXXX $XXXX

BERM EMBANKMENT,

SEMICOMPACTED 34800 CY $XXXX $XXXX

LEVEE SURFACING,

CRUSHED STONE 9500 CY $XXXX $XXXX

CATTLE GUARDS

1 JOB FOR $XXXX

0011 RELIEF WELLS 1 JOB FOR $XXXX

0012 RAMPS 1 JOB FOR $XXXX

TOTAL $XXXX

(THIS BIDDING SCHEDULE IS PROVIDED FOR EXAMPLE PURPOSES ONLY)

SECTION 00130

SECTION 00130 – PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Pursuant to FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A)(3), the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying offerors. Pricing will not be a factor of consideration for award of the IDIQ MATOC. Qualifying offerors, as used in FAR 13.106-1 and FAR 15.304, means an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer anything other than fair and reasonable pricing.

Unless one of the exceptions detailed in FAR 16.505 (b)(2) applies and is documented in accordance with that section, each contractor will be afforded a fair opportunity to be considered for each task order. The contract only allows orders to be issued on a Firm Fixed-Price basis.

Task orders will be issued in accordance with the following procedures:

The Contracting Officer will furnish the Contractor a Request for Proposal (RFP) Solicitation for each proposed Task Order. The RFP will include an SF-1442, Offer Schedule, Technical Specifications, and Drawings detailing the work proposed, anticipated Performance Period, and any other pertinent information, The Contractor shall respond to the RFP within the time specified. The Contractor shall submit their proposal in accordance with the instructions contained in the RFP Solicitation, and be cognizant of information contained therein, including but not limited to: bond requirements, site visit information, construction cost limitations, liquidated damages, technical inquiry instructions, and acceptance periods.

Basis of award for task orders:

Task orders will be awarded based on price, past performance, and the ability to manage additional work. The Contracting Officer may consider past performance under this MATOC or performance under unrelated contracts. Technical or other non-cost factor(s) may be added at the task order level. The importance of factors to one another may vary on a task order basis, The combination of factors considered, and their relative importance will be stated in the RFP Solicitation for each task order.

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

Award(s) will be made to each and all qualifying offerors in accordance with the criteria established in this Section 00130 of the RFP; Factor 1, Construction Approach (Sub factor 1, Embankment; Sub factor 2, Sample Schedule); Factor 2, Project Management Plan; and Factor 3, Past Performance.

Price will not be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A)(3).

The Contracting Officer is required to make an affirmative pre-award determination of the prospective contractor’s responsibility in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Part 9 of the FAR and its supplements. This information will not be evaluated but will be used for the Contracting Officer to make a determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104. To be found responsible, per FAR 9.104-1, a prospective contractor must:

• Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

• Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and government business commitments.

• Have a satisfactory performance record.

• Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

• Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them.

• Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them.

• Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

Additional documents required for a determination of contractor responsibility are as follows:

• Bonding Capability: The Government will review the Offeror’s bonding capacity and check that the information has been provided by a Surety listed on the Department of the Treasury’s Listing of Certified Companies. If the Offeror cannot demonstrate sufficient bonding capability, further consideration of the proposal will be terminated, and the offer will be rejected.

• Current financial statements (Balance Sheet and Income Statement): If the documents are more than one year old, the Offeror shall furnish a statement as to the current financial status of the company If a Joint Venture, provide this information for each participant in the Joint Venture.

• Banking information: Provide letters from banks or other financial institutions with which the Offeror conducts business. The letters should contain information about your firm's accounts, loans, lines of credit, etc. The Government is interested in financial stability, timely payments, the length and nature of the relationship between the firm and the financial institution, and the firm's financial ability to perform the contract. The letters should also provide the name and telephone number of the bank representative the Government may contact. If a Joint Venture, provide this information for each Joint Venture participant.

• Worker’s Compensation Experience Modification Rate (EMR) for the last three years:

An EMR greater than 1.0 must be explained and supporting documentation provided. (If EMR’s are not available, provide documentation from insurance provider documenting whether or not any claims resulting from work related injuries have been filed against the firm in the last three years or any other documentation needed to establish safety record.)

Per FAR 19.6, in the event an otherwise-eligible contractor is found to be non-responsible, the Contracting Officer will withhold award and refer the matter to the cognizant SBA Government Contracting Area Office. The SBA will offer the contractor the opportunity to apply for a Certificate of Competency (CoC). After review of the applicant’s facility by the SBA and a resolution of differences in findings by the agency and the SBA, the SBA may then issue a CoC to the contractor. An SBA issued CoC is considered conclusive with respect to all elements of responsibility.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following table is a description of the factors.

The Government will evaluate each of the three (3) non-cost factors and two (2) sub-factors against the requirements to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable.

Factor 1 and Subfactors 1 and 2 will each receive an Acceptable or Unacceptable Rating. A rating of Unacceptable on any one sub-factor will result in an Unacceptable rating on Factor 1.

Factor 2 will be evaluated and rated as acceptable or unacceptable.

Factor 3 will be evaluated and rated as acceptable or unacceptable.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

TAB 1 – FACTOR 1 – Construction Approach

TAB 1A – Subfactor 1 – Embankment (Offeror Only)

Submission Requirements

While it is possible that task orders could be issued for a more limited scope of seepage

Factor/Subfactor

Location Description

FACTOR 1 Tab 1 Construction Approach Subfactor 1 Tab 1A Embankment (Offeror Only) Subfactor 2 Tab 1B Sample Schedule (Offeror) FACTOR 2 Tab 2 Project Management Plan FACTOR 3 Tab 3 Past Performance protection measures such as relief wells or uncompacted berms, the major feature of work to be performed under most if not all task orders anticipated to be issued under this contract is levee embankment construction utilizing clays and silty clay borrow materials from mostly riverside or occasional landside borrow areas. Offerors shall submit a narrative for a levee construction project similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project that demonstrates a clear understanding and acceptable approach to levee embankment construction including borrow area management, excavation, and hauling operations. Offerors shall submit thorough, detailed, and complete narratives describing their construction approach to levee embankment construction.

The submitted narrative shall include methods, equipment, personnel and challenges, demonstrating an understanding of the requirements and capable methods necessary to overcome those challenges. The narrative shall address the following areas:

• Construction approach of major embankment operations for a levee project similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation, with a minimum quantity of semicompacted and/or compacted clay levee embankment of

500,000 CY.

• Management of multiple riverside borrow areas, including but not limited to clearing, excavation, drainage control, material processing, and hauling operations as necessary for a levee project similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation.

• Embankment placement and processing, including methods, equipment, and personnel needed to efficiently and effectively complete Mississippi River levee construction projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation.

• Quality control testing, including methods, equipment, and personnel to track all lifts of embankment operations for compliance with compaction requirements, testing, rework of any failing tests, and documentation of satisfactory final results as necessary for a levee project similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation.

• Compliance with typical storm water protection and other environmental compliance issues, including initial installation/implementation and maintenance for the duration of the project as well as stabilization of disturbed areas during extended shutdowns or work exclusion periods as necessary for a levee project similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation.

• Grade Control, including methods and equipment required to ensure required grade control during construction and verification of the finished final grades for a levee project similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation.

• Coordination of levee embankment work with other features of work and incidentals, such as construction of uncompacted berms, relief wells, and management of local traffic or detours that might be required for a levee project similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation.

• Turf establishment, including seeding, mulching, fertilizing, and maintenance until final acceptance for a levee project similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation.

• Consideration of potential high river delays, including the exclusion period as well as impacts on river side borrow areas for a levee project similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation.

• Consideration of adverse weather conditions, including methods to overcome and minimize schedule impacts for a levee project similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation.

• Validation of construction approach, including how the provided approach has been successfully used on recent projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation.

Evaluation Criteria

Offers will be evaluated on their narrative’s demonstration of a thorough understanding of the scope and reasonableness of their construction approach to manage and overcome typical challenges associated with this work. Contractors who demonstrate a thorough understanding of the scope of work and capability to successfully complete awarded task orders will receive an Acceptable rating.

Omission of requested information or lack of sufficient detail to demonstrate a thorough understanding and capability to perform the scope of work will result in an Unacceptable rating.

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

TAB 1B – Subfactor 2 – Sample Schedule (Offeror)

Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall submit a sample schedule and corresponding narrative using the sample project provided in the solicitation. The sample schedule shall meet the duration provided in the sample project including exclusion periods. For the purposes of this sample, the Offeror shall assume the Notice to Proceed will be issued approximately one month after this solicitation proposal is due.

The schedule shall be no more than two 11 inches by 17 inches pages. The schedule is required to show the start, duration, total float, and finish of each activity determined by the Offeror. The submitted schedule shall clearly show the critical path toward timely completion. When developing the sample schedule, the Offeror shall consider concurrent operations such as excavation and placement from multiple borrow areas and/or placement in multiple levee reaches, as well as the indicated order of work, work exclusion periods, and restrictions on work areas including limits on removal of existing levee surfacing. Offerors shall submit a thorough, detailed, and complete sample schedule and corresponding narrative describing their construction schedule for all features of work associated with Mississippi River levee construction to ensure the sample project is completed on time. The Offeror shall include the following work activities in the sample schedule:

• Mobilization

• Environmental protection

• Clearing and grubbing

• Borrow area development

• Excavation and processing

• Hauling, placement, and compaction

• Placement of levee surfacing

• Turf establishment

• Relief well installation

• Final cleanup and demobilization

The corresponding narrative shall describe the order of work including the order of each operation necessary to complete the sample project. The narrative shall also include tools and management procedures used to ensure projects stay on schedule as well as strategies to regain schedule in the face of unforeseen delays.

Evaluation Criteria

Offers will be evaluated on their sample schedule and narrative’s demonstration of a thorough understanding of the scope. Contractors who demonstrate a thorough understanding of the scope of work and capability to successfully complete awarded task orders will receive an Acceptable rating.

Omission of requested information or lack of sufficient detail to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the scope of work or flaws in basic scheduling logic that do not show an understanding of the scope of work will result in an Unacceptable rating. The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating in this subfactor.

TAB 2 – FACTOR 2 – Project Management Plan

Submission Requirements

Offerors shall provide a detailed Project Management Plan to include their project management philosophy. Offerors shall submit thorough, detailed, and complete narratives describing their organization’s approach to project management. The Offeror shall include the following as a minimum in their submission:

• Details demonstrating construction management plan for potentially multiple concurrently operated phases of construction including multiple operations from multiple pits for a levee project similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation;

• Sample organizational chart showing lines of authority needed to manage a project similar in size, scope, and complexity of the sample included in the solicitation;

• A list of anticipated subcontracted work activities and what work will be self performed;

• Details of their corporate safety philosophy and what tools they will use to ensure no lost time accidents will occur including OSHA safety forms; and

• A narrative of their use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Resident Management System (RMS) – Contractor Mode or similar contract administration and quality control systems.

• A narrative addressing capability to manage work on multiple task orders concurrently on levee projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation.

Offerors will be evaluated on the clarity and effectiveness of the overall project management plan and organization and how well it is structured to execute projects typical in scope to this solicitation. Contractors who demonstrate a thorough understanding of the scope of work and capability to successfully complete awarded task orders will receive an Acceptable rating.

Omission of requested information or lack of sufficient detail to demonstrate a thorough understanding and capability to perform the scope of work will result in an Unacceptable rating.

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

TAB 3 – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements

Offerors will be evaluated on their past performance on three (3) to five (5) recent and relevant levee embankment projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the solicitation, completed at $4M or greater. Offerors shall submit past performance questionnaires as described in this solicitation for each of the projects submitted under this Past Performance factor. A minimum of three (3) two (2) relevant projects are required for review where the Offeror self-performed clay (CH or CL) or silty clay (ML) earthwork construction as either a prime or subcontractor within 10 years of the date of this solicitation with at least 1 completed within the last 5 years or currently ongoing and at least 70% complete. At least two (2) of the submitted relevant projects shall be projects where the Offeror self-performed levee clay or silty clay embankment earthwork construction as either a prime or subcontractor. JV’s shall submit this past performance information for projects performed as the JV or alternatively may submit past performance information on all JV partners (at least 3 projects total as stated above.) Past performance exceeding the time stated above will not be considered recent in the evaluation.

Offerors will be evaluated on the quality of similar work performed, using the evidence provided by the Offeror. Performance on projects similar in size, scope, and complexity will provide a basis to assess the overall performance risk associated with award to a particular contractor.

Offerors shall include recent and relevant past performance history that demonstrates experience in:

• Excavation of borrow and management of borrow areas,

• Construction of compacted or semi-compacted CH, CL, or ML levee enlargements of 500,000 cubic yards or greater.

Past performance not meeting these minimum requirements will be considered Not Relevant.

The Government reserves the right to verify supplied information and references. The Government may also use any other past performance information, from other sources, outside of the Offerors proposal in their evaluation. If fewer than the specified number of projects are submitted, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Neutral” in this factor. If more than the specified number of projects are submitted, the Government will evaluate the most recent projects submitted.

The Offeror shall include the following past performance information:

• Brief description of the submitted contract size, scope, complexity, including embankment quantities, material type(s), and compaction requirements;

• 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.

• 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;

• Offeror shall submit a completed past performance questionnaire or CCASS/CPARS report for projects listed in the past performance proposal. The PPQ 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 and consideration of the information provided;

• 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.

The evaluation of past performance is an assessment of the Offeror’s past performance on contracts of a similar 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 ten percent (10%) 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 size, scope, and complexity of the requirement.

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

• Recency. Only contracts that were performed within the last ten (10) calendar years will be considered, with at least one (1) of those completed within the last five (5) calendar years or currently ongoing and at least 70% complete.

• Relevancy. Only contracts which were/are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the draft project included in the solicitation will be considered.

Acceptable Past Performance assesses an offeror’s ability to supply services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of successful performance.

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 Unacceptable determination. Therefore, offerors shall 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 the 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 an Unacceptable Past Performance rating. Past Performance will be evaluated based on the results of work performed that is determined to be recent and relevant to this requirement, as well as overall performance history.

Offerors will be evaluated on their past performance in the excavation of borrow, management of borrow area, and construction of compacted or semi-compacted CH, CL, or ML levee enlargements of 500,000 cubic yards or greater as a prime or sub-contractor on the number of projects described above. Performance on recent and relevant projects similar in size, scope, and complexity will provide a basis for acceptability. 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.

The past performance information will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is recent or not recent, and relevant or not relevant to the scope of work identified in this solicitation. Past performance shall clearly demonstrate successful performance of excavation and embankment placement similar or equal to that described in the solicitation.

D. APPLICATION OF RATINGS

Rating System for Factor 1, and Subfactors 1 and 2:

The ratings for the evaluation of Factor 1 – Construction Approach and all its sub-factors are as follows:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

If at any level of evaluation, an offeror’s proposal is evaluated as not meeting a solicitation requirement, 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 Un-awardable.

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating in any of these factors or sub-factors.

Rating System for Factor 2:

The ratings for the evaluation of Factor 2 – Project Management Plan are as follows:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

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

Rating System for Factor 3:

Past performance assesses an offeror’s ability to supply services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of successful performance. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Past Performance will be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent or not recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired.

Second, the past performance evaluation should determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance of for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have an unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptable/unacceptable, a neutral rating shall be acceptable.

The past performance relevancy ratings are described below:

Adjectival

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

(See note above)

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

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

E. PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS REQUIREMENTS

An offeror’s proposal shall consist of all information and material submitted in writing for evaluation in response to this solicitation. The submission of false or misleading information shall be grounds for disqualification of the proposal.

Proposals shall be submitted in two (2) volumes. All Offerors are required to submit one

(1) original, four (4) hard copies, and two (2) CDs/DVDs (one for Volume 1 and one for Volume 2) containing all information submitted with the proposal. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient detail to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. The Offeror’s name, solicitation number, and solicitation closing date and time must be listed on the cover sheet. Proprietary information should be clearly marked.

Offerors must organize their proposals as described and outlined below. Each proposal’s contents must be separated by tabs as discussed below. An Offeror’s response to this solicitation is limited to forty (40) 8.5” x 11” pages for Volume 1, 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. Pages may be single-sided or double-sided (double-sided pages count as two pages) and shall be consecutively numbered.

The information in each proposal should be organized as follows:

Volume 1

• Tab 1 - Factor 1 – Construction Approach o Tab 1A - Sub-Factor 1 – Embankment o Tab 1B - Sub-Factor 2 – Sample Schedule

• Tab 2 - Factor 2 – Project Management Plan

• Tab 3 - Factor 3 – Past Performance

The following items must be included in Volume 1, but are excluded from the page limitation:

• Title Sheets and Indices

• Table of Contents

• OSHA Forms

• CCASS or CPARS, Past Performance Questionnaires (See Attachment 1), and other

Contracting Agency evaluation forms,

• Letters of Recommendation, Commendation, Ratings, etc.

• Letters of Agreement for Equipment, Labor and Material Availability, and Letters of

Commitment from Key Subcontractors

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

Volume 2

• SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, Acknowledgement of Amendments, and JV Agreements (if applicable)

• Section 00600 Representations and Certifications

• Responsibility Determination Documents o Bonding Capability o Financial Statements o Banking Information o Worker’s Compensation Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

Items in Volume 2 are excluded from the page number limitation.

PROPOSAL FILES

• 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.

• File Packaging. Two (2) separate discs shall be submitted, one will include the content for Volume I 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. *

F. DISCUSSIONS

GENERAL INFORMATION. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and past performance standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. 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.

G. DEBRIEFING

Each offeror, successful or unsuccessful, will have the opportunity, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.505 and 15.506, to receive one debriefing. Offerors are required to submit a written request for debriefing (within 3 days after receipt of the notice of exclusion from the competition if requesting a pre-award debriefing, and within 3 days after the date on which the offeror receives notification of contract award if requesting a post-award debriefing). Debriefing sessions will be conducted as soon as practicable after Agency receipt of proper written requests for such. Per DFARS 215.506-70, when providing a post award debriefing of Offerors in accordance with FAR 15.506(d), contracting officers shall include in the debriefing information provided to unsuccessful offerors an opportunity to submit additional questions related to the debriefing within two business days after receiving the debriefing. MVK shall respond in writing to the additional questions submitted by an unsuccessful offeror within five business days after receipt of the questions and shall not consider the post award debriefing to be concluded until MVK delivers its written responses to the unsuccessful offerors.

(End of Summary of Changes)

The following items are applicable to this modification:

The Sample Bid Schedule and Section 00130, Tab 3 – Factor 3 – Past Performance Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria are hereby revised.

The descriptions of CLINs 0006, 0007, and 0008 in the Sample Bid Schedule have been revised.

Revisions to 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.