B.08.03 W12EF20R0007 Solicitation Amendment 01.pdf

W912EF20R0007

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to incorperate attachments and extend the submission deadline.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 10-Jul-2020

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 W912EF20R0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Jun-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-Jul-2020

CODE

USAED, WALLA WALLA - CONTRACTING DIV.

KARLYN HOLLAND

201 N. THIRD AVENUE

WALLA WALLA WA 99362-1876

W912EF 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 21-Jul-2020 02:00 PM to 28-Jul-2020 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value-tradeoff) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance and Factor 3 Price.

Factor 1 Technical is more important than Factor 2 Past Performance. When combined, the nonprice factors (Factors 1 and 2) are significantly more important than Factor 3 Price. Contract award will be made as a whole to one offeror.

Sub-Factors 1A and 1B, are of equal importance.

The following paragraphs B through E cover the Factors and Sub-factors to be evaluated, the evaluation approach for each Factor and Sub-factor to include factor rating tables, proposal submission requirements, and discussion guidance.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

FACTOR 1 Technical – The technical evaluation will be comprised of two (2) Sub-factors. Information provided by the offeror in support of each sub-factor will be evaluated based on its relevance to the Scope of Work. An overall rating for Factor 1 Technical will be based on the merits of each sub-factor. There is not a specified page limit for the technical Sub-factors, but offerors are encouraged to be clear and concise in providing the information requested.

Risk will be evaluated as one aspect of the technical evaluation, inherent in the technical evaluation factor or sub-factor ratings. Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased price, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the Evaluation Approach, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each sub-factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

FACTOR 2 Past Performance - Each offeror’s current and past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence.

FACTOR 3 Price - The resulting award will be a firm-fixed price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the proposal.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The following sections define the information to be provided and describe how the information for each factor and sub-factor will be evaluated and rated.

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is as follows:

FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL – This factor is comprised of the following sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1A: Technical Approach

This sub-factor evaluates the offerors understanding of the required scope of work and evaluates the offerors capabilities and availability of resources necessary to complete all requirements.

Proposals shall conform to the solicitation requirements to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation.

Offerors shall submit the following for Sub-factor 1A:

Proposals shall be as specific as possible; outlining the exact methods to be used, addressing logistics, and describing equipment and personnel. A complete description detailing the method, approach, equipment and sequence of how the Contractor shall remove or repair the Regulating Outlet Valve equipment and Spillway. Submit a schedule that reflects the planned activities, order of major tasks identified, task dependencies and durations proposed to successfully accomplish the entire project from notice to proceed through construction, and contract close-out. The proposal shall include how the Contractor plans to remove or replace the equipment and in what order.

Offerors shall submit the following for Factor 1A:

I. Provide a work plan / schedule

1) Work plan / Schedule shall reflect the planned activities, order of major tasks identified, task dependencies and durations proposed to successfully accomplish the entire project from notice to proceed to final commissioning, and contract close-out. Contractor should assume, for evaluation purposes only, an award date of 30 September 2020. At a minimum, the schedule shall include the following:

a. Pre-Construction Submittals submitted/approved within 85 calendar days from Notice To Proceed being issued

b. Compliance with Work Sequencing Specification (01 12 16.00 28) and acknowledgement of outage requirements.

c. Major Activities

i. Pre-construction submittals

ii. Mobilization

iii. Repair of RO #1

iv. Commissioning For RO #1

v. Repair of RO #2

vi. Commissioning For RO #2

vii. Repair of RO #3

viii. Commissioning For RO #3

ix. Demobilization

2) Discuss how work to complete one task may impact or be impacted by work to complete other tasks.

3) Show understanding and details on how the Regulating Outlet Valves will be accessed, how parts will be removed, how parts will be repaired or replaced and how the system will be tested and commissioned.

4) Document capabilities and availability of resources (equipment and personnel) necessary to complete all required major tasks above.

5) List all critical subcontractors with their respective role and responsibility to complete all major tasks. * See subcontractor identification in submission requirements.

6) Explain the communication process between different crews, subcontractors, and managers, including the superintendent, project manager, safety officer and quality control personnel.

Include an organization chart to show the communication channels.

Sub-factor 1B: Technical Experience

Proposals will be evaluated to determine technical experience relevant with the scope and complexity required in the solicitation. Offerors shall provide sufficient information to clearly demonstrate the breadth and depth of the Offeror’s electrical industrial installation experience.

Proposals shall conform to the solicitation requirements, to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required of this solicitation.

Offerors shall submit the following for Sub-factor 1B:

Offerors must demonstrate technical experience by providing up to four (4) examples, performed within the past ten

(10) years that collectively demonstrate each of the elements identified below. If more than four (4) examples are provided, only the first four (4) examples will be evaluated.

Demonstrated Experience Requirements:

a. At least 50% physically complete at the time of proposal submission or was completed within the last ten (10) years.

b. Demolition, installation, setup, testing, and commissioning of heavy mechanical equipment weighing at least 55,000 pounds (about 27.5 tons).

c. Installation of heavy mechanical equipment weighing at least 14,000 pounds (about 7 tons) requiring precision alignment tolerances within 0.005”.

d. Installation and commissioning of hydraulic control systems operating between 1800 - 3000 psi.

e. Experience conducting crane operations in limited access or spacial constraint situations.

f. Use Attached “Offeror Experience Form” to describe the projects in which the Offeror has relevant technical experience. Project experience shall include adequate detail to demonstrate the relevancy of the scope of work for comparison to that required in this solicitation.

Evaluation Methodology for Factor #1 Technical (Includes Sub-Factors 1A and 1B)

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is un-awardable.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: Recency, Relevancy (including context of data) and Quality (including general trends in the contractor performance and source of information). The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the scope of work. Proposals shall conform to the solicitation requirements to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation.

a. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance and management of sub-contractors. Major sub-contractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort.

Offerors are reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past ten years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 237990, Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. Data submitted by the offeror or gathered from other sources by the government in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past ten years prior to the issue date of the request for proposal, but may include performance data generated during the past ten years without regard to the contract award date. CPARS data is limited to the past six (6) years. Offeror’s should provide additional performance data for projects beyond six (6) years.

b. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contract numbers and descriptions for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past ten years, from the issue date of this request for proposal, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.

c. RECENCY: The Government will evaluate recency by examining the offerors’ record of past performance and to assess the time period during which the offeror’s past performance is considered relevant.

d. RELEVANCY: The Government will conduct a performance assessment based on the relevancy of the Offeror's current and past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. These efforts include all aspects of schedule, performance and customer support, including the Offeror’s submitted subcontracting plan for this project and the Offeror’s record of: 1) Conforming to specifications and standards of good workmanship; 2) Maintaining program execution within price; 3) Adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; 4) Ability to resolve technical and manufacturing problems quickly and effectively; 5) Businesslike concern for the interest of its customers; 6) Establishing and maintaining adequate management of subcontractors; and 7) Compliance with subcontracting plans submitted on previous projects.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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.

a. QUALITY: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The quality past performance evaluations conducted gathers information from offeror’s customers to determine how well the offeror performed those past contracts. This quality assessment will be reflected in the overall confidence assessment described below.

b. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror. Because this source selection requires a greater level of discrimination with the past performance evaluation, evaluators shall use the ratings in the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/current efforts gathered (documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment). Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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 records 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 - PRICE

Offerors must submit completed Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS) with unit price, quantity, and extended price.

All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the Government. In case of discrepancy between the unit price and the extended price, the unit price will govern. For the purpose of evaluating proposals, the following will be used to resolve arithmetic discrepancies found on the face of the pricing schedule as submitted by the offeror:

a. Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected;

b. In a discrepancy between unit price and extended rice, the unit price will govern;

c. Calculation errors in extension of unit prices will be corrected;

d. Calculation errors in the addition of lump-sum and extended prices will be corrected.

An evaluation will be performed on the proposed prices. The evaluation will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

However, it will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.305 and FAR 15.404.

D. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. Introduction The offerors’ proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copies as set forth below. The solicitation shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. The electronic files shall contain identical information to the hard copy files.

The offerors’ proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes. The Volumes are:

Volume I – Technical, Past Performance Volume II – Price, Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations.

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.

Any costs related to proposal preparation and submission will not be reimbursed by the Government.

2. Proposal Submission Requirements

a. Each volume shall be submitted in a separate three-ring binder. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be of a different color and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated. Each binder shall be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 4).

b. Printing should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

VOLUME TITLE PRINTED COPIES ELECTRONIC COPIES

Volume I Original +5 1 Volume II Original +1 1

3. 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 using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

NOTE: 11X17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations.

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc., and provided on CDs or DVDs. Zip disks are not permitted. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aid in the Price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write 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. **The electronic files shall contain identical information to the hard copy files.

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, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

(i) VOLUME I, TAB1 – Technical. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach

(2) Section 2 – Sub-factor 2: Technical Experience

(ii) VOLUME I, TAB 2 – Past Performance. This tab shall contain current and past performance information regarding similar contracts. It shall not exceed 15 pages plus five pages for each major subcontractor, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts’ descriptions for the prime offeror and each major contract currently in performance or awarded during the past six years, from the issue date of this solicitation, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort required by the solicitation. Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors for their past performance to be considered. This tab shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This tab shall include the following information in the following format. Ensure all information is current and accurate.

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

(b) Government contracting activity, (or private firm) and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(c) Technical representative/COR and current email address, telephone and fax numbers.

(d) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, current e-mail address, telephone and fax number.

(e) Government contract administration activity’s Pre-Award point of contact name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(f) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers.

(g) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

(h) Awarded price.

(i) Final or projected final price.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

(k) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(2) Section 2 – Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Tab 1 - Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP.

(a) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offerors shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

(3) Section 3 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government technical specification. This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 10% of the total proposed Price.

(4) Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above.

Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for any officer or employee’s experience for it to be evaluated and considered.

(5) Section 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1 - Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire, Appendix E, must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to the technical representative responsible for the current and past contract.

The Point of Contacts (POCs) shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to Karlyn.K.Holland@usace.army.mil. The offeror must submit, with its proposal, a list of all the POCs who were sent questionnaires. The POC list shall be submitted to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number;

Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day).

(6) Section 6-Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement.

Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency points of contact (POC) in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

DO NOT SUBMIT PRICING INFORMATION IN VOLUME I.

(iii) VOLUME II, TAB 1 – Price. This volume shall consist of all information, required to support proposed prices. Certified pricing data is not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. There are no page limitations for this volume.

The offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF1442 and continuation sheets.

(iv) VOLUME II, TAB 2 – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

Certifications and Representations – Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1442 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Section 00 21 00 – Standard Form 1442 Solicitation, Offer and Award Section 00 45 00 – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be submitted separately from that submitted in VOLUME II – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD

DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS /REPRESENTATIONS.

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR provision 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

(Ammendment 01 Change)

APPENDIX E - Encl 1

DEPARTMENT OF THE

ARMY

COMMAND/ACTIVITY

LETTERHEAD

Contracting Division

(DATE)

SUBJECT: Offeror Past Performance Assessment in Support of Request for Proposal (RFP) Number W912EF20R0007, Dworshak Regulating Outlet Valve Upgrade

Dear Sir/Ma’am;

The US Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, is currently conducting a competitive source selection to evaluate offerors on subject RFP. As part of this evaluation, we have requested that the offerors provide information about their past performance on same or similar federal, state or local government or commercial contracts as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 237990, Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. You have been identified as the point of contact cited on the enclosure.

Your assessment of their performance is extremely valuable to our evaluation. Please complete the enclosure and return to the Walla Walla District Contracting Office no later than 15 days after receipt of request or MONTH DAY, YEAR, whichever occurs first. Your questionnaire may be submitted by e-mail to the Contract Specialist, Karlyn Holland:

Karlyn.K.Holland@usace.army.mil

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Questions may be directed to the Contract

Specialist at (509) 527-7206 or the undersigned at (509) 527-7209.

Sincerely, Jani Long Contracting Officer

(Amendment 01 Change) Encl. 2

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

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: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

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.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT 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. CLIENTS ARE

HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT

THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. 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 sub-element 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 CLIENT

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. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary)

(End of Summary of Changes)