W912EK18R0002.pdf

Solicitation No.: W912EK18R0002

US Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District

ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN

MARSEILLES AND STARVED ROCK

LOCKS

LA SALLE COUNTY, IL

UPPER BULKHEAD RECESSES

Construction Solicitation and Specifications

JULY 2018

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ROCK ISLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

1500 ROCK ISLAND DRIVE

ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS 61201

REPLY TO

ATTENTION OF http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil

PREBID MEETING NOTICE

A prebid meeting will be held at 10:00am on 12 July 2018, at the

Marseilles Lock and Dam, LaSalle County, Illinois. The meeting is to discuss the Upper Bulkhead Recesses Fabrication and Installation, Solicitation No. W912EK18R0002 and to provide an opportunity for offerors to visit the site. This will be the only on-site visit with the

Corps of Engineers during the bidding phase. Offerors may visit the site on their own and contact the POC listed to set up a site visit.

Offerors are highly encouraged to attend this prebid meeting.

Make arrangements at least 24 hours in advance of the prebid meeting with:

Mr. Mike Edwards, P.E.

Area Engineer

Eastern Area Office

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

926 SW Adams Street

Suite 110

Peoria, IL 61602

Telephone No.: 309-637-1321

(Collect calls not accepted.)

Offerors are required to bring Safety Equipment for this meeting:

safety hat, safety glasses, steel-toed boots, and life-vest (US Coast

Guard approved).

Questions from Offerors submitted and Government responses will be documented via ProjNet Bidder Inquiry. Please reference clause

MVR.02 - Questions and Answers via ProjNet for further instruction.

96514780183761

ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN, MULTIPLE SITES, LA SALLE CO., IL, BULKHEAD RECESSES

See Section 01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

NAICS: 237990

SIZE STANDARD: $36,500,000.00

ESTIMATED RANGE: $5,000,000.00-$10,000,000.00

UNRESTRICTED, BEST VALUE - TRADEOFF

All questions shall be submitted via ProjNet in accordance w ith Clause MVR.02.

ELIZABETH A DENNISON 309-794-5293

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

03-Jul-2018

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______15 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________350 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________FAR 52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________03 Aug 2018 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______60 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

1500 ROCK ISLAND DRIVE

ROCK ISLAND IL 61201

W912EK

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

--- --- ---- REF BLOCK 18A)FAX:TEL: 309-794-5613 (INVOICES TEL: FAX:

W912EK18R0002 218

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

Source Selection Information (See FAR 3.104)

D-3

Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders

SCHEDULE OF PRICES

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 Temporary Field Offices

0001AA First 6 Months 6 MO ___________ $

0001AB Over 6 Months 1 MO ___________ $

MARSEILLES LOCK AND DAM

0002 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0003 Dive Operations 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0004 Emergency Miter Gate Disposal 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0005 Emergency Miter Gate Anchorage Disposal

1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0006 Bulkhead Recess Installation

0006AA Concrete Removal 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0006AB Deadman Anchors 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0006AC Precast Panel Fabrication and Delivery 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0006AD Precast Panel Installation 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0006AE Bulkhead Recess 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0006AF Bulkhead Slot Protection Plate 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0007 Sill Work

0007AA Stay-In-Place Form Fabrication and Delivery

1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0007AB Stay-In-Place Form Installation 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0007AC Protection and Dewatering 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0007AD Concrete Placement 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0008 Weep Holes 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0009 Handrail Replacement 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

STARVED ROCK LOCK AND DAM

0010 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0011 Dive Operations 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0012 Emergency Miter Gate Disposal 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

D-4

0013 Emergency Miter Gate Anchorage Disposal

1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0014 Bulkhead Recess Installation

0014AA Concrete Removal 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0014AB Deadman Anchors 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0014AC Precast Panel Fabrication and Delivery 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0014AD Precast Panel Installation 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0014AE Bulkhead Recess 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0014AF Bulkhead Slot Protection Plate 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0015 Sill Work

0015AA Stay-In-Place Form Fabrication and Delivery

1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0015AB Stay-In-Place Form Installation 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0015AC Protection and Dewatering 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0015AD Concrete Placement 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0016 Weep Holes 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

0017 Handrail Replacement 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $

TOTAL OF ESTIMATED AMOUNTS

(ITEM NOS. 0001 THROUGH 0017, INCL.)

JOB = LUMP SUM

PLEASE ENSURE THAT UNIT PRICE AND AMOUNT LINES FOR ALL ITEMS

HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

SSP

1. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

1. 1. Basis for Award

The Government will select for award the proposal that is most advantageous and represents the best overall value to the Government, considering the following four factors: Technical Approach, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Price, along with their respective sub-factors (as applicable). As a result, the Government may select for award the Offeror whose proposed prices are not the lowest, but whose technical approach, past performance and small business participation proposals are sufficiently more advantageous to justify the payment of a

D-5 higher price. Conversely, the Government may select for award the Offeror whose proposed prices are lower than other proposals that are not sufficiently more advantageous to justify the payment of a higher price.

All non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

The Past Performance and Small Business Participation factors combined are approximately equal to the Technical Approach factor.

Proposed prices will be evaluated but not scored or otherwise combined with the other aspects of the proposal evaluation. An Offeror must be considered “Acceptable” with no greater than a “Moderate” risk in all factors and sub-factors under the Technical Approach factor and no less than a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating in the Past Performance factor.

1. 2. Factors and Sub-Factors to Be Evaluated

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors identified in Table 1 and described below.

D-6

Table 1: Evaluation Factors

FACTOR SUBFACTOR ELEMENT

1: Technical Approach

1. Work Plan

1. Work Plan Narrative

2. Schedule

2. Corporate Management

1. Key Personnel Experience

2. Organization Chart

3. Safety

1. Risk Management Process

2. Experience Modifier

2: Past Performance

3: Small Business Participation

4: Price

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

1. Factor 1: The Technical Approach factor is further divided into the following sub-factors:

a. Sub-factor 1: Work Plan

b. Sub-factor 2: Corporate Management

c. Sub-factor 3: Safety

Sub-factor 1 is significantly more important than sub-factor 2 and sub-factor 3.

2. Factor 2: Past Performance: The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

3. Factor 3: Small Business Participation: All Offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses.

4. Factor 4: Price: The resulting award will be a Firm Fixed Price Contract for construction services. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of this effort in accordance with FAR Part 15 procedures.

D-7

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each factor and sub-factor as it applies to the plans and specifications. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in Section 2.3. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each sub-factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. Sub-factor ratings shall be rolled up into an overall rating for Factor 1; Technical Approach.

2. 3. Evaluation Approach

All proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

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

1. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

2. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. 3. 1. Factor 1: Technical Approach

The Technical Approach Factor is divided into the following sub-factors:

2. 3. 1. 1. Sub-factor 1: Work Plan

This sub-factor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed work plan for the entire length of the contract.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed work plan to determine understanding of and compliance with the Government’s requirements. The elements are listed in descending order of importance.

Element 1: Work Plan Narrative

The Offeror shall submit a Work Plan that describes the overall plan of operations to complete the contract work. The Offeror is encouraged to provide descriptions and illustrations which show the contractor’s, subcontractor’s, and supplier’s qualifications and methodology to accomplish the work, including, but not limited to, descriptions of equipment, special fabrications, and specialized labor. Items of particular concern to the government are:

D-8

Proposed concrete demolition procedure and what steps will be taken to protect the adjacent components from damage;

Methods and sequence for installing precast panels, precast bulkhead recess panels, deadman system and kicker angle;

Methods for underwater concrete placement;

The sequence of installation of stay-in-place form and bulkheads; and Coordination of construction at both sites to coincide for the full lock closure/navigation restrictions.

The Government will evaluate the work plan narrative based on the following:

Completeness of plan with respect to items of concern listed above;

Demonstration of thorough understanding of and ability to comply with the project requirements;

Reasonableness of contractor sequencing in terms of site constraints and challenges associated with the work; and Ability to mitigate construction and scheduling risk associated with project features.

Element 2: Schedule

The Offeror shall submit a critical path method construction schedule and narrative demonstrating a logical and efficient sequence for completing the work. The contractor shall assume a contract notice to proceed (NTP) of 15 October 2018 for proposal evaluation purposes only. October 15th is an estimated date for evaluation purposes and may not necessarily represent the actual NTP date for the awarded contract.

Items of particular concern to the government are:

Labels and durations on all activities;

Schedule logic and interdependence including F-S and S-S, critical path, ES and

EF, LS and LF, float, dummies, and milestones;

Detailed work sequences for all major activities, including the reasoning for the timing of activities;

Critical long-lead time materials and fabrications (precast and steel);

Submittal (including shop drawings) preparation and approval; and Timing of work items to be coordinated with the Government.

The Government will evaluate the schedule based on the following:

Completeness and reasonableness of the schedule;

Demonstration of thorough understanding of the project requirements;

Reasonableness of work sequencing in terms of site constraints and challenges associated with the work;

Consideration of lead times for major equipment; and

D-9

Minimization of critical path activities.

2. 3. 1. 2. Sub-factor 2: Corporate Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Corporate Management to determine compliance with and capability to meet Government’s requirements. The following are the Corporate Management areas on which the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated. The elements are listed in descending order of importance.

Element 1: Key Personnel Experience

The Government will evaluate the adequacy and strength of key personnel assignments (prime and subcontractors) to cover the necessary design disciplines and construction staffing requirements. Provide a description of previous experience on projects of similar complexity for the key home office and satellite office employees assigned to this contract. Provide project descriptions (include names and resumes), responsibilities, and authority for key field employees (including, but not limited to, all managers, superintendents, safety officers, and quality control managers that may be utilized on this project). Provide the minimum qualifications for each type of subcontractor shown on the organization chart. The personnel assigned in the proposal must be utilized on the project. Substitution of any proposed personnel will require prior approval of the Contracting Officer after contract award.

Element 2: Organization Chart

The Government will evaluate the organization chart. The organization chart shall list the Contractor’s key personnel and identify on-site and management personnel including lines of authority. The organization chart shall also list sub-contractor’s key personnel and how the subcontractor interfaces with the Contractor. The organization chart shall be clear and concise to allow thorough understanding of the contractor’s team for the project. Clearly labeled on the organization chart shall be employee duties and responsibilities. Based on the organization chart, the Government will verify that that the safety officer and quality control officer are different individuals.

2. 3. 1. 3. Sub-factor 3: Safety

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine capability to meet Government requirements in regards to Safety. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated (both elements are of equal importance) on the following Safety areas:

Element 1: Risk Management Process

The risk reduction safety plan documentation should clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s process for managing risk on high hazard activities, including, but not limited to: diving operations, fall protection, crane operations, and floating plan safety. Key safety positions, including safety competent persons and duties, shall be outlined noting

D-10 compliance with the duty requirements of the contract. The Offeror shall submit the names of key safety personnel including their experience, education, and training.

Element 2: Experience Modifier

The Government will evaluate the Experience Modifier. The Contractor must provide documentation that demonstrates their safety and health program experience using an “Experience Modification Rate (EMR)” for the past five (5) years. Table 2 lists the rating criteria to be used:

Table 2: Experience Modifier Ratings

Rating Experience Modifier

Superior 0.7 or below Acceptable 0.71 to 1.0

Sub-Standard 1.1 or greater

The Technical Factor ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks, and uncertainties of the Offeror's proposal (see Table 3). The adjectival rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements.

Table 3: Technical Ratings

Rating Description

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.

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.

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.

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.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more significant deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

D-11

2. 3. 2. Factor 2: Past Performance

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 Plans and Specifications.

Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

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 cost, schedule, performance, construction experience and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors for the purpose of Past Performance evaluation are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10%) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past ten (10) years) in their proposal.

The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or 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. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past ten (10) years prior to the issue date of the solicitation, but may include performance data generated during the past ten (10) years without regard to the contract award date.

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), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), 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.

The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

D-12

The first aspect is the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Offerors may submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past ten (10) years, from the issue date of this RFP.

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will 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. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Relevance will reflect what an Offeror has done in relation to same/similar construction type projects such as:

Installing/Sealing/Dewatering bulkheads

Vertical and horizontal concrete demolition with protection of adjacent concrete components

Mass Placement of Concrete (over 100 cubic yards)

Tremie Concrete Placement

Installation of concrete precast panels

River Diving Experience

The criteria set forth in Table 4 will be used to rate the degree of relevancy.

Table 4: Past Performance Ratings

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

Relevancy 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.

D-13

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 in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(2). The Source Selection Team 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.

The performance confidence assessment will utilize the most appropriate ratings from Table 5.

This rating considers the assessed confidence of the recent/relevant/quality information gathered.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” If an Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral,” the Source Selection Authority may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

Table 5: Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Assessment 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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

D-14

2. 3. 3. Factor 3: Small Business Participation

All 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.

Evaluation of the small business participation plan shall be in accordance with the template set forth in Appendix F. Note: Offerors are not required to use the template provided, however their submittal shall include all elements of the small business participation factor set forth.

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 goals identified in the table below:

The Small Business goals for this procurement are identified in Table 6:

Table 6: Procurement Goals

Small Business Category Procurement Goals

Small Business (SB) 29%

Small Disadvantaged Business 5%

Women-Owned Small Business 5%

HUBZone Small Business 3%

Veteran Owned Small Business 3%

D-15

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 3%

The adjectival rating shown in Table 7 depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the small business participation requirements:

Table 7: Small Business Participation Ratings

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets small business participation requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets small business participation requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets small business participation 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.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet small business participation 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.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business participation requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

2. 3. 4. Factor 4: Price

Price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR Part 15. Contract Line Item prices will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed prices are reasonable for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the Offeror's technical proposal.

Prices offered will be evaluated for reasonableness in comparison to the Government estimate.

In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 622 and 624, no civil works construction contract shall be awarded if the contract price exceeds the Government estimate by more than twenty five (25) percent.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated and determined to be unrealistic in terms of project commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the project.

D-16

2. 4. Proposal Submission

2. 4. 1. Introduction

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in electronic version to the Contract Specialist, Elizabeth Dennison, elizabeth.a.dennison@usace.army.mil, as set forth below. The RFP shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal.

The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of the following five (5) volumes:

I – Technical Approach II – Past Performance III – Small Business Participation

*Small Business Subcontracting Plans shall be submitted with the proposal if the Offeror is a large business.

IV – Price V – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and

Certifications/Representations/Bonds/JV or LLC info

Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

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.

2. 4. 2. Proposal Submission Requirements

The proposal submission requirements are as follows:

a. Each volume shall be submitted as a separate PDF file. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its title. Offeror shall sign the first two pages of SF 1442.

b. Typing should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one (1) blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

c. Table 8 illustrates the volumes of material that shall be submitted:

D-17

Table 8: Proposal Submission Requirements

VOLUME TITLE

DIGITAL

COPIES

MAXIMUM PAGES

I – Technical Approach 1 50*

II – Past Performance 1 25**

III – Small Business Participation and Subcontracting Plan, if applicable

1 25***

IV – Price 1 Schedule of Prices

V– Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/ Representations/Bid Bond

1 N/A

Notes:

* Not including corporate safety plan.

** Not including the past performance for each major subcontractor (5 page max per subcontractor) or the Past Performance Questionnaire Forms.

*** The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted with the proposal, if Offeror is a large business, to be considered for award. Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 if other than a U.S. Small Business Offeror. See Appendix (G) Subcontracting Plan Example.

The small business subcontracting plans are excluded from the page count.

Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

A copy of the bid bond shall be submitted with the proposal with the original bid bond received by the contract specialist within three (3) days of solicitation closing to be considered for award.

2. 4. 3. Proposal Files

The proposal files shall adhere to the following formatting guidelines.

2. 4. 3. 1. 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

D-18 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” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

NOTE: 11x17 pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations; however, each 11x17 page counts as two (2) pages.

2. 4. 3. 2. File Packaging

Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files.

2. 4. 3. 3. Content Organization

All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume. Each volume of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, along with the detailed information provided below:

VOLUME I – Technical Approach:

The volume shall consist of all information required to support the technical approach and shall not exceed fifty (50) pages. No technical approach information shall be contained in any other volume of this proposal. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

Sub-Factor 1: Work Plan. The work plan portion of the proposal shall address the following as a minimum:

o Element 1: Work Plan Narrative o Element 2: Schedule

Sub-Factor 2: Corporate Management. The corporate management portion of the proposal shall address the following as a minimum:

o Element 1: Key Personnel Experience o Element 2: Organization Chart

Sub-Factor 3: Safety. The safety portion should address the following at a minimum:

o Element 1: Risk Management Process o Element 2: Experience Modifier

D-19

VOLUME II – Past Performance

This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. This volume shall not exceed twenty five (25) pages plus five (5) pages for each major subcontractor, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms.

Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past ten (10) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this 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. No past performance information shall be contained in any other volume of this proposal.

Submit a separate sheet for each reference. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure points of contact can be contacted by the Government’s evaluators and that they will cooperate.

Section 1: Past Performance Questionnaire

The Offeror shall submit up to five (5) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Forms which shall identify if the contract is active or complete; if the contract was for the Government (Federal, state, local, etc.) or commercial; and if the Offeror was the prime contractor, a teaming partner, and/or joint venture. Clearly link the past performance information to the Technical Approach factor/sub-factors/elements stated in the solicitation. Additionally, as applicable, Offerors are to include a discussion of efforts to resolve problems encountered as well as efforts to identify and manage project risk. Where problems existed, clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming these problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. Contracts shall be at least six

(6) months old to be considered. Contracts with expiration dates prior to ten (10) years ago shall not be considered. 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, Elizabeth Dennison via email at elizabeth.a.dennison@usace.army.mil prior to proposal to the closing date.

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

D-20 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); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS); 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.

Section 2: Organization Structure Change History

If applicable, include information on organization structure change history or a joint venture resulting in a different company name. Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition.

VOLUME III – Small Business Participation Plan

No small business participation information shall be contained in any other volume of this proposal. Content of Small Business Participation Volume shall include the following:

Small Business Participation Plan – See Appendix (F) Enclosure 4 - Small Business Participation Plan Example

Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 if other than a U.S. Small Business Offeror. See Appendix (G) Subcontracting Plan Example

Separate from a Small Business Participation Plan, other than U.S. Small Business Offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the Offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan).

Other than U.S. Small Businesses, Offeror’s must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c) (i) (C), the small businesses considered in the evaluation shall be listed in any subcontracting plan submitted pursuant to FAR 52.219-9, therefore subcontracting plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan. The Subcontracting Plan is NOT evaluated or rated, but will be reviewed and, if applicable, negotiated prior to incorporation into contract.

D-21

VOLUME IV – Price:

No pricing information shall be contained in any other volume of this proposal.

The Schedule of Prices must be completed and returned. Failure to provide the Schedule of Prices will result in your proposal not being considered for award.

VOLUME V – Solicitations, Offer And Award Documents And Certifications /

Representations / Bid Bond

Standard Form 1442 Solicitation, Offer and Award and all amendments Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors, Bid Bond

2. 5. Discussions

2. 5. 1. General Information

In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of seven

(7) calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. 5. 2. Discussion Scheduling

If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each Offeror will be notified of the time and place at least three (3) business days prior to their discussion session. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the Offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place by the method of the Government’s choosing and provided to the contractor in writing.

D-22

APPENDIX D

PAST PERFORMANCE

APPENDIX D - Enclosure 1

NAVFAC / USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

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:

D-23

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

N a m e

T i t l

D-24 e

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.

D-25

NAVFAC / USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF

THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

Form PPQ -0 (9/30/11)

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.

A Not Applicable rating will be neither positive nor negative.

F-1

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…