W912EK21R0019.pdf

Solicitation No.: W912EK21R0019

US Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District

ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN

BRANDON ROAD LOCK AND DAM

JOLIET, ILLINOIS

UPPER BULKHEAD RECESSES

Construction Solicitation and Specifications

MAY 2021

96514711033004

ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN BRANDON ROAD LOCK, WILL COUNTY, IL UPPER BULKHEAD RECESSES

SEE SECTION 01 11 00; SUMMARY OF WORK

NAICS: 237990

SIZE STANDARD: $39,500,000.00

ESTIMATED RANGE: Over $10,000,000.00

CONTRACT COMPLETION: 440 CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS

UNRESTRICTED, BEST VALUE-TRADE OFF, SOURCE SELECTION

ALL QUESTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED VIA PROJNET. SEE CLAUSE MVR.02 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

ZACHARY E SCHULER 3097945443

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

27-May-2021

(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 ________440 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________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 specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________29 Jun 2021 (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 D

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)

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W912EK21R0019 262

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

Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders

SCHEDULE OF PRICES

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 Mobilization and Demobilization

1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0002 Temporary Field Office 0002AA First 6 Months 6 MO $ . $ .

0002AB Over 6 Months 1 MO $ . $ .

0003 Dive Inspections 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0004 Emergency Miter Gate Anchorage Disposal 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0005 Bulkhead Recess Installation

0005AA Concrete Removal 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0005AB Deadman Anchors 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0005AC Precast Panel Fabrication and Delivery 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0005AD Precast Panel Installation 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0005AE Bulkhead Recess 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0005AF Bulkhead Slot Protection Plate 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0006 Sill Concrete Removal 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0007 Sill Concrete Formwork 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0008 Sill Concrete Placement 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0009 Sill Weep Holes 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0010 Handrailing 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0011 Electrical Work 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

0012 Site Restoration 1 JOB XXXXXXXX $ .

TOTAL OF ESTIMATED AMOUNTS

(ITEM NOS. 0001 THROUGH 0012, INCL.)

JOB = LUMP SUM MO = MONTH

ENSURE UNIT PRICE AND AMOUNT LINES FOR ALL ITEMS ARE COMPLETED.

SOURCE SELECTION

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 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 more complete as to justify the payment of a 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.

The evaluation factors are as follows: technical approach, past performance, small business participation and price. All non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are approximately equal to price. The technical approach is significantly more important than past performance and small business. The past performance factor is significantly more important than small business participation.

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 to be considered for award. Any sub-factor rated as

“unacceptable” will render the entire factor “unacceptable”.

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

Factor 1: Technical Approach: This factor is further divided into the following sub-factors;

a. Sub-Factor 1: Work Plan

Element 1: Work Plan Narrative

Element 2: Schedule

b. Sub-Factor 2: Corporate Management

Element 1: Key Personnel

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

Factor 2: Past Performance: The past performance evaluation considers each

Offeror's demonstrated recent, relevant and quality record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

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

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.

2. 3. Evaluation Approach

All proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST). Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each factor and element as it applies to the plans and specifications. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

The overarching evaluation approach for all 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.

Definitions:

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

2. 3. 1. Factor 1: Technical Approach

The Government will be utilizing a combined technical/risk rating approach which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties and deficiencies in determining the technical rating.

Sub-factor ratings shall be rolled up into an overall rating for Factor 1; Technical Approach. The following table, which utilizes a combined technical/risk rating, shall be used for the technical factor and all sub-factors.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

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 unawardable.

The Technical Approach Factor is divided into the following Subfactor:

2. 3. 1. 1. Subfactor 1: Work Plan

This subfactor 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 sub-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:

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; and

Methods for underwater concrete placement to specifically include sequence and details on the forming method for sill concrete and concrete placed below the panel seat.

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 at the site.

Items of particular concern to the government are:

Labels and durations on all activities;

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

Critical long-lead time materials and fabrications;

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, river hydrologic conditions, and challenges associated with the work;

Ability to mitigate construction and scheduling risk associated with project features and project locations

Consideration of lead times for major equipment; and

Minimization of critical path activities.

The contractor shall assume a contract notice to proceed (NTP) of 4 August 2021 for proposal evaluation purposes only. August 4th is an estimated date for evaluation purposes and may not necessarily represent the actual NTP date for the awarded contract.

2. 3. 1. 2. Subfactor 2: Corporate Management

Element 1: Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed key personnel to be utilized on the contract. Resumes shall be limited to one page per individual and shall include the name, proposed role for the project, education, years of experience in the proposed role, years of experience with the Offeror and notable experience similar to this project.

The Government defines key personnel as the Project Managers, Site Superintendent, Quality

Control Manager and Site Safety and Health Officer.

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the information to determine how well the Offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel has the necessary qualifications to manage, control and perform these construction requirements:

a. Project Manager with at least five years construction and construction management experience.

b. Site Superintendent with at least 5 years of experience managing projects with multiple sub-contractors and familiarity with scheduling multiple locations.

c. Quality Control System Manager shall meet the requirements in Section 01 45 04.

d. Site Safety and Health Officer with at least five years of experience managing and implementing safety and occupation health program(s) which demonstrate relevance to the project scope and applicable sections of EM 385-1-1, Safety and Health

Requirements Manual, version 2014

The Government intends to give greater weight to proposals where the key personnel demonstrate:

More extensive experience working on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the work that is the subject of this requirement

Experience in proposed role which greatly exceeds the years of experience listed above;

More extensive experience in proposed role with the Offeror.

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 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 15 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 15 years prior to the issue date of the solicitation, but may include performance data generated during the past 15 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 aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy

(including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

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 15 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:

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

Underwater Construction Operations

The criteria set forth below will be used to rate the degree of past performance relevancy.

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.

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 past performance confidence assessment will utilize the most appropriate ratings from the table below. 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.

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.

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 Small

Business Participation Commitment Template set forth in Appendix F, and will be incorporated as part of the resulting contract in section H.

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 for large business Offeror)

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

7. The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the goals identified in the table below. While there is no goal assigned for the specific socio-economic set asides, anything proposed other than 0.00% would be a strength.

The Small Business goals for this procurement are identified below:

Procurement Goals

Small Business Category Procurement Goals

Small Business (SB) 30%

Small Disadvantaged Business Best Effort

Women-Owned Small Business Best Effort

HUBZone Small Business Best Effort

Veteran Owned Small Business Best Effort

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Best Effort

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

Small Business Participation Ratings

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

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.

The Offeror should ensure the information submitted is consistent with and fully supports the dollar values set forth in the SF1442 Schedule of Prices.

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.

2. 4. Proposal Submission

2. 4. 1. Introduction

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in electronic version to the Contract Specialist, Zach

Schuler, Zachary.E.Schuler@usace.army.mil, as set forth below. Large files may be submitted using DoD SAFE at https://safe.apps.mil/. The RFP shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal.

The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of the following five 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 should be submitted as a separate PDF file. Each volume should be clearly labeled with its title. Offeror should sign the first two pages of SF 1442.

b. Typing should be single spaced. Each paragraph should 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.

https://safe.apps.mil/

Table below illustrates the Proposal Submission Requirements and volumes of material that shall be submitted:

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 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. The original bid bond should be received by the contract specialist within three days of solicitation closing to be considered for award.

2. 4. 3. Proposal Files

The proposal files should adhere to the following formatting guidelines.

2. 4. 3. 1. Format

The submission should be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume should be clearly identified and should begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume should 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”

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 pages.

2. 4. 3. 2. File Packaging

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

2. 4. 3. 3. Content Organization

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

VOLUME I – Technical Approach:

The volume should consist of all information required to support the technical approach.

No technical approach information should be contained in any other volume of this proposal. The volume should be organized into the following sections:

Subfactor 1: Work Plan. The work plan portion of the proposal should address the following as a minimum:

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

Subfactor 2: Corporate Management. The corporate management portion of the proposal should address the following as a minimum:

o Element 1: Key Personnel

VOLUME II – Past Performance

Provide descriptions on a minimum of two projects, but no more than five, substantially complete or completed by the Prime Contractor within the last 15 years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than 15 years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if all features of work are usable and pre-final inspections have been held.

The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15 percent of the direct contract labor

(including layout personnel), exclusive of other general conditions or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, or subcontractors to be considered similar.

The following information should be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Location, and Contract Number/Unique Identifier

b) Current percentage of construction complete and the date it was or will be complete

a. For projects that are not yet complete, provide description of work remaining to be completed.

c) Scope of the project, to include purpose

d) Size of the project,

e) Portion and percentage of work that was self-performed

f) Point of contact information for each project

The offeror should submit a separate sheet for each project. Data concerning the Offeror should be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The

Offeror should 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 should be contained in any other volume of this proposal.

The Offeror shall submit up to five PPQ Forms which should 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 should include a discussion of efforts to resolve problems encountered as well as efforts to identify and manage project risk. Where problems existed, offerors should clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming these problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified.

Contracts should be at least six months old to be considered. Contracts with expiration dates prior to 15 years ago should not be considered. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

The Past Performance Questionnaire should be submitted by the Offeror with the proposal submission and NOT sent directly to the agency from the references.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. Projects performed by contractors other than the Offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture Offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for

Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture (JV) should submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number (formerly known as DUNS) with the JV proposal. Projects performed by other contractors than the Offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a JV Offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV should not exceed five.

VOLUME III – Small Business Participation Plan

No small business participation information should 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).

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.

VOLUME IV – Price:

No pricing information should 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

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 three calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

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 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.

Appendix D

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:

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 e

Phone

Numb er:

Email

Addre ss:

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. The Government reserves the right to verify any and all information on this form.

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.

W912EK21R0019

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…