A22 - W912EK21R0020-0006.pdf

96514711525945

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is as follow s:

1. To incorporate revised specifications and update the source selection plan.

2. To extend the RFP closing date to August 13, 2021 at 2:00 PM Central Time.

3. All other terms and conditions herein remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Aug-2021

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912EK21R0020

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Jun-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-Aug-2021

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1500 ROCK ISLAND D

ROCK ISLAND IL 61201

W912EK 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912EK21R0020

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

1.0. BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1. A single award will be made to the Offeror who provides a technically acceptable proposal with the overall lowest price.

1.2. Proposed prices will be evaluated but not scored or otherwise combined with the other aspects of the proposal evaluation.

2.0. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

2.1. In order for an offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive an “Acceptable” rating in every non-price factor. The two (2) non-price factors are Technical Certifications (Factor 1) and Past Performance (Factor 2). All three (3) evaluation factors are as follows:

2.1.1. Factor 1: Technical

2.1.2. Factor 2: Past Performance

2.1.3. Factor 3: Price

3.0. EVALUATION APPROACH

3.1. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

3.2. Factor 1: Technical

3.2.1. The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

This factor identifies the minimum requirements that are imperative to successful contract performance.

3.2.2. The Source Selection Team will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table A-1. Offerors who are determined “Unacceptable” will not be eligible for award.

3.2.3. Technical Competency Documentation:

3.2.3.1. The Technical Factor shall include the following to be considered eligible for award:

The Offeror shall submit one (1) copy of the documentation as follows:

1) Documentation of membership in the American Gear Manufacturer’s Association

(AGMA).

2) One page “fact sheet” each for fabrication of three open gears used in heavy industrial or transportation settings, to include locks and dams, bridges, mills, mines, or shipping/marine. The diameter of the open gear shall be 5’-0” or greater in diameter. Fact sheet shall include narrative of the gear, dimensions of the gear, and drawings/photos (if available).

3) Resume showing experience and qualifications of one company employee, who would be assigned to this project, who has supervised design, detailing, fabrication, and quality control activities with regard to manufacturing of gears of similar size and complexity to the existing crank gear.

3.3. Factor 2: Past Performance

3.3.1. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance factor on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis based on the descriptions outlined in Table A-2. Offerors who are determined “Unacceptable” will not be eligible for award.

Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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

3.3.2. Evaluations of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan while utilizing the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) and forms in Appendix D, Enclosure 2.

3.3.3. An Offeror’s past performance is a measure of the degree to which an Offeror was successful on projects of similar scope, size, and complexity. The Government will evaluate the information/performance data provided by Offerors, as well as information from other sources, such as Government databases.

3.3.3.1 The Offeror shall submit up to five (5) PPQ’s for work performed since 2010 for gear fabrications. If more than five (5) are submitted, only the five (5) most recent projects will be considered. The forms shall identify whether the contract is active or complete, whether the contract was a Government (federal, state, local, etc) or a commercial entity, and whether the Offeror was the prime contractor, a subcontractor, or member of a joint venture. The PPQ respondent must have been a client, or client representative, with whom the Offeror/subcontractor had a contract, or subcontract (if applicable) for one or more projects.

3.3.4. The PPQ respondent must hold, or have held at the time, a senior position in the client organization with responsibilities for either contract administration, quality control, engineering, or technical supervision, or was otherwise in a position to evaluate the Offeror’s performance in executing the contract or subcontract. The PPQ respondent must have first-hand knowledge of the Offeror’s performance.

3.3.5. In addition to the above, past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

3.3.6. The Government reserves the right to evaluate the past performance of any subcontractor identified in the Offeror’s proposal as part of its assessment of the acceptability of that Offeror’s proposal.

3.3.7. 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.

3.4. Factor 3: Price

3.4.1. Price will be evaluated and considered but not scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. An award will be made to the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal. Offerors shall complete and submit the Schedule of Prices with its proposal and include a price for each line item. Failure to do so may result in the proposal being rejected without further consideration.

3.4.2. The Source Selection Evaluation Board will evaluate each Offeror’s price and verify that unbalanced pricing is not present and performance risks are minimal. The Contracting Officer will evaluate each Offeror’s price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 to determine price reasonableness. Price reasonableness will be determined by comparing all proposed prices, the Independent Government Estimate and pricing of previous work that is same or similar to the requirement.

3.4.3. The otherwise technically acceptable lowest priced Offeror may be required to confirm/validate their offered price. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award.

4.0. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

4.1. The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in digital (pdf.) via email to the Contract Specialist, Jacob Toft, Jacob.J.Toft@usace.army.mil as set forth below.

4.1.1. The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of the following four (4) volumes. The volumes are:

I - Technical II - Past Performance III - Price IV - Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations/

JV or LLC info

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

4.1.3. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

4.2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.2.1. Each volume shall be submitted electronically. Each document within the file should be clearly labeled with its title. The Offeror shall sign the first page of the SF33.

4.2.2. All documents 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 Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

4.2.3. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

DIGITAL MAXIMUM

VOLUME TITLE COPIES PAGES

I – Technical 1 20 o Certifications

II – Past Performance 1 N/A

III – Price 1 N/A o Schedule of Prices

IV – Solicitation, Offer and Award 1 N/A Documents and Certification/ Representations

NOTE: 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.

4.3. PROPOSAL FILES

4.3.1. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume is to be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0”

From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

4.3.2. File Packaging. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. Self-extracting executable (.exe) files are not acceptable.

4.3.3. Content Requirement. 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. Table of Contents does not count towards page count.

4.3.4. VOLUME I – Technical: The volume shall consist of all information required to demonstrate the technical requirements and shall not exceed 20 pages. No technical information should be contained in any other volume of this proposal. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

4.3.4.1. Documentation

4.3.4.1.1. The Offeror shall submit one (1) copy of documentation to verify adherence to the following requirements:

1) Copy of AGMA membership certificate or other documentation showing membership

2) Documentation of three successful fabrications of heavy industrial open gearing that is greater than 5 feet in diameter.

3) Documentation of experience and qualifications of one company employee, who would be assigned to this project, who has supervised design, detailing, fabrication, and quality control activities with regard to large gear fabrication of similar size and complexity to the existing crank gear.

4.3.5. VOLUME II – Past Performance: This volume shall contain past performance information and shall not exceed 20 pages.

4.3.5.1. Past Performance Questionnaires do not count toward the page limitation.

4.3.5.2. No past performance information should be contained in any other volume of this proposal.

4.3.5.3. Past Performance Questionnaire:

4.3.5.3.1. The Offeror shall submit up to five (5) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Forms which 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. If more than five (5) are submitted, only the five (5) most recent projects will be considered. The PPQ respondent must have been a client, or client representative, with whom the Offeror/subcontractor had a contract, or subcontract (if applicable) for one or more projects.

4.3.5.3.2. All submitted PPQ’s shall be for gear fabricated projects. Contracts shall be at least six

(6) months old to be considered. Contracts with expiration dates prior to 2010 shall not be considered. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

4.3.5.4. 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 Government-wide Past Performance Information Application 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), 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.

4.3.6. VOLUME III – Price: Schedule of Prices must be completed and returned. Failure to provide will result in your proposal not being considered for award.

4.3.6.1. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. No pricing information should be contained in any other volume of this proposal.

4.3.7. VOLUME IV – Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations

4.3.7.1. This volume consists of Standard Form 33 Solicitation, Offer and all amendments, Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors.

5.0. DISCUSSIONS

5.1. GENERAL INFORMATION:

5.1.1. 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 (3) calendar days to submit final proposal revisions.

5.2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING:

5.2.1. 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.

APPENDIX D

Enclosure 2

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

Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: 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.

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

RATING DEFINITION

NOTE

(E) Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory

Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

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

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

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)

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

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)

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

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?

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

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

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

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

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)

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.

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

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.)

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

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).

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.

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

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 02-Aug-2021 02:00 PM to 13-Aug-2021 02:00 PM.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been deleted:

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

(End of Summary of Changes)