A22 - W912EK23R0018 Amendment 0001.pdf

W912EK23R0018

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to update the Source Selection Plan based on ProjNet inquiries. Changes are in red font.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-May-2023

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 W912EK23R0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-May-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

24-May-2023

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:

G-1

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

SECTION I

PHASE ONE

OVERVIEW

This Source Selection Plan (SSP) defines the criteria, organization, and policies to be used in selecting a contractor to provide design-build services in support of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, for the design and construction of the Lock and Dam 14 Bascule Bridge on the Mississippi River.

A. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The Rock Island District Contracting Office has a requirement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide a firm fixed price (FFP) design-build contract for a Bascule Bridge across the Lock and Dam 14 auxiliary lock on the Mississippi River.

B. ACQUISITION STRATEGY

This is a competitive acquisition for a single award of a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) construction contract. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government. Evaluation methodology for the procurement consists of two (2) phases, with two (2) factors for Phase One: Past Performance and Technical Approach; and four (4) factors for Phase Two: Design Narrative, Schedule Narrative, Small Business Participation Plan, and Price. Price will be considered in Phase Two for the best value with tradeoffs.

SECTION II

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR

PHASE ONE

1. Overview

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the design and construction of a new bascule bridge located at the Auxiliary Lock of Lock and Dam 14 in Pleasant Valley, Iowa. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government, all factors considered.

1.2 This project is for the design, fabrication, and installation of a new Bascule Bridge. The bridge will span 80 feet and provide one lane of access. The bascule bridge will cross the lock chamber and must meet or exceed AASHTO HL-93 loadings. This new bridge replaces an existing floating bridge. The project may also include, but is not limited to, the construction of new approaches, abutments and installation of operational machinery and controls. Sustainability/Energy measures will be provided. Facilities will be designed to a minimum life of 50 years in accordance with DoD’s Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC 1-200-

02) including energy efficiencies, building envelope and integrated building systems performance.

1.3 The Project objective is also to sustain government facilities within navigation industry-accepted maintenance and repair cycles to ensure an appropriate level of quality, suitable for continued use. All construction work will deliver an appropriate level of quality to ensure the continued use of the facility.

1.4 Project Location:

Lock and Dam 14 Le Claire, IA 52753

41.574248394650134°, -90.40513015969852°

Figure 1. Lock and Dam 14 Location

This site can be accessed off of U.S. Route 67 which connects to SE 182nd St. This leads to Mississippi River Project Office storage yard adjacent to the site. The property is owned by USACE.

1.5 This is a two-phase procurement, and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off process. For Phase One, price is not a submission requirement. Potential offerors are invited to submit the information described in this section for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the evaluation of Phase One, up to a maximum of three (3) most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase Two. A site visit will be held for these selected offerors following the Phase Two notification. The selected offerors for Phase One will be invited to submit the information described in Procedures for Submittal of Offers for Phase Two, for review and evaluation by the Government.

1.6 The estimated range for contract award for design and construction is $5,000,000-10,000,000.00 based on the funds made available for this project. The Government may not be able to award a contract in excess of this range.

2. Submittal of Offers

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror’s past performance and technical approach necessary for successful completion of the project. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals in PDF format via DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil) no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard 1442. Recipients shall be joseph.e.porter@usace.army.mil and Jeffrey.r.voss@usace.army.mil of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Contracting Division. Please note that DoD SAFE does not guarantee a delivery time. Please allow up to four (4) hours for delivery.

2.3 The Government is using a two-phase procurement approach for this design/build project. For Phase One, offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted in PDF format with a table of contents and PDF bookmarks. Phase One proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I for Phase One shall be submitted in text searchable PDF format and include the following information:

Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance o Construction Contractor o A/E Designer of Record o Bridge Fabricator

Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach

NOTE: Volume I shall be submitted in in electronic PDF format. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in the information not being evaluated. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted which exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

2.5 Volume II for Phase One shall be submitted in in electronic PDF format and include the following information:

Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442 Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements Volume II – Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

NOTE: Phase One does NOT involve pricing submission. Volume II shall be submitted in in electronic PDF format. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in the information not being evaluated.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. The number and identities of offerors will not be revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off.

3.2 The evaluation process for Phase One essentially consists of two parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, and past performance/technical evaluation.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

3.2.2 Past Performance / Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience, and the quality of the offeror’s performance on that experience. Factor II – Technical Approach will be rated using an adjectival-based system. The Contracting Officer / Source Selection Authority will select up to a maximum of three (3) most highly qualified offerors to continue on to Phase Two. The rating information for Phase One will not be considered in Phase Two or in the final selection.

4. Phase One Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors

4.1 Phase One proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical approach in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interest of the Government.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance Factor I is more important than Factor II.

Construction Contractor Equal to A/E Designer and Bridge Fabricator A/E Designer of Record Equal to Construction Contractor and Bridge Fabricator Bridge Fabricator Equal to Construction Contractor and A/E Designer

4.3 Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach

4.4 Volume II – Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 Not Rated

Tab B Joint Venture Agreements Not Rated

Tab C Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Not Rated

Proof of Financial Ability

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5 Ratings:

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating 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.

Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessment

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating 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.

Neutral Confidence

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 successfully perform the required effort.

Table 3. Technical Assessment Ratings

Technical Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

4.6 Definitions:

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

2. Strength. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

3. Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

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

6. 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).

7. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

8. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or

“FAPPIS.”

5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by each of the

Construction Contractor, A/E Designer of Record, and Bridge Fabricator within the last ten (10) years (from the solicitation issue date) which are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than ten (10) years before the solicitation closing date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. If more than three (3) projects are submitted, the three (3) most recent projects will be used for review.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size shall be bridge projects of similar or greater value.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope shall be bridge projects of similar or greater complexity, which may include Movable Bridge Projects, such as drawbridges, vertical-lift bridges and swing bridges.

5.1.4 The firm must have self-performed at least 15% of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees to be considered similar.

5.1.5 Additional relevancy consideration may be given for past Federal Design Build Projects.

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Contract Number, and Location.

b) Current percentage of construction complete and when it was or will be completed. If project is not yet complete, provide a description of work remaining to be completed.

c) Scope of the project, to include a description of the complexity of the project.

d) Size of the project; to include the dollar value of the project.

e) Role of firm; provide a description of type of work performed and percentage of work self-performed.

f) Other contractors involved in construction, fabrication, and/or design

g) Whether the project was design-build or design-bid-build

h) Customer Primary Point of Contact (name, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current and correct phone number, and current and correct email address)

5.1.7 Offerors may submit information in addition to that listed above for each project. Such information must clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. Past Performance Questionnaires may also be submitted for each project; a sample copy is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaires must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference.

5.1.8 The listed Construction Contractor, A/E Designer of Record, and Bridge Fabricator firms must be used on the project. No deviations will be permitted unless approved by the Contracting Officer. Only one firm should be identified for each role. Indicate any previous working relationship with the prime contractor.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating Past Performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture agreement 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 must submit their own DUNS number with the JV proposal. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will be evaluated for past performance if they are identified as having the role of Construction Contractor, A/E Designer of Record, or Bridge Fabricator. If the offeror or other contractor is identified as fulfilling two or more of said roles, whether as a joint venture or otherwise, project examples may be provided for past performance under any or all of those roles, but the total submitted should not exceed three (3) past performance projects for each of the three (3) roles.

NOTE: There is a page limit of twelve (12) single-sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Past Performance factor. Past Performance Questionnaires do not count toward this page limitation. Pages exceeding the page limit will not be evaluated.

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 The SSEB will evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal. Documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope to this project will be considered relevant to the similar characteristics of the RFP. Conversely, proposals that do not show documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope will be considered less relevant to the similar characteristics of the RFP.

5.2.2 The SSEB will assign a confidence rating to each offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. The Government will at a minimum review past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including CPARS. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance, including for projects other than those submitted by the offeror. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance.

5.2.3 The SSEB will review the past performance information submitted for the Construction Contractor, the A/E Designer of Record and Bridge Fabricator and will consider this information when assigning an overall confidence rating for the offeror. The past performance information related to the construction contractor will be considered of equal importance to the past performance information related to the design firm which will be considered of equal importance to the past performance information related to the Bridge Fabricator. The A/E Designer of Record, Bridge Fabricator and Construction Contractor will not receive its own confidence rating; instead, there will be one overall past performance rating that considers the past performance information related to the A/E Designer of Record, Bridge Fabricator and Construction Contractor. NOTE: The Government may discuss all past performance information for the A/E Designer of Record and Bridge Fabricator with the prime contractor.

6. Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Provide a narrative that describes the offeror’s Design-Build team and intended technical approach to executing the design-build contract per the detailed requirements herein. Clearly but concisely describe the offeror’s Design-Build team, including the Construction Contractor, A/E Designer of Record, and Bridge Fabricator, and how members of the team will work collaboratively to ensure timely, quality completion of the project. The Technical Approach narrative should address the information described in paragraphs 6.1.2

– 6.1.5 below.

6.1.2 Organization: Describe the firms that compose the offeror’s Design-Build team, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Present a matrix of responsibilities for each firm in executing the key design and construction activities for each major feature of the effort. Describe the proposed management structure for the Design-Build team, explaining how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the Design-Build team.

6.1.3 Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: Describe interactions and communications within the Design-

Build team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design. Describe the role of the construction team members and Bridge Fabricator and Prime Contractor during design. Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team and Bridge Fabricator and Prime Contractor and Corps of Engineers during construction, addressing, at a minimum:

engineering during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design;

requests for information;

shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals;

progress meetings;

site visits, if any;

contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation

6.1.4 Planning and Scheduling: Describe the offeror’s schedule control capabilities and any systems the offeror will use to plan design and construction activities. Explain how the schedule will be used to manage design and construction. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize time growth or “schedule creep.” Include any consideration of fast-tracking design and construction. Discuss how you plan to streamline construction, manage labor and any other resource constraints to reduce cost and achieve project completion within the 900 calendar day project duration.

6.1.5 Quality Control: Describe the Design-Build team’s quality control approach, corporate systems and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction.

A. Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan. The offeror shall submit the following qualifications (not counted toward page limitation):

a. Professional Licensed Engineer in the State of Iowa

b. Professional Licensed Surveyor in the State of Iowa

c. AISC Certification

B. Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control, track design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate Government reviews.

C. Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation.

NOTE: There is a page limit of eight (8) single-sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Technical Approach narrative. Pages exceeding the page limit will not be evaluated.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the technical approach.

The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of the Design-Build process and how well it has demonstrated its ability to successfully execute the project. Some additional specific evaluation considerations are listed below.

6.2.2 Organization: The Government will evaluate clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work.

6.2.3 Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms during design and construction. Proposals demonstrating that construction personnel will be actively involved in the design process may be viewed more favorably by the SSEB. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record and the Government reviewers. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction.

6.2.4 Planning and Scheduling: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of and ability to manage an integrated fast track design-build schedule. Offerors that propose effective methods to streamline construction, minimize delays, and to manage labor and other resource constraints may be viewed more favorably by the SSEB.

6.2.5 Quality Control: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction. The Government places value upon continued participation by the designers of record during the construction quality control process. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the staffing plan to cover all required tasks and responsibilities, to include the appropriate licenses listed in 6.1.5. The Government will evaluate the strength of the offeror’s proposed system to control and track revisions to the design.

7. Volume II –Pro Forma Information

7.1 Tab A – Standard Form 1442.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Standard Form 1442 will not be rated. The form will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the offer signed.

NOTE: Phase One does NOT involve pricing submission.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture and Mentor-Protégé Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Small business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSBC, etc.) submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture shall submit evidence from the Offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist. Joint Venture agreements and approved 8(a) Mentor-Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements will not be rated but must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

7.3 Tab C – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding

7.3.1 Submission Requirements:

Submit information showing offeror's ability to be bonded for this project. Include the name, address and telephone number of the firm's bonding company.

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

7.4 Tab D – Pre-Award Information

7.4.1 Submission Requirements:

A. The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Section 0600, Representations and Certifications.

B. The offeror shall submit the number of years the firm has been in business

C. The offeror shall submit the name, address, and Unique Entity ID (UEI) number for any and all subcontractors identified in the proposal.

D. The offeror shall submit qualifications including but not limited to the following:

a. Professional Licensed Engineer in the State of Iowa

b. Professional Licensed Surveyor in the State of Iowa

c. AISC Certification

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

E VG S M U N

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance

E VG S M U N

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.

Yes No

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

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

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

E VG S M U N

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

SECTION III

PHASE TWO

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR

PHASE TWO

***This entire Phase Two documentation (Section III, IV, V, & VI) provided here are for reference only and are subject to change when Phase Two is issued***

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the Design and Construction of a new bascule bridge located at the Auxiliary Lock of Lock and Dam 14 in Pleasant Valley, Iowa. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror, whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government, all factors considered.

1.1 This project is for a design, fabrication, and installation of a new Bascule Bridge. The bridge will span 80 feet and provide one lane of access. The bascule bridge will cross the lock chamber and must meet or exceed AASHTO HL-93 loadings. This new bridge replaces an existing floating bridge. The project may also include but is not limited to the construction of new approaches, abutments and installation of operational machinery and controls. Sustainability/Energy measures will be provided. Facilities will be designed to a minimum life of 50 years in accordance with DoD’s Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC 1-200-02) including energy efficiencies, building envelope and integrated building systems performance.

1.2 This is a two-phase procurement and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off Process. Following completion of the evaluation of Phase One, up to a maximum of three (3) most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase Two. The selected offerors for Phase Two will be invited to submit the information described in this Section, Procedures for Submittal and Evaluation of Offers for Phase Two, for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the Phase Two evaluation, the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. For Phase Two submittals, requirements stated in this RFP are minimums.

NOTE: The rating information from Phase One will not be considered in Phase Two or in the final selection.

1.3 The estimated range for contract award for design and construction is $5,000,000-10,000,000.00 based on the funds made available for this project. The Government may not be able to award a contract in excess of this range.

2 Submittal of Offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror’s past performance and technical approach necessary for successful completion of the project. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP.

Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals in PDF format via email to joseph.e.porter@usace.army.mil and

Jeffrey.r.voss@usace.army.mil of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Contracting Division, no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

2.3 The Government is using a two-phase procurement approach for this design/build project. For Phase Two, offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. The volumes should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I for Phase Two shall be submitted electronically and include the following information:

Volume I – Factor I: Design Narrative Volume I – Factor II: Schedule Narrative Volume I – Factor III: Small Business Participation Plan Volume I – Factor IV: Price

*NOTE: The complete Volume I shall be submitted electronically via email. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate volume or factor may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit(s) will not be evaluated.

2.5 Volume II for Phase Two shall be submitted electronically and shall include the following information:

Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 30 Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements Volume II – Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding & Proof of Financial Ability Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information Volume II – Tab E: Subcontracting Plan

*NOTE: The complete Volume II shall be submitted electronically via email. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate volume or tab may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit(s) will not be evaluated.

3 Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical (Volume I) proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above.

3.2 The evaluation process for Phase Two essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility review, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance / Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that both a technical and price proposal were received, and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Phase Two Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factors I and II (Design Narrative, and Schedule Narrative) will be rated using Table 4 below. Factor III – Small Business Participation Plan will be rated using Table 5 below.

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The SSEB and Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical evaluation.

3.2.4 Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4 Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Phase Two proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are considered approximately equal to price.