W912EP-16-R-0007_0004.pdf

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)

30-105-04 EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

KISSIMMEE RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, C-38 REACH 2 BACKFILL, OKEECHOBEE AND HIGHLANDS COUNTIES, FLORIDA

A. SEE CONTINUATION SHEET FOR AMENDMENT DETAILS.

B. THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE REMAINS UNCHANGED @ 16 June 2016 AT 3:00 PM, EST.

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 74

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15C. DATE SIGNED 15B. 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 W912EP-16-R-0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-May-2016

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

02-Jun-2016

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

701 SAN MARCO BLVD

JACKSONVILLE FL 32207-8175

W912EP 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODE CODE

EMAIL: TEL:

SF 30 CONTINUATION SHEET

KISSIMMEE RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, C-38 REACH 2 BACKFILL,

OKEECHOBEE AND HIGHLANDS COUNTIES, FLORIDA

W912EP-16-R-0007 1 Amend 0004

CHANGES TO THE SPECIFICATIONS: The following are changes to the specifications. Specifications should be adequately marked or annotated to indicate that they have been changed

SECTION 00100A - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS Delete Section 00100A and replace it with the attached Section 00100A.

SECTION 00800 - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

THE FOLLOWING HAVE BEEN MODIFIED:

Paragraph 999.215-4001

THE FOLLOWING HAVE BEEN DELETED:

999.211-4008 VARIATION IN ESTIMATED QUANTITY -- DREDGING DEC 1999

999.223-4008 CONSTRUCTION IN PROXIMITY TO EXPLOSIVES AREAS -- WITHIN

INTRALINE DISTANCES DEC 1999

999.223-4027 DREDGING SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MAR 2003

SECTION 00 33 50 – WEATHER AND WATER STAGE DATA: Delete Section 00 33 50 and replace it with the attached Section 00 33 50.

SECTION 01 11 00 – SUMMARY OF WORK: Delete Section 01 11 00 and replace it with the attached Section 01 11 00.

DRAWINGS: W912EP-16-R-0007 Plans dated 2016 in 101 Sheets + Cover:

Delete Plan Sheet G-03 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet G-03.

Delete Plan Sheet G-07 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet G-07.

Delete Plan Sheet G-08 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet G-08.

Delete Plan Sheet G-09 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet G-09.

Delete Plan Sheet G-11 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet G-11.

Delete Plan Sheet G-13 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet G-13.

SF 30 CONTINUATION SHEET

KISSIMMEE RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, C-38 REACH 2 BACKFILL,

OKEECHOBEE AND HIGHLANDS COUNTIES, FLORIDA

W912EP-16-R-0007 2 Amend 0004

Delete Plan Sheet G-14 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet G-14.

Delete Plan Sheet C-02 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet C-02.

Delete Plan Sheet C-03 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet C-03.

Delete Plan Sheet C-04 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet C-04.

Delete Plan Sheet C-05 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet C-05.

Delete Plan Sheet C-09 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet C-09.

Delete Plan Sheet C-10 and replace it with the attached Plan Sheet C-10.

--END OF AMENDMENT 0004 CHANGES --

SECTION 00100A

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, with consideration given to the three evaluation factors: Technical Merit, Past Performance, and Price.

The Contracting Officer will use a trade-off process to determine which offer represents the best value to the Government. This process allows the Contracting Officer to consider making award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all the subfactors). A rating of Unacceptable for any individual sub-factor/sub-element will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable for the entire Factor.

Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror or the highest technically rated offeror. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

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

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL MERIT: Technical Merit is significantly more important than Past Performance. Technical merit consists of three sub-factors, sub-factor 1 Demonstrated Experience, sub-factor 2 Implementation Plan and Construction Schedule, and sub-factor 3 Organization and Technical Approach. Sub-factor 1 is considered slightly more important than sub-factor 2 and sub-factor 2 is considered slightly more important than sub-factor 3.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE: The Past Performance factor is significantly less important than the Technical Merit factor.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE: The Price factor is not rated. It is evaluated for reasonableness.

Additionally, a price realism evaluation maybe performed. Offerors are advised that their business decision to submit a low-priced proposal can be considered in assessing their understanding or the risk associated with their proposal. All other none cost evaluation factors are, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-1 Amendment 0004

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a Board of Government evaluators.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors stated in the solicitation to select the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government. All responsible offerors whose proposals are among the most highly rated may be included in the competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c) (1) & (2). However, the Government reserves the right to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range for purposes of efficiency.

By submitting an offer in response to this solicitation, offerors are agreeing to comply with all terms and conditions contained in the solicitation. Unless the solicitation specifically invites the offeror to submit exceptions, the Source Selection Authority may reject any offer that contains exceptions. In this solicitation, the words “offer” and “proposal” are used interchangeably. (See definition of “offer” at FAR 2.101). Except for any portions of the offeror’s proposal incorporated into the resulting contract by specific reference, the terms and conditions included in the solicitation, including any amendments, shall take precedence over the offeror’s proposal.

Proposal Evaluation

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority later determines them to be necessary.

Further, if the Source Selection Authority determines that discussions are necessary and if the Source Selection Authority determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Source Selection Authority may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Source Selection Decision

The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will make the source selection decision based on the proposal that represents the best value to the Government. The Source Selection Authority will not receive a recommendation from any individual or body as to which offeror should receive the award and additionally will not receive a rank order or order of merit list pertaining to the offers being evaluated.

D. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copy, see Paragraph 999.215-4003, Section 00100. The RFP shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal.

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-2 Amendment 0004

The proposal shall be divided into volumes as indicated below. Each set of volumes shall be submitted sealed separately. Each volume shall be marked with the offeror’s name, the solicitation number, the volume number and stamped with “Original” or “Copy.” Each respective original or copy shall be separately bound or placed in a three-ring binder.

All proposals shall contain the evaluation requirements stated herein and every binder shall also contain: Table of Contents, List of Tables (if required), List of Figures (if required), List of Appendices, and Name/Address/Telephone Number/e-mail address of the Offeror. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. No material (information not part of proposal) shall be incorporated by reference. The offeror shall submit in the proposal the requested information specified herein.

*In accordance with Paragraph 999.215-4003 - Electronic Proposals, Section 00100, submit one electronic copy that contains all three volumes (Technical Merit, Past Performance, and Price).

FACTOR 1 (VOLUME ONE) – Technical Merit Package (1 Original, 5 Copies)

DO NOT INCLUDE PRICING INFORMATION IN THE TECHNICAL MERIT

PROPOSAL. Responses to Each Sub-Factor/Sub-element shall be organized in Volume 1 as follows:

Part 1 – Sub-Factor 1 Demonstrated Experience of Contractor/Subcontractors..

Part 2 – Sub-Factor 2 Implementation Plan/Construction Schedule

Tab A – Sub-Element (A) - Implementation Plan

Tab B – Sub-Element (B) - Construction Schedule

Part 3 – Sub-Factor 3 Organization and Technical Approach

FACTOR 2 (VOLUME TWO) – Past Performance Package (1 Original, 1 Copy)

FACTOR 3 (VOLUME THREE) – Price and Price Related Information (1 Original, 1 Copy)

FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

In responding to this factor, the objective should be to instill confidence that the offeror thoroughly understands the requirements and complexities of this project, has the knowledge, expertise, equipment, and experience required to meet or exceed the terms and conditions of these specifications, and the ability to successfully accomplish and complete the project within the required time frame specified in the solicitation.

In accordance with the non-substitution clause in Section 00800 (999.215-4001), Limitations on Substitutions for Certain Positions and/or Subcontractors, a letter of commitment must be provided for any proposed major subcontractor and key personnel.

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-3 Amendment 0004

A major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that has been identified under Factor 1 and Factor 2. Additionally, a major subcontractor can be identified as one that is crucial for the successful completion of the project.

A letter of commitment is defined as a letter from the subcontractor on official Company letterhead (1) addressed to the prime contractor, (2) identifying the work they intend to perform, and (3) stating that they are willing to be bound to perform the identified work if the prime receives this contract.

Failure to provide a letter of commitment, as defined above, from a proposed major subcontractor will be noted as a significant weakness.

Sub-factor 1 – DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements

In responding to this sub-factor, the objective is to demonstrate to the technical evaluators that the offeror clearly has the capability to successfully complete the project by explaining in detail how the provided demonstrated experiences are similar to the work described in the solicitation.

Using Attachment 1, provide a detailed narrative that explains how each provided demonstrated experience is similar to the work described in the solicitation. Additional pages may be used as necessary to provide required detail. Failure to provide sufficient detail explaining how each provided demonstrated experience is similar to the work described in the solicitation may be noted as a significant weakness. This narrative should demonstrate that the offeror clearly has the capability to successfully complete the project. Please note, in all likelihood, the technical evaluators are unfamiliar with the demonstrated experiences that offerors provide; this is why a lack of detail explaining the work and how it is similar to the work described in the solicitation may be considered a significant weakness.

Demonstrated experiences provided should include the location/conditions, duration, dollar value, any unusual coordination requirements as well as any problems encountered and corrective action taken to successfully complete the project. Each project identified must include a contract number, a current reference contact name, address and telephone number, as well as email address if available.

If any portion of the work provided as demonstrated experience is subcontracted, clearly identify that work as such and provide the required experience of that subcontractor as it relates to work the subcontractor is performing. In accordance with the non-substitution clause in Section 00800, Paragraph 999.215-4001, Limitations on Substitutions for Certain Positions and/or Subcontractors, provide a letter of commitment using Attachment 2 for any subcontractor for whom demonstrated experience is provided.

A letter of commitment is defined under Factor 1. Failure to provide a letter of commitment from a proposed major subcontractor will be noted as a significant weakness.

If any portion of the work provided as demonstrated experience was performed by the

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-4 Amendment 0004

Parent Company and/or subsidiary of the offeror, clearly identify that work as such and provide the required experience of the Parent Company and /or Subsidiary as it relates to work the Parent Company and/or subsidiary will be performing on the requirements described herein. Using Attachment 2, provide a letter of commitment, as defined above, from the proposed Parent Company and/or subsidiary of the offeror, if such company will be part of the Contractor’s team. The letter shall be on the Parent Company and/or subsidiary letterhead.

Projects submitted must be completed or 80% physically completed within the last ten

(10) years from the date of this solicitation.

Any demonstrated experience (to include subcontractors) provided here for consideration in this sub-factor, should also have a corresponding submission in the Past Performance factor. If Past Performance information is not provided for a demonstrated experience, that demonstrated experience will not be evaluated.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The prime contractor shall demonstrate recent, relevant experience on projects that are similar in nature, magnitude, and complexity to the work described in this solicitation, using the Construction – Demonstrated Experience form – (Attachment 1) at the end of the section. Offerors may identify projects that are similar to the types listed below in Relevant Specialized Experience. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Submit projects that are currently well underway or completed and turned over no longer than ten (10) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. A well-underway project is defined as at least 80% construction progress completed. If a project is presented and has not been completed, the offeror shall explain which elements of the work are not completed and the completion percentage. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Also, successful projects completed by one or more of the key personnel submitted for this project will carry more weight during the evaluation.

Using the Construction – Specialized Experience Form, the offeror shall submit no more than five (5) projects similar to the types listed in Relevant Specialized Experience. Note:

Additional space may be used with both Attachments 2 and 3 to adequately describe submitted projects. If more than 5 projects are submitted, only the first 5 projects will be evaluated.

Relevant Specialized Experience for Evaluation Consideration:

Completion of earthwork (excavation or fill) in a floodplain or other body of water at or near normal water elevations. Work in areas impacted by tides will also qualify as relevant experience if it can be shown that the work was affected by tidal influences.

Completion of earthwork projects of similar magnitude that required work by multiple crews or subcontractors in various areas or sections of the project.

Completion of earthwork projects of similar magnitude in active hurricane seasons.

Specialized Experience – Evaluation Criteria

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-5 Amendment 0004

The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime contractor and subcontractors as relevant to their role on this project. Higher evaluation ratings will be given for construction projects examples which are similar in function, scope, complexity, and size to this solicitation and clearly demonstrate the offeror’s abilities to execute the projects successfully while maintaining cost and schedule. In addition, this criterion will be evaluated for the quantity and quality of experience demonstrated. The greater the relevance and the more recent the prior project experience, the higher the rating assigned during evaluations. Demonstration of experience in completing projects that had the unique characteristics of the proposed project will be evaluated favorably.

The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience.

The Offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, related experience for projects that are similar to the Relevant Specialized Experience (which may include similar state or local government or private counterparts) included in this solicitation. Recent experience includes projects well underway (see above criteria) or those completed and turned over within ten (10) years of the proposal issue date for this solicitation for construction experience. Joint Venture partners should each demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project or explain in a detailed narrative how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the Offeror shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience. A firm will not receive credit under this factor for the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project unless completed as an employee of the offeror.

The Government will consider extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience, demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. Some examples of relevancy may include, but not be limited to:

(1) Nature, magnitude, and complexity and location

(2) Dates (80% completed or completed no more than ten (10) years preceding date of Solicitation)

(3) Firm's role and extent of work self-performed (brokering out all work and simply “pouring the sidewalks” on a cited project are examples of less relevant experience)

Sub-factor 2 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

Submission Requirements

This sub-factor consists of two sub-elements: The Implementation Plan and Construction Schedule. Sub-element A is considered slightly more important than sub-element B. The Implementation Plan and Construction Schedule will be evaluated as separate sub-elements; however they will be evaluated as one sub-factor.

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-6 Amendment 0004

Any conflicts between the two (implementation plan and construction schedule) will be noted as a significant weakness.

SUB-ELEMENT A – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: The Implementation Plan sub-element is considered slightly more important than the Construction Schedule sub-element.

In a narrative format, the offeror shall describe the proposed Implementation Plan regarding how the work will be executed from start to completion, including the potential impact of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) removal of Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) from the Lock Tender’s House and removal of materials and equipment from the lock. The Plan shall include a description of related activities and items of work (as shown in the construction schedule below), to include coordination with major subcontractors and the type of equipment that would be utilized, if appropriate. Also, identify potential risks and plans for mitigating those risks such as the seasonal water levels and flows through the C-38 Canal, accommodating the protection of endangered species such as the relocation of gopher tortoises or nesting of caracara (bird species). Further, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) considers that operation of the S-65C Structure until the backfill operations eliminates its effectiveness is beneficial to the completion of this project.

Being able to accommodate the operation of the structure or otherwise account for flows through the project is considered a benefit to the Government. In addition to the items shown in the construction schedule, at a minimum, the plan shall discuss the following:

• Construction in the Kissimmee River Flood Plain: This project is being constructed in the flood plain of the historic Kissimmee River Basin. The Implementation Plan must address the Contractor’s plan to minimize the impacts of the seasonal flows through the basin.

The plan should address such items as routing the water around the project, diversion of water for the borrow areas, construction of plugs in the canal, minimizing construction in times of historic high flows by performing work in multiple areas concurrently, etc. This list is not comprehensive and Contractors are encouraged to optimize the work plan to address the issue of working in the basin. Please note that flow through the historic river channel must be reestablished by the removal of the S-65CX Structure before any backfill material is placed in the C-38 Canal between the S-65C Structure and the intersection of the river and the canal between Stations1240+00 and Station 1260+00 (Note: there must be a flow path around S-65C prior to decommissioning S-65C). In developing the plan, the MacArthur Ditch Project and the Reach 3 Backfill Projects may be in construction at the start of this project and will increase both the elevations and durations of high water flows. The plan must also include provisions to control turbidity. Please note that the S-65C gates can be lowered to control turbidity once the S-65C Structure is taken out of service by the SFWMD.

• Operation of the S-65C Structure: The SFWMD must operate and maintain the S-65C Structure until it is no longer functional. The structure will no longer be functional when the S-65CX Structure is removed, fill is placed north of the S-65C Structure in the C-38 Canal, or the backfill is started in the C-38 Canal north of the old river between Stations1240+00 and Station 1260+00. The plan must address when the S-65C Structure will be taken out of service and how the SFWMD Demolition work will be accommodated.

• SFWMD Demolition Work: Please see Section 02 41 00. SFWMD will remove the

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-7 Amendment 0004 hazardous materials from the lock tender’s house, remove the hydraulic fluid and other hazardous materials from the structure, and salvage the items listed in Appendix A of Section 02 41 00. The plan must address each of these phases of work. Plans that minimize the risk of delays (such as having significant float on these activities) will be rated more highly. Some of the items that SFWMD will salvage, such as the gates, must be removed when the water pressure is equal on both sides of the structure. This must be addressed in the plan. Also, the Contractor is not required to schedule all of this items to occur at the same time. It may be beneficial for these activities to occur at different points in the project. Plans must provide a 60-day notice for SFWMD to complete each activity. The plan must also provide for vehicular access for SFWMD to access the structure and Lock Tender’s House so that material can hauled to main roads using on-road dump trucks.

• Protection of Endangered Species: The plan must address the protection of endangered species. Should gopher tortoises be found onsite, the Contractor must immediately notify the Government. The Government will have 30 days to remove gopher tortoises after notification, except during periods of cold weather may prohibit their removal. Please see the specifications for further details. Proposals that show a pro-active approach to planning for potential delays due to the presence of protected or endangered species will be rated more favorably. Measures such as the installation of silt fence to minimize the opportunities for gopher tortoises to move into an area, installation of bird deterrents, or minimizing construction durations during nesting seasons will result in the plan being rated higher.

• Type and number of equipment

• Order of work

SUB-ELEMENT B – CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE:

Provide a schedule of construction in the format of a Gantt, Pert, or similar graphical timeline, showing the start and completion dates, concurrent work, interdependence of activities and other relative scheduling factors or items of work. This schedule will be reviewed in concert with the Implementation Plan submission of this package. At a minimum the schedule must show all of the following items of work:

• Mobilization & Preparatory Work

• Activities Associated with the SFWMD Demolition and Salvage

(Notification(s), Demolition of the Lock Tender’s House with appurtenances, removal of hazardous material from the structure, and salvage by SFWMD)

• Milestone or Activity for deactivation of the S-65C Structure

• Removal of Structure S-65CX

• Sequencing of construction

• Demobilization

Evaluation Method

The Implementation Plan and Construction Schedule will be evaluated as separate sub-

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-8 Amendment 0004 elements; however, they will be evaluated overall as one sub-factor. The overall evaluation of this sub-factor will take into consideration the ratings given to the Implementation Plan and the Construction Schedule, as well as how the two complement each other. Any conflicts between the two may be noted as a significant weakness.

Sub-factor 3 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

Submission Requirements

Provide information that describes the offeror’s organization and intended technical approach to executing the contract per the detailed requirements herein. Concisely and clearly, describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution.

Organization: Describe what firms, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities on the project. A copy of the teaming or joint venture agreement(s) shall be appended to the plan. Include an organizational chart illustrating the organization, including key personnel and the proposed quality control group(s). The chart shall depict the key positions and names of personnel, their firm affiliations and their job locations, their job/position title within the organization. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and delegations of authority within the team.

Key Project Personnel Capabilities and Experience: Provide a consolidated list of key personnel with name, position title and description of project responsibility for each. Indicate whether each individual has had a significant role in any of the cited project examples. If re-assignment of personnel is considered possible, provide alternate professionals in each assignment. For each person provide a brief resume, using the Key Personnel Resume forms (Attachment 5) at the end of this section. The following personnel must be identified within the prime contractor's organization:

• Project Manager

• Site Safety and Health Officer

• On-Site Construction Quality Control Manager

• General Superintendent

In accordance with the non-substitution clause in Section 00800 (999.215-4001), Limitations on Substitutions for Certain Positions and/or Subcontractors, a letter of commitment must be provided for any proposed major subcontractor or key personnel.

A major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that is crucial for successfully completing the project or any Subcontracted work valued at $500,000.00 or more.

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-9 Amendment 0004

Key Personnel for this project are all the disciplines identified in paragraph “Key Project Personnel Capabilities and Experience” above.

A letter of commitment is defined as a letter from the subcontractor or key person on official Company letterhead (1) addressed to the prime contractor, (2) identifying the work they intend to perform, and (3) stating that they are willing to be bound to perform the identified work if the prime receives this contract.

Failure to provide a letter of commitment from a proposed major subcontractor or key personnel will be noted as a weakness.

Use the form letter (attachment 6) at the end of this section to provide letters of commitment.

Quality Control: Describe the team’s quality control approach, corporate systems and capabilities to maintain quality control of the construction. Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan. There is no need to submit a quality control plan as the successful offeror will provide that after award. The Government is interested in demonstrable capabilities to assure and control quality and how the offeror can achieve or exceed the contract’s minimum quality control system requirements.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Organization: The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the organization and technical approach. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding the Solicitation and the capability to execute the project. Some additional specific evaluation considerations are listed below. This list is not all-inclusive.

The Government will evaluate clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. Joint venture participant’s contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience: The Government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar type work, to manage, control, and to perform construction.

Use the Letter of Commitment (attachment 6). Performance of key personnel proposed for this project may be taken into account when it comes to the attention of the Government.

The Government will evaluate how well the offeror demonstrates that it has the necessary structure and experienced, qualified personnel within its organization to effectively manage, control, administer and execute the construction operations, quality control program and subcontracts. This shall be achievable with other projected on-going work.

Project Manager: This is the individual who has the direct responsibility for all operations on the site. This individual shall have a recognized four year college degree in engineering or related technical field or business/management, minimum experience of five years (or minimum experience of ten years in lieu of a four year degree) in managing and supervising construction and/or engineering for projects similar in scope of the contract. Professional(s) shall be familiar and conversant with the various codes and standards applicable to the scope of work. The Project Manager for the contract shall oversee task accomplishment, administer all instructions, and answer all questions from

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-10 Amendment 0004 the Contracting Officer pertaining to the tasks during the life of the contract. The full-time on-site Project Manager shall be designated in writing (listing name, address, local telephone number, and home telephone number). The Project Manager shall report directly to the Program Manager and to the Contracting Officer for the contract. The Project Manager shall be responsible for ensuring that adequate internal controls and review procedures are followed in order to eliminate conflicts, errors, and omissions and for ensuring that all technical requirements are met. Another individual may be designated to temporarily act for the Project Manager, however 48 hours advance notice in writing of such change shall be provided to the Contracting Officer. Submission of a Project Manager(s) that have experience in managing large earthwork projects and/or work in floodplains or areas subject to tidal influence will carry more weight in the evaluation. This experience must be clearly shown in the resume shown in the proposal.

On-Site Construction Quality Control Manager: The minimum requirements for the key person identified by the offeror to perform the Quality Control during the construction are at least 5 years’ experience in Quality Control during the construction of the types listed in Relevant Specialized Experience or its equivalent or similar commercial or institutional type of similar size and technical consideration. Submission of CQC Manager(s) that have experience in managing large earthwork projects and/or work in floodplains or areas subject to tidal influence will carry more weight in the evaluation. This experience must be clearly shown in the resume shown in the proposal.

General Superintendent: The minimum experience requirements for the Superintendent are at least 5 years’ experience as superintendent, managing multiple trades and subcontractors. Submission of General Superintendent (s) that have experience in managing large earthwork projects and/or work in floodplains or areas subject to tidal influence will carry more weight in the evaluation. This experience must be clearly shown in the resume shown in the proposal.

Site Safety and Health Officer: The SSHO must meet the minimum requirements as set forth in the EM 385-1-1 and the contract. Submission of SSHO(s) that have experience in managing safety programs for large-scale earthwork projects and demolition will carry more weight in the evaluation. This experience must be clearly shown in the resume shown in the proposal.

If alternates are proposed for key positions, the evaluation rating will consider the lesser qualified or experienced person, if there is a difference.

One project can qualify key personnel for multiple relevant experience. An earthwork project in a flood plain would show experience for both situations.

Quality Control: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for construction. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the staffing plan to cover all required tasks and responsibilities

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Technical Merit Rating Definitions

Outstanding – Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-11 Amendment 0004 and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Risk Level: Very Low

Good – Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Risk Level: Low

Acceptable – Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Risk Level: Moderate

Marginal – Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Risk Level: High

Unacceptable – Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Factor 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements

Offerors shall submit one NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (see Attachment 3), completed and signed by an Owner of the Project (Client) point of contact or “POC” for each of the projects submitted under sub-factor 1 – Demonstrated Experience. If a project submitted under sub-factor 1 was completed by the offeror’s major subcontractor, the offeror is responsible for coordinating with their major subcontractor and submitting a completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire on their major subcontractor’s behalf. All pages of each NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire must be initialed and dated on the bottom right-hand corner by the POC. Failure to provide a completed and signed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire for each project as described above may be noted as a deficiency.

If a Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System(CPARS) record is available for any of the projects submitted under Sub-factor 1- Demonstrated Experience, the CCASS or CPARS record may be submitted in lieu of the completed Past Performance Questionnaire or an official Performance Evaluation from a non- Federal agency.

The Owner of the Project (Client) or “POC” is defined as the entity that took ownership of the project after construction was complete.

If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed Past Performance Questionnaire from the Owner of the Project (Client), before the proposal receipt date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the Questionnaire (Blocks 1-8) that contains contract and client information for the submitted project. Note: it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the client’s point of contact information is current and

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-12 Amendment 0004 correct. The client point of contact reflected in (Blocks 1-8) should also be familiar with the past performance they are being asked to verify and informed that they will be contacted by the Government to verify past performance.

The Government reserves the right to obtain copies of all CCASS or CPARS records contained in the US Army Corps of Engineers CCASS or CPARS database for the offeror or offeror’s major subcontractors.

Evaluation Method

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The assessment considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant past performances in supplying services that meet the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation.

The first evaluates whether the offeror’s past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The technical evaluation Board will evaluate the demonstrated experiences provided by the offeror under Sub-Factor 1 above. Relevancy will be determined based on the timeframe for project completion given under Sub-Factor 1 and the level of similarity between the offeror provided demonstrated experiences and the solicitation requirements. For example, a demonstrated experience provided under Sub- Factor 1 that was completed within the last ten years (measured from the date of the solicitation) that involves essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires will most likely be given a relevancy rating of Very Relevant (see Relevance Rating Definitions below).

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed a demonstrated experience submitted in Sub-Factor 1. This will be determined by utilizing the completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaires or submitted CCASS or CPARS records. The POC provided on the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire will be contacted to verify the past performance ratings provided. If the POC cannot be contacted, the past performance rating will be noted as “Unknown.” It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the POC’s contact information is current (i.e. names, addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses).

The point of contact should be familiar with the performance they are intended to verify and be aware that they will be contacted by the Government.

Once Relevancy Ratings are assigned and Past Performance Ratings are verified, the Government will conclude the past performance evaluation with a performance confidence assessment. The performance confidence assessment will be based on the relevance of the projects provided and the ratings received based on the submitted and completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaires as well as CCASS or CPARS records if available. The performance confidence is the level of risk associated with the offeror as it relates to the probability that the offeror will successfully complete this project (see Performance Confidence Assessments Definitions below).

Past Performance Ratings

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-13 Amendment 0004

Relevance Rating Definitions

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.

Performance Confidence Assessment Definitions

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.

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.

Unknown 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.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE AND PRICE RELATED INFORMATION

Submission Requirements

The offeror shall submit the following price and price related information:

a. Proposal Data Sheet (See Attachment 4)

b. Standard Form 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award) and Section 00010A (Line Items and Pricing Schedule) Include the completed Standard Form 1442 for the RFP, along with the completed Pricing Schedule. The total cost for the construction will be considered for evaluation, including all options and alternates (if applicable).

c. Section 00101, Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors.

d. In accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, an original bid guarantee

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-14 Amendment 0004 shall be submitted with each offer.

e. Responsibility Determination (Attachment 5)

f. Joint Venture Agreement

Evaluation Method

Complete Attachment 4 Proposal Data Sheet. The proposal data sheet is not considered for evaluation but is required as part of the Offeror’s proposal.

After resolution of minor or clerical errors and/or mistakes, the Contracting Officer will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), to determine fairness and reasonableness and the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. The price analysis will also check for the appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Additionally, offerors’ price proposals maybe evaluated for price realism to determine if there are proposals that are unrealistic low in terms of overall price or reflective of an inherent lack of management and/or technical competence or comprehension of the requirements.

Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Fairness, Reasonableness, and Realism will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), and any other pricing tools necessary.

Submittal of Section 00101 is not considered for evaluation, but is required as part of the offeror’s proposal of this solicitation. The information requested in this Section needs to be fully completed along with completion of Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) per FAR 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS. The submitted information will be reviewed for completeness by Contracting Personnel.

Bid bonds will be reviewed for acceptability. Any offeror whose bid bond is unacceptable, will be eliminated without further consideration unless the Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer later determines that discussions are necessary and decides that the offeror’s proposal should be included in the competitive range.

Use Attachment 5 to provide the information required for the Responsibility Determination.

In addition to other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

E. Other General Review

System for Award Management

Offerors will be checked against the System for Award Management (SAM) system. Any offeror who is listed with any active exclusion will be eliminated without further

W912EP-16-R-0007 Section 00100A-15 Amendment 0004 consideration.

Minor Informalities

Proposals will be checked for minor informalities or irregularities. The Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer will follow guidance at FAR…