16R0010SpecsAmendment0003.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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE REHABILITATION, STRUCTURE REPLACEMENTS, S-291 (IP-3) RECONSTRUCTION, GLADES COUNTY, FLORIDA

This Amendment is being issued to revise Section 00100A:

1.Delete in it's entirety Section 00100A SOLICITATION PROVISIONS and replace w ith Section 00100A SOLICITATION PROVISIONS.

2.Delete in it's entirety Clause 999.215-4003 ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS and replace w ith the attached Clause 999.215-4003 ELECTRONIC

PROPOSALS

3.Section 13A of SF1442 "Sealed offers in original and (See Section 00100A Attachment 8 - PROPOSAL FORMAT)

All other conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W912EP-16-R-0010

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Apr-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

23-May-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 CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SF 30 CONTINUATION SHEET

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE REHABILITATION, STRUCTURE REPLACEMENTS

S-291 (IP-3) RECONSTRUCTION, GLADES COUNTY, FLORIDA

W912EP-16-R-0010 2 Amendment 0003

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. SPECIFICATIONS:

A. In some Volume 1 sections, asterisks appear before and after the line or lines where revisions have been made to the text, and pertain only to changes made by this amendment. In some cases, replacement clauses are attached to this amendment.

B. In Volume 2 sections, the text changes have been updated with additions noted by underlined text and deletions noted by line/cross-outs, and pertain only to changes made by this amendment. The entire section is replaced if there is any change.

Changes to Specifications:

Volume 1 of 2 – Contract Documents:

DELETE Section 00010A and REPLACE with the attached revised Section 00010A.

DELETE Section 00100A and REPLACE with the attached revised Section 00100A.

ADD the following clause to Section 00800:

ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS

(a) Definition. Electronic proposal, as used in this provision, means a proposal, revision or modification of a proposal, or withdrawal of a proposal that is transmitted to and received by the Government via Compact Disc (CD) or other means for transmitting electronic data. Flash drives will NOT be accepted.

(b) In order to be considered for award offerors must submit electronic proposals concurrent with the paper-copy proposals by the date and time established in the solicitation for receipt of proposals. In accordance with Section 00100A, Paragraph D.

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT, the offeror is required to submit one electronic copy that contains all three volumes (Technical Merit, Past Performance, and Price), in separate files. The electronic proposal is in addition to any hard-copy documents required by the solicitation.

(c) The Government reserves the right to make award solely on the paper proposal. In the event of conflicts between paper and electronic proposals the paper copy proposal shall govern.

(End of paragraph 999.215-4003)

Volume 2 of 2 – Technical Specifications:

DELETE Section 01 22 00 and REPLACE with the attached revised Section 01 22 00.

DELETE Section 05 50 14 and REPLACE with the attached revised Section 05 50 14.

DELETE Section 26 51 00 and REPLACE with the attached revised Section 26 51 00.

DELETE Section 33 71 02 and REPLACE with the attached revised Section 33 71 02.

See next page for summary of changed drawings and other available information.

SF 30 CONTINUATION SHEET

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE REHABILITATION, STRUCTURE REPLACEMENTS

S-291 (IP-3) RECONSTRUCTION, GLADES COUNTY, FLORIDA

W912EP-16-R-0010 3 Amendment 0003

2. DRAWINGS:

DELETE Drawing No. C-04 and REPLACE with the attached revised Drawing No. C-04.

DELETE Drawing No. C-08 and REPLACE with the attached revised Drawing No. C-08.

DELETE Drawing No. C-25 and REPLACE with the attached revised Drawing No. C-25.

DELETE Drawing No. S-39 and REPLACE with the attached revised Drawing No. S-39.

DELETE Drawing No. S-61 and REPLACE with the attached revised Drawing No. S-61.

DELETE Drawing No. S-62 and REPLACE with the attached revised Drawing No. S-62.

DELETE Drawing No. S-63 and REPLACE with the attached revised Drawing No. S-63.

DELETE Drawing No. E-04 and REPLACE with the attached revised Drawing No. E-04.

DELETE Drawing No. E-05 and REPLACE with the attached revised Drawing No. E-05.

3. OTHER AVAILABLE INFORMATION: 13-078_USACE.zip (survey zip file, 13-078_USACE.dtm).

(End of Summary of Changes)

SECTION 00010A

LINE ITEMS AND PRICING SCHEDULE

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE REHABILITATION, STRUCTURE REPLACEMENTS

S-291 (IP-3) RECONSTRUCTION

GLADES COUNTY, FLORIDA

W912EP-16-R-0010 00010A-1 AMENDMENT 0003

LINE ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL

0001 ACCESS LUMP SUM $_______________

0002 TURBIDITY MONITORING LUMP SUM $_______________

0003 COFFERDAM STEEL PILE LUMP SUM $_______________

0004 EARTHEN COFFERDAM AND PLUGS LUMP SUM $_______________

0005 COFFERDAM ARMORING (ESTIMATED QUANTITY) 110 SQUARE YARD $___________ $_______________

0006 COFFERDAM SEEPAGE PROTECTION

(ESTIMATED QUANTITY) 275 SQUARE YARD $___________ $_______________

0007 DEWATERING LUMP SUM $_______________

0008 EXCAVATION LUMP SUM $_______________

0009 DEMOLITION LUMP SUM $_______________

0010 SHEETPILE SCOUR CUTOFF WALLS LUMP SUM $_______________

0011 MUD MAT LUMP SUM $_______________

0012 LAKESIDE HEADWALL REINFORCED CONCRETE LUMP SUM $_______________

0013 LAKESIDE WING WALLS REINFORCED CONCRETE LUMP SUM $_______________

0014 LANDSIDE HEADWALL REINFORCED CONCRETE LUMP SUM $_______________

0015 LANDSIDE WING WALLS REINFORCED CONCRETE LUMP SUM $_______________

0016 CULVERT STRUCTURE REINFORCED CONCRETE LUMP SUM $_______________

0017 LAKESIDE HEADWALL EMBEDDED METALS LUMP SUM $_______________

0018 LANDSIDE HEADWALL EMBEDDED METALS LUMP SUM $_______________

0019 MISCELLANEOUS METALS LUMP SUM $_______________

0020 COMBINATION SLIDE/FLAP GATE WITH ACTUATOR 2 EACH $___________ $_______________

0021 MANATEE SCREEN/DEBRIS BARRIER 2 EACH $___________ $_______________

0022 EMBANKMENT FILL 50,000 CUBIC YARD $___________ $_______________

0023 SOIL-BENTONITE CORE LUMP SUM $_______________

0024 CHIMNEY DRAIN, DRAINAGE BLANKENT AND

FILTER COLLAR LUMP SUM $_______________

0025 LIMEROCK SURFACE (ESTIMATED QUANTITY) 2,800 SQUARE YARD $___________ $_______________

SECTION 00010A

LINE ITEMS AND PRICING SCHEDULE

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE REHABILITATION, STRUCTURE REPLACEMENTS

S-291 (IP-3) RECONSTRUCTION

GLADES COUNTY, FLORIDA

W912EP-16-R-0010 00010A-2 AMENDMENT 0003

LINE ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL

0026 RESTORATION RIPRAP (ESTIMATED QUANTITY) 650 SQUARE YARD $___________ $_______________

0027 INTAKE AND OUTLET CHANNEL LUMP SUM $_______________

0028 SITE SIGNAGE LUMP SUM $_______________

0029 CONTROL BUILDING LUMP SUM $_______________

0030 ELECTRICAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS WORK

AND EQUIPMENT LUMP SUM $_______________

0031 SODDING (ESTIMATED QUANTITY) 21,500 SQUARE YARD $___________ $_______________

0032 ELECTRICAL UTILITIES LUMP SUM $150,000.00

0033 DUAL LEAF GATES 2 EACH $___________ $_______________

0034 ABANDONMENT GROUTING

(ESTIMATED QUANTITY) 250 CUBIC YARD $___________ $_______________

0035 STILLING WELLS LUMP SUM $_______________

0036 EMBANKMENT SEEPAGE PROTECTION

(ESTIMATED QUANTITY) 153 SQUARE YARD $___________ $_______________

0037 CONTRACTING OFFICER'S FIELD OFFICE 29 MONTH $___________ $_______________

TOTAL BID (LINE ITEMS 0001 THROUGH 0037) $_______________

NOTES: (1) See Section 00100 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS.

(2) Quantities shown are estimated, actual quantities may vary. See Clause 52.211-18 "Variation in Estimated Quantity" of Section 00700 CONTRACT CLAUSES.

(3) Offerors must price all line items.

(4) Failure to complete and return all required submissions (see Section 00100A) could render your proposal ineligible for award.

(5) Digital Terrain Models (DTM) and requisite raw data in XLM format are avialable for informational purposes only.

The Government assumes no responsibility for any apparent errors that may be present in the DTM or raw data;

nor does the Government assume responsibility for any conclusions or interpretations made by the Contractor based on the provided DTM or raw data. The DTM and raw data are available in compressed (zip) format for download by offerors with the solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities (www.fbo.gov) web site.

The available information may include DTM surfaces for the existing site grades, excavation grades, and finished grades. The excavation DTM may not fully define surfaces related to temporary cuts required for site features such as stormwater management and erosion control components. Further, the excavation DTM may not reflect embankment foundation details sucha as soil benching. The finished DTM may not fully define surfaces related to site features such as stormwater management and erosion control components. Further, the finished grade DTM may not reflect embankment penetrations, internal embankment components such as seepage collection systems, nor embankment slope protection.

* Deleted note. *

W912EP-16-R-0010 00100A - 1

SECTION 00100A

SOLICIATION

PROVISIONS

A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM

The Jacksonville District of the US Army Corps of Engineers will construct Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Structure Replacements, S-291 (IP-3) Reconstruction, Glades County, Florida. The work includes in-place abandonment of the existing Herbert Hoover Dike Culvert IP-3 and the construction of new water control structure S-291 at the adjacent location. The demolition and reconstruction efforts will require the installation of steel sheet pile cofferdams with earthen plugs on the lakeside and an earthen cofferdam on the landside of the culvert in order to dewater the construction site. The structure will include cast-in-place reinforced concrete foundations, headwalls, and box culverts. Combination flap/slide gates will be installed at the lakeside headwall and dual leaf gates on the landside headwall of the structure.

S-291 will consist of two (2) 7-foot by 7-foot culverts with approximate barrel lengths of 84 feet. At the completion of the embankment reconstruction at the structure, the crest elevation will be 30.5 feet NAVD88. Riprap will be installed along the lakeside embankment face, and a control building will be installed on the lakeside work platform at each structure. Work also includes operation of the by-pass structure, grassing and turbidity monitoring.

B. ACQUISITION APPROACH

The Jacksonville District will award, administer and manage the contract for the Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Structure Replacements, S-291 (IP-3) Reconstruction, Glades County, Florida.

A single award of a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract will be competed through full and open or unrestricted competition. In accordance with FAR 19.203(c), consideration was made for the small business socioeconomic contracting programs and subsequently, a small business set-aside. To accurately assess potential opportunities for a small business set-aside, market research was conducted with the SBA Dynamic Small Business Search. The utilization of NAICS code 237990 and acceptable bonding level of $15,000,000.00 culminated in the identification of 122 small businesses. Upon further review of the provided capability narratives, 26 small business firms are potentially capable of performing the work associated with various aspects of the project. This determination is based upon their experience in the realms of cofferdams, concrete, construction, demolition, dewatering and sheet piles. Given the provided information, it is believed the best method for procuring this Government requirement is the utilization of an unrestricted solicitation.

Therefore, Based on the current and past market research, it is in the best interest of the Government to advertise this requirement as Unrestricted.

Amendment 0003

W912EP-16-R-0010 00100A - 2

SECTION II

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 beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors: Technical Merit, Past Performance, Small Business Utilization Plan 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 Merit 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 slightly more important than price.

Note: A rating of unacceptable for any individual sub-factor/sub-element will result in an overall rating of unacceptable for the entire factor.

Limitations on Substitutions for Certain Positions and/or Subcontractors

Certain items of work are considered particularly critical to successful completion of the project and may be completed by subcontractors. The Government will consider the qualifications of these subcontractors during its evaluation of the offeror’s proposal*. In accordance with the Limitations On Substitutions For Certain Positions and/or Subcontractors paragraph of this solicitation (999.215-4001,Section 00800), if the offeror is awarded a contract the offeror will not be permitted to make substitutions without the approval of the Contracting Officer or Administrative Contracting Officer. If the offeror does not name a subcontractor for any identified item of work, the Government will assume the offeror intends to perform the work with its own forces and, if the offeror receives the contract, no substitutions will be allowed without prior approval of the Contracting Officer.

*See “Proposal Submission” for specific requirements regarding subcontractors.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVAULATED

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.

W912EP-16-R-0010 00100A - 3

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL MERIT: Technical Merit is slightly more important than Past Performance and significantly more important than Small Business Participation.

Technical merit consists of two sub-factors, sub-factor 1 Demonstrated Experience and sub-factor 2 Implementation Plan and Construction Schedule. Sub-factor 1 is considered slightly more important than sub-factor 2.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE: The Past Performance factor is slightly less important than the Technical Merit factor and significantly more important than the Small Business Participation factor.

FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION: The Small Business Participation factor is significantly less important than both the Technical Merit factor and the Past Performance factor. The Small Business Participation Plan consists of two sub-factors, sub-factor 1 Small Business Participation Plan, and sub-factor 2 Past Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Both sub-factors are equally important.

FACTOR 4 – 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 evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are slightly more important than price.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government evaluators. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of 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/Contracting Officer may reject any offer that contains exceptions and or qualifying language. 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

W912EP-16-R-0010 00100A - 4

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 Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Further, if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary and if the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer 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/Contracting Officer, 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/Contracting Officer 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.

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 (CD Only) that contains all four volumes (Technical Merit, Past Performance, Small Business Participation and Price).

W912EP-16-R-0010 00100A - 5

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. Sub- Factor 1 consists of four sub-elements. The sub-elements are considered equally important for this sub-factor.

Tab A – Sub-Element (A) – Successfully install a cofferdam system, with a minimum 10 foot head differential, maintained across the structure from the head water to the tail water (or dewatered water level), immediately adjacent to or within a labeled body of water.

Tab B – Sub-Element (B) – Successfully install, operate, and maintain a dewatering system, with a minimum head differential of 10 feet maintained during dewatering operations immediately adjacent to or within a labeled body of water.

Tab C- Sub-Element (C) - Successful construction of gated concrete hydraulic control structures (i.e. water control structure such as a pump station, spillway, outlet works, or culvert) with water control gates with a minimum 10 foot hydraulic head differential maintained across the structure.

Tab D – Sub-Element (D) - Successful construction of permanent earthen dam or new (nonmodified) permanent levee embankments (water retaining structure) at least 15 feet in height, as measured from the toe of the constructed embankment to the embankment crest.

Part 2 – Sub-Factor 1 Implementation Plan/Construction Schedule

(both equally important)

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

Tab B – Sub-Element (B) - Construction

Schedule

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

W912EP-16-R-00XX 00100A - 6

FACTOR 3 (VOLUME THREE) – Small Business Participation (1 Original, 2 Copies)

Tab A – Sub-Factor 1 – Proposed Small Business Participation Plan

Tab B – Sub-Factor 2 – Past Utilization of Small Business Concerns

FACTOR 4 (VOLUME FOUR) – 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.

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. Failure to provide a letter of commitment from a proposed major subcontractor will be noted as a weakness. Use the form letter in Attachment 2 to provide letters of commitment.

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.

A major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that is critical for successfully completing the project and that is identified in paragraph 999.215-4001 Limitations on Substitutions for Certain Positions and/or Subcontractors.

SUB-FACTOR 1 – DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE

Notes:

If any portion of the work provided as demonstrated experience was subcontracted, clearly identify that work as it relates to this project. This Subcontractor is also required to be identified as the subcontractor performing this effort as such and provide the

W912EP-16-R-00XX 00100A - 7

required experience of that subcontractor as it relates to work the subcontractor is performing on this project.

Any demonstrated experience (to include subcontractors) provided for consideration in this sub-factor shall 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.

It is not necessary that all the elements required on this sub-factor be performed on the same project; however, experiences that include all the elements being accomplished on the same project would carry more weight when being evaluated.

Demonstrated Experience submitted under this sub-factor that mirrors the specifications in relation to scope and complexity will earn a higher technical rating than Demonstrated Experience that is only similar in some areas.

Submission Requirements

This sub-factor contains four sub elements; Sub-elements A, B, C and D are considered equally important.

Provide a minimum of three (3) but not more than five (5) examples of completed hydraulic control structure construction projects or close to complete projects for each sub-element. It is not necessary for one company to demonstrate all experience listed for this solicitation.

Note 1: The evaluation board will not evaluate more than five projects for each sub-element.

Therefore, no additional projects will be evaluated and no additional consideration will be given for the submission of more than five projects in response to each sub-element.

Note 2: A Joint Venture entity shall submit the designated number (at least three (3) projects but a total of no more than five (5) projects for each sub-element for the combined Joint Venture).

As stated in Note 1 above, no additional projects will be evaluated. These projects will be evaluated separately; however, the overall evaluation for demonstrated experience will be combined to form one overall evaluation rating for the Joint Venture.

Using Attachment 1, provide a detailed narrative that explains how each provided demonstrated experience is similar to the work described in the solicitation. 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 deficiency. 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 deficiency.

W912EP-16-R-00XX 00100A - 8

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 reference contact name, address and telephone number, as well as email address.

If any portion of the work is provided as demonstrated experience from a parent company, clearly identify that work as it relates to this project. Using Attachment 2, provide a letter of commitment from the parent company clearly stating that they will provide their expertise and support, as necessary, as it relates to the portion of work used as demonstrated experience for this project. Failure to include a letter of commitment may be noted as a deficiency.

If any portion of the work is provided as demonstrated experience is subcontracted, clearly identify that work as it relates to this project. The Subcontractor is also required to be identified as the subcontractor performing this effort as such and provide the required experience of that subcontractor as it relates to work the subcontractor performing on this project.

Using Attachment 2, provide a letter of commitment from the proposed subcontractor. Failure to include a letter of commitment may be noted as a deficiency.

The projects must have been completed projects or close to completed projects within the last ten

(10) years from the date of this solicitation. A completed project is defined as work performed under a “project” that is physically complete and has been accepted by the customer. A close to complete project is defined as work performed under a “project” that is over 75% physically complete based on billing progress, and/or has been accepted by the customer. If a project is presented and has not been completed, the offeror shall explain which elements of the work are not completed and the percentage. Applicable demonstrated experiences should include the following:

SUB-ELEMENT A – Successfully install a cofferdam system, with a minimum 10 foot head differential, maintained across the structure, from the head water to the tail water (or dewatered water level), immediately adjacent to or within a labeled body of water.

• At least two of the cofferdam systems must be driven pile systems.

• Clearly state the type of cofferdam system used to retain body of water.

• Clearly state the head differential maintained by each cofferdam system.

The evaluation will carry more weight for demonstrated experience with: 1) a head differential of at least 20 feet across the structure.

SUB-ELEMENT B – Successfully install, operate, and maintain a dewatering system, with a minimum head differential of 10 feet maintained during dewatering operations, immediately adjacent to or within a labeled body of water.

• At least two of the dewatering systems must include pre-drainage, defined as dewatering prior to excavation (Examples:

deeps wells, well point systems and/or ejectors).

• Clearly state the type of dewatering system used.

W912EP-16-R-00XX 00100A - 9

• Clearly state the head differential maintained by each system submitted.

• Clearly describe the geology in which each dewater system was installed.

A demonstrated experience with a head differential of at least 20 feet and/or systems installed in similar geology to the project site, as characterized in the Geotechnical Data Report (GDR), will carry more weight when evaluated.

SUB-ELEMENT C – Successful construction of gated concrete hydraulic control structures

(i.e. water control structure such as a pump station, spillway, outlet works, or culvert) with water control gates with a minimum 10 foot hydraulic head differential maintained across the structure.

• At least two of the submitted experiences must be for a completed hydraulic control structure including reinforced concrete, hydraulic steel structures (gates) and controls.

• At least one of the submitted experiences must involve placement and instrumentation of mass structural concrete.

• At least one of the submitted experiences must be for the fabrication of hydraulic steel structures (steel water control gates)

• Each demonstrated experience shall include a minimum gated hydraulic opening of 49 square feet per opening.

• Clearly state the operating head differential (headwater minus tailwater) across the gate.

A demonstrated experience with an operating head differential of at least 30 feet across the gate will carry more weight when evaluated.

Demonstrated experience of a concrete hydraulic control structure with a permanent hydraulic loading (such as an outlet works for a dam) will carry more weight when evaluated than a concrete hydraulic control structure with a temporary hydraulic loading (such as a surge barrier or flood wall).

Demonstrated experience related to placement and instrumentation of mass structural concrete within a water control structure will receive a higher rating than demonstrated experience unrelated to placement and instrumentation of mass structural concrete within a water control structure.

SUB-ELEMENT D – Successful construction of permanent earthen dam or new (nonmodified) permanent levee embankments (water retaining structure) at least 15 feet in height, as measured from the toe of the constructed embankment to the embankment crest.

A demonstrated experience related to zoned embankments of similar configuration and

W912EP-16-R-0010 00100A – 10

composition to the zoned embankments shown in the plans and specifications will carry more weight when evaluated than demonstrated experience for homogenous embankments. A zoned embankment is herein defined as one containing zones of different engineered soils within its interior (i.e., impervious core, filter, drain, embankment fill). Exterior surface features such as erosion control measures (e.g. riprap, Turf Reinforcement Mat, Articulated Concrete Block Mat, etc.) are not herein considered a zoned embankment.

SUB-FACTOR 2 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

This sub-factor consists of two sub-elements: The Implementation Plan and the Construction Schedule. The Implementation Plan (Sub-element A) is slightly more important than the Construction Schedule (Sub-element B). However, the sub-elements shall be evaluated as one sub-factor therefore, the plan and the schedule should support each other, demonstrating that the project can be accomplished as proposed.

SUB-ELEMENT A – Implementation Plan

In a narrative format, the offeror shall describe the proposed Implementation Plan regarding how the work will be executed from start to completion. The Plan shall include a description of related activities and items of work, 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. At a minimum, the plan shall discuss the following:

• Site access and maintenance of traffic

• Sequence of cofferdam system construction

• Installation of dewatering system (include sequencing and effluent management)

• Foundation mapping and acceptance

• Installation and sequence of construction of structural works (i.e.

concrete construction and steel fabrication)

• Detail plan of zoned embankment construction (include equipment and sequence)

• Erosion Control

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 and items of work. This schedule will be reviewed in concert with the Implementation Plan submission of this package. At a minimum the schedule should show all of the following items of work:

• Mobilization & Preparatory Work

W912EP-16-R-0010 00100A – 11

• Critical Submittals (to include dewatering plan, long led items, and access/traffic control plan)

• Temporary Access Construction

• Foundation mapping/acceptance period as annotated in section 35 41 00

• Riprap Source Selection and Delivery

• Cofferdam Steel Source Selection and Delivery

• Installation and Removal of Cofferdam System

• Installation and Removal of Dewatering System

• Excavation

• Demolition

• Detailed Sequence of New Water Control Structure (Concrete and Steel)

• Detailed Sequence of Zoned-Embankment Construction

• Installation of Control Building, Gate Controls and Sensors

• Installation of Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Measures

• Demobilization

• Site Restoration/Turf Establishment

Evaluation Method

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.

See “Technical Merit Rating Definitions”.

The Implementation Plan and Construction Schedule will be evaluated as separate sub-elements and then will be assigned an overall sub-factor rating. The overall evaluation of this sub-factor will take into consideration the individual 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 weakness. See “Technical Merit Rating Definitions” below.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

TECHNICAL MERIT RATING DEFINITIONS

Note: Demonstrated Experience Ratings will be based on the level of detail and the number of projects provided that are similar in relation to scope, complexity and dollar value to the Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Structure Replacements, S-291 (IP-3) Reconstruction, Glades County, Florida

Outstanding – Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Risk Level: Very Low

Good – Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of

W912EP-16-R-0010 00100A – 12

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

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 the owner.

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 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

W912EP-16-R-0010 00100A – 13

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 CCASS or CPARS database for the offeror or offeror’s major subcontractors.

For each past performance submitted, explain why it is relevant to this project, this discussion should include a summary of the project description provided in the respective demonstrated experience submitted for Factor 1. (Relevancy is defined in the DOD Source Selection Procedures Guide for collection and use of past performance as “information that has a logical connection with the matter under consideration and applicable time span.). Offerors should provide a narrative and be as specific as possible when explaining how a past performance is relevant to this project. The following are examples of topics that should be discussed at a minimum: timeliness, environmental issues, responsiveness to customer needs, quality control, cost control, change order work and compliance with safety requirements.

Emphasis should be made on quality, customer satisfaction and the resolution of problems encountered during performance.

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

W912EP-16-R-0010 00100A – 14

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

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.

W912EP-16-R-0010 00100A – 15

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 –SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

SUB-FACTOR 1 – Proposed Small Business Participation Plan

All offerors (both other than small and small) shall complete a Proposed Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) using the template found at Attachment (4). A minimum Small Business Participation goal of twenty percent (20%) of Total Contract Value has been assigned to this project.

- Large businesses primes may achieve the small business participation goals through subcontracting to small businesses.

- Small business primes may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses.

SUB-FACTOR 2 - Past Utilization of Small Business Concerns

This sub-factor applies to offerors that are small business concerns (including all categories) and to offerors that are other than small business concerns. For each of the three most recently completed Federal contracts submit one of the following: (i) if the contract required a subcontracting plan submit the FINAL Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR). ISR reports for projects that are not marked FINAL but well underway will be accepted IF the offeror explains which elements of the work are not completed and provide the percentage of completion. A well underway project is defined as at least 80% construction progress completed (ii) if the contract did not require a subcontracting plan, complete and submit the Past Performance of Small Business Participation Plan Collection Sheet (See Attachment 5). Offerors that are SB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone SB, or WOSB may count work performed with in-house resources toward compliance with FAR 52.219-8 in the category (or categories) to which they belong. (For example, a HUBZone could count work in 2 categories: SB and HUBZone) IF YOU HAVE NOT HAD A

CONTRACT THAT INCLUDED THE CLAUSE FAR 52.219-8, YOU MUST INDICATE IN

WRITING IN YOUR PROPOSAL. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL BE CONSIDERED A

WEAKNESS AND/OR A DEFICIENCY FOR THIS SUB-FACTOR.

W912EP-16-R-0010 00100A – 16

Note for joint ventures: If the Joint Venture has no subcontracting past performance, then each member of the Joint Venture must provide the most recent subcontracting past performance.

In this factor, all offerors (both other than small and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of small business commitment they are demonstrating for the proposed acquisition, and their prior level of commitment to utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts.

SUB-FACTOR 1 – Proposed Small Business Participation Plan

Small Business Participation Plans (from other than small and small…