W912EP-17-R-0016_Amendment_0002.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-37 EMBANKMENT ARMORING, POLK AND OSCEOLA COUNTIES, FLORIDA

A. DELETE SECTION 00100A SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND REPLACE WITH THE ATTACHED REVISED SECTION 00100A SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS.

B. THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE REMAINS UNCHANGED @ AUGUST 18, 2017 @ 2:00 P.M. LOCAL TIME.

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 28

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-17-R-0016

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Jul-2017

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, 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

11-Aug-2017

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:

x

SECTION 00100A

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

Subject to the provisions contained herein, award will be made to one (1) offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR; who conforms to the solicitation requirements; provides the lowest evaluated price and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, meets the technically acceptable standard for the non-price factors. Prices will be evaluated to determine fair and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a).

The LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the lowest evaluated price proposal with acceptable non-priced proposal (Technical and Past Performance). The Government will evaluate the proposals for technically acceptability by evaluating two non-price factors, Demonstrated Technical Experience and Past Performance. These non-price factors will be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis.

The lowest price technically acceptable proposal will then be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a). That offeror will be selected for award.

The Government reserves the right 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 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.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award will be made to the offeror who submits the lowest price proposal that is determined to be technically acceptable. To be considered technically acceptable, an offeror’s proposal must be rated “Acceptable” under all non-price factors. The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1 – PRICE

Factor 2 – DEMONSTRATED TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE: The Demonstrated Technical Experience Factor consists of two sub-factors:

a. SUB-FACTOR A – Successfully placed riprap and bedding stone on a geotextile filter fabric in a marine environment that had marine traffic operating during construction within the last 10 years.

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-1 Amendment 0002

b. SUB-FACTOR B – Successfully placed a turf reinforcement mat (TRM) in a marine environment that had marine traffic operating during construction within the last 10 years. For this contract, a TRM is defined as a 3-dimensional permanent synthetic mat that provides a matrix to greatly reinforce the root system of the desired vegetation for permanent erosion protection in channels and on slopes.

NOTE: (A TRM is defined as a 3-dimensional permanent synthetic mat that provides a matrix to greatly reinforce the root system of the desired vegetation for permanent erosion protection in channels and on slopes.)

Factor 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. Overview

By submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation, offerors agree to comply with all terms and conditions contained in the solicitation. Unless the solicitation specifically invites the offeror to submit exceptions, the 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 reference, the terms and conditions included in the solicitation, including any amendments, shall take precedence over the offeror’s proposal.

To ensure the timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those criteria identified as evaluation factors. Proposals should be prepared simply and economically, and they should be straightforward and concise. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent.

Offerors are discouraged from providing information not required by the RFP. Offerors shall submit all information requested in the RFP. Failure to submit requested information or to meet an RFP requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

This RFP does not commit the Government to reimburse any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

Any information given to an offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation. In accordance with Paragraph 999.204-4003, Section 00100 of the Solicitation, any and all amendments to the solicitation will be distributed via the Federal Business Opportunities website. It is the offeror’s responsibility to acknowledge any and all amendments in its proposal submission.

Offerors should not modify the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the price or non-price proposal or add conditions, exceptions, or qualifications to their offers. Should an offeror

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-2 Amendment 0002 include terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, that offer may be determined to be ineligible for award. Any questions related to specific terms and conditions contained within the solicitation should be submitted via Bidders Inquiry in ProjNet by not later than (NLT) the date specified in Section 00010A, Attachment A, Instructions For Technical Inquires and Questions, prior to submission of an offer.

2. Proposal Evaluation Process

A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers will evaluate all proposals. The technical evaluation will be conducted in strict confidence. Non-price proposals will be initially reviewed and evaluated without knowledge of the corresponding price proposal. The number and identities of offerors will not be revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process, nor will this information be released to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is the LPTA process.

D. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copy. In accordance with Paragraph 999.215-4003 – Electronic Proposals in Section 00100, submit one electronic copy (CD/DVD only) that contains all three volumes (Price, Demonstrated Technical Experience, and Past Performance. The solicitation will provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal.

Offerors are required to submit proposals with the content specified herein. Proposals without the specified content may be determined Unacceptable and removed from the competition. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration.

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 Appendixes, 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.

Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted are current, correct, and complete, including names of points of contact, email addresses, and telephone numbers.

Offerors shall place the following notification on the bottom of each page of their proposals:

“SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104. DO NOT DISCLOSE

ANY SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION TO ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON.”

The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified within each evaluation factor. Elaborately prepared proposals are not required, and any material in excess of what is requested, such as corporate marketing information, will not be considered. Failing to submit or completely fill out attachments properly may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation.

Therefore, offerors are urged to follow instructions and raise questions through inquiries if instructions

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-3 Amendment 0002 are not understood. Do not include references to material or information not found within its respective volumes. Information submitted in the wrong volumes could lead to an offeror’s proposal being determined “unacceptable” if materially incomplete in any aspect.

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. See Attachment 6 – Proposal Format.

1. VOLUME ONE (Factor 1) – Price (1 Original, 1 Copy)

2. VOLUME TWO (Factor 2) – Demonstrated Technical Experience (1 Original, 5 Copies):

Responses to each Sub-Factor shall be organized in Volume Two as follows:

Tab A: Sub-factor A - Successfully placed riprap and bedding stone on a geotextile filter fabric in a marine environment that had marine traffic operating during construction within the last 10 years.

Tab B: Sub-factor B - Successfully placed a turf reinforcement mat (TRM) in a marine environment that had marine traffic operating during construction within the last 10 years.

NOTE: (A TRM is defined as a 3-dimensional permanent synthetic mat that provides a matrix to greatly reinforce the root system of the desired vegetation for permanent erosion protection in channels and on slopes.)

Do not include pricing information in Volume Two. NOTE: Page Limitations Not to Exceed 150 Pages.

3. VOLUME THREE (Factor 3) – Past Performance (1 original, 1 copy). Do not include pricing information in Volume Three.

E. EVALUATION FACTORS

1. FACTOR 1 – PRICE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The offeror’s volume for this factor shall be fully completed. Offeror completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP.

This volume will also include price and price related information:

a. Proposal Format (Attachment 6)

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 price for the construction will be considered for evaluation, including all options and alternates (if applicable).

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-4 Amendment 0002

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 shall be submitted with each offer.

e. Attachment 4, Proposal Data Sheet.

f. Attachment 5, Determination of Responsibility.

g. Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable)

EVALUATION METHOD

The Price factor is not rated. It will be evaluated for reasonableness through the use of a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The price analysis will also check for the appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Additionally, offerors’ price proposals may be evaluated for price realism to determine if there are proposals that are unrealistically low in terms of overall price or reflective of an inherent lack of management and/or technical competence or comprehension of the requirements. Therefore, 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.

Prices will be reviewed for minor or clerical errors. If necessary, offerors will be afforded an opportunity to resolve any such errors. Any exchange with offerors under this subparagraph shall be for the purpose of clarification (FAR 15.306(a)) and shall not constitute negotiations as defined at FAR 15.306(d). In the event of discrepancy between a unit price and the extended amount, the unit price shall be controlling.

Prices will be reviewed for apparent mistakes. Should this review reveal any prices that seem unreasonably low, the Contracting Officer will contact the offeror and ask the offeror to confirm the questioned price. If the offeror confirms the price, no further action will be taken under this subparagraph. If, however, the offeror alleges a mistake, the offeror may modify the proposal in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(6). Any modification submitted for the purpose of correcting a mistake shall include documentation explaining how the mistake was made. After resolution of minor or clerical errors and/or mistakes, prices will be reviewed for reasonableness, realism, unbalanced pricing or any other price related issue that could pose an unacceptable risk to the Government or indicate the offeror does not clearly understand the requirement at hand.

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 may be evaluated for price realism to determine if there are proposals that are unrealistically low in terms of overall price or reflective of an inherent lack of management and/or technical competence or comprehension of the requirements.

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-5 Amendment 0002

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

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.

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.

2. FACTOR 2 – DEMONSTRATED TECHNICAL

EXPERIENCE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Include the Proposal Format Sheet, Attachment 6 with the Factor 2 submission requirements.

Provide at least one (1) and no more than two (2) examples of recent and relevant experience on same or similar completed civil construction projects or close to completed projects for each sub-factor in Factor 2. NOTE: It is not necessary that all the sub-factors be performed on the same project. One project can be submitted for all sub-factors as long as the project(s) meets the criteria for each sub-factor.

NOTE: Recent and relevant experience is defined as same or similar scope as a civil construction project having the features of work listed for each sub-factor in Factor 2.

The projects submitted under Factor 2, Demonstrated Technical Experience must have a corresponding submission under Factor 3, Past Performance. In addition, projects submitted under Factor 2 must be a completed project or a close to completed project

NOTE: A complete project is defined as work performed under a “project” that was physically completed within the last ten (10) years preceding the date of this solicitation 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.

a. SUB-FACTOR A – Successfully placed riprap and bedding stone on a geotextile filter fabric in a marine environment that had marine traffic operating during construction within the last 10 years.

b. SUB-FACTOR B – Successfully placed a turf reinforcement mat (TRM) in a marine environment that had marine traffic operating during construction within the last 10 years.

NOTE: (A TRM is defined as a 3-dimensional permanent synthetic mat that provides a matrix to greatly reinforce the root system of the desired vegetation for permanent erosion protection in channels and on slopes.)

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-6 Amendment 0002

Attachment 1, Demonstrated Technical Experience must be utilized to provide project information in response to sub-factor A and B. The offeror shall ensure that all information required by the Demonstrated Technical Experience Sheet is provided and all descriptions and explanations are in great detail to provide the technical evaluation team with a clear understanding of the work completed and how it is similar to this project. 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.

NOTE 1: Do not submit more than two (2) projects for each sub-factor as no additional consideration or evaluation will be given for the submission of more than two (2) projects and only two (2) projects will be evaluated.

NOTE 2: The prime must have been the prime contractor on one (1) of the submitted projects submitted under each sub-factor in Factor 2. If any portion of the work provided as demonstrated technical experience was self-performed as the prime, clearly identify that work.

NOTE 3: If any portion of the work provided as demonstrated technical experience was performed by a subcontractor, clearly identify that work. Provide the required experience of that subcontractor as it relates to the work being performed for this requirement.

Using Attachment 2, if any portion of this requirement will be performed by a major subcontractor, a letter of commitment must be submitted from that proposed subcontractor.

A letter of commitment is defined as a letter from the major 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 from a proposed major subcontractor will cause any non-priced factor to be rated Unacceptable, if applicable.

NOTE 4: In accordance with the non-substitution clause in Section 00800 (999.215-4001), Limitations on Substitutions for Certain Positions and/or Subcontractors, a major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that is critical for successfully completing the project and whose experience is submitted as part of this proposal and is also identified in the clause.

NOTE 5: A joint venture entity shall submit the designated number (two (2)) projects for the element for the combined Joint Venture). If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity.

These projects will be evaluated separately; however, the overall evaluation for demonstrated technical experience will be combined to form one overall evaluation rating for the joint venture.

NOTE 6: Information from offerors of the Joint Venture or teaming arrangements shall submit Demonstrated Technical Experience and/or Past Performance of the managing partner(s)/entity(ies) of the Joint Venture or team. Managing partner(s) or entity(ies) information shall be evaluated as part of the offeror's Demonstrated Technical Experience and/or Past Performance, respectively.

Demonstrated Technical Experience and/or Past Performance of affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, and/or subcontractors (without teaming agreements included in the proposal) will not be considered in this evaluation.

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-7 Amendment 0002

Any Demonstrated Technical Experience and/or Past Performance from previous Joint Venture activities in your proposal must demonstrate that the feature of work that is relevant to this solicitation was performed by a Joint Venture party/team member. Your Role on this Contract (Prime Contractor, Subcontractor, Joint Venture Partner) and the type of effort your company self-performed other than project manager activities. In other words, you are not allowed to claim Demonstrated Technical Experience and/or Past Performance from previous Joint Venture contracts unless you self-performed that feature of the work on that previous contract.

NOTE 7: Any demonstrated technical 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 technical experience will not be evaluated.

The technical evaluation team will evaluate each of the projects submitted to determine if they are similar to this project and whether or not these projects demonstrate that the offeror has the knowledge and experience required to meet or exceed the terms and conditions of the specifications, and the ability to successfully accomplish and complete the project within the required timeframe, as defined in specification Section 01 11 00, Summary of Work.

Offerors must receive a demonstrated technical experience rating of Acceptable for both sub-factors to receive an overall rating of Technically Acceptable for Factor 2.

Ratings for the Demonstrated Technical Experience factor are shown below:

Sub-factor 2 Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3. FACTOR 3 – PAST

PERFORMANCE SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS

Offerors shall submit one NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), (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 Factor 2. If a project submitted under Factor 2 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

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-8 Amendment 0002

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 result in this Factor being rated Unacceptable. If a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record is available for any of the projects submitted under Factor 2, the 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 oOfferor is unable to obtain a completed PPQ 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 informed that they will be contacted by the Government to verify past performance.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detail, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with each offeror. Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), CCASS, CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases for the offeror or the offeror’s major subcontractors.

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

The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate whether the offeror’s submitted past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. If a demonstrated experience submitted in Factor 2, sub-factors A, B, or C is determined to be Acceptable, it will also be determined to be relevant and recent in Factor 3.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed a demonstrated experience submitted in Factor 2, sub-factors A, B, and C. This will be determined by utilizing the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire at Attachment 2, CPARS records or official performance evaluations from a non-federal entity.

The offeror must receive a past performance rating of Satisfactory or better to be considered acceptable.

NOTE: A Satisfactory Rating is defined in the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire.

Once relevancy has been determined and past performance ratings have been verified, a rating of Acceptable of Unacceptable will be assigned based on the results. Offeror’s must receive a Past Performance rating of Acceptable for ALL submitted demonstrated technical experiences to receive

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-9 Amendment 0002 and overall rating of Acceptable for the Past Performance Factor.

Ratings for this Factor are defined below:

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort (i.e. the offeror received a rating of Acceptable on Factor 2 and received a rating of Satisfactory or better from an offeror provided POC) or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

(See notes below)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort (i.e. the offeror DID NOT receive a rating of Acceptable on Factor 2 or the offeror DID NOT receive a rating of Satisfactory or better from an offeror provided POC).

NOTE 1: Do not submit more than two (2) projects for each sub-factor as no additional consideration or evaluation will be given for the submission of more than two (2) projects and only two (2) projects will be evaluated.

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

F. OTHER GENERAL REVIEW

1. System for Award Management (SAM):

Failure to have an active and completed registration in SAM: http://www.sam.gov/ database will determine an offeror ineligible for award and removed from competition. An Acceptable offer with incomplete or expired registrations at the time of award may not be eligible for a contract. In such instances, the Government will award to the next Acceptable offer who is eligible for award.

Information contained within an offeror’s registration must be current and valid. The responsibility of maintaining current information contained in an offeror’s registration rests

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-10 Amendment 0002 http://www.sam.gov/ solely on the Offeror.

2. Debarred List:

Offerors will be checked against the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non- procurement Programs. Any offeror who is listed will be eliminated without further consideration.

3. Bid Bonds:

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

4. Joint Venture:

Contractors submitting an offer as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) joint venture must provide a written copy of the joint venture agreement with the initial proposal.

The joint venture agreement must be signed by both parties and will be subject to review by District Office of Counsel. The offeror shall ensure that it complies with the applicable requirements of 13 CFR Part 124 and 13 CFR Part 126, respectively. In addition, the joint venture must be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) as a joint venture in order for an award to be made. Also, the SF 1442 as well as all future documents (modifications, bonds and etc.) must be signed by both parties.

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-11 Amendment 0002

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 – Demonstrated Technical Experience

Attachment 2 – Letter of Commitment from Major Subcontractors

Attachment 3 – NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment 4 - Proposal Data Sheet

Attachment 5 - Determination of Responsibility

Attachment 6 – Proposal Format

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-12 Amendment 0002

ATTACHMENT 1

DEMONSTRATED TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE

Solicitation W912EP-17-R-0016

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last ten (10) years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.

NOTE: Use additional pages as necessary to provide the information requested.

1. Type of Project Represented

2. Your Firm’s Name

3. Project Name and Number

4. Location of Project and Conditions

5. Owner

6. General Scope of Construction Project

7. Describe how this project is similar to the elements of the Kissimmee River Restoration Project, C-37

Embankment Armoring. Use additional pages as necessary to provide this information.

8. Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self- Performed :

9. Construction Cost

10. Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out

11. Dates Construction began and if completed, completion date

12. Your Performance Evaluation by Owner and Awards and Recognitions (if any)

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-13 Amendment 0002

13. Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages? (If either is “Yes”, attach an Explanation)

14. Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company)

15. Current Telephone Number and email address of Owner Reference

16. Any unusual conditions requirements

17. Any innovative ideas that were required during construction.

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-14 Amendment 0002

ATTACHMENT 2

LETTER OF COMMITMENT OF MAJOR

SUBCONTRACTOR (USE SUBCONTRACTOR’S

COMPANY LETTERHEAD)

TO: Name of Offeror

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Contract for

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby make the unequivocal commitment that, in the event of an award of a contract to (Fill in name of offeror), that (insert name of subcontractor firm, not …. individual) will fulfill the duties of (state specific items of work to be performed on this project)

Sincerely, (Authorized Subcontractor Official)

Date:

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-15 Amendment 0002

ATTACHMENT 3

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT – Solicitation W912EP-17-R-0016

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

CONTRACT INFORMATION

d. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

4. Project Description:

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

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-16 Amendment 0002

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-17 Amendment 0002

PLEASE PROVIDE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

b) Abilityto meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2.SCHEDULE/TIMELINESSOFPERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customersatisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

E VG S M U N

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N d )Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel VG U N

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-18 Amendment 0002

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirementsand/or priority, including planning, E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthlystatus reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E

VG

Yes

S

M

U

No

N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes

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

Yes No

6.SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

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

7. GENERAL

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-19 Amendment 0002

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

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

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

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. E VG S M U N

END OF QUESTIONNAIRE

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-20 Amendment 0002

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional

(VG) Very Good

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

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

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner.

A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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

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

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

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

THE EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-21 Amendment 0002

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

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

(U) Unsatisfactory

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

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

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-22 Amendment 0002

ATTACHMENT 4

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

1. Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

2. DUNS # (used for accessing the Contractor Performance Appraisal Retrieval System (CPARS).

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) CPARS databases. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted. If the firm is a joint venture, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association and provide the DUNS# for each.

Provide DUNS for any firm identified as a major subcontractor for which demonstrated experience has been submitted under Factor 3. Also, list the firm and briefly describe the nature of the association for each firm listed.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

3. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

[List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.]

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-23 Amendment 0002

ATTACHMENT 5

DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY-

Banking References

Provide letters from the banking references to confirm this information.

*1st bank's name:

Telephone #: Address:

Person:

Title:

Length of time with bank:

Credit Rating: Number/type of accounts:

Amount in each account (# of figures):

Credit Line: Secured/Unsecured Outstanding Loans: Secured/Unsecured Comments:

*2nd bank's name:

Telephone #:

Address:

Person:

Title:

Length of time with bank:

Credit Rating:

Number/type of accounts:

Amount in each account (# of figures):

Credit line: Secured/Unsecured Outstanding Loans Secured/Unsecured

*** Provide letters from the banking references to confirm this information.

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-24 Amendment 0002

Trade References

*1st Company:

Title:

Length of time with company:

Credit line:

Average monthly business:

High credit:

Payment History:

Takes Discounts:

*2nd Company:

Title:

Length of time with company:

Credit line:

Average monthly business:

High credit:

Payment history:

Takes Discounts:

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-25 Amendment 0002

*Workman's Compensation Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

2014: 2015: 2016:

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-26 Amendment 0002

ATTACHMENT 6

PROPOSAL FORMAT

PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO SOLICITATION W912EP-17-R-0016

OFFEROR’S NAME: [Offeror enter] OFFEROR’S

ADDRESS: [Offeror enter]

OFFEROR’S POINT OF CONTACT (POC): [Offeror enter]

POC’s TELEPHONE: [Offeror enter]

POC’s FAX: [Offeror enter]

POC’s EMAIL: [Offeror enter]

THIS OFFER IS SUBMITTED IN SEPARATE VOLUMES AS FOLLOWS: [Offeror check applicable items]

Volume One (Factor 1) - Price is submitted in 1 Original and 1 Copy and contains our price proposal, original bid bond or offer guarantee (if required by the solicitation), and representations and certifications.

Volume Two (Factor 2) – Demonstrated Technical Experience is submitted in 1 Original and 5 Copies and contains our technical proposal. There is no pricing information in this volume.

Volume Three (Factor 3) Past Performance is submitted in 1 Original and 1 Copy.

There is no pricing information in this volume.

One CD/DVD is also enclosed containing all three volumes required for submission.

W912EP-17-R-0016 00100A-27 Amendment 0002