W912EP-18-R-0006_Amendment_0010.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

TAMPA HARBOR BIG BEND CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION DREDGING, 41-FOOT PROJECT ENTRANCE CHANNEL, TURNING BASIN, EAST CHANNEL, INNER CHANNEL AND LOCAL SPONSOR BERTHING AREAS, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

A. SEE CONTINUATION SHEET FOR AMENDMENT DETAILS.

B. THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM 16 MAY 2018 @ 2:00 PM LOCAL TIME TO 18 MAY 2018 @ 2:00 PM LOCAL TIME.

C. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 97

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 W912EP18R0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Feb-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

11-May-2018

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

Tampa Harbor Big Bend Channel, Construction Dredging, 41-Foot Project, Entrance Channel, Turning Basin, East Channel, Inner Channel and Local Sponsor Berthing Areas

Hillsborough County, Florida

W912EP-18-R-0006 2 Amendment 0010

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. SPECIFICATIONS:

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. The Project Table of Contents and Submittal Register are replaced without underlines and cross-outs if there are changes to these documents. New sections are added without underlines and cross-outs.

Changes to Specifications:

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

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

DELETE Submittal Register and REPLACE with the attached revised Submittal Register.

DELETE Section 01 57 20 and REPLACE with the attached revised Section 01 57 20.

DELETE Section 01 57 25 and REPLACE with the attached revised Section 01 57 25.

2. DRAWINGS:

No change to drawings.

(End of Summary of Changes)

Amendment 0010

SECTION 00010A, Attachment A

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TECHNICAL INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at (https://www.projnet.org) No Later Than (NLT) Close of Business, 15 May 2018. To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective vendor who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email, followed by an answer to the comment/question after it has been processed by our technical team.

All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through ProjNet. Approved answers to all timely questions will also be posted on the FedBizOps in the form of a report generated from ProjNet as soon as the comment/question entering period is over and all answers are all finalized.

The Solicitation Number is: W912EP-18-R-0006

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: Q7K7J3-ZRKRFJ

Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access from ProjNet home page:

1. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

2. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

5. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret

Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

6. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access from ProjNet home page:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

6. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-1 Amendment 0010

SECTION 00100A

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most 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 and Small Business Participation Factor. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror or the highest technically rated offeror.

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price.

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

USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS

1. Offeror(s) are advised that Mr. Patrick Blair of the Tampa Port Authority identified below may serve as non-government advisor in the source selection process. He will not participate as voting members of the evaluation team in accordance with FAR 7.503(c)(12)(viii). This individual will be authorized access to the Factor 1 Technical section of the proposal. He will not have access to the remaining Factors 2 (Past Performance), 3 (Small Business Participation), or 4 (Price and Related Information).

Tampa Port Authority Patrick Blair pblair@tampaport.com 701 Channelside Drive

Tampa, Florida 33602 Phone: 813-905-5003

2. In accomplishing his duty related to the source selection process, the aforementioned identified entity may require access to proprietary information contained in the offerors’ proposals. Therefore, pursuant to FAR 9.505-4, the Tampa Port Authority, Mr. Blair above must execute an agreement with each offeror that states that they will (1) protect the offeror(s) information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which mailto:pblair@tampaport.com

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-2 Amendment 0010 it was furnished. To expedite the evaluation process, each offeror must contact Mr. Blair to effect execution of such an agreement prior to the submission of proposals. Each offeror shall submit a copy of the agreement with their Factor 1 Technical proposal.

Note: This requirement shall flow down to all Subcontractors.

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 EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

1. Factor 1 – Technical Merit

a. Sub-Factor 1 – Demonstrated Experience

b. Sub-Factor 2 – Technical Approach Plan

c. Sub-Factor 3 – Construction Schedule

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance

3. Factor 3 – Small Business Participation

a. Sub-Factor 1 – Proposed Small Business Participation Plan

b. Sub-Factor 2 – Past Utilization of Small Business Concerns

4. Factor 4– Price and Related Information

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

1. Factor 1 – Technical Merit: Technical Merit is significantly more important than Past Performance. For the following Sub-Factors, Sub- Factor 1 is considered more important than Sub-Factor 2 and Sub-Factor 2 is more important than Sub-Factor 3:

(this is the least important)

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-3 Amendment 0010

a. Sub-Factor 1 – Demonstrated Experience

b. Sub-Factor 2 – Technical Approach Plan

c. Sub-Factor 3 – Construction Schedule

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance: Past Performance is significantly more important than the Small Business Participation.

3. Factor 3 – Small Business Participation: There are two Sub-Factors under this factor; Sub- Factor 1 and Sub-Factor 2 are equal in importance and not rated separately.

a. Sub-Factor 1 – Proposed Small Business Participation Plan

b. Sub-Factor 2 – Past Utilization of Small Business Concerns

4. Factor 4 – Price: Price is not rated. It is evaluated for fair and reasonable prices. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

C. FACTOR SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION METHODS

Evaluation Approach

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation bya 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 ismost advantageous to the Government. 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. 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. Bysubmitting 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 submitexceptions, 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 byspecific reference, the terms and conditions included in the 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 awarda 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 toconduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to benecessary. 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 maylimit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-4 Amendment 0010 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 will not receive a rank order or order of merit list pertaining to the offers being evaluated.

FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

In responding to this factor, the objective should be to instill confidence that the offeror thoroughly understands the requirements of the solicitation, has the expertise and experience required to successfully satisfy or exceed the solicitation requirements within the required period of performance (See Section 00700, Clause 52.211-10).

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 for the following positions or items of work: (1) Dredging (2) Drilling and Blasting, (3) Environmental Impacts associated with drilling and blasting, and (4) Migratory bird monitoring and nesting deterrence at Dredge Material Placement Facility (DMFP) 3-D. See Bid Schedule (00010A) Note 8 to provide context regarding the requirement herein to submit items related to blasting.

A major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor whose experience will be submitted by the offeror for evaluation under Factor 1, Sub-Factor 1 – Demonstrated Experience.

A letter of commitment is defined as a letter from the major subcontractor on official company letterhead

(1) addressed to the offeror (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 offeror is awarded a contract.

A letter of commitment simply stating that a major subcontractor commits to submit pricing to the offeror does not satisfy this requirement. Submission requirement; Letter of Commitment for Key Subcontractor or Key Personnel (Attachment 2).

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

Once the Ratings have been assigned for Sub-Factor 1, Sub-Factor 2, and Sub-Factor 3 an overall rating will be assigned for Factor 1 – Technical Merit. A rating of Unacceptable for any individual Sub-Factor will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable for the entire Factor. See “Technical Merit Ratings” below.

Sub-Factor 1 – DEMONSTRATED EXPERENCE

Offerors shall complete a Company Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 1) for each demonstrated experience. Failure to utilize the Company Specialized Experience Form will be noted as deficiency. The

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-5 Amendment 0010 offeror shall ensure that all information required by the Project Information 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 relevant to this project.

Any demonstrated experience (to include subcontractors) provided for consideration in this Sub-Factor shall also have a corresponding submission under Factor 2 the Past Performance. If Past Performance information is not provided for a demonstrated experience, that demonstrated experience will not be evaluated and it will be noted as a deficiency.

If any portion of the work provided as demonstrated experience is subcontracted, clearly identify that work as such and provide the required experience of that subcontractor as it relates to work the subcontractor is to perform.

It is not necessary that all demonstrated experiences required under this Sub-Factor be performed on the same project; however, demonstrated experiences that include all the elements being accomplished on the same project will carry more weight when being evaluated.

Projects submitted must be completed or 75% physically completed within the last 15 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. If a project is presented and has not been accepted by the client, the offeror shall explain which elements of the work are not completed and provide supporting documentation from the client to confirm physical completion of the project.

If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer.

Submission Requirements

Using the Company Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 1), offerors are required to provide at least two (2) but not more than five (5) examples of completed project, which demonstrate that they and/or their major subcontractors (if applicable) have experience in performing the elements of work listed below.

Note: Do not submit more than five projects in response to each Sub-Factor. If any offeror provides more than five projects for each Sub-Factor, only the first five Sub-Factor projects submitted in order of submission will be evaluated; no additional consideration or evaluation will be given for the remaining submissions.

1. Successfully dredging material in mixed face conditions, including expansive clays, as described in the Geology Data Report;

2. Successfully dredging rock utilizing blasting, and successfully dredging rock without blasting if Offeror intends to dredge rock without blasting; and

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-6 Amendment 0010

3. Protecting environmental resources similar in sensitivity to those specified in the technical specifications Sections 01 57 20 and 01 57 25, specifically referring to sub-sections 3.1.5.8 for migratory bird species and 3.1.5.9 for blasting. Experience shall include successfully dealing with the environmental impact issues associated with dredging, drilling, and blasting, and successfully dealing with migratory bird monitoring and nesting deterrence issues similar to those associated with DMPF 3-D.

Materials to be removed under this contract are described in Section 00 31 32 GEOLOGY DATA REPORT. Materials in the East Channel may not require blasting but Offerors are required to provide examples of completed projects which included successfully blasting regardless if Offeror intends to dredge without blasting, as required in element of work number 2 above.

In addition, the offeror is required to provide the items listed for Dredging Equipment Documentation on Addendum to Attachment 1.

Evaluation Method

Demonstrated experiences submitted under Sub-Factor 1 that mirror the specifications in relation to scope, complexity and dollar value will carry more weight when being evaluated than demonstrated experience that is only similar in some areas.

In responding to this Sub-Factor, the objective should be to demonstrate to the technical evaluators that the offeror clearly has the capability to successfully accomplish the solicitation requirements by explaining in detail how the provided demonstrated experiences are similar to the work described in the solicitation. See “Technical Merit Ratings” below.

Sub-Factor 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH PLAN

In a narrative format, the offeror shall describe the proposed Technical Approach Plan regarding how the offeror intends to execute the work from start to completion. The selected technical approach plan, key personnel, construction schedule, and equipment maybe incorporated in whole or in part into the contract. The plan should include a description of related activities to include coordination with major subcontractors, types of equipment to be utilized and any other means and methods the offeror feels will give the Government confidence that the offeror will successfully complete the project. Offerors should also identify potential risks and plans for mitigating those risks.

At a minimum the Technical Approach Plan should:

1. Present the sequence of activities which represent work through the entire project from mobilization to demobilization.

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-7 Amendment 0010

2. Describe how you intend to perform the blasting requirements addressed in Section 02 10 00.

Also indicate who is going to perform the blasting and the major pieces of equipment to be used.

3. Describe how you intend to monitor and deter the nesting of migratory birds at DMPF 3-D to prevent construction delays due to the presence of protected species in the only designated disposal location as specified in Section 01 57 20, specifically referring to sub-section 3.1.5.8 for migratory bird species.

4. Describe how you intend to prevent environmental impacts associated with drilling and blasting or dredging rock without blasting as specified in Section 01 57 20, specifically referring to sub-section 3.1.5.9 for blasting.

5. Provide an organizational chart including offeror and all major subcontractors and a detailed explanation of how work will be coordinated between the offeror and major subcontractors. At a minimum the offeror shall identify the major subcontractors outlined in the Non-Substitution clause, 999.215-4001.

i. Specific to 02 10 00, organization chart and qualifications for key personnel should be provided for the following: Blasting Specialist, Blaster in charge, Blasting consultant, Vibration and Air Blast specialist. Key personnel –as listed, should be identified by specific name, company affiliation and credentials. (Refer to Section 02 10 00 paragraphs 1.8 and its subparagraphs):

6. Describe measures to deal with marine traffic.

7. Provide an explanation describing how communication will be conducted as well as marine traffic coordinated with during drilling and blasting operations.

8. Describe transportation of the material to the DMFP 3-D.

9. Describe the basis for proposed timeframes proposed in Sub-Factor 3, Construction Schedule, shall be provided including equipment production rates and all assumed contingencies (i.e.

adverse weather, mechanical shut-down, environmental issues, etc.) (ref. to Blasting contingency plans as well. See below Specific plans Drill & blasting).

10. Describe the Technical Approach Plan Specific to Specification 02 10 00 CONFINED UNDERWATER BLASTING addressing preparation of the following specific plans:

i. Blasting Safety Plan- Explain in a narrative, how the offeror intends to comply with developing a Blasting safety Plan.

ii. Operational Blasting Plan- Explain in a narrative, how the offeror intends to implement drilling and blasting operations.

iii. Test Blast Plan –Describe how the offeror intends to execute test blasts.

Specifically address the number of holes to be blasted, the amount of explosives, pattern, and initiation system.

iv. Pre-Survey - Provide timeframe to conduct pre-structures survey.

v. Contingency Plan- Explain how the offeror will address the Contingency Plan as

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-8 Amendment 0010 mentioned in Section 3.2.1 (b) 5) and 3.2.7

11. List major pieces of equipment to be used for Drilling and Blasting operations, inclusive of vibration and air blast monitoring, drilling barge(s), drill equipment, and the proposed type of explosives to be used for this blasting operation, and list major pieces of equipment to be used for dredging of rock without blasting if applicable.

12. Specifically provide a narrative that demonstrates the contractor’s understanding to execute drilling and blasting without causing damage to the sensitive natural resources and man-made structures within the work area, and provide a narrative that demonstrates the contractor’s understanding to dredge rock without blasting if applicable.

13. Describe the Technical Approach Plan specific to Specification 01 57 20 ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

ii. Address the requirements identified in the Environmental Protection plan as described in 01 57 20 Paragraph 1.6. subparts b, f and q.

iii. Provide a narrative that demonstrates the contractor’s understanding of the proximity of resources and authorized impacts as opposed to unauthorized impacts to adjacent natural resource.

14. Describe the coordination with but not limited to local authorities and enforcement agencies, public safety/public awareness, Port of Tampa and Tampa Harbor Pilots.

15. Describe major pieces of equipment for Dredging. If equipment differs from that submitted in demonstrated work experience, Offeror shall provide Addendum to Attachment 1 for the proposed equipment without the Past Dredging History items.

The Technical Approach Plan evaluation determines the degree to which the offeror’s proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation as well as the feasibility of the proposed approach. The feasibility of the proposed technical approach will measure how well the means and methods proposed provide the Government with confidence of successful project completion in accordance with the solicitation requirements and within the required contract schedule.

All work items listed in the Technical Approach Plan should be included in the Construction Schedule and the timeframes given for work items in the Construction Schedule. This example is given for clarity and is not the only corroboration that will be made between the Technical Approach Plan and Construction Schedule. The overall rating given for this Sub-Factor 2 will take into consideration the individual ratings as well as how well the Technical Approach Plan and Construction Schedule support one another. Any conflicts between Sub-Factor 2 and Sub-Factor 3 may be noted as a weakness.

Sub-Factor 3 – CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-9 Amendment 0010

Provide a schedule of construction within the period of performance provided in Section 00700, clause 52.211-10 in the formant of a Gantt, Pert, or similar graphical timeline, showing the start and completion dates, interdependence, and other relative scheduling factors for all the items of work listed in Sub-Factor 2 above. Seasonal restrictions required for the protection of marine mammals and construction limitations due to the shorebird nesting season should be considered in the creation of the construction schedule.

This schedule maybe incorporated into the contract and only be changed as approved by the Contracting Officer. At a minimum the schedule should show start and completion dates for:

1. Mobilization and Demobilization of all work items in general and for:

a. Construction Dredging Equipment

b. Drilling and Blasting Operations (All Offerors shall include)

2. Pre-Blasting Surveys (All Offerors shall include)

3. Excavation Operations (for each dredge)

4. Vibration Control and Monitoring

5. Submittals

6. Interdependence of activities (i.e. schedule logic)

7. Contingency time (e.g. float)

8. Work items discussed under Sub-Factor 2, Technical Approach Plan

a. The work items for all activities should be clearly identified to ensure a delineation of any concurrent work.

b. Basis for proposed timeframes should be supported in the Technical Approach Plan

The Construction Schedule evaluation determines the degree to which the offeror’s proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation as well as the feasibility of the proposed approach.

All work items listed in the Technical Approach Plan should be included in the Construction Schedule and the timeframes given for work items in the Construction Schedule. This example is given for clarity and is not the only corroboration that will be made between the Technical Approach Plan and Construction Schedule. The overall rating given for this Sub-Factor will take into consideration the individual ratings as well as how well the Technical Approach Plan and Construction Schedule support one another. Any conflicts between Sub-Factor 2 and Sub-Factor 3 may be noted as a weakness.

EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor and subfactor (if any). Each member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will individually rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements and in accordance with the requirements of the Plans and Specifications. The SSEB will reach consensus on the final rating assigned to ensure that it reflects the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-10 Amendment 0010

The SSAC will consequently review the evaluation results of the SSEB to ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and the ratings are appropriately and consistently applied. The advice and recommendations from the SSAC will be incorporated into a written comparative analysis and recommendation for use by the SSA in making the best-value decision. The Source Selection Authority will determine which offeror represent the best value to the Government.

Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor and subfactor to reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

TECHNICAL MERIT RATINGS

DEFINITIONS

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

Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength - Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength -A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

Deviation - Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

The offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement (see Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method below).

Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The offeror’s technical solution will consist of a combined rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. (see Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method below).

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-11 Amendment 0010

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue 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.

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green 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.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow 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.

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-12 Amendment 0010

Factor 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors shall submit one NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3), completed and signed by an Owner of the Project (Client) point of contact (POC) for each of the projects submitted under Sub-Factor 2 – Demonstrated Experience. If a project submitted under Sub-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 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record or official performance evaluation from a non-federal entity is available for any of the projects submitted under Sub-Factor 1-Demonstrated Experience, the CPARS record or official performance evaluation from a non-Federal entity may be submitted in lieu of the completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire.

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 NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire from the Owner of the Project (Client), before the proposal due date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the questionnaire (Blocks 1 – 7) that contains contract and client information for the submitted project. 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 – 7 should also be familiar with the past performance they are being asked to verify and informed that they will be contacted by the Government to verify past performance.

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

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 aspect of the past performance evaluates how relevant the offeror’s past performance is to the effort to be acquired. The technical evaluation team 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 five (5) years (measured from the date of

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-13 Amendment 0010 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, CCASS/CPARS record or official performance evaluation from a non-Federal entity. The POC noted on each 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 POC should be familiar with the performance they are to verify and be aware that they will be contacted by the Government.

Once the Relevancy Ratings are assigned, and Past Performance Ratings are verified, the Government will conclude with a performance confidence assessment based on the results. This 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 RELEVANCY RATINGS

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition 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.

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-14 Amendment 0010

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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

This Factor consists of two Sub-Factors: Sub-Factor 1 – Proposed Small Business Participation Plan and Sub-Factor 2 – Past Utilization of Small Business Concerns. These factors are equally important and not rated separately.

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). No minimum small business participation goal (SB) has been assigned to this project. Contractors shall propose their Best Effort for SB participation and provide documentation to demonstrate and support their proposed SB participation goals (Best Effort). A goal is defined as a number GREATER THAN ZERO that results from the offeror expending good faith effort to use small business subcontractors (as defined in FAR Part 19) to the maximum practicable extent.

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

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-15 Amendment 0010

• 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.

Note: The awardee’s Small Business Participation goals shall be incorporated into the contract.

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.

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.

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.

EVALUATION METHOD

The small business participation goal of this acquisition is for small business, small disadvantage small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business and woman-owned small businesses as identified in FAR Part 19 to have maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance consistent with its efficient 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 businesses) will be evaluated on the basis of:

In addition to the information provided on attachment 4, Small Business Participation Plans (from other than small and small businesses) will be evaluated on the basis of:

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-16 Amendment 0010

• The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in the proposal

• Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small business firms are to perform

• The extent (i.e. length of and formality considerations) of demonstrated commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments (JV, MP or written teaming agreements) will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones; refer to Attachment 4

• The extent of participation of Prime offerors (both large and small) and small business subcontractors in terms of the total value of the acquisition vs the large business participation percentage;

• The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting their Best Effort.

Sub-Factor 2 – PAST UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

All Offerors regardless of size will be evaluated by assessing its records or information in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and, for all other than small business offerors, FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. If the offeror has never had a contract that included FAR 52.219-8, Evaluation of Small Business Participation will be based solely on the offeror’s proposed small business participation plan for this contract. Past Utilization of Small Business (Attachment 5) will be evaluated on the basis of:

• The extent of commitment to the policy stated in FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9 reflected in the offeror’s past performance.

• The extent the offeror documented obstacles in meeting goals or shows evidence of good faith effort.

The Government may use information supplied by the offeror and information obtained from other sources to evaluate past utilization of small business concerns.

W912EP-18-R-0006 00100A-17 Amendment 0010

Small Business Participation Adjectival Ratings

Color Rating Adjectival

Description

Blue 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.

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green 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.