W912EP18R0019_Am0004.pdf

W32CS580716242

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Dam Modification Cutoff Wall MATOC Palm Beach and Hendry Counties, Florida

See SF30 Continuation Page for Details.

The proposal due date changed to 15 November 2018 at 2:00PM local time.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912EP18R0019

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Aug-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

30-Oct-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

Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Dam Modification Cutoff Wall MATOC Palm Beach and Hendry Counties, Florida

W912EP-18-R-0019 1 Amendment 0004

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:

Volume 1 of 2 – Contract Clauses (Base MATOC):

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

Volume 2 of 2 – Technical Specifications (Base MATOC):

DELETE Table of Contents and REPLACE with the attached revised Table of Contents.

DELETE Section 31 23 24.

DELETE Section 35 31 20.

DELETE Section 35 42 35.

DELETE Section 01 50 02 and REPLACE with the attached revised Section 01 50 02.

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

2. DRAWINGS:

No changes.

(End of Summary of Changes)

W912EP18R0019 00100A-1 Amendment 0004

SECTION 00100A

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

(1) In accordance with Class Deviation 2018-O0006, Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple Award Task or Delivery Order Contracts, dated December 13, 2017, the Government intends to award a contract to each and all qualifying offerors. A qualifying offeror is an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technical proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the Contracting Officer has no reason to believe would likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. For this evaluation process, interested offerors submit certain specified performance and capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these performance and capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

(2) The Government intends to make award without holding discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority determines them to be necessary. Therefore, offerors are encouraged to include their best terms and conditions in the initial offer.

(3) The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection procedures (and adhering to the Class Deviation 2018-O0006). Offers will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria listed below at Paragraph B. Noncompliance with the RFP requirements may raise serious questions regarding an offeror’s technical ability or past performance and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract award. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the RFP will be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will be easy for the Government to understand and will enable the Government to perform a thorough and fair evaluation.

(4) The Contracting Officer will begin the evaluation process by conducting a proposal compliance review for all timely-received proposals for determination of basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators (the Source Selection Team). Failure to provide a complete proposal may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award. Failure to address any factor shall be grounds for elimination from evaluation and consideration for award.

(5) The proposal submitted will be used to determine whether the offeror is a responsible source, has a technical proposal that meets the requirements of the solicitation, and provides no reason why the offeror would likely offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

(1) The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1 – Construction Means and Methods

Factor 2 – Demonstrated Experience

Factor 3 – Past Performance

(2) A rating of “Acceptable” in each evaluation factor listed above must be achieved in order to

W912EP18R0019 00100A-2 Amendment 0004 demonstrate a technical proposal that meets the requirements of this solicitation and to therefore be eligible for award.

C. FACTOR 1 – Construction Means and Methods.

(1)Submission Requirements. In a narrative format, provide a detailed description of how the work for task order 0001 will be executed from start to completion including a description of related activities and items of work with regards to the attached plans and specifications. NOTE: Task order 0001 is representative of the work that will be performed under this MATOC tool of all five task orders and responses to this sub-factor shall be based on Task Order 0001. At a minimum, the plan shall include a detailed description of the following:

□ Jet Grout Construction - System of jet grouting proposed (single, double, or triple fluid), sequence of production (wet-on-wet, primary-secondary), pre-drilling and/or pre-jetting/pre-washing procedures (if necessary), borehole stability and spoil return management to prevent heave/hydrofracturing, drill hole verticality measurement, description of safety procedures for work with high pressure systems, and waste management. Also, describe techniques proposed to repair deficiencies.

□ Conventional Cutoff Wall Construction - Means and methods of construction to include method of production, pre-drilling procedures (if necessary), grout or slurry mixing and delivery to the work site, maintenance of slurry, sequence of construction, plan for connecting existing and new wall segments, monitoring and maintenance of trench stability, and waste management. Also, describe techniques proposed to repair deficiencies.

□ Cutoff Wall Backfill Material Mix Design Process - Means and methods to be used to design the mix, test the design mix, and how the design mix will be monitored and adjusted as site conditions and material changes occur during production.

□ Quality Control - As applicable for each cutoff wall method, the means and methods to include procedures for measuring wall depth, width, overlap, inter-axis spacing, verticality, and testing required for the cutoff wall materials. Quality Control shall be in compliance with Section 02 35 29, Section 02 32 00, and Section 35 41 17.

□ Work Platform –Means and methods to be used to construct the work platforms for jet grout cutoff wall construction at each location in Task Order 1, in accordance with Section 35 52 01, Work Platform. In addition, provide conceptual Design Drawings of the proposed work platform for the west side of Structure S-3 within Task Order #1 showing proposed use of construction materials, use of soil reinforcement or other support.

(2)Evaluation Method. In order to receive an “Acceptable” rating, the offeror’s proposal must present reasonable and feasible means and methods of performing Jet Grout Construction, Conventional Cut-off Wall Construction, and Cut-off Wall Backfill Material Mix Design Processes. Offeror’s proposal must also demonstrate a reasonable and feasible means and method of constructing the work platforms for jet grout cutoff wall construction at each location specified within Task Order 0001 in accordance with Section 35 52 01, Work Platform. Furthermore, the Design Drawings of the proposed work platform for Structure S-3 must show reasonable and feasible use of construction materials, use of soil reinforcement or other support utilized.

Finally, the offeror’s proposal must also demonstrate a reasonable and feasible means and method to provide

W912EP18R0019 00100A-3 Amendment 0004

Quality Control in the application of their cut-off wall method. The offeror must show reasonable and feasible procedures for measuring wall depth, width, overlap, inter-axis spacing, verticality, and testing required for the cutoff wall materials. In addition, in order to receive an “Acceptable” rating the offeror must show a reasonable and feasible way to meet the Quality Control requirements in Section 02 35 29, Section 02 32 00, and Section 35 41 17.

(3)Rating Definitions. The following ratings definitions applies to Factor 1:

Acceptable – Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable – Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

D. Factor 2 – Demonstrated Experience

(1)Submission Requirements: This project involves constructing a cutoff wall to the depths required by the contract. Jet grout connections to existing water control structures will be required as specified or shown on the drawings included with the solicitation. The cutoff wall shall meet performance criteria as required in the specifications. The offeror must provide demonstrated experience for their proposed method of cutoff wall construction in the jet grouting areas and demonstrated experience for other conventional cut-off wall construction. The offeror must provide examples of projects indicating successful past experience in both Jet Grout Construction cut-off wall construction and Conventional Cut-off wall construction in accordance with the instructions listed below:

□ Jet Grout Construction – Offeror must provide three (3) examples of projects involving Jet Grout

Construction. Please provide no more than three as this will not provide additional consideration in the evaluation of this factor. The three examples must be recent, which means the project is physically completed at least 75% within the last 10 years. Jet grout experience can be cutoff wall or dewatering bottom seal. The demonstrated experiences shall show that there were required oversight requirements for material permeability, compressive strength, or similar requirements, as well as verifying in-place construction of depth, width, verticality, or similar requirements. The Jet Grout Construction projects submitted must meet the following criteria:

a) One (1) project demonstrating jet grout cutoff wall construction showing depths of at least

60 feet below ground surface or bottom seal construction to depths of at least 20 feet below ground surface.

b) One (1) project demonstrating jet grout cutoff wall construction showing jet grout elements with a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-6 centimeters per sec (cm/sec)

c) Please note that one project can meet one or more of the requirements stated above.

□ Conventional Cut-off Wall Construction – Offeror must provide (3) examples of conventional cut-off wall construction. Please provide no more than three as this will not provide additional consideration in the evaluation of this factor. The three examples must be recent, which means the project is physically completed at least 75% within the last 10 years. The conventional cut-off wall construction projects submitted must meet the following criteria:

W912EP18R0019 00100A-4 Amendment 0004

a) One (1) project demonstrating conventional cutoff wall construction showing depths of at least 60 feet below ground surface

b) One (1) project demonstrating conventional cutoff wall construction showing the construction of a low-permeability cutoff wall with a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-6 centimeters per sec (cm/sec)

c) One (1) project demonstrating installation of conventional cut-off wall through a rock stratum with a minimum thickness of 10 feet and minimum unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of 5,000 psi. Provide UCS laboratory test results for rock to support this demonstrated experience.

d) Please note that one project can meet one or more of the requirements stated above.

□ Please note, in total the offeror must provide six (6) projects, three of each type of construction expected at Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD). For each project submitted, the offeror must provide the following information:

a) Location, general project description, and dollar value of each demonstrated experience.

Each project identified must reference a contract number and point of contact (POC), inclusive of their name, telephone number, and email address.

b) Performance requirements of that project as they relate to this project.

c) Length and depth to which each jet grout elements or conventional cutoff wall was installed and the corresponding production rate (in square feet/day) for each cutoff wall installation.

d) Construction contract schedule performance – identify if contract completion was behind, ahead, or on schedule. Provide original project duration and actual construction completion duration. Indicate what major obstacles were encountered during the execution of the project and how they were resolved.

e) Subsurface conditions (with soil classifications in terms of ASTM D2487 – the Unified Soil

Classification System) and general rock descriptions in which each cutoff wall was installed.

Include general descriptions of consistency (fine-grained soil), apparent density (coarse-grained soil), and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) for rock, for each strata.

Applicable field tests such as SPT blow count (N-value), penetrometer, or torvane can be used to describe the subsurface conditions.

(2)Additional notes for submission of project examples: A completed project is defined as work performed under a “project” that is physically complete and has been accepted by the customer, while a project deemed close to complete is defined as work performed under a “project” that is over 75% physically complete, based on billing progress, and/or has been accepted by the customer.

All provided projects must be completed or close to complete within the last ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation. If a project is presented and has not been completed, the offeror shall explain which features of the work are not completed and the percentage.

Ensure the description for the items above are in a narrative format. Other media will not replace the

W912EP18R0019 00100A-5 Amendment 0004 narrative requirement. Using Attachment 1, provide a detailed narrative that explains how each provided demonstrated experience is similar to the work described in the solicitation.

If any portion of work provided as demonstrated experience is from a parent company, clearly identify that work as it relates to this project. Provide a letter of commitment from the parent company clearly stating that they will provide their expertise and support, as necessary, as it relates to the portion of work used as demonstrated experience for this project.

If any portion of 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 the work the subcontractor will be performing on this project. Provide a letter of commitment from the proposed subcontractor.

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

Any demonstrated experience (to include subcontractors) provided for consideration in this factor shall have a corresponding submission in the Past Performance Factor (Factor 3). If Past Performance information is not provided for a demonstrated experience, the submitted demonstrated experience will not be evaluated.

(3)Evaluation Method. In order to receive an “Acceptable” for this factor, all six (6) projects submitted must clearly show successful jet grout construction and or conventional cut-off wall construction as specified in the Submission Requirements stated above for this Factor 2 – Demonstrated Experience. The offeror must have clearly articulated their involvement in receiving credit for the project experience (Joint Venture, individual or key personnel, subcontractor, or parent company). If the submission of demonstrated experience is based on one individual, the individual’s affiliation with the offeror must be explained in detail (i.e., consultant, employee, partner, etc.) in order to receive an “Acceptable” rating. Additionally, a letter of commitment is required from the individual. Failure to include letter(s) of commitment from the parent company, or subcontractor, or individual, as applicable, will run the risk of their proposal being rated as “Unacceptable” for Demonstrated Experience. Failure to provide sufficient detail explaining how each provided demonstrated experience project is similar to the work described in the solicitation will run the risk of their proposal being rated as “Unacceptable” for Demonstrated Experience. Offerors should presume that the technical evaluators are unfamiliar with the provided demonstrated experience; as such, a lack of detailed explanations regarding the work and how said work is similar to that described in the solicitation will run the risk of their proposal being rated as “Unacceptable” for Demonstrated Experience. Offerors should also note the following: The evaluation board will not evaluate more than three (3) projects for each type of cut-off wall construction (jet grout and conventional); therefore, no additional projects will be evaluated and no additional consideration will be given for the submission of more than three (3) projects in response to this factor. A Joint Venture entity shall submit the designated number (three (3) projects) for each type of cut-off wall construction for the combined Joint Venture.

(4)Rating Definitions. The following ratings definitions applies to Factor 2:

Acceptable – Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable – Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

W912EP18R0019 00100A-6 Amendment 0004

E. Factor 3 – Past Performance

(1) Submission Requirements. Using the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire, or PPQ, (see Attachment 2), offerors shall provide recent and relevant past performance for each project submitted under Factor 2 – Demonstrated Experience. In total, six (6) PPQs should be submitted for evaluation. The PPQ must be completed and signed by an Owner of the Project (Client) point of contact or “POC” for each of the projects listed. If a project submitted under Factor 2 – Demonstrated Experience 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 or Client. If a PPQ is provided and is not complete and/or is not signed, then the PPQ for that project described above will not be considered for evaluation. However, if a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record is available for any of the projects submitted, the CPARS record may be submitted in lieu of the completed Past Performance Questionnaire or an official Performance Evaluation from a non-Federal agency may also be submitted. The Owner of the Project (Client) or “POC” is defined as the entity that took ownership of the project after construction was complete.

If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed Past Performance Questionnaire from the Owner of the Project (Client), before the proposal receipt date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the Past Performance 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. The Government reserves the right to obtain copies of all CCASS or CPARS records contained in the CCASS or CPARS database for the offeror or offeror’s major subcontractors. For each past performance submitted, explain why it is relevant to this project by providing a brief summary of the project.

Offerors should provide a narrative and be as specific as possible when explaining how the submitted project for past performance is relevant to the project described in the plans and specifications. Offerors must provide a discussion on timeliness; environmental issues; responsiveness to customer needs; quality control; cost control;

change order work and compliance with safety requirements. Emphasis should be made on quality, customer satisfaction and the resolution of problems encountered during performance.

(2) Evaluation Method. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts for the cutoff wall projects to be procured under this MATOC. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is the recency of the past performance. “Recent” means performance occurring within the last ten

(10) years for the period beginning ten years prior to the solicitation release date. Based on this criteria, an offerors’ past performance will be determined either “recent” or “not recent.” Once a project is determined to be recent, the second aspect of the past performance evaluation is the relevance of the offerors’ past performance information. For this acquisition, relevant past performance is contracts that are similar in size, project scope, cost magnitude, and complexity of work performed. Regarding cost magnitude, only projects with a minimum value of $25,000,000 $18,000,000 will be considered for conventional cutoff wall projects and only projects with a minimum value of $5,000,000 will be considered for jet grout projects. After a project is considered recent and relevant, the quality of the past performance evaluation will be rated either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. When evaluating past performance, in order to receive an “Acceptable” rating, the submitted PPQs and associated narratives should show successful contract performance in terms of timeliness; reasonably and successfully addressing environmental issues; showing successful responsiveness to customer needs and resolution of problems encountered during performance (if any); successful quality control; successful and reasonable cost control; successful change order work; and successful compliance with safety requirements. In addition to the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ or CPARS the Government may use recent

W912EP18R0019 00100A-7 Amendment 0004 and relevant project data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources or from any other sources available to include, but not limited to: (1) the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), (2) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) or Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; (3) interviews with Program/Project Managers and Contracting Officers or rely upon personal business experience with the offeror; and (4) consider any information the offeror submits which explains any problems encountered on the identified contract and the offeror's corrective actions. The Government reserves the rights to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate. Information related to the contractor’s (or contractor’s team) performance in Quality, Schedule, Management, Regulatory Compliance, and Safety/Security will be reviewed from the aforementioned additional sources to determine the offeror “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”.

(3) Ratings Definitions. For Factor 3 - Past Performance, the following ratings apply:

Acceptable – Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable – Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

F. FACTOR 3–SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The Small Business Participation Plan consists of two elements, Small Business Participation Proposal and Small Business Past Performance. Both elements are equal.

Element 1 – Small Business Participation Proposal

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

In this factor all offerors (both small and large business firms) shall provide its “planned” level of commitment for using small business firms by thoroughly completing a Small Business Participation Proposal (SBPP) using the template found at (Attachment 5). No minimum small business participation goals have been assigned to this project. Contractors shall propose their Best Effort (goals) for SB participation. 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.

• 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.

• Offerors are cautioned to complete Attachment 5 in its entirety or risk receiving an unacceptable for this element.

Element 2 - Small Business Past Performance

W912EP18R0019 00100A-8 Amendment 0004

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

In this element all offerors (both small and large business firms) shall submit verifiable past performance that demonstrated adequate compliance with FAR clause 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (Small & Large primes), and FAR clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business primes only).

Offerors are required to submit verifiable information on three projects that demonstrate the degree (by total dollars and percentage of contract value) to which the contractor utilized small business firms in performing the projects:

Project 1:

Title:

Company Name:

Current representative & contact info:

Contract Number:

Contract Award amount:

Project completion date:

Dollar amount and Percent Self Performed:

Dollar amount and Percent of Contract Subcontracted:

Dollar amount and Percent Subcontracted to Small Business:

Dollar amount and Percent Subcontracted to Large Business:

Project 2:

Title:

Company Name:

Current representative & contact info:

Contract Number:

Contract Award amount:

Project completion date:

Dollar amount and Percent Self Performed:

Dollar amount and Percent of Contract Subcontracted:

Dollar amount and Percent Subcontracted to Small Business:

Dollar amount and Percent Subcontracted to Large Business:

Project 3:

Title:

Company Name:

Current representative & contact info:

Contract Number:

Contract Award amount:

Project completion date:

Dollar amount and Percent Self Performed:

Dollar amount and Percent of contract Subcontracted:

Dollar amount and Percent Subcontracted to Small Business:

Dollar amount and Percent Subcontracted to Large Business:

Large Business Offerors shall submit FINAL ISR (Individual Subcontracting Report) reports for THREE of the most recently completed Federal contracts.

W912EP18R0019 00100A-9 Amendment 0004

Evaluation Method

In this factor, all offerors (both small and large business firms) 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.

Element 1 – Proposed Small Business Participation Proposal Small Business Participation Plans (from other than small and small businesses) will be evaluated on the basis of:

• Level of commitment for using small business firms completed with their Best Effort (goals) for SB Participation for all Small Business Socioenomic Categories.

• All goals submitted for small business categories are greater than zero.

Element 2 – Small Business Past Performance

Small Business Participation Plans (from large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the basis of:

The offeror submitted verifiable information on three past performance that demonstrated adequate compliance with FAR clause 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (Small & Large primes), and FAR clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business primes only).

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

Small Business Participation Ratings

Small Business Participation will be rated using the ratings listed below.

Acceptable – Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable – Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

NOTE: IN THE CASE OF AN OFFEROR WHO HAS NOT HAD A CONTRACT THAT INCLUDED

THE CLAUSE FAR 52.219-8, THE OFFEROR MUST INDICATE THIS FACT IN WRITING IN

THEIR PROPOSAL. THE OFFEROR MAY NOT BE EVALUATED FAVORABLY OR

UNFAVORABLY FOR SMALL BUSINESS PAST PERFORMNCE. THEREFORE, THE OFFEROR

SHALL BE DETERMINED TO HAVE UNKNOWN (OR "NEUTRAL") SMALL BUSINESS PAST

PERFORMANCE. UNKNOWN (OR “NEUTRAL”) FOR SMALL BUSINESS PAST PERFORMANCE

SHALL BE CONSIDERED "ACCEPABLE".

F. G. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in hard copy with an accompanying electronic copy in Compact Disc (CD) format. The solicitation will provide the Government address and receipt date and time for submitting proposals.

The proposal shall be divided into volumes as indicated below. 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.

W912EP18R0019 00100A-

Amendment 0004

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

The offeror shall submit in the proposal the requested information specified herein. Failure to submit requested information or to meet an RFP requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

Content Requirements. All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. 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.

Binders. Proposals shall be submitted in tabbed, three ring binders as three separate volumes. Volume I shall be comprised of Tabs A through E only. Volume II shall be comprised of Tabs F and G. Volume III shall be comprised of Tab H.

Tabs. Proposals shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I – PROPOSAL SF 1442/DATA

(Offerors shall submit an original and one copy, in separate binders)

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with paragraph 1.3 in Section 00100B.

Failure to do so may result in rejection of an offeror’s proposal.

TAB B – Section 00101, Representations and Certifications and other Statements of Offerors. 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 Representations and Certifications in SAM, per FAR 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS. The submitted information will be reviewed for completeness by Contracting Personnel.

TAB C -- Determination of Responsibility, including the firm’s latest Financial Statements. (Attachment 3). 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.

TAB D – If applicable: Joint Venture Agreement (see paragraph 1.3 in Section 00100B). The joint venture agreement must be signed by both parties and will be subject to review by Office of Counsel. Also, if the joint venture involves an 8(a) small business, approval by the Small Business Administration is required and must be submitted with the offeror’s proposal. Offerors are reminded that if it is an 8(a) or HUBZone joint venture, it 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 SAM as a joint venture in order for an award to be made.

TAB E – Small Business Subcontracting Plan. This requirement is only applicable to Other than Small Businesses in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Alternate II, in Section 00700 of this solicitation. Each Other than Small Business offeror shall provide, with their proposal, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all the elements required by Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) Appendix DD, FAR Clause 52.219-9 Alt II in Section 00700, and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Clause 252.219-7003 in Section 00700.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather a requirement for award to an Other than Small Business Only. The apparent successful Offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be assessed in accordance with AFARS Appendix DD and FAR 52.219- 9 requirements and must be determined as “acceptable” by the Contracting Officer in the event of an award. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is a materiel requirement of the solicitation and any resultant contract. A Subcontracting Plan deemed as “unacceptable” may preclude an offeror from being eligible for contract award.

Small Business Subcontracting Goals have not been identified for this procurement. Contractors should propose subcontracting goals that are meaningful, realistic, and challenging with positive percentage goals for the specific procurement. 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 Par 19) to the maximum practicable extent.. Goals proposed less than 5% for Small Disadvantage Businesses shall be supported and require approval at one level above the Contracting Officer. To demonstrate proposed subcontracting effort and dollars planned at the MATOC contract level, Offerors shall use the basic contract estimated ceiling value of $387,000,000.00 with an equal distribution of anticipated funding obligations for each of the five annual ordering periods (i.e., awarded order dollar obligations).

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be thorough and complete. The Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into the contract upon award of the contract to the Offeror, if acceptable and upon final approval of the Contracting Officer.

VOLUME II - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

(Offerors shall submit an original and three (3) copies, in separate binders)

TAB F – Factor 1 – Construction Means and Methods (see Factor 1 submission requirements) TAB G – Factor 2 – Demonstrated Experience (see Factor 2 submission requirements)

VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL

(Offerors shall submit an original copy)

TAB H – Past Performance Information (see Factor 3 submission requirements)

OTHER RELATED INFORMATION

The offeror shall submit the following other related information: Proposal Cover Sheet (Attachment 4) with each Volume.

System for Award Management

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

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.

Minor Informalities

Proposals will be checked for minor informalities or irregularities. The Contracting Officer will follow guidance at FAR 14.405 when resolving minor informalities or irregularities. The Contracting Officer will either give the offeror an opportunity to cure any defect resulting from a minor informality or irregularity or waive the defect, whichever is to the advantage of the Government.

W912EP18R0019 00100A-10 Amendment 0004

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 – EXAMPLE OF PROJECT PERFORMED Attachment 2 – NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE Attachment 3 - DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY FORM Attachment 4 - PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

W912EP18R0019 00100A-11 Amendment 0004

ATTACHMENT 1

EXAMPLE OF PROJECT PERFORMED

Solicitation No. W912EP18R0019

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last ten

(6) 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 Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-

Quantity Multiple Award Task Order Contracts in Support of Herbert Hoover Dike Cutoff Wall Projects. Use additional pages as necessaryto 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

W912EP18R0019 00100A-12 Amendment 0004

12. Your Performance Evaluation by Owner. Provide corresponding completed Past Performance

Questionnaire (PPQ) at Attachment 2, or performance evaluation report (CPAR), or official performance evaluation from non-federal entity.

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

ATTACHMENT 2

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT – Solicitation W912EP18R0019

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

CONTRACTINFORMATION

d. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGECode:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number: Email

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy): Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy): Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy): Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

4. Project Description:

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

W912EP18R0019 00100A-13 Amendment 0001

5. Client Information Name: Title: Phone Number:

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

7. Date Questionnairewas completed(mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

W912EP18R0019 00100A-15 Amendment 0001

W912EP18R0019 00100A-16 Amendment 0001

PLEASE PROVIDE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR

EVALUATIONOF THE CONTRACTOR’SPERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain 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

W912EP18R0019 00100A-18 Amendment 0004

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

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

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and controltheprogram)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIALMANAGEMENT

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 monthly status 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

No

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

Yes No

6.SAFETY/SECURITY

M U N

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.)

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

M U N

W912EP18R0019 00100A-19 Amendment 0004

6.SAFETY/SECURITY

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).

M

U

N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U N

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

Yes No

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

END OF QUESTIONNAIRE

W912EP18R0019 00100A-20 Amendment 0004

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 feature or sub-factor 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 feature or sub-factor being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

An Exceptional ratingis 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 feature or sub- factor 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.

W912EP18R0019 00100A-20 Amendment 0004

(M) Marginal Performance does not…