W912EP18R0029_Amendment_0003.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

REGIONAL INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) MULTIPLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACTS (MATOCS) FOR

MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION

A. SEE CONTINUATION SHEET FOR AMENDMENT DETAILS.

B. THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM AUGUST 21, 2018 @ 2:00 P.M. LOCAL TIME TO DECEMBER 13, 2018 @

2:00 P.M. LOCAL TIME.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 57

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 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

W912EP18R0029

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Jul-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

13-Nov-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:

x

SF 30 CONTINUATION SHEET

Regional Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Multiple Award Task Order Contracts In Support of Dredging and Shore Protection Projects Within the Boundaries of the South

Atlantic Division

W912EP18R0029 2 Amendment 0003

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. SPECIFICATIONS:

The text changes have been updated with additions noted by bold green text and deletions noted by line/cross-outs, and pertain only to changes made by this amendment.

Changes to Specifications Volume 1 of 2:

Delete SECTION 00800 - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS and REPLACE with attached Revised

SECTION 00800 - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS.

Delete SECTION 00100A SOLICITATION PROVISIONS and Replace with attached Revised

SECTION 00100A SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

(End of Summary of Changes)

SECTION 00100-A

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

In accordance with Class Deviation 2018-O0006, Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple Award Task Contracts, (MATOC) or Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract, 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 technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the Contracting Officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. The deviation permits Contracting Officers to evaluate cost or price only at the Task Order (TO) or Delivery Order (DO) levels, as long as the multiple-award contract under which the orders are being placed are for the same or similar services and a contract award was made to each and all qualifying offerors. The Contracting Officer has confidence the Government will receive fair and reasonable pricing from the recipients that receive awarded contracts. For this evaluation process interested offerors shall submit capabilities, equipment, and past performance for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these performance and capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

Two Groups will be established and result in contract awards from this solicitation. The Groups are resultant of qualified offerors pursuant to Class Deviation 2018-O0006 and will be awarded as GROUP 1 – Unrestricted or GROUP 2 – Small Business Set-Aside based on the small business size standard for NAICS Code 237990. Price and/or cost will be evaluated at task order (TO) level as an Evaluation Factor in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(E).

In order to receive an award under the GROUP 1 – UNRESTRICTED, Large and/or Small Businesses offerors must submit proposals for Volumes I and II. In order to receive an award under GROUP 2 – SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE, offerors must submit proposals for Volumes I and III, and the offeror must be certified as a Small Business in the System for Award Management (SAM). Be advised that if a Small Business offeror elects to submit a proposal for both Groups, that small business offeror must submit separate proposal submissions.

The offeror’s proposal shall identify by indicating on Attachment 1 Proposal Submission with an

(X) either GROUP I – UNRESTRICTED or GROUP II – SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE as a part of their proposal submission.

In order to be receive an award in the GROUP 2 – SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE, the offeror must be certified as a Small Business in SAM.

The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection procedures. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria listed below. Non-compliance 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.

W912EP18R0029 00100A-1 Amendment 0003

B. ORDERING PROCEDURES – No seed task order will be awarded as part of this MATOC for Group 1 or Group 2; however, ordering procedures shown at Attachment (8) - Standard Ordering Guide for Task Order procedures, are provided to offerors for their situational awareness.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the factors stated in the solicitation to award a contract to each and all qualifying offerors. There will be no trade-offs performed. Awards of MATOC's will be made to those offerors that are determined to be a responsible source, submitting a technically acceptable proposal, that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the Contracting Officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. Pursuant to Class Deviation 2018-O0006, Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple Award Task or Delivery Order Contracts, dated December 13, 2017, price or cost will not be evaluated at the time of task order contract award; however, price or cost will be one of the factors in the selection decision for each task or delivery order in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(E).

By submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation, offerors agree to comply with all terms and conditions contained in the solicitation. Unless the solicitation specifically invites the offeror to submit exceptions, the Contracting Officer may reject any offer that contains exceptions and or qualifying language. In this solicitation, the words “offer” and “proposal” are used interchangeably.

(See definition of “offer” at FAR 2.101.) Except for any portions of the offeror’s proposal incorporated into the resulting contract by reference, the terms and conditions included in the solicitation, including any amendments, shall take precedence over the offeror’s proposal.

Proposal Evaluation: 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 or the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. Therefore, offers are encouraged to include their best technical terms and complete past performance information in the initial offer.

Source Selection Decision: The Source Selection Authority (SSA), independently exercising prudent business judgment, will make the source selection decision based on the proposals that meet the requirements of the Government. The SSA will not receive a recommendation from any individual or entity as to which offeror should receive the award and additionally will not receive a rank order or order of merit list pertaining to the offers being evaluated.

D. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

EVALUATION FACTORS – GROUP 1 – UNRESTRICTED

1. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL MERIT – DREDGE(S)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The offeror shall provide documentation for all dredges being proposed for use under this solicitation/contract, and any subsequent task orders. If the proposal does not include at least one of

W912EP18R0029 00100A-2 Amendment 0003 the identified dredges below, then Factor 1 will be rated “Unacceptable”. Proposed dredges must include a minimum of one of the following (although multiple dredges may be proposed):

(1) Cutter Suction Dredge - employs a mechanical cutter to break up material which is then excavated hydraulically and transported to the placement site through a pipeline.

Minimum Requirement: 14 inch discharge pipe diameter or larger

(2) Mechanical Dredge - uses of some form of bucket to excavate and raise submerged material.

Minimum Requirement: 5 cubic yard bucket or larger

(3) Hopper Dredge - seagoing vessel which excavates material hydraulically and transports it to a placement site in a hopper built into the hull of the vessel.

Minimum Requirement: must be self-propelled.

Note: Offeror can submit more than one dredge(s) that meets the minimum requirements above in responding to this evaluation factor. Dredges that are still under construction or are in the process of undergoing a major reconstruction will not be considered.

Dredge documentation must identify the dredge by name, serial number or some other way that leaves no doubt which particular dredge is being discussed. The dredge documentation must certify (i.e. Coast Guard Certificate, Affidavit, Insurance on the Dredge, or Bill of Sale. etc.), the following:

(1) dredge type;

(2) dredge meets minimum requirements stated above;

(3) proof offeror owns the dredge.

EVALUATION METHOD:

The Government will evaluate all identified dredges based on the minimum requirements listed above.

The Government will ensure the offeror provided dredge documentation by name, serial number or some other way that leaves no doubt with the evaluators which particular dredge the offeror is proposing.

Rating Table for Factor 1 – Technical Merit – Dredge(s):

Table 1 - Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method for Technical Merit

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

W912EP18R0029 00100A-3 Amendment 0003

2. EVALUATION FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Using the Form at Attachment 2- Example of Project Performed, provide three (3) past performance examples of recent and relevant maintenance dredging and/or shore protection projects for the type of dredge submitted under Factor 1 – Technical Merit – Dredges. The past performance examples must be within the last six (6) years and must involve maintenance dredging or shore protection projects. The past performance must demonstrate the offerors’ and its team members' (i.e. key personnel and/or major subcontractors) experience in performance of work similar to that described in the solicitation. For each project submitted for Attachment 2- Example of Project Performed, offeror shall submit a NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 4), completed and signed by an Owner of the Project (Client) point of contact or “POC”.

All pages of each PPQ must be initialed and dated on the bottom right-hand corner by the POC. 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.

The Owner of the Project (Client) or “POC” (Point of Contact) is defined as the entity that took ownership of the project after construction was complete. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from the Owner of the Project (Client), before the proposal receipt date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the Past Performance Questionnaire – Attachment 3 (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.

EVALUATION METHOD

The Government will evaluate the offerors’ record of past performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts for the dredging and shore protection projects to be procured under the MATOCs. 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 six (6) years for the period beginning six 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’ present/past performance information. For this acquisition, relevant past performance is defined as performance on maintenance dredging and/or shore protection projects that are similar in size, project scope, cost magnitude, and complexity of work performed utilizing the dredge submitted in Factor 1. Regarding cost magnitude, only projects that fall within a range in value from $1,000,000 to $40,000,000 will be considered. Past Performance includes current/on-going (present) dredging performance complete to 70% percent or greater.

After a project is considered recent and relevant, the quality of the past performance evaluation will be rated either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. When determining the rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for past performance, the components of the offerors Quality, Schedule, Management, W912EP18R0029 00100A-4 Amendment 0003

Regulatory Compliance, and Safety/Security will be reviewed within the PPQ and/or in CPARS evaluations. In order to receive an “Acceptable” rating, the past performance components (Quality, Schedule, Management, Regulatory Compliance and Safety/Security) must have received a rating of no less than “Satisfactory” in those areas within the PPQ or CPARS assessment that was deemed relevant and recent. In addition to the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ or CPARS the Government may use recent 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”.

Table 2 – Overall Rating for Factor 2 – Past Performance is defined below:

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

3. EVALUATION 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 9). 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.

Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

W912EP18R0029 00100A-5 Amendment 0003

• 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 9 in its entirety or risk receiving an unacceptable for this element.

Element 2 - Small Business Past Performance

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:

W912EP18R0029 00100A-6 Amendment 0003

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.

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 Past Performance (from large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the basis of:

The offeror submitted verifiable information on three past performance (as stated in the submission requirements) 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.

W912EP18R0029 00100A-7 Amendment 0003

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".

W912EP18R0029 00100A-8 Amendment 0003

E. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS – GROUP 2 – SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE

1. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL MERIT – DREDGE(S)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The offeror shall provide documentation for all dredges being proposed for use under this solicitation/contract, and any subsequent task orders. If the proposal does not include at least one of the identified dredges below, then Factor 1 will be rated “Unacceptable”. Proposed dredges must include a minimum of one of the following (although multiple dredges may be proposed):

(4) Cutter Suction Dredge - employs a mechanical cutter to break up material which is then excavated hydraulically and transported to the placement site through a pipeline.

Minimum Requirement: 14 inch discharge pipe diameter or larger

(5) Mechanical Dredge - uses of some form of bucket to excavate and raise submerged material.

Minimum Requirement: 5 cubic yard bucket or larger

(6) Hopper Dredge - seagoing vessel which excavates material hydraulically and transports it to a placement site in a hopper built into the hull of the vessel.

Minimum Requirement: must be self-propelled.

Note: Offeror can submit more than one dredge(s) that meets the minimum requirements above in responding to this evaluation factor. Dredges that are still under construction or are in the process of undergoing a major reconstruction will not be considered.

Dredge documentation must identify the dredge by name, serial number or some other way that leaves no doubt which particular dredge is being discussed. The dredge documentation must certify (i.e. Coast Guard Certificate, Affidavit, Insurance on the Dredge, or Bill of Sale. etc.), the following:

(4) dredge type;

(5) dredge meets minimum requirements stated above;

(6) proof offeror owns the dredge.

EVALUATION METHOD:

The Government will evaluate all identified dredges based on the minimum requirements listed above.

The Government will ensure the offeror provided dredge documentation by name, serial number or some other way that leaves no doubt with the evaluators which particular dredge the offeror is proposing.

W912EP18R0029 00100A-9 Amendment 0003

Rating for Factor 1 – Technical Merit – Dredge(s):

Table 1 - Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method for Technical Merit

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the

2. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Using the Form at Attachment 2- Example of Project Performed, provide three (3) past performance examples of recent and relevant maintenance dredging and/or shore protection projects for the type of dredge submitted under Factor 1 – Technical Merit – Dredges. The past performance examples must be within the last six (6) years and must involve maintenance dredging or shore protection projects. The past performance must demonstrate the offerors’ and its team members' (i.e. key personnel and/or major subcontractors) experience in performance of work similar to that described in the solicitation. For each project submitted for Attachment 2- Example of Project Performed, offeror shall submit a NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 4), completed and signed by an Owner of the Project (Client) point of contact or “POC”.

All pages of each PPQ must be initialed and dated on the bottom right-hand corner by the POC. 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.

The Owner of the Project (Client) or “POC” (Point of Contact) is defined as the entity that took ownership of the project after construction was complete. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from the Owner of the Project (Client), before the proposal receipt date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the Past Performance Questionnaire – Attachment 3 (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.

EVALUATION METHOD

The Government will evaluate the offerors’ record of past performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts for the dredging and shore protection projects to be procured under the MATOCs. 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 six (6) years for the period beginning six years prior to the solicitation release date. Based on this criteria, an offerors’ past performance will be determined either “recent” or “not recent.”

W912EP18R0029 00100A-10 Amendment 0003

Once a project is determined to be recent, the second aspect of the past performance evaluation is the relevance of the offerors’ present/past performance information. For this acquisition, relevant past performance is defined as performance on maintenance dredging and/or shore protection projects that are similar in size, project scope, cost magnitude, and complexity of work performed utilizing the dredge submitted in Factor 1. Regarding cost magnitude, only projects that fall within a range in value from $1,000,000 to $25,000,000 will be considered. Past Performance includes current/on-going (present) dredging performance complete to 70% percent or greater.

After a project is considered recent and relevant, the quality of the past performance evaluation will be rated either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. When determining the rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for past performance, the components of the offerors Quality, Schedule, Management, Regulatory Compliance, and Safety/Security will be reviewed within the PPQ and/or in CPARS evaluations. In order to receive an “Acceptable” rating, the past performance components (Quality, Schedule, Management, Regulatory Compliance and Safety/Security) must have received a rating of no less than “Satisfactory” in those areas within the PPQ or CPARS assessment that was deemed relevant and recent. In addition to the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ or CPARS the Government may use recent 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”.

Table 2 – Overall Rating for Factor 2 – Past Performance is defined below:

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

F. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in hard copy. The solicitation will provide the Government address and receipt date for submitting proposals.

Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

W912EP18R0029 00100A-11 Amendment 0003

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

All proposals shall contain the evaluation requirements stated herein and every binder shall also contain:

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

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 two separate volumes. Volume I shall be comprised of Tabs A through E only. Volume II and III shall be comprised of Tabs F through G.

Tabs. Proposals shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I – GROUP 1 UNRESTRICTED and GROUP 2 – SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE

(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 Attachment 8 Task Order Procedures. 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 4). 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.

W912EP18R0029 00100A-12 Amendment 0003

TAB D – If applicable: Joint Venture Agreement (see paragraph 1.3 in Attachment 8). 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 Large Businesses in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Alternate II, in Section 00700 of this solicitation. Each Large 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 a Small Business concern. 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 $450,000,000.00 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 – GROUP 1 UNRESTRICTED ONLY

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

TAB F – DREDGE(S) (see Technical Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Merit)

TAB G – Past Performance Information (see Evaluation Factor 2)

TAB H - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION (see Evaluation Factor 3)

W912EP18R0029 00100A-13 Amendment 0003

VOLUME III - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – GROUP 2 SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE ONLY

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

TAB F – DREDGE(S) (see Technical Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Merit)

TAB G – Past Performance Information (see Evaluation Factor 2)

OTHER RELATED INFORMATION

The offeror shall submit the following other related information:

Proposal CoverSheet (Attachment 5) with Volume I – Group 1 and Group 2.

Proposal CoverSheet (Attachment 6) with Volume II – Group 1 – Unrestricted Only.

Proposal CoverSheet (Attachment 7) with Volume III – Group 2 – Small Business Set-Aside Only

Coast Guard Certification

Offerors are advised that Coast Guard Certification will be required for some of the projects procured under subsequent task orders. The following is acceptable evidence of Coast Guard Certification: Current Certification of Inspection and/or Current and Valid Load-Line Certification.

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.

W912EP18R0029 00100A-14 Amendment 0003

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1- PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Attachment 2 - EXAMPLE OF PROJECT PERFORMED

Attachment 3 -NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Attachment 4 - DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY FORM

Attachment 5 - PROPOSAL COVER SHEET – VOLUME I – GROUP 1 AND GROUP 2

Attachment 6 - PROPOSAL COVER SHEET – VOLUME II – GROUP 1 UNRESTRICTED ONLY

Attachment 7 - PROPOSAL COVER SHEET – VOLUME II – GROUP 2 SMALL BUSINESS SET-

ASIDE ONLY

Attachment 8 - TASK ORDER PROCEDURES

Attachment 9 - PROPOSED SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

W912EP18R0029 00100A-15 Amendment 0003

ATTACHMENT 1

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Indicate on the line below with an (X) either GROUP I – UNRESTRICTED or GROUP II – SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE as a part of proposal submission.

GROUP 1 – UNRESTRICTED

GROUP 2 – SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE

In order to be receive an award in the GROUP 2 – SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE, the offeror must be certified as a Small Business in SAM.

W912EP18R0029 00100A-16 Amendment 0003

ATTACHMENT 2

EXAM PLE OF PROJECT

PERFORMED

Solicitation No. W912EP18R0029

Provide the following information to show examples of projects where your company used the specified dredge identified in Factor 1 within the last six (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 Regional Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Multiple Award Task Order Contracts In Support of Dredging and Shore Protection Projects Within the Boundaries of the South Atlantic Division. Use additional pages as necessary to provide this information.

W912EP18R0029 00100A-17 Amendment 0003

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

9. Construction Cost

10. Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out

11. Dates Construction began and if completed, completion date

12. Your Performance Evaluation by Owner. Provide corresponding completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) at Attachment 3, 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

W912EP18R0029 00100A-18 Amendment 0003

ATTACHMENT 3

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT – Solicitation W912EP18R0029

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

CONTRACT INFORMATION

1. Contractor Information:

Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email

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

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

3. Contract Information ContractNumber:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

ContractType: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify): ContractTitle:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

4. Project Description:

ComplexityofWork High Med Routine

How is thisproject relevant toprojectof submission?(Please providedetailssuch as similar equipment, requirements, conditions,etc.)

W912EP18R0029 00100A-19 Amendment 0003

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:

W912EP18R0029 00100A-20 Amendment 0003

PLEASEPROVIDE THE ADJECTIVERATINGWHICHBEST REFLECTS YOUREVALUATIONOF THE

CONTRACTOR’SPERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Qualityof technical data/reportpreparationefforts E VG S M U N

b) Abilityto meet quality standards specifiedfor technical E VG S M U N performance

c) Timeliness/effectivenessof contract problem resolution E VG S M U N withoutextensivecustomerguidance

d) Adequacy/effectivenessof qualitycontrol programand E VG S M U N adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

2.SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contractdelivery/completionschedules includinganysignificant intermediatemilestones.(Ifliquidated damages were assessedor the schedule was not met, please

E VG S M U N

address below)

b) Ratethe contractor’suse of availableresourcesto accomplish E VG S M U N tasks identifiedin the contract

3. CUSTOMERSATISFACTION:

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 E VG S M U N with your staff (including the abilityto successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

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

E VG S M U N

d) Overallcustomersatisfaction 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 retaina qualifiedworkforce to thiseffort E VG S M U N c)Government Property Control E VG S M U N d )Knowledge/expertisedemonstrated by contractor personnel VG U N

W912EP18R0029 00100A-21 Amendment 0003

e) Utilization of SmallBusiness concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneouslymanagemultiple projectswithmultiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate andincorporatechangesin requirementsand/or priority, including planning, E VG S M U N

h) Effectivenessof overallmanagement (including ability to effectively lead, manage and controlthe program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Abilityto meet the terms and conditions withinthe contractuallyagreedprice(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposedinnovative alternative methods/processesthat reduced cost,improved

E VG S M U N

c) Ifthis is/was a Government cost typecontract, please rate the Contractor’stimelinessandaccuracyin submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-updocumentation,monthlystatus reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances(under runs or overruns)

E VG

Yes

S M U

No

N

d) Is the Contractor’s accountingsystem adequatefor management and trackingof costs? If no, pleaseexplain in Remarks section.

e) Ifthis is/was a Governmentcontract, has/wasthis contract been partiallyor completely terminated for default or convenience or are there anypendingterminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices wereissued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No f)Havetherebeenanyindicationsthat thecontractorhashad anyfinancial problems? Ifyes,pleaseexplainbelow.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

E E

VG

VG

S S

M M

U U

N N

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

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

7. GENERAL

W912EP18R0029 00100A-22 Amendment 0003

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).

E VG S 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.

E VG S M U N

END OF QUESTIONNAIRE

W912EP18R0029 00100A-23 Amendment 0003

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional

(VG) Very Good

Performancemeets contractual requirements andexceeds manyto the Government/Owner’sbenefit. The contractual performanceof the element or sub-element beingassessed was accomplishedwith few minor problems for whichcorrectiveactions taken by the contractorwas highlyeffective.

Performancemeets contractual requirementsand exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’sbenefit. The contractual performanceof the element or sub-element beingassessed was accomplished with some minor problems for whichcorrective actions taken by the contractorwere effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate whenthe Contractor successfully performed multiple significant eventsthat wereof benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitudethat it alone constitutes an Exceptionalrating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknessesidentified.