B.08.03 Amendment 2.pdf

W32CS500072839

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

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the proposal due date and revise the SF1442.

A. The proposal due date has been extended from 14 May 2020 to 28 May 2020 at 2:00PM, local time.

B. Section 00100A of the SF1442 has been deleted and replaced w ith the Section 00100A included in this amendment.

C. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 30

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 W912EP20R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Mar-2020

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 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

06-May-2020

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:

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors: Technical Merit, Past Performance, Small Business Participation and Price. The Contracting Officer will use a trade-off process to determine which offer represents the best value to the Government. This process allows the Contracting Officer to consider making award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical Merit Factor and Small Business Participation Factor. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror or the highest technically rated offeror.

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

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

Limitations on Substitutions for Certain Positions and/or Subcontractors

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

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

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

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

1. Factor 1 – Technical Merit

a. Sub-Factor 1 – Demonstrated Corporate Technical Experience

b. Sub-Factor 2 – Technical Approach Plan

c. Sub-Factor 3 – Construction Schedule

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance

3. Factor 3 – Small Business Participation

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

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

4. Factor 4 – Price and Related Information

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

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

a. Sub-Factor 1 – Demonstrated Corporate Technical Experience

b. Sub-Factor 2 – Technical Approach Plan

c. Sub-Factor 3 – Construction Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

C. FACTOR SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION METHODS

Evaluation Approach

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government evaluators. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the factors stated in the solicitation to select the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government. Offerors are required to submit proposals with the content specified herein. Proposals without the specified content may be determined Unacceptable and removed from the competition. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the offeror. All responsible offerors whose proposals are among the most highly rated may be included in the competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1) &(2). However, the Government reserves the right to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. By submitting an offer in response to this solicitation, offerors are agreeing to comply with all terms and conditions contained in the solicitation. Unless the solicitation specifically invites the offeror to submit exceptions, the Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer may reject any offer that contains exceptions and or qualifying language. In this solicitation, the words “offer” and “proposal” are used interchangeably. (See definition of “offer” at FAR 2.101.) Except for any portions of the offeror’s proposal incorporated into the resulting contract by specific reference, the terms and conditions included in the conditions included in the solicitation, including any amendments, shall take precedence over the offeror’s proposal.

Proposal Evaluation

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Further, if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary and if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Source Selection Decision

The Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will make the source selection decision based on the proposal that represents the best value to the Government. The Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer will not receive a recommendation from any individual or body as to which offeror should receive the award and will not receive a rank order or order of merit list pertaining to the offers being evaluated.

FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

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

In accordance with the non-substitution clause in Section 00800 Limitations on Substitutions for Certain Positions and/or Subcontractors, a letter of commitment must be provided for any proposed major subcontractor for the following positions or items of work: (1) armor stone source (2) armor stone transport, and (3) armor stone placement.

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

A letter of commitment is defined as a letter from the major subcontractor on official company letterhead (1) addressed to the offeror (prime contractor), (2) identifying the work they intend to perform, and (3) stating that they are willing to be bound to perform the identified work if the offeror is awarded a contract. A letter of commitment simply stating that a major subcontractor commits to submit pricing to the offeror does not satisfy this requirement. Submission requirement; Letter of Commitment for Key Subcontractor or Key Personnel (Attachment 2).

The Offeror shall submit a letter of commitment for each stone source the offeror intends to procure stone from. Each letter of commitment must be on the stone provider’s letterhead and include the following information:

1. The quantities and unit weight for each classification of stone that the stone source is providing to the offeror;

2. Affirmation that the stone being provided to the offeror meets the quality requirements for all classifications of stone, and;

3. Affirmation that the stone source has the required permits necessary to produce the intended stone.

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

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

Sub-Factor 1 – DEMONSTRATED CORPORATE TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE

Offerors shall complete a Company Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 1) for each demonstrated experience. Failure to utilize the Company Specialized Experience Form will be noted as deficiency. The offeror shall ensure that all information required by the Project Information Sheet is provided and all descriptions and explanations are in great detail to provide the technical evaluation team with a clear understanding of the work completed and how it is relevant to this project.

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

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

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

Projects submitted must be completed or 75% physically completed within the last 15 years from the date of this solicitation. A completed project is defined as work performed under a “project” that is physically complete and has been accepted by the customer. If a project is presented and has not been accepted by the client, the offeror shall explain which elements of the work are not completed and provide supporting documentation from the client to confirm physical completion of the project.

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

Submission Requirements

Using the Company Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 1), offerors are required to provide at least two (2) but not more than five

(5) examples of completed project, which demonstrate that they and/or their major subcontractors (if applicable) have experience accomplishing the following:

Successfully procured, transported and placed stone with a minimum weight of 3 tons, unit weight of 165 pcf, and shape approximately between that of a cube and a sphere, in a highly dynamic environment susceptible to open ocean swells and currents to the specified tolerances

*Revetment projects do not qualify as acceptable demonstrated experience

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

Evaluation Method

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

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

Sub-Factor 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH PLAN

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

At a minimum the Technical Approach Plan should:

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

2. Identify sources for stone production.

3. Describe how offeror will ensure stone is produced and available within a reasonable timeframe to complete the project.

4. Describe offerors plan to ensure quality control of produced stone at production site prior to transport.

5. Describe how offeror intends to transport the stone from production site to project site to ensure stone is not damaged and arrives on schedule.

6. Provide plan to ensure operations do not impact marine traffic in Federal navigation channel directly adjacent to project site.

7. Provide a detailed explanation of the offeror’s approach to stone placement in accordance with stone placement requirements including equipment for placing stone in a highly dynamic marine environment and safety considerations.

8. Provide corrective action plan for addressing stone that arrives at the project site that is damage or not compliant with stone specifications.

9. Provide corrective action plan for stone placed outside of required tolerances.

10. Provide basis for proposed timeframes proposed in Sub-Factor 3, Construction Schedule, including all assumed contingencies (i.e. adverse weather, mechanical shut-down, environmental issues, etc.).

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

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

Sub-Factor 3 – CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

Provide a schedule of construction within the period of performance provided in Section 00700, clause 52.211-10 in the formant of a Gantt, Pert, or similar graphical timeline, showing the start and completion dates, interdependence, and other relative scheduling factors for all the items of work listed in Sub-Factor 2 above. This schedule maybe incorporated into the contract and only be changed as approved by the Contracting Officer. At a minimum the schedule should show start and completion dates for:

1. Mobilization and Demobilization of all work items

2. Stone Production (including quality control at production site)

3. Stone Transport

4. Stone Placement

5. Submittals

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

7. Contingency time (e.g. float)

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

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

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

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

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

EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

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

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

TECHNICAL MERIT RATINGS

DEFINITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

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

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

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

Factor 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors shall submit one NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3), completed and signed by an Owner of the Project (Client) point of contact (POC) for each of the projects submitted under Sub-Factor 1 – Demonstrated Corporate Technical Experience. If a project submitted under Sub-Factor 1 was completed by the offeror’s major subcontractor, the offeror is responsible for coordinating with their major subcontractor and submitting a completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire on their major subcontractor’s behalf. Each NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire reference must include the POC contact information to be verified by the SSEB. Failure to provide a completed and signed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire for each project as described above may be noted as a deficiency. If a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record or official performance evaluation from a non-federal entity is available for any of the projects submitted under Sub-Factor 1- Demonstrated Corporate Technical Experience, the CPARS record or official performance evaluation from a non-Federal entity may be submitted in lieu of the completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire.

The Owner of the Project (Client) or “POC” is defined as the entity that took ownership of the project after construction was complete.

If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire from the Owner of the Project (Client), before the proposal due date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the questionnaire (Blocks 1 – 7) that contains contract and client information for the submitted project. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the client’s point of contact information is current and correct. The client point of contact reflected in Blocks 1 – 7 should also be familiar with the past performance they are being asked to verify and informed that they will be contacted by the Government to verify past performance.

The Government reserves the right to obtain copies of all CCASS/CPARS records contained in the US Army Corps of Engineers

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

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

The first aspect of the past performance evaluates how relevant the offeror’s past performance is to the effort to be acquired. The technical evaluation team will evaluate the demonstrated experiences provided by the offeror under Sub-Factor 1 above. Relevancy will be determined based on the timeframe for project completion given under Sub-Factor 1 and the level of similarity between the offeror provided demonstrated experiences and the solicitation requirements. For example, a demonstrated experience provided under Sub- Factor 1 that was completed within the last fifteen (15) years (measured from the date of the solicitation) that involves essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires will most likely be given a relevancy rating of Very Relevant (see Relevance Rating Definitions below).

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed a demonstrated experience submitted in Sub-Factor 1. This will be determined by utilizing the completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaires, CCASS/CPARS record or official performance evaluation from a non-Federal entity. The POC noted on each NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire will be contacted to verify the past performance ratings provided. If the POC cannot be contacted, the past performance rating will be noted as “Unknown”. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the POC’s contact information is current (i.e. names, addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses). The POC should be familiar with the performance they are to verify and be aware that they will be contacted by the Government.

Once the Relevancy Ratings are assigned, and Past Performance Ratings are verified, the Government will conclude with a performance confidence assessment based on the results. This performance confidence is the level of risk associated with the offeror as it relates to the probability that the offeror will successfully complete this project (see Performance Confidence Assessments Definitions below).

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

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

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

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

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Factor 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

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

Sub-Factor 1 - PROPOSED SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

All offerors (both other than small and small) shall complete a Proposed Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) using the template found at (Attachment 4). No minimum small business participation goal (SB) has been assigned to this project. Contractors shall propose their Best Effort for SB participation and provide documentation to demonstrate and support their proposed SB participation goals (Best Effort). A goal is defined as a number GREATER THAN ZERO that results from the offeror expending good faith effort to use small business subcontractors (as defined in FAR Part 19) to the maximum practicable extent.

Large business' 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.

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

Sub-Factor 2 - PAST UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

This sub-factor applies to offerors that are small business concerns (including all categories) and to offerors that are other than small business concerns. For each of the three most recently completed Federal contracts submit one of the following: (i) if the contract required a subcontracting plan submit the FINAL Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR). ISR reports for projects that are not marked FINAL but well underway will be accepted IF the offeror explains which elements of the work are not completed and provide the percentage of completion. A well underway project is defined as at least 75% construction progress completed (ii) if the contract did not require a subcontracting plan, complete and submit the Past Performance of Small Business Participation Plan Collection Sheet.

Offerors that are SB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone SB, or WOSB may count work performed with in-house resources toward compliance with FAR 52.219-8 in the category (or categories) to which they belong. (For example, a HUBZone could count work in 2 categories: SB and HUBZone) IF YOU HAVE NOT HAD A CONTRACT THAT INCLUDED THE CLAUSE FAR 52.219-8, YOU MUST INDICATE IN WRITING IN YOUR PROPOSAL. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL BE CONSIDERED A WEAKNESS AND/OR A DEFICIENCY FOR THIS SUB-FACTOR.

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

EVALUATION METHOD

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

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

Sub-Factor 1 – PROPOSED SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sub-Factor 2 – PAST UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

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

5) will be evaluated on the basis of:

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

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

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

Small Business Participation Adjectival Ratings

Color Rating Adjectival Description

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

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

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

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Factor 4 – PRICE AND RELATED INFORMATION

The Price Factor is not rated. It is evaluated for reasonableness. Additionally, a price realism evaluation may be performed. Offerors are advised that their business decision to submit a low- priced proposal can be considered in assessing their understanding or the risk associated with their proposal. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The offeror shall submit the following price and price related information:

a. Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 6)

b. Standard Form 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award) and Section 00010A (Line Items and Pricing Schedule)

Include the completed Standard Form 1442 for the Request for Proposal (RFP), along with the completed Pricing Schedule. The total cost for the construction will be considered for evaluation, including all options and alternates (if applicable).

c. Section 00101, Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors

d. In accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, an original bid guarantee shall be submitted with each offer

e. Responsibility Determination (Attachment 7)

f. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (For other than Small Offerors)

Each Large Business offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all the elements required by FAR 52.219-9, Alt II, in Section 00700. This plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation information required in factor 3.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather a requirement for award to a large business.

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.

The Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 6) is not considered for evaluation but is required as part of the Offeror’s proposal.

The Standard Form 1442 and completed Section 00010A will be checked for minor clerical errors and/or mistakes. After resolution of minor or clerical errors and/or mistakes, the Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal.

Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the Request for Proposal. Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and any other pricing tools necessary.

Section 00101 is not considered for evaluation, but is required as part of the offeror’s proposal. The information requested in this section shall be fully completed.

The Bid Guarantee will be reviewed for acceptability. Any offeror whose bid guarantee is unacceptable, will be eliminated without further consideration unless the Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer later determines that discussions are necessary and decides that the offeror’s proposal should be included in the competitive range.

The Determination of Responsibility Form (Attachment 7) is not considered for evaluation, but is required as part of the offeror’s proposal. In addition to other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use the information provided in the Determination of Responsibility Form in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

The proposal shall be divided into volumes as indicated below. Each volume shall be sealed separately and marked with the offeror’s name, the solicitation number, the volume number and stamped with “Original” or “Copy”. Each original or copy within each volume shall be placed in a separate 3-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 Appendixes, and Name/Address/Telephone Number/e-mail address of the offeror.

Proposal clarity and organization is very important to ensure that there are no hindrances for reviewers. No material (information not part of the proposal) shall be incorporated by reference. The offeror shall submit in the proposal the requested information specified herein.

VOLUME ONE: Factor 1 - Technical Merit Package (1 Original, 5 Copies)

DO NOT INCLUDE PRICING INFORMATION IN THE TECHNICAL MERIT PROPOSAL

VOLUME TWO: Factor 2 - Past Performance Package (1 Original, 1 Copy)

VOLUME THREE: Factor 3 – Small Business Participation (1 Original, 1 Copy)

VOLUME FOUR: Factor 4 - Price and Related Information (1 Original, 1 Copy)

Offeror’s are responsible for providing a clear, well organized Proposal Format (Attachment 8). In addition to the Proposal Format cover sheets provided in Attachment 8, every binder shall contain the offeror’s Name/Address/Telephone Number/E-mail address and the following (if applicable): Table of Contents, List of Tables, List of Figures and/or List of Appendixes. No information may be incorporated into the proposal by reference; however, one volume within the proposal may cross-reference another volume within the proposal.

This package will include Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 6) the Standard Form 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award), Section 00010A (Line Items and Pricing Schedule), Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors (Section 000101), Subcontracting Plan and Bid Bond Guarantee.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

NOTE: The only authorized transmission method for proposal in response to this solicitation is electronically via SAFE online submission.

NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHODS (EMAIL, FACSIMILE, REGULAR MAIL, HAND CARRIED, ETC.) WILL BE ACCEPTED.

The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the Government by the date/time specified in the solicitation. Offerors shall submit their proposal using the following link:

https://safe.apps.mil/

Please send proposal using the link above to Contract Specialist Joseph Sherwood at Joseph.D.Sherwood@usace.army.mil AND to Contracting Officer James Tracy at James.T.Tracy@usace.army.mil.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL:

In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically through the SAFE site. You are limited to five (5) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 2GB). If you have a large number of files, recommend that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading to the SAFE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE: Offerors must email Contract Specialist, Joseph Sherwood at Joseph.D.Sherwood@usace.army.mil and to Contracting Officer, James Tracy at James.T.Tracy@usace.army.mil no later than five (5) working days prior to the bid due date to receive a request code which will allow for file uploads via the SAFE site. Offerors that fail to email for request a code five

(5) working days before bid submission date may not be able to receive a request code in time to upload their submission.

FILE DESCRIPTION: To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties

CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention: Each filename shall begin with the solicitation number, followed by the word “RESPONSE”, followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description.

EXAMPLES:

(1) “W912HP20R0020 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I.pdf”

(2) “W912HP20R0020 RESPONSE Firmname Volume II .pdf”

File Organization, Formatting, and other instructions. Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized--larger page sizes (such as 11x17 foldouts, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the each section for each factor.

Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

Upload Completion & Deadline. Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date on this announcement page. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within Safe. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Submissions after the deadline may be emailed to Joseph Sherwood, Contract Specialist (Joseph.D.Sherwood@usace.army.mil), but be advised they will be considered late and as such will be processed in accordance with

FAR 15.208.

Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format.

INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW ON THE SAFE WEBSITE:

1. Once at the SAFE website, select the “Drop-off” icon. This allows users without a CAC or users whose computer is not configured to read a CAC the option to access the SAFE site as a guest.

2. After selecting the “Click Here” link you will be prompted to add your personal information, file information, recipient (Government representative) information and email settings.

3. When completing your file information for transmittal via the SAFE website, you will be required to enter the email address for all recipients for this solicitation, the recipients are the Contract Specialist and the Contracting Officer. The Contract Specialist for this solicitation is Joseph.D.Sherwood@usace.army.mil, and the Contracting Officer is James.T.Tracy@usace.amry.mil.

The E-Mail address of the Government Employee who initiated the request code will be automatically entered. The Bidder must enter the E-Mail address for both the Contracting Officer and Specialist. The Bidder can enter an additional E-Mail address if desired.

After entering the email address, click the ADD button to add the person(s) email to the “Recipients List” of your response. When your bid is submitted, a notification will be sent to the recipients you added.

NOTE: Do NOT send the SAFE site packages to group email accounts.

Even if you successfully upload your bid to the SAFE site, notification will not be sent to the government recipients until you verify your email address. Entering an incorrect email may result in the rejection of your submission for lateness. A Offeror can confirm proper submission by the ‘Drop-Off Completed” screen which generates based on proper file submission.

NOTE: It has been reported that documents may more quickly upload into the SAFE website when using the Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that Offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS:

For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. For proposals larger than the 2GB capacity of the SAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases.

The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other…