B.07 Pre-Proposal Conference Slides_CNT 11A.pdf

BUILDING STRONG®

CENTRAL EVERGLADES PLANNING PROJECT

(CEPP) CONTRACT 11A, EVERGLADES

AGRICULTURAL AREA (EAA) A-2 RESERVOIR

FOUNDATION & CUTOFF WALL PROJECT,

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

US Army Corps of Engineers

BUILDING STRONG®

Pre-Proposal Conference 22 June 2022

Martha Sequeira, Contract Specialist James Tracy, Contracting Officer

Agenda Welcome and Introduction Ground Rules Project Overview Business/Contracting Processes

• Source Selection

• Factors to be Evaluated

Submitting the Proposal Technical Inquiries Site Visit Contact Information

Rules for the Pre-Proposal Conference

Unofficial and non-binding.

If there is any conflict between the information discussed during this conference and the solicitation, the terms and conditions of the solicitation will govern.

Phones muted, unless speaking.

Project Overview

This project is for clearing, grubbing, de-mucking, blasting, foundation preparation, installation of a seepage cutoff wall, canal backfilling, and all incidental related work to prepare approximately 15.3 miles of foundation for a 17.3 miles-long embankment dam, to be constructed under separate contract within the EAA.

The approximate toe-to-toe width of the foundation is 260 feet in the north, east, and west; and 235 feet in the south.

Dewatering will be required to control the groundwater and conduct work in the dry in accordance with contract specifications.

All lands for this project are owned by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and will be provided to the USACE for construction of these project features.

Offerors are notified that real state is not currently cleared for construction but will be by issuance of the full notice to proceed.

Project Overview

Source Selection EVALUATION APPROACH: The acquisition will utilize the

Tradeoff Process (FAR 15.101-1).

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 Source Selection Authority (SSA) will use a trade-off process to determine which offer represents the best value to the Government. This process allows the SSA 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 the Small Business Participation Factor, and a rating of no less than “Neutral Confidence” must be achieved for the Past Performance Factor. A rating of “Unacceptable” for the Technical Merit Factor or Small Business Participation Factor will result in an unawardable proposal. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror or the highest technically rated offeror.

Source Selection EVALUATION APPROACH: The acquisition will utilize the

Tradeoff Process (FAR 15.101-1). Continue…

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence.”

The importance of non-priced factors are listed in descending order of importance.

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

Source Selection

BASIS FOR AWARD: Best Value Trade-Off

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described in the solicitation.

Source Selection The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

Proposals from joint ventures must include a copy of the joint venture agreement, signed by authorized representatives of both parties with the initial proposal.

If the joint venture involves an 8(a) small business, prior approval by the Small Business Administration is required and must be submitted with the 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.

The joint venture must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) as a joint venture in order for an award to be made.

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.

Factors to be Evaluated Factor 1 – Technical Merit

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Small Business Participation

Factor 4 – Price

Factor 1- Technical Merit Technical Merit includes the following:

Construction Sequence and Turnover Plan Construction Schedule

Construction Sequence and Turnover Plan: In a narrative format, the offeror must describe in detail the proposed Construction Sequence and Turnover Plan regarding how the offeror intends to approach, sequence, and execute the work from start to completion.

Construction Schedule: Provide a schedule of construction within the period of performance provided in Section 00700, FAR 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 contained within the proposed Construction Sequence and Turnover Plan.

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 - An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during 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.

Technical Merit Ratings Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating

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 ofunsuccessful 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 Using the Company Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 1), offerors are required to provide a minimum of three, not to exceed five examples of completed projects.

Do not submit more than five projects in response to this factor. If any offeror provides more than five projects, only the first five projects submitted in order of submission will be evaluated. No additional consideration or evaluation will be given for the remaining submissions.

Projects submitted must be completed within the last 10 years or 50% physically completed within the last three 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 the offeror proposes to use the experience of a subcontractor, the proposal must clearly demonstrate that the subcontractor will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

Offerors submitting an offer as a joint venture must provide a signed copy of the joint venture agreement with the initial proposal. All joint ventures must be registered in SAM.gov as a joint venture at time of proposal submission.

Past Performance Ratings 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.

Past Performance Ratings Past Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

Neutral Confidence 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

Factor 3 - Small Business Participation This Factor consists of:

Proposed Small Business Participation Plan Past Utilization of Small Business Concerns

Proposed Small Business Participation Plan:

All offerors, both other than small business and small business shall complete a Proposed Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) using the template found at Attachment 4.

Offerors shall identify the extent to which Small Businesses (SBs) will be utilized in the performance of this contract.

Small Business Participation Goals are listed in the Solicitation.

Factor 3 - Small Business Participation Past Utilization of Small Business Concerns:

Offerors are to show the extent to which they have utilized small businesses in past contracts.

Offerors shall submit a record of the past three consecutive years that demonstrates the utilization of small businesses in the performance of its contracts to include percentage of utilization.

A well underway project is defined as at least 80% construction progress completed.

If the Joint Venture has no subcontracting past performance, then each member of the Joint Venture must provide the most recent subcontracting past performance.

Past information is limited to the three years preceding the solicitation issue date.

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions

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 The Price Factor is not rated. It is evaluated for reasonableness.

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.

In accordance with FAR 19.1307, if applicable, the price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns will be used for this acquisition.

Submitting the Proposal The only authorized transmission method for a proposal in response to this solicitation is electronically via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module. 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 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.

Offerors shall submit their proposal via the PIEE website’s Solicitation Module using the following link: https://piee.eb.mil/

Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized. Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language.

Submitting the Proposal

Include a “File Description” for each file(s) uploaded. Do not enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

To ensure the 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 the name of the offeror, and finally a brief file description.

EXAMPLES:

(1) “W912EP22R0005 RESPONSE Offeror’s Name Volume I.pdf”

(2) “W912EP22R0005 RESPONSE Offeror’s Name Volume II.pdf”

Instructions to follow on the PIEE Website are listed in the Solicitation.

Submitting the Proposal Offerors are responsible for submitting a clear, well-organized proposal.

Proposal to be submitted in separate volumes: Volume I (Factor 1) Technical Merit, Volume II (Factor 2) Past Performance, Volume III (Factor 3) Small Business Participation, Volume IV (Factor 4) Price.

Each volume shall contain the offeror’s Name/Address/Telephone/POC Name/ POC Telephone/ E-mail address, and 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.

The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals.

Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

Instructions for Technical Inquiries and Questions

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org no later than June 30, 2022, 5:00 PM Local Time.

All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through ProjNet.

The Solicitation Number is: W912EP22R0005

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: DP9TJP-SGQGF7

Instructions for Technical Inquiries and Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instructions for Technical Inquiries and Questions

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

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password.

You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

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

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

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

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

Secret Question.

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

Site Visit An organized site visit has been scheduled for Thursday June 23, 2022.

Starting at 0900 AM EDT.

POC is Mr. Jose Rosa, Project Engineer for EAA Area Office.

Please note that NO questions will be answered during the site visit.

All Technical inquiries and questions relating to the solicitation are to be submitted via ProjNet.

Contact Information Martha Sequeira, Contract Specialist Martha.G.Sequeira@usace.army.mil

James Tracy, Contracting Officer James.T.Tracy@usace.army.mil

Kimberly S. Daniel-Ray , Deputy Small Business Programs Kimberly.S.Danielray@usace.army.mil

Nicole Batista-Cruz, Small Business Specialist Nicole.M.Batista-Cruz@usace.army.mil