B.07.01 W912EP22R0003 RPN CNT 2 Pre-Proposal Conference Memo and Roster.pdf

CESAJ-CT-C 22 September 2023

MEMORANDUM FOR CESAJ-TFC-T

SUBJECT: Pre-Proposal Conference, Solicitation W912EP23R0003, Rio Puerto Nuevo Supplemental Contract 2 Roosevelt Avenue Bridge Replacement and Channel Improvements STA. 118+50 to 123+50, San Juan, PR

1. A hybrid (virtual and in-person) pre-proposal conference for the subject project was conducted on September 19, 2023, at 1300 hours. The conference presentation and attendance rosters are attached.

2. After introductions, the meeting proceeded with the briefing of general project details, evaluation criteria, submission requirements, and other administrative items.

3. The participants were given the opportunity to ask questions. No questions were asked;

however, the vendors were reminded to submit all their questions through ProjNet for an official answer.

5. The meeting was adjourned at 1330 hours.

Anelis I. Nazario Castillo Lead Contract Specialist

Enclosures:

Pre-Proposal Conference Presentation Pre-Proposal Conference Roster

Working Today to Build a Better Tomorrow

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

SOLICITATION NO. W912EP23R0003

Rio Puerto Nuevo Flood Control Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Supplemental Contract 2:

Roosevelt Avenue Bridge Replacement

Thank you for joining, we will begin shortly.

Please mute your microphone.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: AGENDA

• INTRODUCTION

• PROJECT INFORMATION

• EVALUATION CRITERIA

• SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

• OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

• Q&A SESSION

• CLOSING REMARKS

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: PROJECT INFORMATION

SOLICITATION NUMBER: W912EP23R0003

PROJECT TITTLE: Rio Puerto Nuevo Flood Control Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Supplemental Contract 2: Roosevelt Avenue Bridge Replacement

DESCRIPTION OF WORK: The Jacksonville District has a requirement from the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) for the replacement of the existing Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) Bridge structures with a single structure, and the widening and deepening of the existing channel via two drilled shaft walls in the vicinity of the bridge for incorporation into a larger flood control project. The bridge replacement will include the construction of a temporary bridge structure and all necessary maintenance of traffic operations. Each wall is approximately 500 feet long with exposed heights ranging from 24 feet to 31 feet and will be tied together with a cap beam. Construction of the walls will require temporary sheet piling to maintain a minimum flow area for bypass flows. Other work shall include water, telecommunications, electrical utility relocations, demolition of existing structures, riprap scour protections, and implementation of new stormwater inlets for drainage across the wall into the channel.

MAGNITUDE OF CONSTRUCTION: $25,000,000.00 - $100,000,000.00

TYPE OF SOLICITATION & NAICS CODE: Unrestricted. The NAICS Code for this Project is 237990, Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. The Small Business Size Standard is $45 Million

PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located Approximately 2740 feet south of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Bridge in San Juan, Puerto Rico

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LOCATION

Feature QTY Unit Remarks 5 ft Drilled Shafts 8,160 Vertical Linear Foot Approximately 90 feet deep 6 ft Drilled Shafts 9,835 Vertical Linear Foot Approximately 90 feet deep Jet Grout Seals 2,698 Vertical Linear Foot 100 psi at 28 days Excavation Channel 39,064 Cubic Yards Excavation Embankment 21,789 Cubic Yards Riprap (III - 5,990 tons, VIII - 2,237 tons) 8,227 Tons Class III (<24") & VIII (<60") Gabion Baskets 2,858 Each 6' (L) x 3' (W) x 1' (H) Detour Bridge 1 Job Pre-engineered Roosevelt Avenue Bridge Replacement 1 Various CLINS 36" Florida I Beams (30)

Main Contract Features

• Roosevelt Avenue Bridge with a temporary detour bridge construction

• Six-lane, pre-cast pre-stressed concrete beam bridge

• Magnitude of Construction: $25M to $100M

• Period of Performance: 4.5 years

F lo w

Channel Improvement

• 110 Ea. six-foot diameter concrete-drilled shaft piles

(~90 feet deep)

• 90 Ea. five-foot diameter concrete-drilled shaft piles

(~90 feet deep)

• 19,000 cy of concrete

• 7,000 tons of reinforcing steel

• 119,000 cy of excavated material for disposal

Drilled Shaft

52.211-10 COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION, AND COMPLETION OF WORK (APR 1984):

• The Contractor shall be required to (a) commence work under this contract within 60 calendar days after the date the Contractor receives the notice to proceed, (b) prosecute the work diligently, and (c) complete the entire work ready for use not later than 1,661 calendar days after the Contractor receives the notice to proceed. The time stated for completion shall include final cleanup of the premises.

52.211-12 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--CONSTRUCTION (SEP 2000):

• If the Contractor fails to complete the work within the time specified in the contract, the Contractor shall pay liquidated damages to the Government in the amount of $5,380 for each calendar day of delay until the work is completed or accepted.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: EVALUATION CRITERIA

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 to the four evaluation factors:

FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

FACTOR 3 – Small business Participation

FACTOR 4- Price

The Technical, Past Performance and the Small Business Participation Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The first three factors are listed in order of importance.

Please refer to Section 00100A for complete instructions and details

FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

Technical Merit includes the following: Technical Approach Plan, and Construction Schedule

Technical Approach Plan

In a narrative format, the offeror must describe the proposed Technical Approach Plan regarding how the offeror intends to execute the work from start to completion. The plan must 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.

Refer to the Technical Approach Plan sections for a complete list of what is required under this factor.

CONT. FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

Construction Schedule

Provide a schedule of construction within the period of performance provided in Section 00700, FAR Clause 52.211-10, in the form 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 the Technical Approach Plan section in addition to items a through item t below. This schedule may be incorporated into the contract and will only be changed as approved by the Contracting Officer.

• Failure to submit any of the minimum requirements for the Construction Schedule will be noted as a deficiency.

• Failure to provide clear and comprehensive detail to any of the minimum requirements for the Construction

Schedule may be noted as a significant weakness or weakness.

Refer to the Construction Schedule sections for a complete list of what is required under this factor.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color 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

Submission Requirements

• Offerors shall submit one NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), (see Attachment 3), completed and signed by an Owner of the Project (Client) point of contact or “POC” for each of the projects submitted under Factor 2.

• If a project 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

• 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 in response to the Factor 2 – Past Performance, 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.

Cont. FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

Evaluation Method

• The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate whether the offeror’s submitted past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired.

a. Using the Company Experience Form (Attachment 1), the technical evaluation team will review the projects submitted in response to Factor 2 for recency and relevancy.

b. This assessment considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent (completed or 80% physically completed within the last ten (10) years) and relevant past performance information in supplying products/services that meet the solicitation requirements.

CONT. FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

Note: 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”.

Table 2 - 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.

CONT. FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

• The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed the experience submitted.

a. This will be determined by utilizing the completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaires, CPARS record or official performance evaluation from a non-Federal entity.

b. If the POC cannot be contacted, the past performance rating will be noted as “Unknown”.

c. 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.

CONT. FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “Neutral Confidence”) past performance, having no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: EVALUATION CRITERIA

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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 facto 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 3-Small Business Participation

Small Business Participation includes the following: Proposed Small Business Participation Plan and Past Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

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

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

Small Business Participation Goals:

• Offerors must propose goals for Small Business Participation. Small business participation goals are to be an estimated percentage of total contract dollars (total proposed amount).

• Offerors must provide an overall goal to be accomplished through collective small business participation from any type of small business, to include all small business programs, and propose individual goals for each small business program.

Note: Any socio-economic group with a goal of zero and no detailed explanation shall receive an overall rating of “Unacceptable” for Factor 3 – Small business participation.

Cont. FACTOR 3-Small Business Participation

Past utilization of Small Business Concerns applies to offerors that are small business concerns (including all categories) and to offerors that are other than small business concerns.

• Offerors are to show the extent to which they have utilized SBs in past contracts.

• Offerors must submit three (3) recent and relevant records, as defined in Factor 2 – Past Performance, that demonstrates the utilization of SB in the performance of its contracts, to include percentage of utilization.

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 for a combined total of three (3) past performance records.

Cont. FACTOR 3-Small Business Participation

PROPOSED SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

• Small Business Participation Plans, from other than small and small businesses, will be evaluated on the basis of on the extent to which the Offeror identifies and commits to SB participation in the performance of this solicitation.

PAST UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

• 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.

Cont. FACTOR 3-Small Business Participation

Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the Source Selection Team (SST) will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to the Small Business Participation Factor to reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's commitment to small businesses performance of the resulting contract, as demonstrated in its proposal.

TABLE 4 – Small Business Ratings

Color Rating 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 the 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 PRICE RELATED INFORMATION

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

• A 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.

• A price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns will be used for this acquisition (FAR 19.1307)

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

Important Reminders:

Read the solicitation in its entirety

Joint Ventures: Proposals from JVs must include a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement, signed by authorized representative of both parties. Offerors are reminded, it shall comply with 13 CFR part 124 and 13 CFR part 126, respectively.

Commitment Letters: Letter of commitment is defined as a letter from the major subcontractor and/or key personnel 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. Failure to provide will be noted as a deficiency.

Subcontracting Plans: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be thorough and complete. Failure to submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan shall make the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract. It will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the RFP. It must address all requirements outlined in FAR 19.704 and DFARS 219.704.

SAM Registration: Failure to have an active and completed registration in SAM will determine an Offeror ineligible for ward and removed from competition.

Bid Guarantee: An electronic copy of the bid guarantee shall be submitted with the offer. It 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 determines that discussions are necessary and offeror’s proposal should be included in the competitive range.

25PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS

TRANSMISSION METHOD:

• The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the Government no later than the date/time specified in the solicitation and cited above. Offerors shall submit their proposal using the following link:

https://piee.eb.mil/

SUBMISSION TIME & DATE: Offers are due on November 29, 2023 at 2:00pm EST.

SITE VISIT: Held on September 19, 2023 at 10:00 am

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TECHNICAL INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS:

• ProjNet closes on October 30, 2023 at 5:00 pm, EST.

(This information will be included in the solicitation in a forthcoming amendment.)

• Inquiries must be entered into ProjNet for an official answer.

PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BONDS: must be furnished within 10 calendar days after award.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE

ITEMS

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: Q&A

WEBEX SESSION DETAIL

Project:

Pre-Proposal Conference, Solicitation W912EP23R0003, Rio Puerto Nuevo Supplemental Contract 2 Roosevelt Avenue Bridge Replacement and Channel Improvements STA. 118+50 to 123+50, San Juan, PR

Date and Time: 9/19/2023 at 1300 hrs.

Participant Name Email 1 Pedro Casasnovas pedrotomas.casasnovas.rodes@acciona.com 2 Rafael O. Pabón DVG rpabon@delvallegroup.net 3 Andres andres.buritica@nucorskyline.com 4 Angel Llorente anllorente@acciona.com 5 Tomas Cabrera tomas.cabrera@nucorskyline.com 6 Aina aina.murillo@acciona.com 7 Chema Maldonado jmaldona@acciona.es 8 Lisa Rugnetta Lrugnetta@curtinmaritime.com 9 Vincent Fafard SLSCO Ltd vfafard@slsco.com

10 Angel Marichal amarichal@slsco.com 11 Agustin Hospital agustin.hospital.garcia@acciona.com 12 Chad Ford - AB cford@americanbridge.net 13 Jonathan Yates jyates@americanbridge.net 14 Jelisas Ortiz jortiz@slsco.com 15 Brian Shadbolt bshadbolt@cmscorp.com 16 Ludgardo Gonzalez Vendrell lgonzalez@slsco.com