B.08 W912EP24R0013 NPS San Fernando Bastion Vol 1 Amendment 0002.pdf

W912EP24R0013

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

PROJECT TITLE: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, STABILIZE CLIFF AT SAN FERNANDO BASTION SAN JUAN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE SAN

JUAN, PUERTO RICO

A. SEE CONTINUATION SHEET FOR AMENDMENT DETAILS.

B. PROPOSAL DUE DATE HAS CHANGED FROM AUG 29, 2024 AT 2:00PM, EDT TO SEPT 05, 2024 AT 2:00PM, EDT.

B. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Aug-2024

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 W912EP24R0013

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Jul-2024

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

19-Aug-2024

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00010A - LINE ITEMS & PRICING SCHEDULE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD

The required response date/time has changed from 29-Aug-2024 02:00 PM to 05-Sep-2024 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00010A - LINE ITEMS & PRICING SCHEDULE

The following have been added by full text:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00010A - LINE ITEMS & PRICING SCHEDULE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been modified:

SF 30 CONTINUATION SHEET

SF 30 CONTINUATION SHEET

National Park Service, Stabilize Cliff At San Fernando Bastion San Juan National Historic Site San Juan, Puerto

Rico Amendment 0002

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Text changes have been updated with additions noted by green underlined text and deletions noted by red line/crossouts. The SF1442 changes does not follow the text changes.

1. CHANGES TO SPECIFICATIONS:

Volume 1 of 2 – Technical Specifications:

DELETE SF 1442, and REPLACE with the attached revised SF 1442.

DELETE SECTION 0010A, and REPLACE with the attached revised Section 0010A.

DELETE Section 00100A Solicitation Provisions and REPLACE with the attached Section 00100A Solictitation Provisions.

PROJECT TITLE: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, STABILIZE CLIFF AT SAN FERNANDO BASTION

SAN JUAN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

DESCRIPTION OF WORK: REFER TO SECTION 01 11 00 FOR COMPLETE PROJECT DESCRIPTION.

DRAWINGS: SEE DFARS CLAUSE 252.236-7001, SECTION 00700.

MAGNITUDE OF CONSTRUCTION IS BETWEEN $5,000,000 AND $10,000,000.00.

THIS PROCUREMENT IS A SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE.

THE NAICS CODE IS 237990 AND SMALL BUSINESS STANDARD SIZE IS $45,000,000.00.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH (IAW) FAR CLAUSE 52.236-27, AN ORGANIZED SITE VISIT HAS BEEN SCHEDULED. SEE FAR 52.236-27, ALT I IN

SECTION 00100 FOR DETAILS.

YOU MUST BE REGISTERED IN SAM IN ORDER TO RECEIVE AN AWARD FROM THIS SOLICITATION. THE SAM WEBSITE IS LOCATED AT WWW.SAM.GOV

***BLOCK 11 – SEE SECTION 00700, CLAUSE 52.211-10 FOR PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

***PROPOSAL MUST BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY.

RASHEEDAH S SNEEZE 904-232-1432

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

29-Jul-2024

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______60 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________550 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________05 Sep 2024 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time of fers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______60 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

701 SAN MARCO BLVD

JACKSONVILLE FL 32207-8175

W912EP

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W912EP24R0013 114

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

SECTION 00010A, Attachment A

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 (NLT) 13 August 2024 21 August 2024, 5:00 P.M.

Local Time. To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective vendor who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email, followed by an answer to the comment/question after it has been processed by our technical team.

The Solicitation Number is: W912EP24R0013

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 5RXBZV-Y4TGVM

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.

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.

Section 00100A - ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION/SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

SOLICITAION PROVISIONS

SECTION II

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

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

Any portion of the proposal that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated and dated. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its Title. Each paragraph should be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required.

Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode.

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 (SSA) may reject any offer that contains exceptions. Except for any portions of the offeror’s proposal incorporated into the resulting contract by specific reference, the terms and conditions included in the solicitation, including any amendments, shall take precedence over the offeror’s proposal. In this solicitation, the words “offer” and “proposal” are used interchangeably. (See definition of “offer” at FAR 2.101.)

Proposals from joint ventures must include a copy of the joint venture agreement, signed by authorized representatives of all participants. 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 the System for Award Management website (SAM.gov) as a joint venture in order for an award to be made.

In accordance with FAR 52.204-7, an offeror is required to be registered in System for Award Management website (SAM.gov) when submitting an offer or quotation and shall continue to be registered until time of award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract resulting from this solicitation.

2. 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.

PROPOSAL CONTENTS

Location Description Maximum Pages

Title Page

Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, Volume Title, and date of the submittal. Place a title page as the first page per each volume below.

Volume 1 Factor 1: Technical Merit 40

Letters of Commitment are excluded from the page count.

Volume 2 Factor 2: Past Performance No page limit

Volume 3 Factor 3: Price No page limit Volume 4 Administrative No page limit

NOTE: Pages after the maximum page limit, as indicated in the table above, will not be evaluated.

EXAMPLES:

(1) “W912EP24R0013 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 1].pdf”

(2) “W912EP24R0013 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 2].pdf”

(3) “W912EP24R0013 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 3].pdf”

(4) “W912EP24R0013 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 4].pdf”

3. PROPOSAL FILES

Format. Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. 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 section for each factor. Include a “File Description” for each file(s) uploaded.

Do not enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

Upload Completion and Deadline. Offerors shall submit proposals no later than the date/time specified in the solicitation. The time and date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion/delivery time and date recorded within the PIEE Solicitation Module. 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.

Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, taking into consideration both non-price factors and price. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will use a Tradeoff process to determine which proposal represents the best value to the Government. The Tradeoff process will consider two non-price factors: (1) Technical Merit; and (2) Past Performance. Non-priced factors (1) and (2), when combined, are significantly more important than price. Factor 1 Technical Merit and Factor 2 Past Performance are equally important compared against each other.

Factors 1 and 2 will receive an adjectival rating as discussed in Section D Evaluation Approach, below. In order to be eligible for award, a rating of no less than Acceptable is required on factor (1), and a rating of no less than Neutral Confidence is required on factor (2).

Limitations on Substitutions or Certain Items of Work, Positions and/or Subcontractors: The award decision for this contract will be based, in part, on an evaluation of the key positions and/or subcontractors the Contractor included in its proposal for the positions and/or items of subcontracted work identified at the end of this paragraph. The Contractor agrees these key positions and/or subcontractors will be employed as described in its proposal and no substitutes will be employed without prior written approval of the Contracting Officer or Administrative Contracting Officer. The Contractor further agrees that any proposed substitutes shall meet or exceed the qualifications of the original key positions and/or subcontractors. If the Contractor’s proposal did not name a subcontractor for an identified item of work, the Contractor will not be permitted to subcontract that item of work without prior approval of the Contracting Officer or Administrative Contracting Officer. The limitations described herein shall apply to the following positions and/or items of subcontracted work: slope stabilization, munitions of explosive concern construction support, special inspections, and key positions qualifications.

C. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH FACTOR

There are three factors the Government will consider in making award: (1) Technical Merit; (2) Past Performance; and (3) Price. The submission requirements for each factor as well as the evaluation criteria for each factor, are discussed below.

1. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL MERIT

Technical Merit is divided into the following elements: (1) Technical Approach Plan; and (2) Management Plan:

Element 1 - Technical Approach Plan: At a minimum, describe the proposed means and methods to complete sub-elements (a)-(c) below. Offerors shall address all sub-elements in order to receive an acceptable rating:

(a) Stabilize the Cliff: Describe the plan to stabilize the cliff. Discuss technical approach and challenges to stabilizing the cliff.

(b) Technique for Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) Support: Explain techniques, tools, challenges, and limitations to safely perform the requirements within Specification Section 01 35 30. Include language indicating and understanding of USACE EM 385-1-97 and DDESB TP-18 requirements.

(c) Special Inspections: Describe the technical approach to performing special inspections as required per Specification Section 01 45 35. Special Inspections are to be performed by an independent third party and are intended to ensure that the work of the Prime Contractor is in accordance with the Contract Documents and applicable building codes.

Note: The areas of work identified in the sub-elements in paragraph (1)(a)-(c) above represent areas of particular concern to the Government. Therefore, for each such area of work, the offeror must state whether it intends to self-perform the work or whether it intends to subcontract the work. If the offeror intends to subcontract the work, the offeror must identify the subcontractor proposed and submit a letter of commitment from that contractor using the template in Attachment 2. Such a subcontractor is considered a “major subcontractor” for this project. The letter of commitment must indicate that the subcontractor is willing to be bound to perform the identified work if the offeror is awarded a contract. Failure to provide a letter of commitment may be noted as a deficiency.

Element 2 - Management Plan: At a minimum, describe the Management Plan for this project, and address sub-elements (a)-(b) listed below. Offerors shall address all sub-elements in order to receive an acceptable rating:

(a) Organizational Approach: Each offeror shall provide a narrative to describe how their labor, resources, subcontractors, and suppliers will be managed, supervised, coordinated, and used to ensure successful completion of the project. In addition, describe the proposed management structure to include quality control and safety teams. Describe how the construction process will be managed to include but not limited to changes during construction, how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews and approvals, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-builts, completion documentation, and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team.

(b) Key Positions: Provide an organization chart of the key positions. The following positions shall be included in the organization chart: Project Manager, Quality Control Manager, Site Superintendent, Site Safety and Health Officer, Special Inspector of Record, Concrete Special Inspector, Geotechnical Special Inspector, and UXO Level I and III Technicians. Offeror shall provide qualifications the company proposes for each key position included. The qualifications shall provide at a minimum required education, specialized experience, and certifications. If the offeror proposes qualifications that exceed the specifications, the offeror shall detail the exceeded qualifications in its proposal. Offeror shall NOT submit employee resumes. Offeror shall describe the procedures to ensure an adequate and qualified labor force will be in place during the entire life of the contract (to include but not limited to existing available labor pools, key positions, etc.).

Note: If the offeror is awarded a contract under this solicitation, the offeror’s proposed qualifications for Key Positions will be incorporated into the contract.

2. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

There are two submission requirements for Factor 2: the Company Specialized Experience Form, and the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation. These requirements are discussed in detail below.

First, using the Company Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 1), offerors must provide a minimum of three and a maximum of eight examples of completed projects, which demonstrate that they and/or their major subcontractors (if applicable) have experience accomplishing the following:

1. Stabilizing slopes using rock anchors or soil nails with a shotcrete face: Provide at least three previous similar projects. Previous projects must be a minimum $2.5M in awarded construction cost.

2. Experience with MEC: Provide at least three previous projects on performing advanced geophysical classification surveys to identify metallic anomalies underground which may be unexploded ordnance. Projects must have been performed under Department of Defense (DOD) purview

In order to be RECENT, a project must have been completed, or substantially completed (80% or more), within the last ten years from the solicitation issue date.

In order to be RELEVANT, the offeror must provide experience in all of the above key scope characteristics at least once.

Note: If the project is less than 100% physically complete, the offeror must explain which elements of the work are completed and provide supporting documentation. Also note all experiences required for this factor may be submitted under one project or any combination of projects. All relevant scope requirements need not have been performed on the same project(s); however, the entire portfolio of projects must demonstrate that the offeror and/or their major subcontractors (if applicable) have experience accomplishing the minimum requirements of this factor.

If any offeror provides more than eight projects, only the first eight projects submitted in order of submission will be evaluated. No additional consideration or evaluation will be given for the remaining submissions.

If the offeror proposes to use the experience of a subcontractor, the proposal must clearly demonstrate that the offeror will utilize the same subcontractor in the performance of the contract. Similarly, if any offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit, or team member submitting the offer. If the offeror proposes to use the experience of an affiliate, the proposal must clearly demonstrate that the affiliate will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience of each joint venture partners can be submitted separately but may not exceed the maximum of eight examples of completed projects. The experience of each joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. These projects will be evaluated separately; however, the overall evaluation for the demonstrated experience will be combined to form one overall evaluation rating for the joint venture. The Government may give additional consideration to projects submitted where the proposed Joint Venture performed together as a team.

Second, the offeror must submit one NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3) for each project submitted.

Note: If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed NAVFAC/USACE PPQ from the point of contact 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. If a CPARS record or official performance evaluation form from a non-federal entity is available for any of the projects submitted, the CPARS record or official performance evaluation form from a non- Federal entity may be submitted in lieu of the completed NAVFAC/USACE PPQ.

The Government reserves the right to review all CPARS records contained in the CPARS database for the offeror or offeror’s major subcontractors and may use those records as well as the PPQ submitted in the evaluation and subsequent confidence ratings.

3. FACTOR 3: PRICE

Offeror shall submit a Pricing schedule in accordance with the Standard Form 1442, Section 00010A, Line Items and Pricing Schedule. The total price for the construction will be considered for evaluation.

4. ADMINISTRATIVE

The offeror shall submit the following as part of this volume:

1. Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 4).

2. Standard Form 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award) signed by an official authorized to bind the offeror, including acknowledgement all amendments within Block 19 of the Standard Form 1442.

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

4. In accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, an electronic copy of the bid guarantee shall be submitted with the offer. The electronic copy must be signed and legible.

5. Responsibility Determination (Attachment 5) along with a copy of your latest financial statements (Balance Sheet and Income Statement). Note for Joint Ventures (JV): Only one Attachment 5 form must be submitted by the JV. However, if the JV is a new partnership (about less than 3 years old), then each member must submit an Attachment 5 form to determine responsibility of the JV.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH FOR EACH FACTOR

1. 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 SSA later determines them to be necessary. If the SSA determines that discussions are necessary and if the SSA 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 SSA 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.

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

1. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

2. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL MERIT

The source selection team will evaluate the sub-element plans based on the descriptions below. Proposals that contradict the plans and/or specifications, are incomplete, are inconsistent, lack detail, or simply repeat the solicitation requirements provide a lower level of confidence and may be rated as a deficiency, significant weakness, or weakness.

Element 1 - Technical Approach Plan: The Government will evaluate how well a proposal demonstrates both a logical and a practical approach, sequence, execution plan, and means and methods to accomplish the required work. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s proposed ability to mitigate and manage risk. To be considered acceptable, the Technical Approach Plan must address the full spectrum of required activities and must include information necessary to give the Government confidence that the offeror understands the requirements and can execute the construction project as detailed in the plans and specifications.

(a) Cliff Stabilization - The Government will evaluate the offeror’s plan for cliff stabilization.

At a minimum, the plan shall include the means and methods to safely stabilize the cliff, and order of work. Identify techniques and approaches to installing the soil nail system as identified within the contract and identify tools and equipment that will be used in performing the work. Additional consideration may be given to demonstrated understanding of work based on consideration of the complexities of site conditions, geology, strategies to deal with extreme events such as severe weather.

(b) Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) Construction Support - The government will evaluate the offeror’s work plan to safely detect anomalies. At a minimum, include a description of equipment which is proposed to be used for identifying anomalies and how equipment will be used on the steep slopes, to include within the holes for soil nail drilling. Include discussion on coordination between surveying and construction, and steps to be taken if an anomaly is discovered.

(c) Special Inspections: The Government will evaluate the planned approach and demonstrated understanding of the requirements in Specification Section 01 45 35.

Note: Failure to discuss any of the minimum requirements for the Technical Approach Plan discussed above may be noted as a deficiency. Conversely, proposals that address additional aspects of the scope of work or which exceed the minimum requirements identified in the specifications may be assessed a strength if they provide a benefit to the Government.

Element 2 - Management Plan:

Organization Approach: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s organization approach based on the level of understanding of the work and the involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control and coordination of the work performed during the construction of the project. The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the proposed team structure as well as how well it demonstrates how the offeror plans to manage the project and mitigation of risks for critical tasks. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and thorough approach for successfully managing the project may be rated more favorably.

Key Positions: The Government will evaluate how well the proposal demonstrates key positions identified meet or exceed the qualifications required to perform the work under this solicitation. Additional consideration may be given to proposals that exceed the minimum qualifications for the key positions. Additional consideration may be given for management plans that effectively describe application of lessons learned related to change management and key positions replacement may be rated more favorably.

In accordance with the Limitations on Substitutions or Certain Items of Work, Positions and/or Subcontractors paragraph in the Basis for Award Section, if the offeror is awarded a contract, the offeror will not be permitted to make substitutions to subcontractors presented under Factor 1 Technical Merit without prior approval from the Contracting Officer. In addition, a contract that is awarded with proposed qualifications for key positions that exceed the minimum requirements will not be allowed to change. All changes in personnel must meet or exceed the new standards in the contract and must be approved by the Contracting Officer or the Administrative Contracting Officer.

A letter of commitment (Attachment 2) shall be provided for any proposed subcontractor for this solicitation as explained in Factor 1 and Factor 2 sections above. If any of that work is intended to be self-performed, it should be stated in the proposal.

A letter of commitment is defined as a letter from a subcontractor on official company letterhead addressed to the offeror as prime contractor, identifying the work the subcontractor intends to perform, and stating that the subcontractor is willing to be bound to perform the identified work if the offeror is awarded a contract. A letter of commitment simply stating that a subcontractor commits to submit pricing to the offeror does not satisfy this requirement.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to Factor 1 to reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the solicitation.

The adjectival rating shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

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 not awardable.

3. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s record of performance.

There are four steps to the past performance evaluation. First, the offeror’s past performance will be evaluated for Recency. Recency is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A project will be considered recent if it is at least 80% physically complete within the last 10 years from the date of this solicitation.

Second, the offeror’s past performance will be evaluated for Relevancy. This aspect of the evaluation determines how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (Table 2 below) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Third, after a relevancy rating is assigned, the quality of the past performance will be evaluated by verifying the quality ratings of Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory that are documented in the Past Performance Questionnaires. The Government may assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance by multiple methods, including validating the quality ratings on the past performance questionnaires, reviewing CPARs and other Government databases, and interviews with people familiar with the offeror's past performance. Quality assessments do not receive a separate rating apart from the Performance Confidence Rating.

And finally, at the fourth step, the Relevancy ratings combined with the quality ratings result in a Performance Confidence Assessment of either Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence. The definitions of these ratings are located in the Table 3 below.

The past performance submittal may receive additional consideration if:

1. The submission includes individual projects that satisfy both of the two specialized experience requirements. A project that meets both of the requirements and is highly similar in scope and complexity as the solicited requirement may be considered very relevant.

2. The project submitted was of a higher magnitude or complexity as the scope.

3. Prior project(s) includes the same team submitted under Factor 1.

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.

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.

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.

Limitations on Substitutions or Certain Items of Work, Positions and/or Subcontractors: In accordance with the Limitations on Substitutions or Certain Items of Work, Positions and/or Subcontractors paragraph in the Basis for Award Section, if the offeror is awarded a contract, the offeror will not be permitted to make substitutions to subcontractors presented under Factor 2 Past Performance without prior approval form contracting Officer or Administrative contracting officer.

4. FACTOR 3 – PRICE

Price is not rated. It is evaluated to ensure that the price is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404. The Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

1. Compliance: The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in solicitation.

2. Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

3. Errors: The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors in accordance with

FAR 15.

As discussed in the Basis for Award Section, non-price factors 1 and 2, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

5. ADMINISTRATIVE

The Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 4) is not considered for evaluation but is required as part of the offeror’s proposal.

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

DEFINITIONS

Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications are exchanges between the Government and offerors after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Competitive Range is all the most highly rated proposals (based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria), unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency.

Deficiency is 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.

Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after the establishment of the competitive range.

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO’s written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract

F. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 – Company Specialized Experience Form (The space provided may not be sufficient. If this is the case, offerors are encouraged to provide additional information on supplemental pages attached to the collection sheet.)

Attachment 2 – Letter of Commitment for Key Subcontractor Attachment 3 – NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment 4 – Proposal Data Sheet Attachment 5 – Determination of Responsibility Form Attachment 6 – Proposal Format

ATTACHMENT 1 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE FORM

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company or subcontractors constructed within the last ten 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 Contract Number

4. Location of Project and Conditions. Also, provide duration, any unusual…