B.07 Site Visit_Pre-Proposal Conference Slides and Rosters.FINAL.pdf

CESAJ-CT 3 June 2024

MEMORANDUM FOR CESAJ-TFC-T

SUBJECT: Pre-Proposal Conference, Solicitation W912EP24R0016, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Indian River Lagoon South, C-23/C-24 North Reservoir, S-426, Contract 4A Project, St. Lucie County, Florida.

1. A site visit and virtual pre-proposal conference for the subject project was conducted on May 28, 2024 at 10:00 AM, EDT and May 29, 2024 at 2:00 PM, EDT respectively.

The conference presentation and its attendance sheet as well as the site visit 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 2:30 PM, EDT.

Anelis I. Nazario Castillo Contracting Officer

Enclosures:

Pre-Proposal Conference Presentation Pre-Proposal Conference Roster Site Visit Roster

Working Today to Build a Better Tomorrow

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

SOLICITATION NO. W912EP24R0016

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Indian River Lagoon South, C-23/C-24 North Reservoir, S-426, Contract 4A Project, St.

Lucie County, Florida.

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: W912EP24R0016

PROJECT TITTLE: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Indian River Lagoon South, C- 23/C-24 North Reservoir, S-426, Contract 4A Project, St. Lucie County, Florida.

DESCRIPTION OF WORK: This requirement is for the procurement of a firm-fixed price (FFP), unrestricted, competitive, full and open, single-phase design-bid-build (DBB), Civil Works (CW), and discrete construction project for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Indian River Lagoon South, C-23/C-24 North Reservoir, S-426, Contract 4A Project, St. Lucie County, Florida.

SAJ is procuring construction services for IRL-S C-23/C-24 North Reservoir Contract 4A Project, St. Lucie County, FL. Work includes constructing a portion of the North Reservoir. Work includes constructing a 650-cfs pump station and adjacent site work including a blanket drain.

See Volume II, DESCRIPTION OF WORK: REFER TO SECTION 01 11 00 FOR COMPLETE PROJECT DESCRIPTION.

MAGNITUDE OF CONSTRUCTION: $100,000,000.00 - $250,000,000.00

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 at the C-23/C-24 North Reservoir, S-426, St. Lucie County, Florida 34987. Coordinates are provided in the solicitation.

C-23/C-24 NORTH RESERVOIR PROJECT OVERVIEW – PROJECT INFORMATION

6C-23/C-24 NORTH RES OVERVIEW – PROJECT INFORMATION

North Reservoir provides ~32,600 acre-feet of storage

Embankment includes exterior embankment and interior afterbay ► Exterior Embankment: Height: ~29.0-ft, Length: ~8.4 miles

► Interior Berm: Height: ~5.5-ft, Length: ~2,500 feet

Structures in this contract ► S-426: 650 cfs pump station

► Two 225 cfs diesel pumps

► Two 100 cfs electric pumps

Pump Station Ancillary ► ~250 feet intake channel

► Pump station structure

► Discharge pipe stubs

► Limited earthwork to access structure

► Exterior paving, fuel farms, and retention ponds

Access Road from SR70 ► ~10,000 feet limerock access road

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 1,275 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 $15,181 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 four evaluation factors:

FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

FACTOR 3 – Small business Participation

FACTOR 4 – Project Labor Agreement

FACTOR 5- Price

The Technical, Past Performance and the Small Business Participation Factors, when combined, are approximately equal 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

Submission Requirements

Technical Merit includes the following: Technical Approach Plan, and Management Plan

Technical Approach Plan - at a minimum, the Technical Approach Plan shall address items (a)-

(d) below. Offerors shall address all sub-elements in order to receive an acceptable rating:

a. Cofferdam construction including anchoring

b. Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete Structures

c. Pump Procurement and Installation

d. Access through site and Coordination with other Contractors on adjacent project contracts

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

CONT. FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit, Submission Requirements

Management Plan - at a minimum, the Management Plan shall address the two items listed below:

1. Organizational Approach

2. Key Positions

Refer to the Management Plan section for a complete description of what is required under this factor.

CONT. FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

Evaluation Method

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 used 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 will 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.

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

CONT. FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

Evaluation Method

Management Plan

Organization Approach: The offeror’s organization approach will be evaluated 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.

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.

Refer to the Management Plan section for a complete description 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

• The Offeror shall provide descriptions of up to five (5) recent and relevant construction projects. 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.

• In order to be RECENT, a project must have been completed, or substantially completed (80% or more), within the last ten (10) years from the solicitation issue date.

• In order to be RELEVANT, the offeror must provide experience in all of the key scope characteristics below at least once. They don't need to be all on the same project.

Cont. FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

Evaluation Method

• 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. The assessment considers each offeror's demonstrated recent, relevant, and overall quality for each of the performance reference in supplying services that meet the solicitation requirements.

CONT. FACTOR 2 – Past Performance, Evaluation Method

1. The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

2. The second aspect is to determine 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 (see Past Performance Relevancy Ratings 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.

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, Evaluation Method

CONT. FACTOR 2 – Past Performance, Evaluation Method

3. The third aspect is to assess the quality of the offeror's past performance. USACE may do this 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.

Performance Confidence Assessment: The Government will utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment below to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror.

CONT. FACTOR 2 – Past Performance, Evaluation Method

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

DefinitionRating

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

Substantial 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.

Satisfactory 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.

Neutral 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.

Limited 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.

No Confidence

FACTOR 3 - Small Business Participation

Submission Requirements

Small Business participation consists of: Proposed Small Business Participation Plan and Past Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

(1) Proposed Small Business Participation Plan

a. All offerors, both other than small business and small business shall complete a Proposed Small Business Participation Plan

(SBPP).

Minimum Small Business Participation Goals:

• For SB, the minimum goal is 10%.

• For SDB, the minimum goal is 5%.

• For WOSB, the minimum goal is 3%.

• For SDVOSB, the minimum goal is 3%.

• For HUBZone, the minimum goal is 2%.

b. Small business participation goals are to be an estimated percentage of total contract dollars (total proposed amount including options if applicable).

Cont. FACTOR 3 - Small Business Participation, Submission Requirements

(2) Past Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

a. This submission requirement applies to all offerors, small business and other than small business. For each of the three most recently completed federal contracts submit one of the following:

1. If the contract required a subcontracting plan, offerors must submit the final Individual Subcontracting Report

(ISR).

2. If the contract did not require a subcontracting plan, offerors must complete and submit the Past Performance of Small Business Participation Plan Collection Sheet.

b. If the offeror is a Joint Venture and the Joint Venture has no subcontracting past performance, then each member of the Joint Venture must meet the submission requirements of this factor; only a total of three past performance submissions is required from among the Joint Venture members; not three submissions from each member.

Cont. FACTOR 3 - Small Business Participation

Evaluation Method

IAW Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.304(c)(i), the extent to which offeror’s identify and commit to small business performance of the contract shall be evaluated. In this factor, all offerors, both other than small businesses 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 previous contracts.

The offeror’s small business participation factor will be assessed an adjectival rating of either Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. The relevant definitions are noted in the Table Below.

Cont. FACTOR 3 - Small Business Participation, Evaluation Method

TABLE 4 – Small Business Ratings

DescriptionRatingColor

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

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

Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives. AcceptableGreen

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

MarginalYellow

Proposal does not meet small business objectives. UnacceptableRed

FACTOR 4 – Project Labor Agreements

Submission Requirements

In accordance with FAR Provision 52.222-33, Notice of Project Labor Agreement, which is incorporated into this solicitation, all offerors are required to:

(1) negotiate or become party to a project labor agreement with one or more labor organizations for the term of the resulting construction contract,

(2) require its subcontractors to become a party to the resulting project labor agreement, and

(3) submit said project labor agreement with their offer.

FACTOR 4 – Project Labor Agreements

Evaluation Method

This factor will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable’ basis.

In order for an Offeror to be considered eligible for award, the PLA must receive an “Acceptable” rating.

To receive an Acceptable rating for this factor, the PLA must address satisfactorily all five submission requirements listed in FACTOR 4 – PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (PLA).

This factor is not included within the tradeoff analysis discussed in the Basis for Award section above.

FACTOR 5 – PRICE AND PRICE RELATED INFORMATION

Submission Requirements

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.

FACTOR 5 – PRICE

Evaluation Method

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

2. Unbalanced Pricing

3. Errors

• As discussed in the Basis for Award Section, non-price factors 1, 2 and 3, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

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

Important Reminders: Read the solicitation in its entirety

Joint Ventures: 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.

Commitment Letters: 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.

Important Reminders: Read the solicitation in its entirety Subcontracting Plans: For other than small business offerors, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted 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 other than small 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.

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. The electronic copy must be signed and legible. 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.

30PRE-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 July 2, 2024 at 2:00pm EST.

PROPOSAL CONTENTS

Maximum PagesDescriptionLocation

1Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

Title Page

Letters of Commitment are excluded from the page count.

Factor 1: Technical MeritVolume 1

No page limitFactor 2: Past PerformanceVolume 2

25Factor 3: Small Business ParticipationVolume 3

No page limitFactor 4: Project Labor Agreement (PLA)Volume 4

No page limitFactor 5: PriceVolume 5

No page limitOtherVolume 6

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS

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

EXAMPLES:

(1) “W912EP24R0016 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 1].pdf”

(2) “W912EP24R0016 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 2].pdf”

(3) “W912EP24R0016 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 3].pdf”

(4) “W912EP24R0016 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 4].pdf”

(5) “W912EP24R0016 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 5].pdf”

(6) “W912EP24R001601 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 6].pdf”

SITE VISIT: Held on May 28, 2024 at 10:00 am

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TECHNICAL INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS:

• ProjNet closes on June 17, 2024 at 5:00 pm, EST.

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

Real Estate: Offerors are notified that real estate is not currently cleared for construction but will be before proposals are due. Once real state certification is obtained offerors will be notified.

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

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE

ITEMS

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: Q&A

Project: Pre-Proposal Conference, Solicitation W912EP24R0016, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Indian River Lagoon South, C-23/C-24 North Reservoir, S-426, Contract 4A Project, St. Lucie County, Florida.

Date and Time: 5/29/2024 at 1400 hrs.

Location: Webex

Participant Name Email 1 Vinent vzannini@thalle.com 2 C. McCutcheon cmccutcheon@ais-infrastructurellc.com 3 Cody Jensen cody.jensen@kiewit.com 4 Cooper Morrison Cooper.Morrison@kiewit.com 5 Russel Dingman russel.dingman@kiewit.com 6 Daniela daniela.ramirez@kiewit.com 7 Matt Pike mpike@ais-infrastructurellc.com 8 Greg Thornton gthornton@ais-infrastructurellc.com 9 John Zelenka John.zelenka@kiewit.com

10 AIS Infrastructure agoad@ais-infrastructurellc.com 11 Heather Marhefka heather.marhefka@kiewit.com 12 Thomas Boyle thomas.boyle@kiewit.com 13 Ricky Repp rrepp@thalle.com 14 EWoodall ewoodall@odinconstruction.com 15 Seppo Fuller sfuller@ais-infrastructurellc.com 16 Thalle Construction rrepp@thalle.com 17 Seth Rowney srowney@thalle.com 18 Dave dmcbride@odinenv.com 19 Jorge Colmenarez jlorge_colmenarez@pantropic.com 20 Jen C jennifer.collins@kiewit.com 21 Chuck Girten chuck.girten@forgen.com 22 Gilberto Lozano glozano@hpepper.com 23 Zach King zking@pandj.com 24 Michael Murazzi michael.murazzi@morrisonpump.com 25 Michael Widmann mwidmann@odinenv.com 26 Andrew Ladd aladd@thalle.com