W912EP25R0009 - Amendment 0004.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is the follow ing:

1) To update Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors.

2) To update Section M, Evaluation Factors for Aw ard.

3) To clarify Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 0008, Delivery Detention Fees, by providing a more detailed description of the this CLIN.

4) As a result of the changes, the offer due date is extended to 19 September 2025 12PM EDT.

Additionally, this amendment provides answ ers/clarif ications to questions. The deadline for submitting questions and seeking clarifications is 11 September 2025 12:00 PM EDT. Please note that the Government w ill be under no obligation to respond to questions or provide clarifications received after this deadline.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912EP25R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Jul-2025

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

04-Sep-2025

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:

W912EP25R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 05-Sep-2025 12:00 PM to 19-Sep-2025 12:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0008

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

This CLIN may be exercised up to 365 days after award.

To:

This CLIN may be exercised up to 365 days after award. Exercise CLIN 0008 if Barge Demurrage (CLIN 0007) extends beyond 30 calendar days.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L)

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Each volume shall be submitted electronically in a Microsoft Word or Excel format, or as an Adobe PDF. Offerors shall submit their proposal via email to dustin.l.furrey@usace.army.mil and brittany.r.jackson@usace.army.mil. No other submission methods will be accepted. 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.

b. 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.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

* The Offeror shall sign the first two pages of the Standard Form 33 (SF33), Solicitation, Offer, and Award.

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated.

Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

EXAMPLES:

(1) “W912EP25R009 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 1].pdf”

(2) “W912EP25R009 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 2].pdf”

(3) “W912EP25R009 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 3].pdf”

(4) “W912EP25R009 RESPONSE [Offeror’s Name] [Volume 4].pdf”

d. Small Business Certification: Offerors must provide current and valid documentation demonstrating their eligibility as a small business under the applicable NAICS code and size standard. This documentation may include a copy of their SBA registration or other acceptable proof.

e. System for Award Management (SAM) Registration. In accordance with FAR 4.1102 and FAR 52.204-7, an offeror is required to be registered in the SAM 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. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled.

Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company

Volume Title Digital Copies Maximum Pages

I Technical Approach 1 75

II Past Performance 1 No page limit

III Price 1 15

IV Solicitation*, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations

1 No page limit name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word.

MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e., doc, xls, ppt, etc. PDF Files shall be in read-only format. All price breakdown information to aide in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

c. 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. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in the proposals is prohibited. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

(i) VOLUME I (Factor 1) – Technical Approach. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Subfactor 1 – Fabrication Approach Technical Approach Plan.

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach to fabricating FRP gates. The offeror will provide information to substantiate the following at a minimum:

Detailed description of proposed project management Design and fabrication approach to meet Volume II Technical

Requirements Ability to provide fit and finish technical assistance to the Government during installation to meet Volume II, Section 1.9 requirements Identification of any critical assumptions or uncertainties that may impact project completion Describe the technical approach to project management, design, and fabrication to execute this contract per the detailed requirements.

Describe the ability to manufacture and fabricate Vacuum Infused Polymer (VIP) gates and how you would be able to include the steel hinge and pintle assemblies for a marine environment.

Describe your means and methods to deliver the gates via barge to the Canaveral lock site.

Describe your ability to provide fit and finish technical assistance to onsite USACE installation crews.

Identify any critical assumptions and uncertainty that may impact the completion of the work.

Document capabilities and availability of resources (manufacturing, equipment and personnel) necessary to complete all required major tasks identified in the schedule.

(2) Section 2 – Subfactor 2 – Project Schedule. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed schedule. The offeror will provide information to substantiate the following:

Schedule shall outline the projected work schedule, including milestones with completion dates and sequence of activities necessary to complete each phase of work

Schedule must correspond to the offeror’s technical approach Develop a project schedule for the entire project duration from contract award to contract closeout. This DRAFT schedule should be a detailed outline of the projected work schedule for this project identifying major work tasks, milestones that include completion dates of each significant factor or work. It should include the completion of all base items of work and depict nodes and activities necessary to complete each phase of work, etc. It should include design, manufacture/fabrication, fit and finish as part of USACE installation as described in the specification.

The schedule must correspond to the offeror’s technical approach plan.

It should identify and include discussion of critical path and long lead items, and key assumptions in the technical approach plan.

This draft schedule shall be the basis for the contractor’s schedule submission and comply with Solicitation, Section 01 32 16 paragraph 1.7

FABRICATION SCHEDULE.

For proposal purposes only, the offeror should use the arbitrary, non-binding Notice to Proceed date of 30 September 2025. Consistent with the PROJECT SCHEDULE Specification the Offeror’s DRAFT schedule should clearly delineate:

1. Activity name and/or description.

2. Activity durations, including float in days, that strictly reflect the schedule constraints in the Solicitation, Activity relationships, including tasks in successor order with relationships (e.g., start to start and start to finish) to successor activities Resource and activity Constraint

(3) Section 3 – Subfactor 3 – Documentation of Available Resources This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s available manufacturing capabilities, equipment and personnel necessary to complete all required tasks. The offeror will provide information to substantiate the following:

Qualifications of Key Personnel A list of all major subcontractors, their roles and responsibilities, and signed Letters of Commitment for any major subcontracted work.

Demonstrable capability to fabricate FRP gates of this size and complexity

(2) Section 4 – Subfactor 4 – Delivery Plan This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed delivery of finished gates to the Canaveral Lock. The offeror will provide information to substantiate the following:

Compliance with Volume II, Spec 01 10 00 Section 1.6.2 If On-Site Assembly will be required, provide a clear plan of coordination to comply with Volume II, 01 10 00 Section 1.6.2.1

(ii) VOLUME II (Factor 2) – Past Performance. This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. This volume has no page limit.

Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5), recent and relevant projects to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 326199) required by the RFP.

Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors for their past performance to be considered. This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address and telephone number(s).

(b) Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, e-mail address and telephone number(s).

(c) Government’s technical representative/Contracting Officer’s Representative and current e-mail address and telephone number(s).

(d) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, and current e-mail address and telephone number(s).

(e) Government contract administration activity’s Pre-Award Monitor’s name, and current e-mail address and telephone number(s).

(f) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers.

(g) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

(h) Awarded price/cost.

(i) Final or projected final price/cost.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(k) Final, or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(2) Section 2 – Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this

RFP.

(a) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offerors shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

(b) For all contracts, the offeror shall provide data on all manufacturing warranty returns. Data shall delineate total number of warranty returns, number of Could Not Duplicate (CND), number of failures attributable to GFE component failures, and number and nature of failures attributable to the offeror’s delivered product.

(3) Section 3 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number. This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 20 % of the total proposed effort. This section will further include written consent of major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of their subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors

(4) Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its offices and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees to be considered.

(5) Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire back to the offeror to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to dustin.l.furrey@usace.army.mil and brittany.r.jackson@usace.army.mil . The offeror shall e-mail to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number;

Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date emailed to POC

(6) Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

(7) Small Business Participation Past Performance. All Offerors shall submit information substantiating the Offerors’ past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, maximizing opportunities for U.S.

small business subcontractors. Offerors shall also provide a statement indicating whether any negative information has been reported in the past six years concerning the Offerors’ past compliance with FAR 52.219-8. If any such negative information has been reported, the Offeror may submit explanations or comments responding to such negative information. Offerors with no prior contracts containing FAR 52.219-8 shall certify the same.

(iii) VOLUME III (Factor 3) – Price. The volume shall comply with the following:

(1) Electronic Copy. Price requirements: Files contained within Volume III for price may not be password-protected. Electronic links are only permissible within the Price Volume. If files contain links, the links must be intact and maintained through all revisions. The Offeror shall not include pivot tables in Excel spreadsheets.

(2) Compliance. Failure to comply with the RFP requirements for price information may result in an adverse assessment of an offeror’s proposal and reduce or eliminate its chance of being selected for award. Offerors shall ensure that the information presented in this volume is consistent and correlates with the information contained in the other proposal volumes. Also, the Offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF33 and continuation sheets.

(3) General Instructions. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) 15.402 and 15.403-1, certified cost or pricing data are not required based on the fact that adequate competition is expected for this procurement. Information other than certified cost or pricing data may be provided in contractor format providing that sufficient information is made available. Information submitted shall be prepared following the instruction in FAR 15.403-5(b)(1). If after receipt of proposals the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions at FAR 15.403-1 apply, the Offeror may be required to submit cost or pricing data. Additionally, in the event that adequate competition is not obtained, the Contracting Officer may incorporate FAR 52.215-20 entitled, “Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data,” into the solicitation and request a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Proposal information included in this volume which is not directly related to price will be disregarded.

(iv) VOLUME IV – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS

AND CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

Certifications and Representations – Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and sign) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Section A – Standard Form 33 (SF 33), Solicitation, Offer and Award Section G – Contract Administration Data

Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME IV –

SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS

/REPRESENTATIONS.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS

B. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents 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 three (3) evaluation factors: Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price. The Tradeoff process will consider two-non price factors, and Price. The non-price Factor 1 – Technical Approach is more important than non-price Factor 2 – Past Performance. Factors 1 and 2, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3 – Price. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offer. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Approach factor (to include all subfactors) and a rating of no less than “Neutral Confidence” must be achieved for the Past Performance factor. NOTE: ALL NON-

PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN

PRICE.

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described above. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor in the event that the Technical Approach and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

C. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Approach o Subfactor 1: Fabrication Approach Technical Approach Plan o Subfactor 2: Project Schedule o Subfactor 3: Documentation of Available Resources o Subfactor 4: Delivery Plan Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

1. FACTORS

a. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

At a minimum, the Technical Approach shall address items (a)-(d) below.

Offerors shall address all items below in their proposals in order to be eligible to receive an “Acceptable” rating:

a. Subfactor 1: Fabrication Approach Technical Approach Plan:

i. Detailed description of proposed project management

ii. Design and fabrication approach to meet Volume II Technical

Requirements

iii. Ability to provide fit and finish technical assistance to the

Government during installation to meet Volume II, Section 1.9 requirements

iv. Identification of any critical assumptions or uncertainties that may impact project completion

i. Describe the technical approach to project management, design, and fabrication to execute this contract per the detailed requirements.

ii. Describe the ability to manufacture and fabricate Vacuum Infused Polymer (VIP) gates and how you would be able to include the steel hinge and pintle assemblies for a marine environment.

iii. Describe your means and methods to deliver the gates via barge to the Canaveral lock site.

iv. Describe your ability to provide fit and finish technical assistance to onsite USACE installation crews.

v. Identify any critical assumptions and uncertainty that may impact the completion of the work.

vi. Document capabilities and availability of resources (manufacturing, equipment and personnel) necessary to complete all required major tasks identified in the schedule.

b. Subfactor 2: Project Schedule: At a minimum, must correspond to the offeror’s technical approach and shall outline the projected work schedule, including milestones with completion dates for each phase of work. The schedule shall include the following major activities:

i. Design and fabrication submittals (Materials, Design documents, etc.)

ii. Fabrication and delivery of the new sector gates durations

iii. Equipment procurement and delivery, identifying items with particularly long lead times.

iv. Preparation and submission of operation and maintenance manual and as-built drawings, including government

v. Review

vi. Contract Completion

vii. Schedule shall outline the projected work schedule, including milestones with completion dates and sequence of activities necessary to complete each phase of work

viii. Schedule must correspond to the offeror’s technical approach

c. Subfactor 3: Documentation of Available Resources

i. Qualifications of Key Personnel

1. Project Manager: This is the individual who has the direct responsibility for all operations on the project. This individual must have documented experience in a related technical field or business/management, minimum experience of five years (or minimum experience of ten years in lieu of a four-year degree) in managing and supervising fabrication and/or engineering for projects similar in size and scope of the contract. The Project Manager for a contract must oversee task accomplishment, administer all instructions, and answer all questions from the Contracting Officer pertaining to the tasks during the life of the contract.

2. Design Quality Control Manager: (see spec 01 33 16) This individual must be a person who has verifiable engineering or architectural design experience and is a registered professional engineer or architect with a minimum of five years experience overseeing design projects.

3. Engineer of Record: (see spec 01 33 16) Must be a registered Professional Engineer with a structural engineering background. An active license within any state, with at least 10 years licensed design experience in similar projects. Similar projects include fiberglass products/systems fabricated using a vacuum infusion process. Provide a record of at least five previous, separate, similar successful fabrications in the last ten years.

4. Mechanical Engineer: (see spec 01 33 16) Must be a registered Professional Engineer, active within any state, with at least five years licensed design experience, within the last 10 years, in similar projects to this scope of work. Similar projects include marine bearing systems.

5. Fabrication Quality Control Manager: (see spec 01 45 04) Must have a minimum of three years of experience on fabrication similar to this Contract; or a fabrication person with a minimum of 10 years experience in related work in

Quality Control during the fabrication of the types listed in Relevant Specialized Experience or commercial or commercial/industrial type experience of similar size, scope, and technical consideration.

1. Project Manager: Minimum five years (or ten years if the project manager does not have a four-year college degree) of documented experience managing and supervising fabrication and/or engineering projects of similar size and scope.

2. Design Quality Control Manager: Registered Professional Engineer or Architect with a minimum of five years of experience overseeing design projects.

3. Engineer of Record: Registered Professional Engineer with a structural background and at least ten years of licensed design experience in similar projects (specifically, fiberglass products fabricated using VIP). Provide documentation of at least five successful fabrications within the last ten years.

4.Structural Engineer: Registered Professional Engineer with at least ten years of licensed design experience in similar projects (specifically, fiberglass products fabricated using VIP). Provide documentation of at least five successful fabrications within the last ten years.

5.Mechanical Engineer: Registered Professional Engineer with at least five years of licensed design experience in similar projects (specifically, marine bearing systems).

6.Fabrication Quality Control Manager: Minimum three years of experience in similar fabrication, or ten years of related experience in Quality Control.

7. 6. Alternate personnel will be evaluated based on their qualifications for the role they are proposed to fill

i. A list of all major subcontractors, their roles and responsibilities, and signed Letters of Commitment for any major subcontracted work.

ii. Demonstrable capability to fabricate FRP gates of this size and complexity

b. c. Subfactor 4: Delivery Plan

i. Compliance with Volume II, Spec 01 10 00 Section 1.6.2

ii. If On-Site Assembly will be required, provide a clear plan of coordination to comply with Volume II, Spec 01 10 00 Section 1.6.2.1

Note: Failure to discuss any of the minimum requirements for the Technical Approach discussed above may be noted as a deficiency. Also, failure to provide sufficient detail relating to any of the minimum requirements may be noted as a significant weakness or a weakness. Conversely, aspects of an offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance of capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance may be assessed a strength if they provide a benefit to the Government.

b. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors shall provide descriptions of a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5), recent and relevant projects to the efforts required by this RFP. There are two submission requirements for Factor 2.

First, Offerors shall submit either a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record or the standard Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for USACE (Form PPQ-0, dated 9/30/11 – provided in Appendix C). The PPQ-0 should be submitted to the client for each project where a CPARS evaluation is unavailable. Ensure accurate contact information is provided for all POCs. If a completed PPQ cannot be obtained before the proposal deadline, submit the first page of the PPQ with the Offeror’s contact information.

Second, for each relevant submitted project, offerors must provide the following information:

1. Project Title and Location

2. Dollar Value of project

3. The name of the Person Responsible for Performance

4. Agency, company, or organization who contracted the work

5. Construction Period (Must be 75% complete)

a. Month/year START to month/year END.

b. Projects with missing dates are considered non-responsive.

6. Customer Point of Contact (POC)

a. At a minimum, include the customer POC name, title, email address, and telephone number, accompanied by a description of the customer’s relationship to project, customer’s agency/firm affiliation.

7. VIP Project/Structure - The projects submitted should demonstrate recent experience design and fabricating large VIP structures in a marine environment of similar size and magnitude as in the Bridging documents (40,000 lbs) and in the factors. Projects where this VIP work with steel hinge and/or pintle coupled to the VIP gates will be more favorably rated.

8. Steel Work (1 project minimum) - The projects submitted should demonstrate experience in similar steel appurtenance for hinges and pintles to VIP gates in a marine environment.

Applications of steel rollers.

All submitted PPQ POCs must be for FRP fabricated projects. Offerors are responsible for following up with clients to ensure timely questionnaire submissions.

In order to be RECENT, a project must have been completed, or substantially completed (80 75% or more), within the last five (5) fifteen (15) years from the solicitation issue date.

In order to be RELEVANT, the offeror must provide experience related to the characteristics described in the table above and relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation., see Spec 01 10 00 section 1.3. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 326199) required by the RFP.

If the project is less than 100% physically complete, the offeror must explain which elements of the work are completed and provide supporting documentation.

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

A “project” is defined as work performed at a single site under a single contract or task order. An IDIQ contract or other similar ordering vehicle is not considered a “project”;

however, a single task order issued under that IDIQ or ordering vehicle may be considered a “project” under this evaluation factor.

If the offeror proposes to use the past performance of a subcontractor, the proposal must clearly demonstrate that the same subcontractor will have meaningful involvement 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 five 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.

c. FACTOR 3: PRICE

Offerors shall submit a Pricing Schedule in accordance with Section B of the RFP. The total price for all CLINS will be considered for evaluation.

General Instructions. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.402 and 15.403-1, certified cost or pricing data are not required based on the fact that adequate competition is expected for this procurement. Information other than certified cost or pricing data may be provided in contractor format providing that sufficient information is made available. Information submitted shall be prepared following the instruction in FAR 15.403-5(b)(1). If after receipt of proposals the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions at FAR 15.403-1 apply, the Offeror may be required to submit cost or pricing data. Additionally, in the event that adequate competition is not obtained, the Contracting Officer may incorporate FAR 52.215-20 entitled, “Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data,” into the solicitation and request a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Proposal information included in this volume which is not directly related to price will be disregarded.

D.EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. 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.

b. 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.

a. EVALUATION: FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Proposals that are incomplete, inconsistent, lack detail, contradict the plans or specifications, or simply repeat the solicitation requirements provide a lower level of confidence and may be rated as a deficiency, significant weakness, or weakness.

The Government will evaluate Factor 1 and the subfactors based on how well the proposal demonstrates a logical and practical approach, execution plan, sequence of work, and means and methods proposed to accomplish the work. The schedule should cover the period from 30 September 2025 through delivery by 7 October 2027 , including post-delivery fit and finish activities. Offerors’ proposed schedules will be evaluated for feasibility and the presence or likelihood of problems that may require

Government intervention. The evaluation will also consider the Offeror’s ability to mitigate and manage risk.

To receive a rating of at least Acceptable for Factor 1: Technical Approach, the offeror must receive a rating of at least Acceptable in each of the four (4) Subfactors.

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.

After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the Government will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each subfactor, and an overall adjectival rating 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.

b. EVALUATION: 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. 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. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a 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 75% physically complete within the last five (5) fifteen (15) years from the date of this solicitation. If the project is less than 100% physically complete, the offeror must explain which elements of the work are complete and provide supporting documentation.

(ii) RELEVANCY: 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 Table

2) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires including similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

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.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. Quality assessments do not receive a separate rating apart from the Performance Confidence Rating.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: The recency, relevancy, and quality of past efforts will be considered to determine the overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating for each offeror for Factor 2: Past Performance. The Government will utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 3 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror.

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 factor of past performance.

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

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

Projects that receive greater relevancy ratings coupled with a proven past performance record will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment.

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.

During the best value tradeoff process, Offerors whose proposals receive a satisfactory confidence or substantial confidence rating for this factor may be considered more favorably than an Offeror with a neutral confidence rating.

An overall capacity to accomplish the work will be evaluated and documented by the SSEB in the “Past Performance” evaluation. Special consideration may be given to relevant Specialized Experience for Fiberglass Reinforced Polymer (FRP) structures weighing a minimum of 40,000 pounds. Additional consideration may be given for submerged marine structures, structures with bearings, or FRP using the Vacuum Infusion Process.

Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix C.

The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available. The primary responsibility for providing detailed, current, and accurate past performance information rests with the Offeror.

The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. For the purposes of this evaluation, major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 20% or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past 5 15 years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 326199.

c. EVALUATION: FACTOR 3 – PRICE

Price is not rated and will not receive an adjectival rating. Price will be evaluated to ensure that it is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404.

a. Compliance: The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L instructions.

b. 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)).

c. Errors: The…