Amendment 0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICAITON NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicble)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offers 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 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 your 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 APPROPIRATION DATA (If required)

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

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

CHECK ONE 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.

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

USACE St. Paul District July 2009

Lock and Dam #3 Navigation Improvements Solicitation No. W912ES‐09‐R‐0025 Section 00 12 00, Page 5 firm(s) must demonstrate design experience. If the Offeror is a joint venture or consortium of firms, the partners must demonstrate qualifying experience comparable to their role on this project.

The Government will consider the extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience to this project, and demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. Some examples of relevancy to this project may include, but not be limited to:

(1) Number, size, type of work, location

(2) Dates (must be currently under contract with preconstruction or design services 100% completed and construction 50% or greater completed or completed no more than ten

(10) years preceding date of Solicitation)

(3) Firm's role and extent of work self‐performed (brokering out all work and simply "pouring the sidewalks" on a cited project are examples of less relevant experience)

(4) Extent of participation by current key personnel to help validate "Corporate Memory" or Corporate Experience

The Government will evaluate both the extent and quality of recent experience as identified in the proposal. The Government may give additional credit for previous successful working relationships between the design team the construction contractor.

3.2.2 Rating Scheme

Subfactor 1a – Navigation and Marine Design Experience will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating scheme. The information submitted will be evaluated on the relevance of the experience to the contemplated work at Lock and Dam 3. Relevance will be evaluated by examining the size, type, complexity and the similarity of the example design components and comparing them to the contemplated project.

Rating Definition

Excellent Information provided with each example is complete, organized and detailed. All examples have a construction value of at least $10M and are similar to or more extensive than the contemplated project in type, complexity and overall design components. At least two projects have a construction value of $30M or more.

The Offeror has provided relevant examples that are sufficiently similar to the contemplated work to give great confidence that the Offeror has the capability to accomplish all of the tasks on the required schedule. Overall, the examples indicate that there is a very low degree of performance risk to the Government.

Good Information provided with each example is complete, organized and detailed.

Most examples were at least $10M and similar to the contemplated project in type, complexity and overall design components. At least one project has a construction value of $30M or more. The Offeror has provided relevant examples that are sufficiently similar to the contemplated work to give reasonable

Section 00 12 00, Page 11

3.3.2 Rating Scheme

Subfactor 2a – Quality of Product Service will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating scheme.

Offerors not clearly fitting one of the categories below will be placed in the category most closely describing the Offeror’s past performance.

Rating Definition

Excellent Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, the majority of responses were in the Excellent category. No adverse remarks were provided. ACASS/CCASS, and other comments or remarks indicate a high level of satisfaction.

Good Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, the majority of responses were in the Above Average or higher category. Adverse remarks, if any, were very minor. ACASS/CCASS and other comments or remarks were satisfactory.

Acceptable Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, most responses were in the Average or Neutral category. Adverse remarks, if any, were minor. ACASS/CCASS, and other comments or remarks were satisfactory.

Marginal Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, the majority of responses were rated Neutral or Below Average and/or include some significant adverse remarks. ACASS/CCASS and other comments or remarks indicate a concern with performance.

Unacceptable Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, the majority of responses were rated Unsuccessful. Reponses indicate significant problems and/or failure to comply with contract requirements and/or include multiple significant adverse remarks. ACASS/CCASS and other comments or remarks indicate serious level of dissatisfaction and/or performance concerns.

Neutral Offeror certified that they have no past performance information. Offeror shall not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and shall therefore receive a neutral rating. This rating has no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation.

Section 00 12 00, Page 12

Subfactor 2b – Customer Satisfaction will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating scheme.

Offerors not clearly fitting one of the categories below will be placed in the category most closely describing the Offeror’s past performance.

Rating Definition

Excellent Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, the majority of responses were in the Exceptionally Satisfied category. No adverse remarks were provided. ACASS/CCASS and other comments or remarks indicate a high level of satisfaction.

Good Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, the majority of responses were in the Highly Satisfied or higher category. Adverse remarks, if any, were very minor. ACASS/CCASS and other comments or remarks were satisfactory.

Acceptable Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, most responses were in the Satisfied or neutral category. Adverse remarks, if any, were minor. ACASS/CCASS and other comments or remarks were satisfactory.

Marginal Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, the majority of responses were rated in the Somewhat Dissatisfied category and/or include some significant adverse remarks.

ACASS/CCASS and other comments or remarks indicate a possible performance concern.

Unacceptable Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, the majority of responses were in the Highly Dissatisfied category. Reponses indicate significant problems and/or failure to comply with contract requirements and/or include multiple significant adverse remarks. ACASS/CCASS and other comments or remarks indicate serious level of dissatisfaction and/or performance concerns.

Neutral Offeror certified that they have no past performance information. Offeror shall not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and shall therefore receive a neutral rating. This rating has no favorable or

Section 00 12 00, Page 13

Subfactor 2c – Adherence to Project Schedules will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating scheme. Offerors not clearly fitting one of the categories below will be placed in the category most closely describing the Offeror’s past performance.

Rating Definition

Excellent Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, the majority of responses indicated the offer completed Substantially Ahead of Schedule. No adverse remarks were provided. ACASS/CCASS and other comments or remarks indicate a high level of satisfaction.

Good Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, the majority of responses indicated the Offeror Completed on Schedule with No Time Delays. Adverse remarks, if any, were very minor. ACASS/CCASS and other comments or remarks were satisfactory.

Acceptable Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, most responses indicated Completed with minor delays or experienced significant delays with extenuating circumstance.

Adverse remarks, if any, were minor. ACASS/CCASS, and other comments or remarks were generally satisfactory.

Marginal Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, the majority of responses indicated Experienced Significant Delays Without Justification and/or include some significant adverse remarks. ACASS/CCASS and other comments or remarks indicate a concern with performance.

Unacceptable Based on the responses to the past performance questionnaires, all responses indicated Experienced Significant Delays Without Justification and/or remarks indicate failure to comply with contract timeliness requirements and/or include multiple significant adverse remarks regarding schedule. ACASS/CCASS and other comments or remarks indicate serious level of dissatisfaction and/or performance concerns.

Neutral Offeror certified that they have no past performance information. Offeror shall not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and shall therefore receive a neutral rating. This rating has no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation.

Subfactor 2d – Safety Record (EMR Information) will be evaluated using the following rating scheme.

Rating Definition

Excellent Average Experience Modification Rating is below 0.6.

Good Average Experience Modification Rating above 0.6 but less than or equal to 0.8.

Acceptable Average Experience Modification Rating above 0.8 but less than or equal to 1.0.

Marginal Average Experience Modification Rating above 1.0 but less than or equal to 1.2, or Offeror submitted any EMR information in a format other than as a letter from their carrier including the carrier’s name and contact information or Offeror’s average EMR is above 0.8 but less than or equal to 1.0 and has increased each of

Section 00 12 00, Page 20

3.6.2 Rating Scheme

Subfactor 5a – Available Equipment will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating scheme.

Rating Definition

Excellent A complete description of the resources to be used on this contract was submitted and indicates the Offeror has excellent equipment resources and exceptional ability to successfully obtain and mobilize the equipment necessary to perform the assigned tasks. The proposal is complete, organized and detailed. This Offeror represents a very low degree of performance risk to the Government.

Good A complete description of the resources to be used on this contract was submitted and indicates the Offeror has above average ability to obtain and mobilize the equipment necessary to successfully perform the assigned tasks. The proposal is complete, organized and detailed. This Offeror represents a low degree of performance risk to the Government.

Acceptable A complete description of the resources to be used on this contract was submitted and shows adequate equipment resources and the ability to obtain and mobilize the equipment necessary to perform the assigned tasks. Minor weakness or omissions may be apparent.

This Offeror represents a moderate degree of performance risk to the Government.

Marginal The description of the available equipment resources submitted by the Offeror indicates less than adequate equipment resources and ability to obtain and mobilize the equipment necessary to successfully perform this contract. Though some areas were adequate, others are lacking. The proposal lacks detail and omissions are apparent. The Offeror represents a high degree of performance risk to the Government.

Unacceptable The description of the available equipment resources submitted by the Offeror was neither complete nor detailed. The proposal did not demonstrate the Offeror has the equipment resources or the ability to obtain and mobilize the equipment necessary to successfully perform the contract. The proposal lacks detail and contains numerous omissions. Failure of the Offeror to provide complete and/or detailed information represents a very high degree of performance risk to the Government.

Section 00 12 00, Page 24 key financial statement elements may indicate a minor deterioration of financial condition. References from the firm’s financial institution were favorable. This Offeror’s financial capability represents a low degree of performance risk to the Government.

Acceptable The proposal provides the required financial statements. The proposal indicates an adequate record of past financial performance and an adequate current financial condition. Trends in financial ratios and key financial statement elements indicate a minor to moderate deterioration of financial condition. References from the firm’s financial institution were favorable to neutral. This Offeror’s financial capability represents a moderate degree of performance risk to the Government.

Marginal The proposal provides the required financial statements. The proposal indicates some deficiencies in past financial performance and current financial condition. Trends in financial ratios and key financial statement elements indicate a considerable deterioration of financial condition. References from the firm’s financial institution were neutral to unfavorable. The Offeror’s financial capability represents a high degree of performance risk to the Government.

Unacceptable The proposal does not include the required financial statements, or the financial capability analysis indicates that the Offeror has severally deficient and/or rapidly deteriorating finances and may not be solvent for the duration of the contract. The Offeror’s financial capability presents a very high degree of performance risk to the Government.

Neutral Offerors for which there is no record of financial information and which have provided certification that they have been in business for less than one year shall not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and shall therefore receive a neutral rating. This rating has no favorable or

Subfactor 6b – Bonding Capability will be evaluated using the following rating scheme:

Rating Definition

Go Proposal indicates acceptable bonding capability.

No Go Proposal does not indicate acceptable bonding capability.

3.8 PHASE I (RFQ) EVALUATION FACTOR ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

Experience (Factor 1) is more important than all of the other factors. Factor 5 is more important than Factors 2, 3 and 4. Factors 2 and 4 are considered equally important, and are more important than Factor 3 and Subfactor 6a, which are considered equally important. Factor 6b is rated on a go/no go basis.

Within Factor 1, Subfactors 1a and 1b are considered to be equally important, and are more important than Subfactor 1c. Within Factor 2, all of the Subfactors are considered equally important. Within

USACE - St. Paul 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, Minnesota 55101