18R0007_Tow_Rail_RFQ.pdf

USACE St. Paul District Aug 2018

Travelling Mooring Bitt System Rehabilitation Solicitation No. W912ES18R0007 Table of Contents, Page 1

Request for Qualifications (Phase I) Travelling Mooring Bitt System Rehabilitation Mississippi River Lock and Dam Numbers: 4, 5, 5A, 7, 8, and 9 Design‐Build Procurement

August 2018

Travelling Mooring Bitt System Rehabilitation

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

St. Paul

District

W912ES18R0007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents, Page 2

SECTION 00 10 00 Instructions to Offerors

SECTION 00 11 00 Submission Requirements and Evaluation Factors

Attachments

Section 00 10 00, Page 3

SECTION 00 10 00

Instructions to Offerors (PHASE I)

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

3 COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

4 OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

5 SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD

6 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS)

7 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) EXPENSES AND PRE‐CONTRACT COSTS

8 METHOD OF PROCUREMENT

9 RFQ SUBMITTALS

10 RFQ FORMAT

10.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

10.2 WRITTEN SUBMISSION

10.3 TEXT

10.4 FONT SIZE

10.5 FORMAT

10.6 BINDING

10.7 CONTENT

10.8 PAGE LIMITATIONS

11 PROVISIONS/CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

12 APPENDIX A – PHASE II (RFP) EVALUATION FACTORS

1 INTRODUCTION

The United States Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (Government) is soliciting a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the Travelling Mooring Bitt System Rehabilitation as Phase I of a two‐phase design‐ build selection procedure. A two‐phase procurement structure will be used for the Project, consisting of a Phase I RFQ and a subsequent Phase II Request for Proposals (RFP) package. The RFQ is being issued to identify, using the criteria and methodology described herein, a shortlist of qualified and capable design‐ build teams that will be invited to submit technical/price proposals for Phase II (RFP portion). Firms will have 30 calendar days for submittal of their Phase I (RFQ) qualifications package. The Government anticipates that three firms will be shortlisted (from the RFQ responses) and invited to submit responses to the RFP; however, the Government reserves the right to shortlist more (but not more than five) or fewer firms depending on the responses received. All Offerors will receive written notice if they were or were not selected to compete in Phase II.

Section 00 10 00, Page 4

In Phase II, the RFP package will be issued to the short listed design‐build teams and will specify technical and pricing criteria. Those selected for Phase II will have approximately 30 calendar days for submittal of their proposal. The responses to the RFP will be evaluated by the Government to select the design‐build contractor for the project. The District is planning on awarding the design for all six sites and the construction of four of them under the base contract with construction of the remaining two locations being held as options under the contract. At present the District is planning on having Lock and Dams 5 and 7 as the options. A table listing the anticipated evaluation criteria for Phase II is included as Appendix A.

2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

Lock and Dam Numbers 4, 5, 5A, 7, 8, and 9 are navigation facilities on the upper Mississippi River in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

The purpose of the tow haulage system, which includes the travelling mooring bitts, is to assist and speed the upstream travel of 1200‐foot‐long tows through 600‐foot‐long lock chambers. The travelling mooring bitt systems are located on the upper guidewalls and include rails, rail supports, and end stops, as well as the travelling mooring bitts. The travelling mooring bitt system supports wind, outdraft, and inertia loads.

The purpose of the travelling mooring bitt system is to secure the head of an un‐powered barge group along the upper guide wall after being pulled from the lock chamber by the tow haulage hydraulic winch.

The travelling mooring bitt system rehabilitation and associated work are the subject of this RFQ. The scope work for this project will be defined in the RFP document, not herein. In general, the scope of work is summarized below.

The design life for the new travelling mooring bitt system and guidewall features shall be 50 years. The design approach must consider the performance of the overall system, including how it may fail and how the consequences of failure can best be managed.

Travelling mooring bitts (a.k.a. movable kevel or mule), as well as the associated rails and supports, shall be designed for minimum rope loads of 53 kips and 80 kips for allowable and yield, respectively. The new travelling mooring bitt system shall have a fail‐safe or ductile failure mode for rope directions from 45 degrees upwards to 45 degrees downwards. This design criteria was selected to match the yield strength of the new travelling mooring bitt system to the estimated ultimate strength of historical systems. The designer may assume that mooring lines used by barges have a strength of 160 kips or more when doubled.

The travelling mooring bitt shall be designed/assembled to allow free rolling on 136 LB/YD AREMA rail. The design should preferably eliminate the use of rail joints. Rail joints, if used, should be minimized and shall be prevented from developing misalignment that will interfere with the smooth operation of the travelling mooring bitt system over its lifetime.

The scope of the contract will include salvage of components of the existing system, disposal of other components, as well as fabrication and installation of an entirely new system. Below are some of the requirements that will be included in the scope of the contract.

Section 00 10 00, Page 5

Component removal for turnover to the Government:

‐ Travelling mooring bitts and end stops o Three sets of two end stops (6 total) o Three travelling mooring bitts

‐ Rails at L/D 5A ‐ Newer type rail supports (roughly 125) and slotted clips (roughly 250) installed during major rehabilitation of the locks and dams during the 1990’s and early 2000’s (Stage 2 work)

‐ Component removal for disposal: Rail supports, clips, and anchor bolts (except as stated to be salvaged above)

‐ Travelling mooring bitts and end stops (except as stated to be salvaged above) ‐ Any deteriorated guidewall concrete, along with associated armoring and corner protection steel, which the Offeror identifies as needing to be removed in its design ‐ Handrail support anchor bolts ‐ Ladders ‐ Electrical cables and conduit ‐ Rails at L/D 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9

If possible, temporary removal of components for re‐installation If not feasible provide new components:

‐ Check posts ‐ Handrails ‐ Lights (overhead and signal) ‐ Electrical outlets (120v and 480v) ‐ Electrical Cable Trays (stainless steel) ‐ Signs

Design and construction (installation) of:

‐ New upper guidewall concrete, including armoring and corner protection ‐ Travelling mooring bitts, rails, rail supports, rail anchors, and end stops ‐ Ladders ‐ Electrical cables and conduits, including electrical grounding of the rails, handrails and other ancillary metals on the structure

The tow haulage hydraulic winch, fairlead, and wire rope are to remain in‐place and are not included in the project scope of work.

Removal and replacement of any electrical components shall be planned and executed in a manner that accommodates the presence of lead and asbestos in a safe, legal, and environmentally satisfactory manner. There are indications that the original electrical cables/conduits were clad in lead. Manholes and pull boxes may contain lead and/or lead dust. There is also the possibility of encountering asbestos‐ containing material in these cables/conduits. During Stage 2 work, the cables in the upper guidewall embedded conduits were abandoned and new cables were installed in the cable trays on the landward side of the guidewalls.

Section 00 10 00, Page 6

Construction schedule constraints will provide project challenges. Major demolition and concrete replacement work at project sites will be limited to the non‐navigation season, typically December‐March.

Construction work will not be allowed on site between June 1st and December 1st. Shop work, fabrication, and survey (if required) may be completed during the navigation season.

3 COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

All solicitation documents will be posted to the FedBizOpps website. No hardcopies are available. The website address is:

http://www.fbo.gov/

All amendments will be posted to the FedBizOpps website. It shall be the contractor’s responsibility to check the websites for any amendments.

4 OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Questions relative to this solicitation or its requirement should be submitted via the ProjNet system at https://www.projnet.org.

To submit a new inquiry or to view inquiries submitted by other prospective offerors, users must be registered and signed into the ProjNet system. Offerors may register online at https://www.projnet.org (click on “Register”). The following information will be needed to submit or view offerors inquiries:

Managing Agency: USACE The Solicitation Number is: W912ES18R0007 The Offerors Inquiry “Key” Number is: J7YU97‐DBZA5X

Offerors shall submit inquiries no later than 10 days prior to the due date for receipt of all RFQ materials, in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation if necessary. Those who submit an inquiry will receive a system‐generated email acknowledgement. All answers to inquiries will be posted in ProjNet after they have been reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) technical team. Offerors are advised to review the solicitation in its entirety and to review all previously submitted questions and responses prior to submitting a new inquiry.

5 SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD

The small business size standard for this procurement is $36.5 million in average gross annual receipts for the preceding 3 fiscal years.

6 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS)

In accordance with Sector 23 of the NAICS Manual, the work in this solicitation is assigned classification code 237990.

http://www.fbo.gov/ https://www.projnet.org/

Section 00 10 00, Page 7

7 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) EXPENSES AND PRE‐CONTRACT COSTS

This RFQ does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of materials or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting materials in response to this solicitation for Phase I or II.

8 METHOD OF PROCUREMENT

The Government intends to conduct this acquisition in accordance with the provisions set forth in the RFQ.

The materials submitted will be evaluated and a shortlist of the most highly qualified firms will be selected to proceed to Phase II (RFP). All firms which submit a qualifications packages in response to the RFQ will receive written notice of whether they were or were not selected to compete in Phase II.

Note specifically that the Offeror will not be participating in a sealed bid procurement process under this acquisition method. Issuance of this RFQ does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

Qualifications must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFQ, (including attachments). The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Offerors are advised that the Government intends to select firms for participation in the Phase II RFP process without discussions, clarifications or any contact concerning the qualifications packages received. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions for both the RFQ and the RFP processes.

9 RFQ SUBMITTALS

The Offeror shall submit with its qualifications package all requested information specified in this solicitation. There will be no public opening of the qualifications packages received as a result of this solicitation. Offerors may submit their qualifications package via email in PDF format. Offerors submitting its qualification package via email should email the package to BOTH Jesse.L.Onkka@usace.army.mil AND Kevin.P.Henricks@usace.army.mil.

Offerors who are hand‐delivering their qualifications package shall contact Jesse Onkka (ph: 651‐290‐5444) to ensure receipt by the date and time listed below. Official time will be established by the clock located in the area where the qualifications are received. Offers determined to be late shall be rejected.

Qualifications will be received until 2:00 p.m. (local time) on 6 September 2018, at:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: Jesse Onkka 180 5th Street East, Suite 700 St.

Paul, MN 55101‐1678

The Packaging shall be marked:

mailto:Jesse.L.Onkka@usace.army.mil mailto:Kevin.P.Henricks@usace.army.mil

Section 00 10 00, Page 8

“Qualifications for Solicitation Number: W912ES18R0007, DO NOT OPEN”

10 RFQ FORMAT

10.1 General Requirements

General requirements regarding qualifications submission formats for Phase I of this solicitation are described below. See Section 00 11 00 for detailed RFQ submission requirements. The following table summarizes the major RFQ submittals:

Phase I (RFQ) Item Description Location

Qualifications Package Cover Sheet

TAB A

Factor 1 – Technical Experience Subfactor 1a ‐ Machinery Design Experience Subfactor 1b ‐ Machinery Fabrication Experience Subfactor 1c ‐ Marine Construction and Machinery Alignment Experience Subfactor 1d –Marine Structural Design Experience

TAB B

Factor 2 ‐ Past Performance Subfactor 2a – Mechanical Design Firm Past Performance Subfactor 2b –Marine Structural Design Firm Past Performance Subfactor 2c – Marine Construction Firm Past Performance

TAB C

Factor 3 – Technical Approach Subfactor 3a – Concept Schedule Subfactor 3b – Overall Intended Design Approach From Start of the Project to Completion Subfactor 3c – Discussion of Ideas to Minimize Impacts to Navigation Subfactor 3d – Concrete Removal

Subfactor 3e – Concept of Proposed Method of Replacement of Concrete Subfactor 3f – Travelling Mooring Bitt and Rail Anchorage Features

• Concept of Anchorage to Concrete

• Proposed Traveling Mooring Bitt Concept

TAB D

10.2 Written Submission

Number of Copies: Offerors shall submit one (1) copy of their qualifications as described herein.

10.3 Text

Text shall be at least single space, on 8 ½” x 11” paper and contained in one volume. Pages shall be numbered consecutively within each TAB. Additional pages submitted in excess of the stated maximum

Section 00 10 00, Page 9 will not be evaluated. A page printed on both sides shall be counted as two pages. Include a detailed table of contents, numbered pages, and tabbed sections for each of the evaluation criteria. For drawing sheets, use half‐size sheets (11”x17”).

10.4 Font Size

Print shall be a minimum of 11‐point font size. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic representations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text that is easily readable.

10.5 Format

Provide a Tab or other means to clearly identify each individual section of the submission. Provide an individual section for each of the evaluation criteria. Section covers or tabs used only to identify individual sections are not included in page limits.

10.6 Binding

If submitting a hard copy the submittal shall be bound, and the method of binding shall allow for easy scanning of single or multiple pages. Methods of acceptable binding include but are not limited to three ring binders, alligator clips, and removable spiral bindings. Note that offeror’s may submit their qualifications package via email in PDF format.

10.7 Content

Do not submit any materials not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures and marketing material).

10.8 Page Limitations

Page limitations include all text, figures, tables, and graphics. Refer to the following table for page limitations:

Volume Title Page Limitation

RFQ TAB A Qualifications package Cover Sheet Complete form

RFQ TAB B Factor 1‐ Technical Experience

RFQ TAB B Subfactor 1a – Machinery Design Experience (SF 330 format)

2 Page Max. per Project; Min 3, Max 5 project examples

RFQ TAB B Subfactor 1b – Machinery Fabrication Experience (SF 330 format)

2 Page Max. per Project; Min 3, Max 5 project examples

Section 00 10 00, Page 10

RFQ TAB B Subfactor 1c – Marine Construction and Machinery Alignment Experience (SF 330 format)

2 Page Max. per Project; Min 3, Max 5 project examples

RFQ TAB B Subfactor 1d – Marine Structural Design Experience (SF 330 format)

2 Page Max. per Project; Min 3, Max 5 project examples

RFQ TAB C Factor 2 – Past Performance ‐

RFQ TAB C Mechanical Design Firm Past Performance 2 Page Max.

RFQ TAB C Marine Structural Design Firm Past Performance 2 Page Max.

RFQ TAB C Marine Construction Firm Past Performance 2 Page Max.

RFQ TAB D Factor 3 – Technical Approach

RFQ TAB D Subfactor 3a – Concept Schedule 1 Page per Lock and Dam Project Site.

RFQ TAB D Subfactor 3b – Overall Intended Design Approach from Start of the Project to Completion

4 Page Max.

RFQ TAB D Subfactor 3c – Discussion of Ideas to Minimize Impacts to Navigation

1 Page Max.

RFQ TAB D Subfactor 3d – Concrete Removal 2 Page Max.

RFQ TAB D Subfactor 3e – Concept of Proposed Method of Replacement of Concrete

2 Page Max.

RFQ TAB D Subfactor 3f – Travelling Mooring Bitt and Rail Anchorage Features.

• Concept of Anchorage to Concrete

• Proposed Travelling Mooring Bitt Concept

2 Page Max.

11 PROVISIONS/CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (JAN 2017)

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision--

“Discussions” are negotiations that occur after establishment of the competitive range that may, at the Contracting Officer's discretion, result in the offeror being allowed to revise its proposal.

“In writing,” “writing,” or “written” means any worded or numbered expression that can be read, reproduced, and later communicated, and includes electronically transmitted and stored information.

“Proposal modification” is a change made to a proposal before the solicitation's closing date and time, or made in response to an amendment, or made to correct a mistake at any time before award.

“Proposal revision” is a change to a proposal made after the solicitation closing date, at the request of or as allowed by a

Section 00 10 00, Page 11

Contracting Officer as the result of negotiations.

“Time,” if stated as a number of days, is calculated using calendar days, unless otherwise specified, and will include Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, if the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the period shall include the next working day.

(b) Amendments to solicitations. If this solicitation is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this solicitation by the date and time specified in the amendment(s).

(c) Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals. (1) Unless other methods (e.g., electronic commerce or facsimile) are permitted in the solicitation, proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted in paper media in sealed envelopes or packages (i) addressed to the office specified in the solicitation, and (ii) showing the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the offeror. Offerors using commercial carriers should ensure that the proposal is marked on the outermost wrapper with the information in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this provision.

(2) The first page of the proposal must show--

(i) The solicitation number;

(ii) The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror (and electronic address if available);

(iii) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

(iv) Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror's behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation; and

(v) Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent's authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

(3) Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals.

(i) Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals, and any modifications or revisions, so as to reach the Government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation. If no time is specified in the solicitation, the time for receipt is 4:30 p.m., local time, for the designated Government office on the date that proposal or revision is due.

(ii)(A) Any proposal, modification, or revision received at the Government office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered unless it is received before award is made, the Contracting Officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition; and--

(1) If it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals; or

(2) There is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received at the Government installation designated for receipt of offers and was under the Government's control prior to the time set for receipt of offers; or

(3) It is the only proposal received.

(B) However, a late modification of an otherwise successful proposal that makes its terms more favorable to the Government, will be considered at any time it is received and may be accepted.

Section 00 10 00, Page 12

(iii) Acceptable evidence to establish the time of receipt at the Government installation includes the time/date stamp of that installation on the proposal wrapper, other documentary evidence of receipt maintained by the installation, or oral testimony or statements of Government personnel.

(iv) If an emergency or unanticipated event interrupts normal Government processes so that proposals cannot be received at the office designated for receipt of proposals by the exact time specified in the solicitation, and urgent Government requirements preclude amendment of the solicitation, the time specified for receipt of proposals will be deemed to be extended to the same time of day specified in the solicitation on the first work day on which normal Government processes resume.

(v) Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice received at any time before award. Oral proposals in response to oral solicitations may be withdrawn orally. If the solicitation authorizes facsimile proposals, proposals may be withdrawn via facsimile received at any time before award, subject to the conditions specified in the provision at 52.215-5, Facsimile Proposals. Proposals may be withdrawn in person by an offeror or an authorized representative, if the identity of the person requesting withdrawal is established and the person signs a receipt for the proposal before award.

(4) Unless otherwise specified in the solicitation, the offeror may propose to provide any item or combination of items.

(5) Offerors shall submit proposals in response to this solicitation in English, unless otherwise permitted by the solicitation, and in U.S. dollars, unless the provision at FAR 52.225-17, Evaluation of Foreign Currency Offers, is included in the solicitation.

(6) Offerors may submit modifications to their proposals at any time before the solicitation closing date and time, and may submit modifications in response to an amendment, or to correct a mistake at any time before award.

(7) Offerors may submit revised proposals only if requested or allowed by the Contracting Officer.

(8) Proposals may be withdrawn at any time before award. Withdrawals are effective upon receipt of notice by the Contracting Officer.

(d) Offer expiration date. Proposals in response to this solicitation will be valid for the number of days specified on the solicitation cover sheet (unless a different period is proposed by the offeror).

(e) Restriction on disclosure and use of data. Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall--

(1) Mark the title page with the following legend: This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed--in whole or in part--for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this offeror as a result of--or in connection with-- the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]; and

(2) Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend: Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.

(f) Contract award.

(1) The Government intends to award a contract or contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and subfactors in the solicitation.

(2) The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government's interest.

Section 00 10 00, Page 13

(3) The Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

(4) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

(5) The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit cost or prices offered, unless the offeror specifies otherwise in the proposal.

(6) The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards if, after considering the additional administrative costs, it is in the Government's best interest to do so.

(7) Exchanges with offerors after receipt of a proposal do not constitute a rejection or counteroffer by the Government.

(8) The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(9) If a cost realism analysis is performed, cost realism may be considered by the source selection authority in evaluating performance or schedule risk.

(10) A written award or acceptance of proposal mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time specified in the proposal shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

(11) If a post-award debriefing is given to requesting offerors, the Government shall disclose the following information, if applicable:

(i) The agency's evaluation of the significant weak or deficient factors in the debriefed offeror's offer.

(ii) The overall evaluated cost or price and technical rating of the successful and the debriefed offeror and past performance information on the debriefed offeror.

(iii) The overall ranking of all offerors, when any ranking was developed by the agency during source selection.

(iv) A summary of the rationale for award.

(v) For acquisitions of commercial items, the make and model of the item to be delivered by the successful offeror.

(vi) Reasonable responses to relevant questions posed by the debriefed offeror as to whether source-selection procedures set forth in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed by the agency.

(End of provision)

52.233‐2 SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEPT 2006)

Section 00 10 00, Page 14

(a) Protests, as defined in section 33.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from

Kevin Henricks U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Suite 700 180 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101

(b) The copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one day of filing a protest with the

GAO.

(End of provision)

12 APPENDIX A – PHASE II (RFP) EVALUATION FACTORS

Phase II (RFP) Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 – SF 1442/Bid Bond/Price Information

Factor 2 – Management Approach Subfactor 2a – Key Personnel & Organization Subfactor 2b – Quality and Safety Management

Factor 3 – Schedule Management Plan

Factor 4 – Project Solutions Subfactor 4a – Technical Solutions Subfactor 4b – Construction Narrative

Factor 5 – Small Business Subcontracting Approach

Section 00 11 00, Page 1

Section 00 11 00

Phase I: Request For Qualifications

Contents

1 SCHEDULE

2 ACQUISITION STRATEGY

3 BASIS FOR AWARD

4 STIPEND

5 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

6 QUALIFICATIONS PACKAGE COMPLIANCE REVIEW

7 PHASE I (RFQ) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION FACTORS

7.1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.2 DEFINITIONS

7.3 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE (TAB B)

Subfactor 1a ‐ Machinery Design Experience Subfactor 1b ‐ Machinery Fabrication Experience Subfactor 1c ‐ Marine Construction and Machinery Alignment Experience Subfactor 1d – Marine Structural Design Experience

7.4 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE (TAB C)

7.5 FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH (TAB D)

Subfactor 3a – Concept Schedule Subfactor 3b – Overall Intended Design Approach from Start of the Project to Completion Subfactor 3c – Discussion of Ideas to Minimize Impacts to Navigation Subfactor 3d – Concrete Removal Subfactor 3e ‐‐ Concept of Proposed Method of Replacement of Concrete Subfactor 3f – Travelling Mooring Bitt and Rail Anchorage Features

8 PHASE I (RFQ) EVALUATION FACTOR ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

ATTACHMENTS

QUALIFICATIONS PACKAGE COVER SHEET (TAB A)

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE: DESIGN FIRM (TAB C)

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE: CONSTRUCTION FIRM (TAB C)

Section 00 11 00, Page 2

1 SCHEDULE

The anticipated schedule is as follows:

Schedule Activity Date

Request for Qualification (RFQ) materials issued by the Government

August 7, 2018

RFQ responses due to Government September 6, 2018

Offerors selected for Phase II and Request for Proposals (RFP) package sent to selected Offerors

October 1, 2018

RFP responses due to Government October 31, 2018

Contract award December 01, 2018

Delivery of completed Project for the first four (4) sites March 31, 2021

2 ACQUISITION STRATEGY

This is a competitive two‐phase (RFQ and RFP) design‐build acquisition for the award of a firm fixed price contract. The Government will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, in response to the RFP (Phase II), has been determined to be the most advantageous to the Government ‐ technical/quality, price and other evaluation factors considered.

3 BASIS FOR AWARD

The basis of award is best value trade‐off; therefore, the Government has the right to accept other than the lowest price offer. The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers. Price preferences for HUBZone qualified contractors will be applied during the best value trade‐off analysis. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions at any time during the Phase I (RFQ) or Phase II (RFP) evaluations as needed.

4 STIPEND

A stipend will not be paid to those Offerors that submit a response to the RFQ in Phase I, or to the short‐ listed firms invited to submit proposals to the RFP in Phase II.

5 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Submit the Phase I (RFQ) qualifications package in accordance with Section 00 10 00, “Instructions to Offerors.” Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, as indicated in Section 00 10 00. PHASE I DOES NOT INVOLVE A PRICING SUBMISSION.

Section 00 11 00, Page 3

Offerors are discouraged from providing information not required by the solicitation. The Offeror shall address each of the factors in sufficient detail to permit a complete and comprehensive evaluation. Any deviation from the solicitation requirements may result in non‐consideration of the qualifications package.

Phase I (RFQ) responses should be submitted and segregated by TAB item as shown in the table at 10.1 of Section 00 10 00.

6 QUALIFICATIONS PACKAGE COMPLIANCE REVIEW

Upon receipt of qualifications packages, the Government will screen the submissions to ensure each offer is properly completed, executed, and submitted in accordance with the solicitation requirements. The Government may reject a submission that fails to provide a complete and signed qualifications package cover sheet (TAB A), or technical/Past Performance sections (TABS B, C, or D) in response to Phase I.

7 PHASE I (RFQ) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION FACTORS

7.1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The purpose of the evaluation process is to provide critical input to the source selection determination by providing a rational basis for selection of the successful Phase I (RFQ) Offerors for proposal submission in Phase II (RFP).

Technical/quality evaluation consists of an evaluation of the qualifications package and assignment of ratings for the factors and subfactors. Factors will be rated using an adjectival rating.

During the evaluation, evaluators will determine the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and deviations of each qualifications package for each factor and subfactor. At the completion of the evaluation process each Factor will be assigned a single rating. The single ratings will be determined by discussion and consensus of the Government’s evaluators, considering the consensus ratings and relative importance of subfactors under each factor. If any subfactor is rated “unacceptable,” the single rating for the factor will be “unacceptable.”

A rating of “unacceptable” for any factor or subfactor will result in the Offeror being ineligible for selection in the Phase I (RFQ) stage, unless the Government decides to hold discussions, includes the Offeror in the competitive range, and all ratings are improved to better than “unacceptable” for the Offeror’s revised qualifications package.

7.2 DEFINITIONS

A “strength” is a provision in the qualifications package that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

A "weakness" is a flaw in the qualifications package that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Section 00 11 00, Page 4

A "significant weakness" in the qualifications package is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A "deficiency" is a material failure of a qualifications package to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a qualifications package that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

A "deviation" occurs when a qualifications package takes exception to, implies or specifically offers something that does not meet a Government requirement. Although required by the solicitation, the Offeror may not have called the deviation to the attention of the Government. Evaluators must identity all discovered deviations. The solicitation may be amended to accept deviations; however, the specific deviation may not be specified as the solution.

7.3 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE (TAB B)

Technical experience will be evaluated as the applicability of the experience to the needs of the current project and whether or not the design‐build team has the experience, qualifications, and ability to meet the project needs. Experience with Federal Government or USACE projects similar in type, size, and complexity and projects with aggressive schedules or larger than $5M will be given additional weight.

The Government will evaluate the extent of recent experience of the construction contractor and design firms in design, construction and design‐build. The Government places a higher value on projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The Government also places a higher value on projects illustrating prior relationships between the Construction Contractor and Lead Architect‐Engineering Designers. Joint Venture (JV) partners should each demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project.

Previous design‐build experience is not necessary to qualify for this project but the Government will consider it a strength in that the contractor should benefit from lessons learned in the process, even if the experience is on projects that differ from this project. Similarly, the Government will consider previous teaming experience among the team members as value added, even if on projects that differ from this one. The Government will place a higher value on a team with recent teaming experience on design and/or construction projects.

If the prime contractor, JV, or lead entity has no previous design‐build experience, the qualifying project experience should have been as the prime contractor on the cited project for the Offeror to be rated at least "acceptable” on that subfactor. If the Offeror is utilizing subcontractors for the design, the design firm(s) must demonstrate its 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 of projects , 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

Section 00 11 00, Page 5

(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 relevance of recent experience as identified in the qualifications package. Documentation of projects similar in size (e.g. in terms of capacity or geometric extents), scope and dollar value to the work being performed for this project will be considered to have met the minimum requirements of the RFQ. Conversely, qualifications packages that do not include substantial evidence that the Offeror has experience, qualifications, and production capability to successfully prosecute the work being performed will be considered to not meet the minimum requirements of the RFQ. The Government may give additional credit for previous successful working relationships between the design team the construction contractor.

The Offeror shall provide three (3) project examples for each of the subfactors. The same project can be used for more than one subfactor. The examples should be similar in terms of construction type, size, schedule, and complexity, which the Offeror’s company, proposed contracting entity (such as a JV), or component companies of the proposed contracting entity have completed within the last ten (10) years, or which are currently under contract with preconstruction or design services 100% completed and construction 50% or greater completed. One project may qualify under more than one subfactor, but must be listed under each to be considered. In an SF 330 Block F format, provide the project name, a short description, the size (e.g. in terms of capacity or geometric extents) and dollar value, the owner’s name and telephone number, the date of completion, the percentage of the project self‐performed, and whether the Offeror performed as the Prime Contractor and/or Designer. Information regarding the type and the extent of work completed under the contract shall be included, as well as any challenges and solutions.

Demonstrate how projects the Offeror submits are comparable in scope, schedule and complexity to the project descriptions included in each subfactor (see below). Explain the extent of participation by current key personnel to help validate "corporate memory" or “corporate experience” that will be applicable to this project. Indicate if prior relationships exist between the Construction Contractor, Architect‐Engineering Designers, and the machinery fabricator for each project. The four (4) subfactors that will be considered under this Factor are described as follows:

Subfactor 1a ‐ Machinery Design Experience

For this subfactor, demonstrate machinery design experience for any of the following: movable cranes, heavy vessel mooring machinery, movable dam gates, or movable bridges, all with a rated capacity of 10 tons or more. The rated capacity for gates and bridges is considered to be the weight of the structure.

Hydraulically driven machinery does not qualify. Demonstrate machinery design experience that includes the following work elements: bearings (roller or plain) and steel weldments. Demonstrate experience directing field alignment of machinery components.

Machinery Design Experience will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating scheme. 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.

Section 00 11 00, Page 6

Rating Definition

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

Three p r o j e c t examples demonstrate machinery design experience for movable cranes, heavy vessel mooring machinery, movable dam gates, or movable bridges with a rated capacity of 10 tons or more. At least one project example demonstrates machinery design experience that includes the following work elements: bearings (roller or plain) and steel weldment. At least one project example demonstrates experience directing field alignment of machinery components. The Offeror has provided relevant examples that are sufficiently similar to the contemplated work to give high 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 low degree of performance risk to the Government.

Unacceptable The Offeror did not comply with the requirements of the RFQ sufficiently to receive an Acceptable rating, as defined above. Missing information or lack of detail was apparent. The evaluators were not able to determine the Offeror’s experience from the examples provided, or the examples were not sufficiently relevant to the contemplated project. This indicates a lack of relevant experience. The plan represents a degree of performance risk to the Government. The Offeror did not provide evidence of experience with machinery design, including bearings (roller or plain), steel weldments or demonstrate experience with field alignment of machinery components.

Subfactor 1b ‐ Machinery Fabrication Experience

For this subfactor, demonstrate machinery fabrication experience for any of the following: movable cranes, heavy vessel mooring machinery, movable dam gates, or movable bridges, all with a rated capacity of 10 tons or more. The rated capacity for gates and bridges is considered to be the weight of the structure. Hydraulically driven machinery does not qualify. Preferably, the contractor will have heavy vessel mooring machinery fabrication experience or be an American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Certified Fabrication Plant, Category IBR, ABR, CBR, or HYD. Each of the following elements shall be included in at least one of the provided projects: bearings (plain or rolling‐element) and steel weldments.

Machinery Fabrication 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 Locks and Dams 4, 5, 5A, 7, 8, and 9. Relevance will be evaluated by examining the size, type, complexity, and the similarity of the example construction components and comparing them to the contemplated project.

Section 00 11 00, Page 7

Rating Definition

Excellent Information provided with each example is complete, organized, and detailed. Three examples demonstrate machinery fabrication experience for heavy vessel mooring machinery or the fabricator is an American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Certified Fabrication Plant, Category IBR, ABR, CBR, or HYD and at least one project demonstrates the machinery fabrication experience for any of the following:

movable cranes, movable dam gates, or movable bridges with a rated capacity of 10 tons or more. Each of the following elements are included in at least one of the provided projects: bearings (plain or rolling‐element) and steel weldments. The Offeror has provided relevant examples that are sufficiently similar to the contemplated work to give great confidence that the Offeror will accomplish all of the tasks on schedule.

Overall, the examples indicate that there is a low degree of performance risk to the Government.

Acceptable Information provided with each example is complete, organized, and detailed. At least one example demonstrates machinery fabrication experience for any of the following: heavy vessel mooring machinery, movable cranes, movable dam gates, or movable bridges with a rated capacity of 10 tons or more. The Offeror has provided relevant examples that are sufficiently similar to the contemplated work to give great confidence that the Offeror will accomplish all of the tasks on schedule. Overall, the examples indicate that there is a moderate degree of performance risk to the Government.

Unacceptable The Offeror did not comply with the requirements of the RFQ sufficiently to receive an Acceptable rating, as defined above. Missing information and lack of detail was apparent. The evaluators were not able to determine the Offeror’s experience from the examples provided, or the examples were not sufficiently relevant to the contemplated project. The plan represents a degree of performance risk to the Government. The Offeror will be rated unacceptable if they did not demonstrate that the fabricator is an AISC Certified Fabrication Plant. The Offeror will be rated unacceptable if they did not demonstrate experience fabricating components with bearings (plain or rolling‐element) and a steel weldment.

Subfactor 1c ‐ Marine Construction and Machinery Alignment Experience

For this subfactor, demonstrate the Offeror’s experience with civil or marine construction projects. The examples provided should demonstrate the contractors experience with any of the following:

a. Cold Weather Construction with Field Work in Below‐Freezing Temperatures

b. Machinery Alignment by Millwrights

c. Construction Over Water in Inland Marine Navigation Areas

Marine Construction and Machinery Alignment Experience will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating scheme.

Section 00 11 00, Page 8

Excellent At least one of the Offeror’s project examples demonstrates experience with all three of the following elements concurrently:

a.) Cold Weather Construction with Field Work in Below‐Freezing Temperatures; b.)

Machinery Alignment by Millwrights; c.) Construction Over Water in Inland Marine Navigation Areas. The qualifications package represents a very low degree of performance risk to the Government.

Acceptable The Offeror’s project examples demonstrate at least one instance of experience with each of the elements of: a.) Cold Weather Construction with Field Work in Below‐ Freezing Temperatures; b.) Machinery Alignment by Millwrights; c.) Construction Over Water in Inland Marine Navigation Areas. The qualifications package represents a low degree of performance risk to the Government.

Unacceptable The Offeror has no meaningful experience working under the elements of: a.) Cold Weather Construction with Field Work in Below‐Freezing Temperatures; b.)

Machinery Alignment by Millwrights; c.) Construction over Water in Inland Marine Navigation Areas. This lack of experience represents a very high degree of performance risk to the Government.

Subfactor 1d – Marine Structural Design Experience

For this subfactor, demonstrate the Offeror’s marine structural design experience. Marine structural design experience includes any of the following: design of dams, dam piers or…