W912HN-09-R-0072-Amend 1.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

Recovery-Rehab/Repairs To Intake Gate and Fish Lift Brail, St. Stephens Pow er Plant, St. Stephens, SC

The purpose of this amendment is to change CLIN 0001 from a base item to an Option and to make revisions to Section L-Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders. Please read the revised solicitation carefully. Acknow ledgement of all amendments are required as part of the final submitted proposal.

Proposal due date remains unchanged at 31 July 2009 at 2:00 PM, EST.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Jul-2009

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 W912HN-09-R-0072

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Jul-2009

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 is extended, X 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

28-Jul-2009

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SAVANNAH

SAVANNAH REGIONAL CONTRACTING CENTER

CHARLESTON OFFICE

69-A HAGOOD AVENUE

CHARLESTON SC 29403-5107

W912HN 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HN-09-R-0072

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0001

The option status has changed from No Status to Option.

The cost constraint EST has been added.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.217-4 Evaluation Of Options Exercised At The Time Of Contract

Award

JUN 1988

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

Rehab/Repairs to Intake Gate and Fish Lift Brail

St. Stephens Power Plant St. Stephens, South Carolina

1. PROPOSAL OVERVIEW: This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits a design rehab/repair project to the Intake Gate and Fish Lift Brail at the St. Stephens Power Plant in St. Stephens, South Carolina. This will be a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract. The purpose of the Source Selection Evaluation Criteria is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the technical evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), and development of a selection decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA), using the Best Value source selection process. In as much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform any resulting contract, the proposal should be specific and complete in every detail.

The proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise descriptio0n of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent.

• 1.1 Proposal Submissions and the Best Value Tradeoff Process. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. Offerors submit their Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience and Past Performance information for review and consideration by the Government. Following the review, evaluation, and rating of these proposals, the Government will evaluate price proposals for contractors that have acceptable technical proposals. The technical information contained in the proposals shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Government in accordance with the evaluation criteria provided in paragraph 5, Evaluation and 6, Rating Methodology. The SSEB reviews, evaluates, and rates the proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP. Price information will not be rated, but will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15, funding limitations set out in Section B – Bid Schedule, and in comparison to other Offeror’s price proposals. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented.

2. PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRECONTRACT COSTS

This request for proposal does not commit the Government to pay for costs incurred in the preparation and publication of a proposal or for any other costs incurred prior to execution of a formal contract.

3. PREAWARD SURVEY

The Government reserves the right to conduct a preaward survey, of any firm under consideration, to confirm any part of the information furnished by the offeror; or to require other evidence of managerial, financial, technical, and other capabilities, the positive establishment of which, is determined by the Government to be necessary for the successful performance of the contract.

4. SITE VISIT: Site visit is scheduled for 16 July 2009 at 08:30 A.M. Please contact the below for directions and attendance.

Daryln Grigsby Power Plant Manager 1275 Rediversion Road St. Stephens, SC 29479 Phone: 843-567-2706 Cell: 843-670-5897

5. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

5.1 In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to allow review and evaluation by the Government. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. Failure to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affect an Offeror's evaluation. Offerors should provide sufficient detail and clearly define all items required in this section.

5.2 Who May Submit. Any legally organized Small Business under the identified NAICS code may submit a proposal.

5.3 Where to Submit. Offerors shall submit their proposal packages to the Regional Contracting Center, Charleston Office, Charleston District, SC at the address shown in Block 9 of Standard Form 1449.

5.4 Submission Deadline. Proposals shall be received by the Regional Contracting Center, Charleston Office no later than the time and date specified in Block 8 of Standard Form 1449.

5.5 Hand Carried or Mailed Proposals

All proposals must be clearly identified with the contractor’s name and address. In the lower left corner of the outermost wrapper offerors shall indicate the Request for Proposal No., Date of Proposal Closing, Time of Closing, and Proposals for (title of Project). Proposals not properly identified on the outermost wrapper may not be accepted if received later than the time set for receipt of proposals, as there may be no way to determine the exact time of receipt.

The Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf as indicated below.

Proposals delivered by commercial carrier and those sent by U.S. Mail, including U.S. Express Mail, must be addressed as indicated below. Proposals shall not be addressed to any specific person.

U.S. Army Engineer District, Charleston Office

ATTN: CESAS-CT-PC (Angela Kelly) 69-A Hagood Avenue Charleston, SC 29403-5107

Proposals sent by U.S. Mail or delivered by commercial carrier must be received by mailroom personnel on the first floor of 69-A Hagood Avenue, Charleston, SC 29403 in sufficient time to be delivered to the designated location for receipt of proposals prior to the time set for receipt of proposals.

5.6 Number of Copies. Offerors shall submit one (1) hard copy of Volume I and three (3) hardcopies of Volume II of their proposal. Volume II shall also be submitted on a CD-ROM.

6. SUBMISSION FORMAT

6.1 The proposals shall contain a detailed table of contents. If more than one binder is used, the complete table of contents shall be included in each. Any materials submitted but not required by the solicitation, (such as company brochures), shall be relegated to appendices. The Proposal will be tabbed and submitted in three ring binders in the following format:

VOLUME I: CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS AND PRICE PROPOSAL

TAB 1- Section A- SF 1449, completed and signed by an authorized person from the company or team.

TAB 2- Section B- Price-Schedule B

TAB 3- Section K- Representations and Certifications

TAB 4- PROPOSAL DATA SHEET- See the format provided in this section. Ensure to include Offeror’s telephone number, FAX number, e-mail address, Tax Identification Number and DUNS number. DUNS number will be used to access CCASS data. Teaming Arrangements must submit a DUNS number for each member of the team. If a separate DUNS has been created for the teaming arrangement it must be submitted as well. Offeror may use Attachment I at the end of this section of provide this information.

TAB 5- Bid Bond- See Clause 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee

TAB 6- Financial Information (e.g. Latest Financial Statement, Annual Reports, Dun and Bradsheet ratings and/or number, etc.) A bank reference and a letter from your company on company letterhead authorizing the release of financial information from your bank, with point of contact and telephone number for verification.

VOLUME II-Technical Proposal

TAB 1- FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY COST

INFORMATION

7. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

7.1 Content Requirements: The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. The Contracting Officer will evaluate and rate proposals based only on the information contained in the proposal, except as otherwise specified elsewhere in the solicitation. Proposals that provide only superficial coverage of the information required below may not receive additional consideration and may be excluded from the competitive range, if established. Additionally, should the proposal include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of this solicitation, the proposal may be determined to be "unacceptable" and thus ineligible for award.

8. EVALUATION CRITERIA: Below are the evaluations factors in which proposals will be evaluated.

8.1 FACTOR 1: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE:

Offeror shall be evaluated on projects successfully completed or substantially (60% or more) completed in the last five (5) years that demonstrate the Offerors experience with similar type and scope projects as defined in this Statement of Work. Projects can be either completed or current contracts (with Federal, State or local governments or private) Offeror shall submit three (3) projects that address the below:

• Showing experience on projects that involved large metal fabrication or welding.

• Projects submitted by the proposals should have value of $250,000 or higher.

8.1.2 Offeror shall identify any major team subcontractors or, if Offeror proposes team arrangements, each company relationship shall be fully disclosed in the proposal. For reference and evaluation purposes the Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement.

8.1.3 Contractor Team Arrangements - Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program.

8.1.4 Offerors proposing teaming arrangements, as defined above, and company relationships shall be fully disclosed in the proposal. All prospective teaming arrangements must comply with Part 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 124.513. For reference and evaluation purposes the Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Teaming Arrangement.

8.2 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE: The contractor shall submit a written, thorough narrative description to demonstrate relevant past performance on projects that are similar in scope, complexity, and size to the work identified in the SOW. Offeror shall submit (3) projects completed, or substantially completed (more than 60%) in the past five (5) years Note: Relevancy is defined as projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity of the RFP requirements.

Projects should demonstrate work similar to that described in the RFP. Below is a list of project information that needs to be identified for the projects submitted.

• Project name, location and description

• Type of facility

• Nature of firm’s responsibility (design, construction or both)

• Project owner’s name and address and project manager’s (point of contact) name, telephone number, fax, and email address (if known)

• Original scheduled completion date

• Actual completion date

• Overall size of project (in square feet or square meters)

• Construction cost

• Duration of construction

• Problems encountered and corrective actions taken

• Copies of recent performance evaluations for similar projects

• Performance rating of that project

• Letters of Appreciation or Awards

8.3 FACTOR 3: PRICE The offeror shall complete Section B of the solicitation.

8.3.1 The Government will use the Total Evaluated Price for Items 0001 and 7002 for evaluation purposes as follows:

Award will be made to the Offeror whose total evaluated price and technical proposal provides the Best Value to the Government. The Total Evaluated Price and Technical Proposal are of equal significance.

The technical and price proposal of the successful Offeror will become a part of the Fixed Price contract award. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of Total Evaluated Price Proposal and Technical Proposal.

9. SECTION M – BASIS FOR AWARD

9.1 BASIS

9.1.1 Award will be made to the best overall proposal, which is determined to be the “best value” to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the two factors: Relevant Corporate Experience and Past Performance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Satisfactory” must be achieved for all technical factors. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced offeror.

9.1.2. Best value will be determined by a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP. In order to determine which proposal represents the best overall value, the Government will conduct a tradeoff analysis, comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the competing proposals to determine which proposal(s) represent(s) the best value to the Government and thus shall received contract award.

9.1.3. As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most beneficial proposal.

Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in scoring and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination.

9.1.4 The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers. The basis of award will be a conforming offer, the price or cost of which may or may not be the lowest. If other than the lowest offer, it must be sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest offer to justify the payment of additional amounts.

9.1.5 Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interests of the Government.

9.2 FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

FACTOR 1 – Relevant Corporate Experience FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

9.3 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS.

Factor 1; Relevant Corporate Experience is more important than Factor 2, Past Performance, but when combined are equal to Price.

9.4 EVALUATION APPROACH

9.4.1 The Government will evaluate each proposal under informal source selection procedures strictly in accordance with proposal content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the offeror’s proposal.

9.4.2 All proposals received will be subjected to an initial screening by the Contracting Officer to determine whether proposals are complete in accordance with Section L of the solicitation, and whether they warrant further consideration. Proposals that fail this initial screening process shall be rejected and offerors will be notified they are no longer eligible for further consideration.

9.4.3. The Government will assess the relative risks associated with each offeror and each proposal as an inherent part of the best value decision process. Evaluators will determine the degree of risk associated with each competing offeror based on the potential of each offeror’s proposed approach to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance.

9.4.4. Discussions or negotiations: Although the Government has reserved the right to award without discussions, discussions may be conducted with those offerors determined to be within the competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306. If discussions are determined necessary, a request for “Final Proposal Revision (FPR)” will be made of all offerors in the competitive range. Final proposal revisions will be evaluated against the same criteria as were the initial proposals.

9.5 FACTOR 1: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE:

9.5.1 The Government will review the example projects provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate the recent relevant specialized experience of the Offeror in similar projects; this will include the experience of identified parties of Contractor Team Arrangements. The example projects should closely resemble the scope, size, and complexity of the project identified in this solicitation. If the Offeror cannot provide suitable relevant experience and the evaluators consider that the information provided indicates that the Offeror has no relevant experience, a determination will be made as to the risk this lack of corporate experience presents to the Government and the proposal will be evaluated accordingly. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance.

9.6. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE:

9.6.1 The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s past performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. These other sources may include, but not limited to, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the Offeror’s performance, and Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability. Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance. The offeror must provide the information requested below for past performance evaluation or affirmatively states that is possesses no relevant, directly related, or similar past performance. The experience of individuals will not be credited under this factor.

9.6.2 Contractor Team Arrangements Evaluation. In accordance with FAR Part 9, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. Past Performance evaluation will not take into account the past performance information regarding predecessor companies; or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, unless identified in Contactor Team Arrangements. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance of the submitted information concerning a company that is part of a Contract Team

Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight of the information to this procurement.

9.6.3 The Government treats an Offeror's lack of past performance as having no positive or negative evaluation significance. Past performance, which is considered by the Government to be similar in size and scope to this project, as defined in above, may be considered by the Board to be more advantageous.

The Government will evaluate past performance based on the elements listed below:

• Quality of Service. Based on information provided in the questionnaire and other information, the Government will assess the quality of the actual services exhibited by the Offeror’s team.

• Timeliness of Performance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror completing past projects within the scheduled completion times.

• Customer Satisfaction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s past customer satisfaction, cooperation with customers, and interaction on past projects.

• Subcontractor Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s management of subcontractors on past projects.

9.7 FACTOR 3: Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for completeness, balanced prices, and price reasonableness. Determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the solicitation. Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are in accord with the requirements of the solicitation.

Reasonableness will be established using available pricing tools including historical price information, price competition information, and the Independent Government Estimate (IGE).

9.8 EVALUATION STANDARDS:

OUTSTANDING - Information submitted demonstrates Offeror's potential to significantly exceed performance or capability standards. The Offeror's qualifications meet the fullest expectations of the Government. The Offeror has clearly demonstrated an understanding of all aspects of the requirements to the extent that timely and highest quality performance is anticipated. An assigned rating of “Outstanding” indicates that, in terms of the specific factor, the submittal contains no significant weaknesses, deficiencies or disadvantages and presents very low risk that it will not be successful. The Offeror possesses exceptional strengths that will significantly and exceeds most or all solicitation requirements.

Very high probability of success. Very low risk to the Government.

ABOVE AVERAGE - Information submitted demonstrates Offeror's potential to exceed performance or capability standards. The Offeror's qualifications are responsive with minor weaknesses, and some strengths. The Offeror has clearly demonstrated an understanding of all aspects of the requirements to the extent that timely and high quality performance is anticipated. An assigned rating of “Above Average” indicates that, in terms of the specific factor, any weaknesses noted are minor and should not seriously affect the Offeror’s performance and presents low risk that it will not be successful. The Offeror possesses one or more strengths that will benefit the Government. Offeror fully meets all RFP requirements and significantly exceeds many of the RFP requirements. Response exceeds a "Satisfactory" rating. High probability of success. Low risk to the Government.

SATISFACTORY - Information submitted demonstrates Offeror's potential to meet performance or capability standards. The Offeror's qualifications are responsive with weaknesses in several areas that are offset by strengths in other areas. A rating of “Satisfactory” indicates that, in terms of the specific factor, the Offeror may satisfactorily complete the proposed tasks, but there is at least a moderate risk that it will not be successful. The Offeror possesses few or no advantages or strengths. Offeror meets all RFP requirements, presents a complete and comprehensive proposal. No significant advantages or disadvantages. Offeror’s response exceeds a "Marginal" rating. Moderate risk to the Government.

MARGINAL - Information submitted demonstrates Offeror's potential to marginally meet performance or capability standards necessary for minimal contract performance. The Offeror's qualifications are generally responsive but weaknesses exist that are not offset by strengths. Offeror does not understand the requirements of the RFP and although the submittal has a reasonable chance of becoming at least acceptable, it requires modification to likely result in adequate performance which represents high risk to the Government. The assignment of a rating of “Marginal” indicates that, in terms of a specific factor, mandatory corrective action would be required to prevent significant deficiencies from affecting the overall project with high risk it will not be successful. The Offeror possesses no advantages or strengths and some disadvantages. Offeror does not meet all the requirements of the RFP. Offeror’s response exceeds an "Unsatisfactory" rating. Significant disadvantages. High risk to the Government.

UNSATISFACTORY - Information submitted fails to meet performance or capability standards necessary for acceptable contractor performance. The Offeror's qualifications have many deficiencies and/or gross omissions. The Offeror fails to meet the minimum requirements of the RFP and the requirements could only be met with major changes to the submittal. There is no expectation of minimal performance which represents unacceptably high risk to the Government. The assignment of a rating of “Unsatisfactory” indicates that, in terms of a specific factor, the Offeror fails to meet the minimum requirements and there is unacceptably high risk that the overall project will not be successful. The Offeror possesses no advantages or strengths and many disadvantages. The Offeror's does not meet most of the requirements of the RFP and the proposal is so unacceptable that it would have to be completely revised in order to attempt to make it acceptable. Unacceptably high risk to the Government.

ATTACHMENT 1

VOLUME I – TAB 4

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Rehab/Repairs To Intake Gate and Fish Lift Brail

1. Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

Duns # (used for accessing CCASS)

If a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association and provide a DUNS number for each firm.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

2. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

ATTACHMENT 2

VOLUME II – TAB I

FACTOR 2: OFFEROR PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

1. On an attached sheet, provide information for three (3) projects completed, or substantially completed in the past five years of similar scope and complexity to this project to be used for reference and evaluation purposes and provide a questionnaire to the Point of Contact for each project listed. These should be the same projects for which questionnaires have been provided to the Procurement Point of Contact. If the offeror is made up of separate construction companies that have combined for this project, then this item must be completed twice (once for each company). For each project provide the information shown. Failure to provide this minimum information may result in lower ratings.

2. For each project provide the following information:

Project Title:

Location:

Contract number:

Procuring activity:

Procurement point of contact and telephone number:

List date of construction completion or percent completion if construction is underway:

Address of building(s):

Address and telephone number of owner:

Indicate type of project (private sector, Government, planned unit development, etc.):

General character:

Total cost:

Total cost of all modifications:

3. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. On an attached sheet, list any projects within the last three years that have been assessed liquidated damages. Provide an explanation.

4. TERMINATED PROJECTS. On an attached sheet, list any projects within the last three years that have been terminated. Provide an explanation.

5. GOVERNMENT PROJECTS. On an attached sheet, list all contracts with the Government within the last three years. Indicate Government contract number and contracting agency (with contact names and telephone numbers).

ATTACHMENT 3

VOLUME II – TAB 1

Rehab/Repairs to Intake Gate and Fish Lift Brail

FACTOR 1: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

(Offerors should submit at least three projects).

On an attached sheet, provide information for projects demonstrating experience on projects that involve large metal fabrication or welding, to be used for reference and evaluation purposes. For each project provide the following information:

Project Title:

Location:

Contract number:

Nature of involvement in this project, i.e. General Contractor, subcontractor, designer:

Procuring activity:

Procurement point of contact and telephone number:

List date construction began and was completed:

If construction is not complete, give current percentage of completion.

Address of building(s):

Address and telephone number of owner:

Indicate type of project (private sector, Government, etc.):

General character of work:

Total cost:

(End of Summary of Changes)