W912HN-09-R-0109 Solicitation.pdf

Project Title: Recovery- Elloree Reach-- Calhoun Reach Water Transmission Main near the Tow n of Elloree.

A. Description of Work: The Elloree/ Calhoun Reach Water Transmission Main, Highw ay 6 Meter Station and Tee Vee Road Meter Stations contract consists of furnishing, installing, and placing into successful operation approximately 36,100 linear feet of 18-inch diameter w ater transmission mains, 21,200 linear feet of 12 inch w ater transmission mains and a master meter site along Highw ay 6 and tw o master meter sites along Tee Vee Road. This contract includes all valves, manholes, connections, appurtenances, bored roadw ay crossings, bored railroad crossings, testing, quality control, safety and all other related w ork to place this pipeline and this master meter into successful operation.

B. This acquistition w ill be a 100% Small Business Set-Aside IAW FAR 19.502-2. The NAICS Code is 237110 w ith a size standard of 33.5 Million.

MAGNITUDE OF WORK: $5-10 Million

WILLIAM WALLACE 843-329-8088

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

30-Nov-2009

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______30 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________617 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________4 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________31 Dec 2009 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______60 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT SAVANNAH

CHARLESTON CONTRACTING OFFICE

69A HAGOOD AVENUE

CHARLESTON SC 29403-5107

W912HN

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W912HN-09-R-0109 66

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W912HN-09-R-0109

Section 00010 - Solicitation Contract Form

SCOPE OF WORK

The Elloree/ Calhoun Reach Water Transmission Main, Highway 6 Meter Station and Tee Vee Road Meter Stations contract consists of furnishing, installing, and placing into successful operation approximately 36,100 linear feet of 18-inch diameter water transmission mains, 21,200 linear feet of 12 inch water transmission mains and a master meter site along Highway 6 and two master meter sites along Tee Vee Road. This contract includes all valves, manholes, connections, appurtenances, bored roadway crossings, bored railroad crossings, testing, quality control, safety and all other related work to place this pipeline and this master meter into successful operation.

SF 1442 BLOCK 10 CONT

C. Note the requirement for Annual Representations and Certifications to be completed online. See Section 00600, Clause 52.204-8.

D. The Government intends to issue Notice to Proceed within 30 days of contract award, subject to the receipt of acceptable payment and performance bonds specified in block 12.

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 Lump Sum Recovery All Work Complete in accordance with the drawings and specifications.

NET AMT

0001AA 1 Lump Sum Recovery Mobilization

0001AB 1 Lump Sum Recovery Temporary Construction Facilities

0001AC 1 Lump Sum Recovery Erosion Control

0001AD 1 Lump Sum Recovery Clearing / Grubbing Permanent Row or Meter Vault Site

0001AE 1 Lump Sum Recovery Boring and Jacking

0001AF 1 Lump Sum Recovery 18" Diameter Pipe

0001AG 1 Lump Sum Recovery 12" Diameter Pipe South of Sta. 131+80

0001AH 1 Lump Sum Recovery Air- Release Valves Manholes

0001AJ 1 Lump Sum Recovery Site Restoration / Seeding

0001AK 1 Lump Sum Recovery Traffic Control

0001AL 1 Lump Sum Recovery Demobilization

0001AM 1 Lump Sum Recovery Pavement Repair of Roadways and Driveways

0001AN 1 Lump Sum Non- Recovery Underground Packaged Master Meter Station- South Tee Vee

Road

0001AP 1 Lump Sum Recovery Associated Sitework with North Tee Vee Road and Highwa 6

Underground Packaged Master Meter Stations - including Electrical and SCADA, Clearing, Grubbing, Aggregate Base Course, Fencing & Seeding

0001AQ 1 Lump Sum Recovery Fire Hydrant Assemblies

0001AR 1 Lump Sum Recovery Disinfection of Adjacent Pipeline

0001AS 1 Lump Sum Recovery Blow-offs

0001AT 1 Lump Sum Recovery Horizontally Directionally Drilled Pipe

0001AU 1 Lump Sum Recovery Underground Packages Master Meter Station - North Tee Vee Road

0001AV 1 Lump Sum Recovery Underground Packaged Master Meter Station- Highway 6

0001AW 1 Lump Sum Non- Recovery 12" Diameter Pipe

0001AX 1 Lump Sum Non- Recovery Associated Sitework with South Tee Vee Road Underground

Packaged Master Meter Stations - including Electrical and SCADA, Clearing, Grubbing, Aggregate Base Course, Fencing & Seeding

TOTAL

It is requested that offerors indicate whole numbers on their unit prices or lump sum amount.

Total Amount for Item 0001 $____________________________________

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. PROPOSAL OVERVIEW: This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits, the work consists of furnishing, installing, and placing into successful operation approximately 36,100 linear feet of 18-inch diameter water transmission mains, 21,200 linear feet of 12 inch water transmission mains and a master meter site along Highway 6 and two master meter sites along Tee Vee Road. This contract includes all valves, manholes, connections, appurtenances, bored roadway crossings, bored railroad crossings, testing, quality control, safety and all other related work to place this pipeline and this master meter into successful operation.

The NAICS Codes is 237110, Facility Support Services and the Size standard is $33.5 Million. The contract will be a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP). The purpose of the Source Selection plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the technical evaluation of proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value Decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA)/Contracting Officer using the Trade-Off Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1). 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 description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent.

1.1 Proposal Submissions and the Trade-Off 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 performance and capability information for review and consideration by the Government. Relative importance among technical factors is provided in paragraph 7 Evaluation Factors and Weights. The SSEB reviews, evaluates, and rates the proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP. Concurrently, the Government analyzes price proposals of Offerors. Price will not be scored, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final best value determination for award. The SSA compares proposals to one another and determines the best value for the government. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit? Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal.

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

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

2.4 General Requirements.

2.4.1 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.

2.4.2 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as shown in paragraph 2.5 Submission Format.

2.4.3 Size of Printed Matter Submissions. Written materials shall be on 8-1/2" x 11" paper.

2.4.4 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 this solicitation, (such as company brochures), may be placed in Appendices.

2.4.5 Number of Copies. Offerors shall submit one (1) hard copy of Volume I and five (5) hard copies of Volume II of their Proposal. Both Volumes shall also be submitted on a CD-ROM.

2.5 Submission Format.

2.5.1 PROPOSAL, VOLUME I – Contract Requirements & Price Proposal.

2.5.1.2 Submit original of VOLUME I - Contract Requirements & Price Proposal. This information should be submitted in separate three-ring binders labeled "Contract Requirements & Price Proposal."

2.5.1.3 VOLUME I – CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS & PRICE PROPOSAL. Organized as follows:

TAB A – Standard Form 1449, completed and signed by an authorized person from the company or team.

TAB B – Proposal Schedule “Supplies or Services Price/Cost” (Section 00010 of Solicitation)

TAB C – Section 00600 of Solicitation – Representations and Certifications.

TAB D – PROPOSAL DATA SHEET – See the format provided in (Appendix A). Ensure to include Offeror’s telephone number, FAX number, Cage Code, Tax Id#, e-mail address and DUNS number. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must be submitted. A DUNS number shall also be provided for each company identified in any proposed contractor-subcontractor associations of firms.

Mentor-protégé are cautioned that only protégé past performance can be evaluated.

TAB E –Bid Bond

TAB F – Financial Information (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings, and or number, etc.)

TAB G – IF APPLICABLE: Pursuant to 13 CFR 124.515(e), SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture. Offerors are encouraged to contact its SBA Servicing Agency upon submission of its proposal and confirm that its joint venture agreement will be approved.

Offeror shall submit evidence from Offerors Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist, the proposed joint venture for this specific project.

2.5.2 PROPOSAL VOLUME II – Technical Proposal. THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SHALL NOT INCLUDE

ANY COST INFORMATION.

2.5.2.1 This information shall be submitted in separate three-ring binders labeled "Technical Information." This category includes Project Information Sheets, schedules, and other information.

2.5.2.2. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL INFORMATION. Organized and tabbed as follows:

TAB H – FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

Subfactors:

A. Management Plan B. Experience C. Organizational Structure

TAB J – FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

3. TAB H – FACTOR 1: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE.

3.1 Submission Requirements.

3.1.1 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL APPROACH

The evaluation process for this factor will consider offerors Management Plan, Relevant Corporate and Personnel Experience and Organizational Structure. The information presented in the Offeror’s Technical Proposal will comprise the input for evaluation of this factor.

Sub factor 1: Management Plan. Offerors shall submit a management plan on their plan of execution. This plan shall address the offerors ability to furnishing, installing, and placing into successful operation approximately 36,100 linear feet of 18-inch diameter water transmission mains, 21,200 linear feet of 12 inch water transmission mains and a master meter site along Highway 6 and two master meter sites along Tee Vee road. The proposal shall also include discussion of their quality control in performance of requirements described in this RFP and performance of requirements during the weekdays, weekends, and holidays.

Subfactor 2: Experience

(i) Corporate Experience: Offerors shall submit up to a total of five (5) examples of completed or current contracts (with Federal, State or local governments or private) that represent the offeror's experience as either the prime contractor or subcontractor that is relevant to the requirements of this Request for Proposal. Relevant experience is defined as any CONSTUCTION of similar type and scope projects. Similar means construction project with a value greater than $3 million that is predominantly pipeline placement. If numerous and similar projects occurred under a single multiple task type contract, provide one document for the multiple task contract.

The description of each project shall indicate the offeror's role in the execution of that project. Each project description shall include information regarding the supplies involved and their quantities, methods of performance, timelines for performance, the complexity of the work, and the dollar value of the contract or subcontract. See the format provided in (Appendix A). Offerors are encouraged to identify problems or unique issues encountered on these contracts or subcontracts and discuss both the corrective actions taken and the results achieved by the offeror.

Examples provided are limited to contracts or subcontracts completed no later than five (5) years prior to the solicitation issued date.

(ii) Personnel Experience. The offeror shall identify qualifications/experience of key personnel by submission of a one page resume for each key position and the level of direct responsibility for the day to day operation and activities related to this project. Key personnel should include Senior Manager and Alternate; Operations Manager/Liaison; Strategic Planner; Quality Control Manager. Resumes shall not include individual’s social, civic or fraternal activities. Data should indicate whether each individual has had a significant part in any of the project examples cited under paragraph (1) Corporate Experience above.

NOTE: If Offeror is proposing to use a Joint Venture or Contractor Team Arrangement, Offerors shall also submit five (5) examples of completed or current contracts for all contractors identified in any proposed Joint Venture or Contractor Team Arrangement.

If reassignment of personnel is considered, the offeror shall also submit names and resumes and the level of and direct responsibility for these individuals.

Subfactor 3 - Organizational Structure. The Offeror shall submit their planned On-Site Staffing to include the depth and size of their organization; data regarding locations of their home and branch offices and their personnel.

These data may be in summary form indicating numbers of home and branch office personnel by job title or trade.

Indicate numbers of general personnel by job title or trade that can be applied to this contract.

Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the solicitation will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors/contractors identified in contractor teaming arrangements. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government SOW subparagraph number.

4. TAB J – FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 Submission Requirements.

4.1.1 Offerors shall submit a list of a minimum of three (3) contracts (prime and major subcontracts) performed during the past three (3) years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant experience any CONSTUCTION of similar type and scope projects. Similar means construction project with a value greater than $3 million that is predominantly pipeline placement. 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, may be considered by the Board to be more advantageous and offer less risk. The offeror must provide the information requested below for past performance evaluation or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant, directly related, or similar past performance.

The offerors past performance risk will also be evaluated on those contracts identified under Factor 1 – Technical that are less than three years old from the date of solicitation issue.

(1) Contract Descriptions. The Offeror shall include the following information on all contracts listed and in the following format:

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

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

(c) Government’s technical representative/COR, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

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

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

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

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

(h) Awarded price/cost.

(i) Final or projected final price/cost.

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

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

(l) Award or recognition – Final performance rating

(2) Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Part 1 describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offerors shall also provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination. Offerors are encouraged to submit letters of commendation or awards received for exceptional past performance as well as satisfied customer letters or testimony. Include awards, customer letters of commendation, customer evaluations, etc., with points of contact and telephone numbers.

(3) New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above.

(4) Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire. Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires (Appendix C) must be completed and submitted for all contracts identified for this Factor, and contracts listed under Factor 1 less than three years old from the date of this solicitation. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity (if applicable) and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The Point of Contact (POC) shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Officer within 20 calendar days of the release of the RFP, to william.wallace@usace.army.mil The offeror shall also e-mail to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POC’s who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list within 20 calendar days after release of the RFP. The POC List shall be submitted in table format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number;

Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-Mail Address;

Date E-Mailed to POC (month/day).

4.1.2 Projects from which questionnaires are received shall have been completed or substantially completed within three (3) years of the date of the solicitation.

4.1.3 Other Sources. The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the Offeror for information with respect to past performance. 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.

4.1.4 The experience of individuals will not be credited under this factor.

5. FACTOR 3: PRICE;

5.1 Submission Requirements.

The offeror shall complete Section 00010 of the solicitation.

Offerors shall enter the unit-price and the extended total amount for each item of their proposals in the spaces provided in Section 00010 of this Request for Proposal. Should there be a discrepancy between a unit-price and the extended total, the unit-price will be held to be the intended proposal amount and the total will be recomputed accordingly. If an offeror provides an extended total but fails to enter a unit-price, the extended total divided by the specified quantity will be held to be the intended unit-price. Should there be a discrepancy between the sum of the correct amounts for the sub items and the amount entered as the total price, the sum of the correct amounts shall govern.

6. BASIS FOR AWARD

6.1. Award will be made to the best overall proposal, which is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors: Technical, Performance Risk and Price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Satisfactory” must be achieved for the all factors. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced offered.

6.2 In order to determine which proposal represents the best overall value, the Government will compare proposals to one another when performing trade-off analysis. The Government will award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose technical submittal and price proposal contains the combination of those criteria described in this document offering the best overall value to the Government. Best value will be determined by a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP.

6.3 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.

6.4 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.

6.5 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.

7. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Subfactors:

A. Management Plan B. Experience C. Organizational Structure

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

7. 1 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS.

Technical Approach (Factor 1) is the most important factor. Subfactor A - Management Plan is the most important subfactor. Subfactor B - Experience, is less important than subfactor A, but, more important than subfactor C. Subfactor C – Organizational Structure, is less important than B. Past Performance (Factor 2) is less important than Factor 1.

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined are approximately equal to price.

8 EVALUATION APPROACH

a. 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.

(1) All proposals received will be subjected to an initial screening by the Contracting Officer to determine whether proposals are complete in accordance with RFP Section 00010 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.

(2) All proposals having passed the initial screening will be subject to evaluation by a team of

Government personnel utilizing informal source selection procedures. In order for the Government to determine the quality of the offeror’s proposal as it relates to the factors contained herein, the team will evaluate:

(i) Understanding of Problems and Requirements: The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of all technical features involved in solving the problems and meeting the requirements. The extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.

(ii) Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offerors methods and approach to meeting the solicitation requirements provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful performance, and, to the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach in meeting the requirements in a timely manner provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful completion.

(iii) Completeness: The extent to which the technical requirements have been considered, defined, and satisfied rating each proposal strictly in accordance with its written content. Evaluators will not assume that the offeror’s performance will include areas of effort not specified in its proposal.

b. Offerors are reminded that unsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must not merely parrot back the contractual requirements, but rather provide substantive, understandable and realistic evidence to support promised performance. Any inconsistency whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price should be explained. Unexplained inconsistencies resulting from the offeror’s lack of understanding of the nature and scope of work required may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

c. 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 offer based on the potential of each offeror’s proposed approach to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance.

d. The Government reserves the right to make award without discussions, based solely upon initial offers and without the opportunity for revised proposals. Accordingly, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and price/cost standpoint. If, however, revised proposals are requested, they will be evaluated against the same criteria as the initial proposals.

e. 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.

f. Offerors are hereby put on notice that pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2), the Government reserves the right to limit the competitive range for purposes of efficiency, to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. A “highly rated proposal” is defined as one that provides a technical proposal with no deficiencies and a minimum number of overall weaknesses, with no significant weaknesses identified; excellent past performance; and costs that are reasonable and reflect a balanced and realistic cost approach that is neither too high or too low for the services to be performed.

h. The offeror’s attention is invited to paragraph 2 for detailed instructions on documentation to be submitted with their proposal addressing each of the criteria necessary to be eligible for a full evaluation.

Evaluation will be based on the factors as shown in paragraph 9, together with related risk assessment, as earlier described.

8.1 BASIS OF AWARD

The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are considered equal to price. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will determine the best overall value. The Government will not award a contract to a Firm whose proposal contains a deficiency, as stated in FAR 15.0001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offeror(s), the SSA must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify award to that firm.

8.2 SPECIAL EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS:

a. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other. Rather, evaluators will score each proposal and indicate its worth in relation to the pre-established evaluation criteria.

b. In the context of this solicitation “offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor and all proposed major subcontractor or contractor team arrangements. A major subcontractor is defined as one who will be performing critical aspects of the requirement. 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. 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.

c. Offeror proposed teaming arrangements, as defined above, and company relationships shall be fully disclosed in the proposal. All prospective Joint Ventures 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 Team Arrangement.

9 EVALUATION FACTORS

9.1.1 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL: The evaluation process for this factor will consider offerors Management Plan, Relevant Corporate, Personnel Experience and Organizational Structure. The information presented in the Offeror’s Technical Proposal will comprise the input for evaluation of this factor.

9.1.2 Sub factor A: Management Plan. Offerors shall submit a management plan on their plan of execution.

This plan shall address the offerors ability to furnishing, installing, and placing into successful operation approximately 36,100 linear feet of 18-inch diameter water transmission mains, 21,200 linear feet of 12 inch water transmission mains and a master meter site along Highway 6 and two master meter sites along Tee Vee road. The proposal shall also include discussion of their quality control in performance of requirements described in this RFP and performance of requirements during the weekdays, weekends, and holidays.

9.1.3 Sub factor B: Experience. Offerors shall be evaluated on the depth and breath of their relevant corporate experience (with Federal, Sate or local Governments, or private) as either the prime contractor or subcontractor. Relevant experience is defined as any CONSTUCTION of similar type and scope projects. Similar means construction project with a value greater than $3 million that is predominantly pipeline placement This factor will consider if the team has previously worked together on other projects, were they successful projects has the firm (team) performed multiple task orders concurrently, and have the projects been performed in exigent conditions.

The Government will evaluate and rate the Key Personnel identified based upon the resumes, and levels of direct responsibility identified for the day-to-day operation and activities related to the delivery of the required product. .

9.1.4 Sub factor C: Organizational Structure. Plan shall provide an organizational structure that identifies the key personnel and individual on the project team that show clear lines of authority, responsibility, and communication between corporate staff, key on-site staff, and subcontractor interface.

9.1.6 TECHNICAL APPROACH RATING DEFINITIONS

Evaluation criteria for Factor 1 (including subfactors A thru D) will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions. Evaluators will apply the appropriate adjective to each criterion rated. The evaluator’s narrative explanation must clearly establish that the Offeror’s submittal meets the definitions established below. As each criteria is evaluated an assessment of Technical Risk will be also be made. Technical Risk relates to the assessment of an Offeror's present and past work and accomplishments to determine the Offeror's ability to successfully perform as required.

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. The Offeror has convincingly demonstrated that the RFP requirements have been analyzed, evaluated, and synthesized into approaches, plans, and techniques that, when implemented, should result in highly effective and efficient performance under the contract which represents very low risk to the Government.

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 benefit the Government. Offeror very significantly 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, but no major weaknesses noted, 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. Offeror demonstrates that the requirements of the RFP are well understood and the approach will likely result in a quality of performance which represents low risk to the Government. 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. The Offeror understands most aspects of the requirements and presents an acceptable solution to the extent adequate performance is anticipated. Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the RFP requirements, presents a complete and comprehensive proposal that will likely result in adequate performance which represents moderate risk to the Government. 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. In the case of no past performance on the part of the Offeror, a “Satisfactory” rating will be assigned for Past Performance.

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. The Offeror does not understand most aspects of the requirements; the submittal is not adequately responsive or does not address a specific factor to the extent adequate performance is not anticipated. 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 displays low probability of success, although the submittal has a reasonable chance of becoming at least acceptable.

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’s understanding of the Government’s requirements is so superficial, incomplete, vague, incompatible, incomprehensible, or incorrect as to make adequate performance very unlikely, or inconceivable. The Offeror does not demonstrate an understanding of the RFP requirements and the submittal fails to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling much of the Government's requirements. 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.

9.2 FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE:. The Performance Risk evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. Past performance evaluation will not take into account the past performance information regarding predecessor companies and sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, unless identified in the contractor team arrangements. In either case, the prime contractor and the proposed team members/major subcontractors will be assessed individually and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the offeror’s Performance Risk rating.

(a) The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment on identified projects based on the quality, relevancy and recency of the offeror’s past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors identified in any teaming arrangement, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. Areas of relevance is installing, and placing into successful operation 12” and 18-inch diameter water transmission mains. When assessing performance risk, the Government will focus its inquiry on the past performance of the offeror and its proposed major subcontractors, as identified in a contractor teaming arrangement, as it relates to all solicitation requirements. These requirements include all aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including the offeror’s record of: 1) Safety and Health; 2) Quality of Services; 3) Project Management; 4) and Customer Satisfaction.

(b) Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of proving low performance risk rests with the offerors.

9.2.1 PAST PERFORMANCE RATING DEFINITIONS

A rating of High Risk, Moderate Risk, Low Risk or Unknown Risk (as defined below) will be assigned to the Performance Risk Factor:

OUTSTANDING – Offeror demonstrates an excellent history of highly satisfactory or outstanding performance on contracts that are similar in scope, size and complexity to the requirements of this RFP. Essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: Very Low

ABOVE AVERAGE - Offeror demonstrates a history of highly satisfactory performance on contracts that are similar in scope, size and complexity to the requirements of this RFP. Little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: Low

SATISFACTORY – Offeror has demonstrated an adequate history of satisfactory performance on contracts that are similar in scope, size and complexity to the requirements of this RFP. Some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: Moderate

MARGINAL – Offeror has not adequately demonstrated or has a history of marginal performance on contracts that are similar in scope, size and complexity to the requirements of this RFP. Significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: High

UNSATISFACTORY – Offeror has not provided an acceptable or poor history of performance on contracts that are similar in scope, size and complexity to the requirements of this RFP. It is extremely doubtful that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: Very High

UNKNOWN - The offeror has little/no relevant past performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. The offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this factor. Risk Level: Unknown

9.3 FACTOR 3 - PRICE EVALUATION:

(a) Offerors will be required to price all line items for each contract period (base and option years). Price will not be scored, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final best value determination for award.

(b) The Government will perform a…