amd2.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

CONSTRUCTION OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN INJECTION SYSTEMS AS PART OF THE SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT

This amendment includes the follow ing changes: (Please see SF 30 continuation page)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 42

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Nov-2014

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-13-R-0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Oct-2014

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

14-Nov-2014

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAVANNAH

100 WEST OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31401-3640

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HN-13-R-0018

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

1. CONTRACT CHANGES:

a. The bid schedule has been revised.

b. FAR clause 52.245-2 Government Property Installation Operation Services has been revised to include the correct location information.

c. FAR clause 52.211-5000 Evaluation of Subdivided Items has been added.

d. Paragraphs 7.1.2.1 and 7.1.3 of Section 00100 Instructions to Offerors have been revised.

2. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES: The revised and added sections listed below (revised and added by Amendment No. 0002) are hereby added to and made a part of the solicitation. Revised or added information is underlined and deleted information is struck out.

Revisions can be located in the appropriate volume of specifications by searching for an asterisk and amendment number (i.e., *1). Deleted Section is also indicated.

Revised Sections Added Section Deleted Section Volume 3 Cover Appendix A 09 97 23 Table of Contents Appendix B 01 32 17.00 01 45 00.00 10 01 50 00 01 78 00 01 86 26

3. CONTRACT DRAWINGS:

Volume 4:

Sheets 13, 18, 19, 21, and 27A with Revision 1 dated 14 November 2014 are hereby added to and made a part of the contract drawings.

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job Construct Downriver Site Access Road. Includes all road improvements outside of chain link fence, including those road improvements outside of chain link fence showin in Volume 1.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0002 Construct/Install 117

HP

7,020 Linear Foot

14 X 89 H-Pile Columns at Downriver Site Intake Structure at 60' average depth.

Includes all costs associated with installation of H-Piles beneath structure.

UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0003 Construct/install 16 HP 1,600 Linear Foot

14 X 89 H-Pile Columns at Downriver Site Electrical Building at 100' average depth. Includes all costs associated with installation of H-Piles beneath structure.

UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0004 Construct/install 28 HP 2,380 Linear Foot

10 X 42 H-Pile Columns at Downriver Site Oxygen Generation Plant at 85' average depth. Includes all costs associated with installation of H-Piles beneath structure.

UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0005 Construct/install 58 HP 4,350 Linear Foot

10 X 42 H-Pile Columns at Downriver Site Speece Cones at 75' average depth.

UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0006 Construct/install 8 HP 640 Linear Foot

10 X 42 H-Pile Columns at Downriver Site Trash Rail at 80' average depth.

UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0007 Construct/install 252 Helical

11,340 Linear Foot

Anchors at Downriver Effluent Diffuser Collars at 45' average depth. Includes all costs associated with installation of anchors beneath collars.

0008 1 Job Construct/install diffuser at Downriver Site. Includes all costs associated with construction of HDPE discharge pipes, coated SS discharge pipes, and diffusers, including all piping and appurtenances downstream of Speece Cones.

0009 1 Job Construction of site improvements at Downriver Site, including fencing, all earthwork within fence perimeter, and all utility improvements up to five feet outside building structure.

Procurement and installation of 4 Downriver Speece Cones, per pre-determined pricing/scope schedule provided by ECO2 (See Appendix A of Specifications)

0010AA 1 Job Procurement of 4 Downriver Speece Cones, including all required appurtenances, controls, and related components not included in ECO2 pre-determined pricing/scope (See Appendix A of Specifications) .

0010AB 1 Job Installation of 4 Downriver Speece Cones, including all required appurtenances, controls, and related components not included in ECO2 pre-determined

0011 1 Job Construction and/or installation of all building improvements, including temporary and permanent sheeting, cast-in-place concrete, equipment, and any and all items related to the Downriver site not specifically listed in Items 1-10AB.

0012 1 Job Construct Upriver Site Access Road. Includes all road improvements outside of chain link fence, including those road improvements outside of chain link fence shown on Volume 2.

UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0013 Construct/install 112

HP

4,480 Linear Foot

14 X 89 H-Pile Columns at Upriver Site Intake Structure at 40' average depth.

UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0014 Construct/install 15 HP 1,125 Linear Foot

14 X 89 H-Pile Columns at Upriver Site Electrical Building at 75' average depth.

0015 900 Linear

Foot

Construct/install 15 HP 14X 89 H-Pile Columns at Upriver discharge pipe support structure site at 60' average depth. Includes all costs associated with installation of H-Piles beneath structure.

UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0016 Construct/install 56 HP 3,640 Linear Foot

10 X 42 H-Pile Columns at Upriver Site Oxygen Generation Plant at 65' average depth. Includes all costs associated with installation of H-Piles beneath structure.

UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0017 Construct/install 76 HP 4,560 Linear Foot

10 X 42 H-Pile Columns at Upriver Site Speece Cones at 60' average depth.

UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0018 Construct/install 8 HP 480 Linear Foot

10 X 42 H-Pile Columns at Upriver Site Trash Rail at 60' average depth. Includes all costs associated with installation of H-Piles beneath structure.

UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0019 Construct/install 34 2,040 Linear Foot

Helical Anchors at Upriver Effluent Diffuser Collars at 60' average depth.

Includes all costs associated with installation of anchors beneath collars.

0020 1 Job Construct/install diffuser at Upriver Site. Includes all costs associated with construction of HDPE discharge pipes, coated SS discharge pipes, and diffusers, including all piping and appurtenances downstream of Speece Cones.

Procurement and installation of 6 new Upriver Speece Cones, including all required appurtenances, controls, and related components not included in ECO2 pre-determined pricing/scope (See Appendix A of Specifications) .

0021AA Job Procurement of 6 new Upriver Speece Cones, including all required appurtenances, controls, and related components not included in ECO2 pre-determined

0021AB 1 Job Installation of 6 new Upriver Speece Cones, including all required appurtenances, controls, and related components not included in ECO2 pre-determined

Refurbishment/Retrofit and Installation of 2 Government Furnished Property

Speece Cones, including related components not included in ECO2 pre-determined

0022AA 1 Job Refurbishment/Retrofit of 2 Government Furnished Property Speece Cones, including required appurtenances, controls, and related components included in ECO2 pre-determined pricing/scope (See Appendix A of Specifications) .

0022AB 1 Job Installation of 2 Government Furnished Property Speece Cones, including required appurtenances, controls, and related components not included in ECO2 pre-determined pricing/scope (See Appendix A of Specifications).

0023 1 Job Construction of site improvements at Upriver Site, including fencing, all earthwork within fence perimeter, and all utility improvements up to five feet outside building structure.

0024 1 Job Construction and/or installation of all building improvements, including temporary and permanent sheeting, cast-in-place concrete, equipment, and any and all items related to the Upriver Site not specifically listed in Items 12-23.

TOTAL BASE BID (Items 0001 through 0024) $_______________________

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text:

52.211-5000 EVALUATION OF SUBDIVIDED ITEMS

Item Nos.0010, 0021, 0022 are subdivided into two or more estimated quantities and are to be separately priced.

The Government will evaluate each of these items on the basis of total price of its sub-items.

(End of clause)

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION 00100

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for the construction of the SHEP Dissolved Oxygen Injection System, Savannah GA. This will be a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract.

1.2 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) using the Trade-Off Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1). Inasmuch 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, as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract issued thereafter.

1.3 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize a Best Value Trade-off Process. In this process, interested Offerors submit certain specified performance and capability proposals in conjunction with a pricing schedule for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit: Any legally organized firm may submit a proposal..

2.2 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. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, 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. The Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement. Any narrative provided should be incorporated into the Offeror’s proposal at Tab H.

2.3 If applicable, the Offeror shall submit evidence from the Offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel.

2.4 Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant to this acquisition. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight, if any, of the information to this procurement. Where information about a subcontractor is properly submitted and given significant weight during the evaluation, the failure of the Offeror to actually perform with that subcontractor may be grounds for termination for default. Any narrative provided should be incorporated into the Offerors proposal at Tab H.

2.5 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in Block 7 of Standard Form 1442.

2.6 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT:

3.1 Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents.

Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.3 Electronic Matter Submissions. Written material shall be on 8 ½ x 11 size pages in no less than a 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Pages in excess of any specified limitation shall not be evaluated.

3.4 Number of Copies. Offerors SHALL submit an electronic version (PDF Format) of the original Volume I and Volume II. Offerors SHALL submit only two files in PDF format (i.e.

Volume I and Volume II). These two files should be named in a specific format: Solicitation Number, Offerors Company and the volume (i.e. W912HN-13-R-0018_USACE_VolumeI.pdf).

Given the limited time and resources of the evaluation board, failure to provide proposal in the correct format may hinder the board's ability to evaluate the Offeror's proposal. Failure to provide any copies of Volume I or Volume II may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined ineligible for award.

3.5 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror.

Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

TAB B – Section 00010 – Proposal Pricing Schedule

TAB C - Section 00600 – Representations and Certifications. For Offerors interested in submitting proposals as a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses, you are requested to submit the Department of Veteran Affairs Verification Letter verifying that your business has been approved as such and added to the verified Veteran business database at www.VetBiz.gov.

The Government reserves the right to rely on other sources to confirm SDVOSB status if the Offeror has not been approved through the VA.

TAB D – Proposal Data Sheet – See Attachment 1 provided at the end of this section. Offerors should ensure telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and DUNS number are all included.

The DUNS number provided will be used to access Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) data. Offerors should also provide any other assigned number that identifies them in the PPIRS database. 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 other proposed association of firms or Contractor Team Arrangement. The Offeror should also submit their Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB E – Bid Bond – See Clause 52.228-1 and any other notes, for required bond information.

The Offeror is required to submit a bid bond. Any bid bond found to be insufficient may affect an Offeror’s responsibility determination. Photocopied, scanned or facsimile bonds will not be accepted. THE ORIGINAL BID BOND MUST BE SENT TO: U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAVANNAH, ATTN: CECT-SAS-E (Whittni Wright). THE PACKAGE MUST BE

CLEARLY IDENTIFIED WITH THE CONTRACTOR’S NAME, ADDRESS AND THE

SOLICITATION NUMBER.

TAB F – Financial Information (e.g. the last three years financial statement, Annual Reports, Dun and Bradstreet 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 numbers for verification. Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount.

TAB G – Subcontracting Plan – FOR LARGE BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY. Subcontracting Plan shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, and SBA’s Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) located at http://esrs.gov . Instructions for completion of requisite forms, as well as guidance on coordinating and preparing for all compliance reviews by Federal agencies can be found at this website. Offerors are to ensure subcontractors agree to submit to

ESRS.

TAB H – Teaming Agreements and Narratives, if applicable. See paragraph 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.

For Offerors interested in submitting proposals as an 8(a)—SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture. The application for 8(a) JV certification SHALL be submitted to the appropriate Small Business District office no later than the proposal due date specified in this solicitation.

TAB M – Statement of Compliance. See paragraph on Summary Schedule submittals requirements in FACTOR 3, Summary Schedule. Statement of Compliance (Attachment 5) must be signed if the proposed contract duration deviates from the maximum construction duration time.

VOLUME II

TAB H –Teaming Agreement (Duplicate of Volume I)

TAB I– FACTOR 1 Past Performance

TAB J – FACTOR 2 Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience

TAB K – FACTOR 3 Summary Schedule

TAB L – FACTOR 4 Small Business Participation Plan

4. TAB I - FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

4.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of performance on recent relevant projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet, Attachment 2 and the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment 3 at the end of this section. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client (Point of Contact) for each relevant project submitted. Offeror must ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client. Completed PPQs must be submitted with your proposal by the specified closing date and time. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a point of contact for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete blocks 1-5 of the PPQ and submit the first page of the PPQ with the proposal which will provide contract and client information and must contain sufficient information for the government to determine the relevancy of the project. The Government may call and confirm information provided by the Offeror on the PPQs with the points of contact, to the extent necessary to verify the information in the PPQ or to obtain additional information.

The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. By exception, the client may request to submit questionnaires directly to the Government’s point of contact, Whittni Wright via email at whittni.c.wright@usace.army.mil, prior to proposal closing date. This request must be coordinated by the client in advance not later than 5 business days before the proposal due date. PPQ’s submitted directly to the Contract Specialist shall be mailed via traceable means (certified US Mail, FedEx, UPS). If the PPQ fails to arrive before the closing date and time, or if the information on the PPQ is insufficient to determine the Offeror name and appropriate solicitation number, it will not be considered.

Project Information submitted in a format other than or in lieu of the PPQ (to include CCASS) will not be considered. If there is insufficient space on the PPQ form to provide the information required by section 4.2.2. below, Offerors may attach a single 8 ½” x 11” continuation page with no less than 1” margins and no smaller than 12 point font to each PPQ, to list the required information. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors may submit PPQ’s submitted on other procurements.

In addition to the PPQ, the Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) to provide a summary of the PPQs included and/or submitted to clients. The summary sheet at a minimum shall include the following: 1) Project name; 2) Team member submitting the project; 3) Contract Number; 4) % Completion at the time of solicitation;

and 5) Completion date.

Offerors should identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements described in 4.2.2. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their expected role on this contract. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer.

4.1.2. Offerors shall submit no more than five (5) PPQs (Attachment 3). Project information shall be limited to the PPQ (and continuation sheets attached in accordance with paragraph 4.1.1 above, if utilized). Where a project was awarded as a task order or delivery order under an IDIQ type contract, Offerors are cautioned to submit information specific to the instant task or delivery order considered relevant to the requirements of this RFP, rather than the umbrella contract. For purposes of this Request for Proposal, if the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies in a Contract Team Arrangement as defined in paragraph

2.2 above, no more than five (5) total project examples may be submitted for the entire team. If an Offeror submits more than five (5) total project examples, only the first five (5) will be evaluated. Offerors are advised to submit projects wherein the Offeror, or proposed team members, played a significant role and to clearly define those roles.

4.1.3 If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer.

4.1.4 While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the offeror must provide detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information for evaluation by the Government.

4.1.5 See section 4.2.2 below for additional Submission Requirements.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

4.2.1 Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements.

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

4.2.2 Relevancy Evaluation: Aspects of relevant projects include similarity of scope, type of work, complexity, contract type, and the degree of subcontracting or teaming proposed by the Offeror. Projects will be evaluated using, but not limited to, the characteristics identified below.

The characteristics identified are not intended to be a comprehensive list. The project description in block 4 of the PPQ shall include the characteristics of the projects.

Only projects meeting the relevancy requirements described below will be evaluated for this factor. The following past performance definitions will be used during the evaluation:

4.2.2.1 Project Characteristics: Project will include the construction of two (2) Dissolved Oxygen Injection Facilities along the Savannah River at different locations, one (1) on Hutchinson Island, Georgia and one (1) in Effingham County, Georgia (Plant McIntosh). Project requires temporary sheet-piling to account for flooding conditions at one or both sites.

Features in the project include multiport effluent diffusers, Speece Cones, oxygen generation equipment, and non-standard size traveling bar screens.

4.2.2.2 Submission Requirements: Offerors should demonstrate experience similar to the work described above. In the project descriptions on the PPQs, Offerors should clearly indicate: 1) prior experience in construction of water or wastewater treatment facilities; 2) the installation of multiple large intake/discharge pumps (> 25 MGD total capacity) and associated piping; 3) the installation of large diffusers (> 18” in diameter); 4) the construction of access roads; 5) the installation of electrical service, instrumentation, and remote monitoring infrastructure/equipment; 6) construction of facilities in marine, river, or lake environments.

The Government will consider only those projects that have been completed within the last 10 years, or are at 80% complete at the date of the issuance of the solicitation and have a total contract amount of $20 million or more. The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum value.

Failure to include all the requested information may hinder the evaluation board’s ability to determine the relevance of the project and, consequently, lead to a lower confidence rating in this factor.

4.2.3 The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum value.

4.2.4 Relevancy Ratings. Using the criteria described in paragraph 4.2.2 above, the Government will determine the relevancy of the projects submitted and assign one of the following relevancy ratings to each project.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings.

Ratings Definitions Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.2.5 Confidence Assessment. The past performance record will be evaluated to determine how well the contractor performed on past projects, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

4.2.6 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance using the sources available to it including but not limited to: the example projects identified by the Offeror and submitted on the PPQs and any additional information received from references and CCASS or other sources.

Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond if such information is determined to impact the rating to be assessed.

4.2.7 Evaluation of the Offeror and Its Proposed Team Members.

4.2.7.1 The Government will consider past performance of the prime construction contractor. If a firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate the past performance of the unit or division submitting the offer.

4.2.7.2 The Government may also consider the past performance information submitted on any other team member, depending on the adequacy of the proposal in describing the role the proposed team member performed in projects submitted, and the role the proposed team member will perform in the contract resulting from this solicitation (see paragraphs 2.2 and 2.4).

4.2.7.2.1 The consideration and weight given to past performance information for team members other than the prime contractor will be based on the extent of involvement of the team member in the projects submitted and the adequacy of the description of such involvement in the proposal. Past performance information submitted for a team member who did not perform a significant role on the projects submitted or whose role has not been clearly or adequately described may be given little weight or possibly, not even considered.

4.2.7.2.2 The consideration and weight given to past performance information for team members other than the prime contractor will be based on the extent of the proposed involvement of the team member in the performance of this contract’s requirements. If it is not clear that the team member will perform a significant role in the performance of this contract, past performance information for that team member may be given less consideration and weight.

Where the Government views an Offeror’s role, or that of its team members, if any, as not significant or as not clearly defined, the Government reserves the right to view this lack of involvement, or clarity, as affecting the determination of relevancy and the usefulness of the information in determining a confidence rating despite the quality of recent, relevant past performance information.

4.2.7.3 Offerors are advised that if projects by team members are submitted for evaluation under this factor, Blocks 2 and 4 of the PPQ (and any continuation page, as allowed by paragraph 4.1.1 above) should describe, in detail, the roles and work performed by those team members.

Offerors are further advised to utilize narratives to describe, in detail, the roles that will be performed by team members on the project being solicited (see paragraph 2.2 and 2.4).

4.2.8 Other Sources. In addition to the above, the Government may review any sources other than those provided by the Offeror for evaluating past performance. These other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the proposal on the Proposal Data Sheet, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

The Government will also consider available CCASS ratings on relevant projects submitted by the Offeror under this factor and may consider up to five (5) additional CCASS ratings on recent, relevant projects as needed to evaluate past performance for any team member.

4.2.9 Rating Methodology for Factor 1 The Government will consider the relevant past performance information, source of this information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance on recent projects to reach a performance confidence assessment using the ratings in 4.2.11.

4.2.10 If no recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned this factor will be assigned a rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).

4.2.11 Past Performance Confidence Ratings

4.2.11.1 SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.2.11.2 SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.2.11.3 LIMITED CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.2.11.4 NO CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.2.11.5 UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE (NEUTRAL) - No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

5. TAB J—FACTOR 2- CORPORATE RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

5.1 REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 The Government will review the projects submitted by the Offeror in Factor 1 to evaluate and rate the recent, relevant experience of the Offeror in performing similar projects. Offerors shall be experienced with projects which exhibit criteria listed in section 4.2.2. The experience requirement may be satisfied by demonstrating that any intended subcontractor with a significant role in performing the contract requirements has the requisite experience, provided that: (1) the proposal adequately describes the role(s) the subcontractor(s) will perform in meeting the Government’s requirements (see paragraphs 2.2, 2.4 and section 4.2.7), and (2) there is a signed teaming agreement with the subcontractor(s) who will perform the significant role(s).

5.1.2 Submission Requirements

5.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate only those projects submitted for Factor 1 to determine the corporate relevant experience of the offeror. No additional projects other than those submitted for Factor 1, will be considered or evaluated for Factor 2. The relevancy and submission guidelines set forth in Factor 1 apply to Factor 2.

5.2 EVALUATION

5.2.1 The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has successfully performed a minimum of two projects meeting the criteria set forth in section 4.2.2 above. The completed PPQs for Factor 1 shall be used as a basis to evaluate this factor. You are not required to submit duplicate PPQs. The Government will review the construction projects provided by the Offeror for Factor 1 to evaluate the relevant experience of the Offeror with similar projects this will include the experience of team members, subject to paragraph 5.1.1 above. If the Offeror cannot demonstrate the minimum acceptable relevant experience the evaluation will result in a rating of “unacceptable.”

5.2.2 Rating Methodology for Factor 2, Factor 2 will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions. The information in the PPQs must clearly establish that the Offeror’s submittal meets the definitions established below.

5.2.2.1 OUTSTANDING - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

5.2.2.2 GOOD - Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

5.2.2.3 ACCEPTABLE - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

5.2.2.4 MARGINAL - Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

5.2.2.5 UNACCEPTABLE - Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

6. TAB K - FACTOR 3 – SUMMARY SCHEDULE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1 Offerors are advised that the required data listed below are a requirement of this factor.

6.1.2 Schedules or diagrams may be provided separately in a size that is easily read, but shall be bound and clearly labeled as Tab K.

6.1.3 The Offeror shall clearly state the total performance period proposed from the Notice to Proceed through turnover of the facility for unrestricted use by the end users. This period shall be inclusive of all review period required by the Government and specified in Section 01 33 00

SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES.

6.1.4 Detailed Summary Schedule: Submit a Construction Schedule with all areas clearly identified. Provide descriptions and details indicating understanding permit requirements, long lead items and major equipment approvals. Provide knowledge and understanding how Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) permitting process will impact the construction schedule. The schedule for construction shall be task oriented, indicating dates by which milestones are to be achieved. The Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his/her choice; however, the schedules shall be graphically represented.

6.1.5 The Offeror shall also submit a narrative, not to exceed one (1) page, 12-pitch, and double-spaced, explaining how the schedules will be achieved and how construction will comply with the schedule to complete these two systems and have them operational by the specified time.

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1 Proposed Contract Duration: The maximum allowed duration is 820 calendar days from issuance of Notice to Proceed (NTP). However, the maximum allowed construction duration for the Lower DO System at Hutchinson Island is 450 days after issuance of NTP. The maximum allowed construction duration for the Upper DO System at the McIntosh DO Plant is 820 days after issuance of NTP. The Government may take into account how well the summary schedule supports the duration, as well as use other information, such as but not limited to, independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. An offer which proposes contract duration longer than the maximum allowed duration will not be accepted by the Government.

6.2.2 Summary schedule: The Government will evaluate the overall understanding of the construction process being used in this solicitation. All field overhead costs are to be included in the contract price for the full proposed contract duration. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope. The schedule must reflect a single task oriented structure for construction. An offer which proposes a contract duration shorter than the maximum allowed duration may receive a more favorable rating provided the proposed duration is realistic, deemed achievable and is fully supported, to include submission of a Statement of Compliance as shown at Attachment 4.

7. TAB L – FACTOR 4 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

7.1.1 Small Business Participation Plan: ALL Offerors, regardless of size status, are required to address two areas: (1) planned small and small disadvantaged business usage for this procurement, and (2) past history of using small and small disadvantaged businesses on projects during the last 3 years.

7.1.2 Planned Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Usage for this Procurement. All offerors are required to provide a narrative discussion of no more than two (2) pages addressing their corporate approach and methodology for acquiring, soliciting and using small and small disadvantaged businesses in the performance of this contract. All narratives should address the Offeror's commitment to providing subcontracting opportunities, as well as evidence of planned and /or continued outreach efforts to encourage and use small and small disadvantaged businesses.

7.1.2.1 The extent to which Small Businesses (SBs) Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) HUBZone Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), Woman-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs), and when applicable, Historically Black Colleges/ Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MIs) have been identified for participation as part of the Offeror's team. This should include a general description of the type of work, product or service anticipated to be supplied via a small business concern along with the estimated percentage each subcontracted portion is in relation to the overall project. Identification of the names of specific subcontractors is not required for the small business utilization evaluation; however, successful offerors will ultimately be required to name subcontractors as a part of their subcontracting plan submission. Using the template provided in Attachment 4, provide the above stated information. Submission shall be limited to the Attachment 4, in addition to the two (2) page narrative. DO NOT INCLUDE dollar values on Attachment 4 or the narrative for this submission requirement.

(Example: Demolition Work- 10% of total work effort- SDVOSB identified)

7.1.3 Past History of Using Small and Small Disadvantaged Businesses as Subcontractors.

Provide a description of the Offeror’s demonstrated small business achievements in the various small and small disadvantaged businesses areas on no more than five (5) completed projects during the past three (3) years; information about each project shall be limited to two (2) pages.

For each project, Offerors should provide a brief project description, dollar magnitude of the project, location, and the percentage of total work that was subcontracted to small businesses, identifying specific SB categories used on each project. For this submission, large businesses may submit, no more than two (2) pages of, information pertaining to their goals and actual accomplishments under approved Small Business Subcontracting Plans. Using the template provided in Attachment 4, provide the above stated information. Submission shall be limited to the Attachment 4, in addition to the two (2) page narrative.

7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

7.2.1 The Government will evaluate the narrative provided as part of Paragraph 7.1.2, in conjunction with the information submitted on Attachment 4. The Government will also evaluate the narrative provided as part of Paragraph 7.1.3. Those narratives with greater detail and specificity will be given greater credit than general statements and commitments provided said details clearly demonstrate Offeror’s historical achievement of proposed goals.

7.2.2. Factor 4 Evaluation Ratings: Factor 4 will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions. The information in the narratives and Attachment 4 must clearly establish that the Offeror’s submittal meets the definitions established below.

7.2.2.1 OUTSTANDING - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

7.2.2.2 GOOD - Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

7.2.2.3 ACCEPTABLE - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

7.2.2.4 MARGINAL - Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

7.2.2.5 UNACCEPTABLE - Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

8. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

8.1 NON-COST FACTORS:

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE: This factor is more important than FACTOR 2, FACTOR 3 and FACTOR 4.

FACTOR 2: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE. This factor is less important than FACTOR 1 but more important than FACTOR 3 and FACTOR 4.

FACTOR 3: SUMMARY SCHEDULE. This factor is less important that FACTOR 1 and FACTOR 2 but more important than FACTOR 4.

FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN. This is the least important factor.

8.2 COST FACTORS

FACTOR 5: PRICE: All non-cost factors, when combined, are more important than Price.

9. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

9.1 The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information.

The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

9.2 Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. It is the responsibility of each member of the SSEB to provide and document sufficient strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to support the assigned rating for each factor. Comments are required for all ratings.

9.3 The final ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offeror, if any, will receive the contract award.

10. EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

11. RESTRICTIONS. Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this section may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

12. BASIS FOR AWARD

12.1 Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include capability in accordance with the evaluation criteria and responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

12.2 In order to determine which proposal(s) represent the best value, a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP will be conducted, and in turn, the

Government will compare proposals to one another. The Government will award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose technical submittal and price proposal contain the combination of those criteria described in this document offering the best value to the Government. Best value will be determined by a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP. Contract award will be made in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

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

12.4 The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

12.5 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…