amd1.pdf

W912HN-16-R-0022

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

W912HN-16-R-0022 - DMCA 13A Dike Raising and Weir Improvements A. CONTRACT CHANGES: The proposal due date is hereby updated from 23 June 2016 to 30 June 2016. The Conract Specialist for receipt of proposals has been updated. Sections 5.1.4.2. and 6.1.2 have been updated reducing the dollar threshold for submittal projects from $5 million to $3.5 million. Revised or added information is underlined and deleted information is struck out.

B. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES: The revised Sections listed below (revised by Amendment No. 0001) 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).

Revised Sections 01 57 20.00 10 05 50 00 31 00 00 C. CONTRACT DRAWINGS: There are no draw ing changes w ith this amendment.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 26

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Jun-2016

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-16-R-0022

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-May-2016

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 X is extended, 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-Jun-2016

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION, CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) SCHEDULE

The required response date/time has changed from 23-Jun-2016 01:00 PM to 30-Jun-2016 01:00 PM.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for the construction of the 13A Dike

Raising and Weir Improvements. 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 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-2). 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 as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract issued thereafter.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit: The requirement will be advertised as a 100% Small Business Set-

Aside; any legally organized firm considered a Small Business under the applicable NAICS Code 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 G.

2.3 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 relied upon by the Government in evaluating proposals, 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 Offeror’s proposal at Tab G.

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

2.5 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.

3.3.1 Written material shall be on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper size, using no smaller 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.

3.3.2 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- 16-R-0022 _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.

3 . 4 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I Price/Representations/Certifications

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 00 10 00 – Proposal Pricing Schedule

TAB C - Section 00 45 00– Representations and Certifications

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. Photocopied or electronically scanned bid bonds are not acceptable and may lead to the rejection of the proposal as non-responsive.

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

TAB G – Teaming Agreements and Narratives, if applicable. See paragraph

2.2 and 2.3.

VOLUME II Technical

TAB H – FACTOR 1 Past Performance

TAB I– FACTOR 2 Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience

4. EVALUATION FACTORS

4.1 NON-PRICE FACTORS:

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 2: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5. TAB H - FACTOR 1 –PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

5.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of performance on recent, relevant projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire Assessment 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 Point of Contact. 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 it with the proposal. Please note that, at a minimum, this first page of the PPQ must contain sufficient information for the government to determine the relevancy of the project. In addition, this will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). 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. Offerors are cautioned that the information submitted pertaining to a project shall be limited to the PPQ form and shall contain enough information to determine relevancy of a project. Project Information submitted in a format other than or in lieu of the PPQ (to include CCASS or CPARS) will not be considered. 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 submitted on other procurements provided they are on the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire Form and the client contact information is accurate and up-to-date.

It is important for Offerors to provide accurate, up-to-date, client Point of Contact information on the project PPQs. If the Government is unable to verify the information provided on the PPQs with the client Point of Contact, or by other sources available (e.g. CPARS), the Government reserves the right to disregard that project when evaluating the Offeror’s past performance (Factor 1) and experience (Factor 2). Similarly, it is important for the PPQs to be signed by the client Point of Contact. If PPQs are not signed by the client, the Government reserves the right to disregard the past performance ratings for that particular project. Unverifiable and/or unsigned PPQs may result in a rating of Unacceptable in Factor 1 or Factor 2.

In addition to the PPQ, the Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Questionnaire Assessment 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.

5.1.2 Offerors may identify federal, state and local government and private contracts that meet the Government’s requirements described in paragraph 5.1.4.2.below.

5.1.3 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. The past performance of team members will be considered under this factor. If the Offeror is relying on team members to satisfy the past performance requirement, Offerors must provide some evidence that those team members are committed to performing under this contract (e.g. signed teaming agreement). 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 projects, the Government will only evaluate the first five (5) projects as submitted. No additional ones beyond 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.

5.1.4 RECENT, RELEVANT PROJECTS

5.1.4.1 Using PPQs (see Attachment 3) as described above, Offerors shall demonstrate performance information on projects similar in scope, type of work, complexity, contract type, and degree of subcontracting or teaming proposed by the Offeror.

5.1.4.2 Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) (no more than five) projects where each project has/had a minimum value of no less than $5 million $3.5 million and are successfully completed, or fully designed and at least 80% construction progress completed within five (5) years preceding the issuance date of this solicitation. Projects that meet these criteria will be evaluated to determine the level of relevancy. Relevant projects demonstrate construction of water storage impoundments, levees, dredge material containment areas/dikes, or dams with an earthen fill volume of no less than 100,000 cubic yards.

5.1.4.3 The project description in section 4 of the PPQ shall clearly describe the characteristics of the projects. The Government will not assume any project characteristics that are not specifically identified and described.

5.1.5 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 task or delivery order considered relevant to the requirements of this RFP, rather than the umbrella IDIQ contract.

5.1.6 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.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

5.2.1 Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probablility of meeting the minimum past performance 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. Past Performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table 1.

5.2.2 Relevancy Evaluation: Projects will be evaluated to determine whether the performance is recent and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired.

Projects that meet the criteria in 5.1.2 will be evaluated to determine how relevant the projects are compared to the effort to be acquired through this solicitation.

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.

5.2.3 Relevancy Ratings. The SSEB will evaluate the submitted projects to determine the similarity in scope, magnitude and complexity to the requirements under this solicitation. Based on the SSEB’s determination, projects will be rated according to the table below:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings.

Ratings Definitions Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

5.3 Performance Evaluation. The past performance record will be evaluated to determine how well the contractor performed on past projects.

The Government will evaluate the quality of 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 CPARS or other sources (see paragraph 5.3.1 below). The Government will consider any available CCASS or CPARS information on the relevant projects submitted by the Offeror under this factor. 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 may impact the rating to be assigned.

5.3.1 Other Sources. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other 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.

5.3.2 The Government will consider past performance of the prime construction contractor. The Government may also consider the past performance information submitted on any other team member. However, in accordance with paragraphs

2.2 and 2.3, above, the consideration given to past performance information concerning other than the prime contractor will be based on the extent of involvement of the team member in the project and the adequacy of the proposal in identifying and addressing such arrangements and roles. Past performance information submitted on a team member who does not perform a major or critical role on the project or whose role has not been clearly or adequately described as required will not be considered. In addition, the Government will consider the adequacy of the proposal in describing the roles and responsibilities of the team members in meeting the Governments requirements under this solicitation in determining the relevancy of any projects performed by those team members.

5.3.3 Rating Methodology for Factor 1. The Government will consider recent, relevant past performance information to assign a past performance evaluation rating identified in the table at paragraph 5.3.3.2.

5.3.3.1 To be rated “Acceptable” in this factor, Offerors must submit a minimum of three

(3) recent, relevant projects (see paragraph 5.2.3 above) with verifiable performance ratings of Satisfactory or better.

5.3.3.2 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Past Performance Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See 5.2.9.3 below.)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

5.3.3.3 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 ” (FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

6. TAB I—FACTOR 2- CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

6.1 REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1 Using PPQs (see Attachment 3) as described above, Offerors shall demonstrate corporate relevant specialized experience on projects meeting the criteria described in paragraphs below. Ideally, the projects submitted for consideration in Factor 2 will be the same projects submitted for evaluation in Factor 1. However, different projects may be submitted for consideration in Factor 2, provided the projects were performed by the same entities that performed the projects submitted for evaluation in Factor 1. Ensure that the PPQs submitted for this factor clearly describe the relevant characteristics of the project and the role(s) played by the entity submitting the project.

6.1.2 Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) (no more than five) projects (see paragraph 6.1.1) where each project has/had a minimum value of no less than $5 million $3.5 million that demonstrates experience in the construction of water storage impoundments, levees, dredge material containment areas/dikes, or dams with an earthen fill volume of no less than 100,000 cubic yards. Additionally, one (1) of the three (3) (no more than five) submitted projects must demonstrate experience in the construction of these dikes using materials present within the dredge material containment areas that are the result of previous dredging operations and where these materials consist predominantly of soft, silty soils interbedded with sand lenses underlain by marsh deposits. The projects must have been completed within the last five (5) years or are at least 80% complete preceding the issuance date of this solicitation. A minimum of three (3) projects meeting these criteria is required in order to receive an Acceptable rating.

6.2 EVALUATION

6.2.1 Rating Methodology for Factor 2. Factor 2 will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions (see paragraphs 6.2.3 and 6.2.4.). The information in the PPQs must clearly establish that the Offeror’s submittal meets the definitions established below.

6.2.2 To be rated “Acceptable” in this factor, Offerors must provide at least three (3) projects meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph 6.1.2 above and where one of the

(3) meets the criteria for using materials present within the dredge material containment areas that are the result of previous dredging operations and where these materials consist predominantly of soft, silty soils interbedded with sand lenses underlain by marsh deposits.

6.2.3 ACCEPTABLE - Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

6.2.4 UNACCEPTABLE – Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

7. OVERALL PROPOSAL EVALUATION

7.1 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.

7.2 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 whether the Offeror meets or does not meet the acceptability criteria in order to support the assigned rating for each factor. Comments are required for all ratings.

7.3 The Government will order the proposals by price, from lowest to highest, until it reaches the first responsive and responsible Offeror who achieves Acceptable ratings in both technical factors. That Offeror will be selected for award and the remainder of the proposals will not be evaluated.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. BASIS FOR AWARD

10.1 Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility. A responsibility determination made in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.1.

10.2 In order to determine which proposal(s) represent the best value, proposals will be evaluated against all source selection criteria in this RFP.

10.3 Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-price factors. In order to be considered for award, there must be an “Acceptable” rating in both non-price factors. The Government will make award to the Offeror who is deemed responsive and responsible and whose price has been determined fair and reasonable.

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

10.5 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

VOLUME I – TAB D

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

PROJECT TITLE: 13A Dike Raising and Weir Improvements, W912HN-16-R-0022 PROJECT LOCATION: Work will be performed in Jasper County, South Carolina.

1. Name of Firm:

2. Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

DUNS # (used for accessing CCASS)

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

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

3. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

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

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator’s Address:

Negotiator’s Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

ATTACHMENT 2

TAB H

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE ASSESSMENT SHEET

13A Dike Raising and Weir Improvements

The Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet 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) Construction percent completed at the time of the solicitation, 5) Scheduled completion date; and 6) D/B, D/B/B or CMS @ Risk.

No.

Project Name

Contractor

Contract # Construction % Complete @ Time of Solicitation

Scheduled

Completion Date

D/B, D/B/B or CMS @

Risk

ATTACHMENT 3

TAB H

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

1. 7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND

SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY

DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE

SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES

DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED

DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC

INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL

INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ATTACHMENT 3, TAB H

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner.

There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements E VG S M U N and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

DMCA 13A Dike Raising and Weir Improvements

Firm Fixed Priced Contract

This Acquisition is a 100% Small Business Set Aside. This is a Single Firm Fixed Price Contract for the Dredge Material Containment Area (DMCA) 13A Dike Raising

ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED THROUGH THE WEBSITE

LISTED BELOW. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION SENT VIA EMAIL OR FACSIMILE WILL

NOT BE ACCEPTED. HAND CARRIED PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS NOT

AUTHORIZED EXCEPT TO SUBMIT A BID BOND AS DISCUSSED BELOW.

DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS

In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format. The Price Proposal and Technical Proposal shall be submitted as “separate” single files. Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W912HN-16-R-0022_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I

W912HN-16-R-0022_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

Submit the Price and Technical proposals electronically via the AMRDEC SAFE website at: https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/ . At the AMRDEC SAFE website select the link:

I do not have a CAC or this machine is not configured to read my CAC and I would like to access SAFE as a Guest User, to register, access the site and submit your proposal(s). [Note: It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the AMRDEC SAFE website when using a Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.] AMRDEC restricts file size to 1GB, so multiple file upload may be necessary.

When your proposal is submitted via the AMRDEC SAFE website, the website will provide notification of the submittal to the Government recipients. When completing the information for transmittal at the AMRDEC SAFE website, you will be required to enter email addresses for the recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients will be the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. The Contracting Officer for this project is Bruce A. Helms, whose e-mail address is Bruce.A.Helms@usace.army.mil. The Contract Specialist for this project receipt of proposals is Addison Layfield Brent Ingram, whose e-mail address is addison.g.layfield@usace.army.mil Brent.W.Ingram@usace.army.mil. These e-mail addresses are the ones you will enter as recipients.

In addition, after uploading your documents, you will be required to verify your email address before AMRDEC will send notification to the Government recipients. This is a very important step – even if you successfully upload your proposal to AMRDEC SAFE, notification will not be sent to the Government until you verify your email address, which may result in the rejection of your proposal for lateness. Follow the instructions on the AMRDEC website and confirmation emails you receive from AMRDEC.

Proposal Due Date and Time:

Request For Proposal No: W912HN-16-R-0022 Due Date of Proposal: 23 June 2016 Time by which Proposals are Due: 01:00 P.M. (E.T.)

Title of Project: DMCA 13A Dike Raising and Weir Improvements

The date and time of delivery will be established by the time of receipt of the e-mail notification to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer by the AMRDEC SAFE website, not by the date and time of uploading of the proposal into the AMRDEC SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal. If an electronic submission is uploaded minutes before the deadline but notification is not actually received in the recipients’ e-mail inboxes until after the deadline, the submission will be considered late.

The Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient of proposals. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the information provided.

BID BONDS: An original Bid Bond must be delivered by the Proposal Due Date and Time established above. Bid Bonds may be delivered by Federal Express, United Parcel Service, U.S. Mail, or U.S. Express Mail.

For Bid Bonds delivered by Federal Express and United Parcel Service, the date and time of delivery established by these carriers is not the official time of receipt by the Government. Security Guards posted at the loading dock entry for the building do not receive bonds and will contact Mailroom personnel. Once Mailroom personnel are available, the bonds will be processed by the Security Guards using established security procedures and subsequently picked up by Mailroom personnel. After receipt by the Mailroom personnel, a record will be made of the receipt of the bonds. Completion of these actions will constitute delivery of the bond by the date and time designated for receipt of bonds. Bidders are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the bid bond to be processed for receipt and are cautioned that sufficient time may be as much as 24 hours prior to the date and time designated for receipt of Bid Bonds. Bonds sent by U.S. Mail or U.S. Express Mail are required to be sent to 100 West Oglethorpe Avenue, Savannah, Georgia 31401. Bidders that use U.S Mail or U.S. Express Mail must allow sufficient time for bids to be received by Mailroom personnel by the time specified for receipt of bonds.

Bidders are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the bonds to be processed for receipt and are cautioned that sufficient time may be as much as 24 hours prior to the date and time designated for receipt of proposals.

Bidders are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the bonds to be physically received and processed by Mailroom personnel in accordance with the information provided.

The Government will not be responsible for bonds delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive bonds on its behalf. Bidders are responsible for ensuring bonds are submitted so as to reach the location designated for receipt of bonds.

WAGE DETERMINATIONS: The appropriate wage determination for this requirement is U.S. Department of Labor Wage Decision No. SC1 dated 01/08/2016. This wage determination can be found at http://www.wdol.gov.

TECHNICAL MATTERS: Submit technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at (https://www.projnet.org) at least 10 calendar days prior to the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. The Government reserves the right to decline addressing questions received less than 10 calendar days prior to receipt of proposals.

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in this Request for Proposal contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound; immediately notify the Contract Specialist in writing with supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to award a contract as a result of this Request for Proposal based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access.

A prospective vendor who submits a comment or question will receive an acknowledgement via e-mail, followed by an answer after it has been processed by our technical team. All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through ProjNet. Approved answers to all timely questions will also be posted on the FedBizOps in the form of a report generated from ProjNet as soon as the comment/question entering period is over and answers are all finalized.

W912HN-16-R-0022

Dredge Material Containment Area (DMCA) 13A Dike Raising FY16 Single Firm Fixed Price Contract Bidder Inquiry Key: UN6NZQ-Z82FBX

Specific Instructions for Initial ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. E-mail. Enter the e-mail address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, E-mail, Secret

Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

Steps 1 through 3: same as above.

4. E-mail. Enter the e-mail address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open asking for the answer to your Secret Question.

6. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed, you are logged into the system.

(End of Summary of Changes)