Amendment 2.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

Project Title: Lake Marion - Wells Crossroad to Holly Hill Reach

The purpose of this Amendment is to Revise the Scope of w ork as follow s:

See Block 14 Continuation Page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 26

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Sep-2012

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 W912HP-12-R-0030

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Aug-2012

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 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

11-Sep-2012

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CHARLESTON

69-A HAGOOD AVENUE

CHARLESTON SC 29403

W912HP 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HP-12-R-0030

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 2

1. Delete and replace the last sentence of paragraph 2.2.1 of Section 02 60 00 as follows:

“Ductile Iron Pipe shall be manufactured by ACIPCO, US Pipe, Griffin, or equal.”

Add the following paragraph after the last sentence of paragraph 2.2.1 of Section 02 60 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

2. Delete and replace the last sentence of the 1st paragraph of paragraph 1.2 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“The master meter station shall be manufactured by Engineered Fluid, Inc., Centralia, Illinois, or equal.”

Add the following paragraph after the last paragraph of paragraph 1.2 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

3. Delete and replace the last sentence of paragraph 2.3.2 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.116-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

4. Delete and replace the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph of paragraph 2.3.5 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“The entrance manway shall be Bilco Model MS-50 roof scuttle (or equal), with a minimum clear inside opening of 30 by 54 inches.”

Add the following paragraph after the last sentence of the 1st paragraph of paragraph 2.3.5 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

5. Delete and replace the 2nd paragraph of paragraph 2.3.6 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“A Bilco Model LU-1 ladder-up safety post (or equal) shall be installed on the vertical centerline of the entrance ladder.”

Add the following paragraph after the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.6 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

6. Delete and replace the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of paragraph 2.3.8 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“Following grit blasting, all weldments will be pretreated by hand with brush using Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646 coating (or equal) to provide additional corrosion protection.”

Delete and replace the 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph of paragraph 2.3.8 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“The protective coating shall be Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646 two-component, high solids, epoxy system (or equal) formulated for high build application for protection and finishing of steel and having excellent chemical and corrosion resistant properties.”

Add the following paragraph after the 3rd paragraph of paragraph 2.3.8 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

7. Delete and replace the last sentence of the 1st paragraph of paragraph 2.3.11 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“The epoxy powder coating shall be Pipe Clad 1500 Red latest revision from Valspar, Inc., or equal.”

Add the following paragraph after the 1st paragraph of paragraph 2.3.11 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

8. Delete and replace the next to the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of paragraph 2.3.16 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“Process tubing shall be SMLS 316 stainless steel, ½-inch, with stainless steel fittings manufactured by Swagelok, or equal.”

Delete the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of paragraph 2.3.16 of Section 02 70 00 in its entirety as follows:

“No exceptions.”

Delete and replace the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.16 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“Gauges shall be Ashcroft Duragauge Plus Model 1279XLL, or equal.”

Add the following paragraph after the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.16 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

9. Delete and replace the next to the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.19 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“The manually operated butterfly valve shall be equipped with Pratt MDT (or equal) traveling nut style hand wheel operators capable of withstanding 450 ft. lbs. of input torque and mounted to the valve trunnion with 4 bolts.”

Delete and replace the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.19 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“Butterfly valves shall be Henry Pratt Model MKII, or equal.”

Add the following paragraph after the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.19 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

10. Delete and replace the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.20 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“The gate valve shall be M&H Valve Model 4067-02, or equal.”

Add the following paragraph after the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.20 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause

11. Delete and replace the 2nd paragraph of paragraph 2.3.21 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“The valve shall be Fisher Model V150, with CF3M (316L SS) valve trim, or equal.”

Delete and replace the 4th paragraph of paragraph 2.3.21 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“The motor actuator shall be an EIM 2000 Series M2CP with Futuronic III Controls Package, or equal.”

Add the following paragraph after the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.21 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

12. Delete and replace the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of paragraph 2.3.22 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“As such, only substitutions which meet the upstream and downstream pipe diameters required to maintain the guaranteed meter accuracy of the specified meter will be allowed.”

Delete and replace the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.22 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“The water meter & strainer assembly shall be a Invensys Metering Systems (formerly Sensus Technologies) Omni T2 Turbine Meter, or equal.”

Add the following paragraph after the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.22 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

13. Delete and replace the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph of paragraph 2.3.23 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“The meter assembly shall include a High Speed Pick-up Register and Act-Pak Model 1100DN, or equal.”

Delete and replace the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.23 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“The high speed pick-up register shall be Invensys Metering Systems (formerly Sensus Technologies), or equal. The Act-Pak shall be Model 1100DN, or equal.”

Add the following paragraph after the last paragraph of paragraph 2.3.23 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

14. Delete and replace the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of paragraph 2.4.1 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“Provide Sq D Type NQ electrical panel (or equal), with tinned copper bus, and bolt-on circuit breakers.”

Add the following paragraph after the 2nd paragraph of paragraph 2.4.1 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

15. Delete and replace the 3rd sentence of the last paragraph of paragraph 2.4.3 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“Tubing shall be Swagelok, or equal.”

Delete and replace the last paragraph of paragraph 2.4.3 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“Pressure transmitters shall be Rosemount 3051TG2A2B21AB4K5, or equal.”

Add the following paragraph after the last paragraph of paragraph 2.4.3 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

16. Delete and replace the first sentence of paragraph 2.4.4 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“Where indicated on the project drawings, provide a HACH CL17 Analyzer (or equal), all required tubing, tap connections, pressure regulator and regulator support and analyzer supports as required.”

Add the following paragraph to paragraph 2.4.4 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause

17. Delete and replace the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of paragraph 2.4.7.4 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“Analog I/O instrumentation wiring shall use Belden #9316 or General Cable (or equal), stranded, tinned copper, No. 16 AWG twisted pairs with rip cord, drain wire and 100 percent foil shield.”

Delete and replace the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph of paragraph 2.4.7.4 of Section 02 70 00 as follows:

“Digital I/O instrumentation and control wiring shall use either 600 volt, No. 14 AWG stranded tinned copper, unshielded, PVC insulated and cabled conductors Belden #8627 or General Cable (or equal), or Southwire (or equal) THHN/THWN Type TC control cable having PVC/Nylon insulated singles with overall PVC jacket.”

Add the following paragraph after the last paragraph of paragraph 2.4.7.4 of Section 02 70 00:

“Referenced manufacturers are named to establish the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that “equal products” must meet are specified in the solicitation. Equal products of other manufacturers meeting all requirements of this specification shall be submitted with the proposal, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal.”

18. Revise 1st sentence of paragraph 2.6.1 page 6 of Section 00100

From: “Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) contracts no more than five (5) (prime and major subcontracts) complete or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 60% construction progress completed) during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.”

To: “Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) contracts no more than five (5) (3 to 5 from the prime and 3 to 5 from the major subcontractor) complete or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 60% construction progress completed) during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.”

19. Revise 1st sentence of paragraph 2.7.1 page 8 of Section 00100

From: “Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) contracts no more than five (5) (prime and major subcontracts) complete or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 60% construction progress completed) during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. “

To: “Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) contracts no more than five (5) (3 to 5 from the prime and 3 to 5 from the major subcontractor) complete or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 60% construction progress completed) during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the requirements of this solicitation”

20. Revise 2nd sentence of paragraph 3.2 page 9 of Section 00100

From “Similar means Construction projects similar in size, scope and complexity of this project with a value greater than $1.5 million.”

To: “Similar means Construction projects similar in size, scope and complexity of this project with a value greater than $5 million. “

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

Section 00100

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICE TO OFFERORS

1. PROPOSAL OVERVIEW

1.1 General. Since the proposal will describe the capability of the offeror to perform any resulting contract, it should be specific and complete in every detail. The proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straight-forward, concise delineation of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent.

1.2 The project consists of furnishing, installing and placing into successful operation approximately 32,500 linear feet of 24-inch diameter, approximately 6,000 linear feet of 12-inch diameter, and approximately 800 linear feet of 10-inch diameter and small water transmission mains from the vicinity of Wells Crossroads (intersection of US Highway 15 and US Highway 176) to Highway 453 – Gardner Boulevard and from Boyer Road to US Highway 176 in Holly Hill, SC, including a master meter station and all associated work. This contract includes all valves, appurtenances, roadway bores, horizontally directionally drilled pipe, testing, quality control, safety and all other related work. This contract will be a portion of the Lake Marion Regional Water System and will be owned, operated and maintained by Santee-Cooper, South Carolina’s electric and water utility. The Contractor will be responsible for coordinating work with local utility owners, property owners, Lake Marion Treatment Plant personnel, and the Town of Holly Hill water personnel.

The purpose of the Source Selection plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the technical evaluation of proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value Decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA)/ Contracting Officer using the Low Priced 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. The proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent.

1.3 Proposal Submissions and the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process. This process requires offerors to submit their performance and capability information for review and consideration by the Government. Following the review, evaluation, and rating of these proposals, the Government will evaluate price proposals for offerors that have acceptable technical proposals. The technical information contained in the proposal will be reviewed and evaluated by the Government in accordance with the evaluation criteria set out in this section.

Price information will not be rated but will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.

1.4 The Government intends to award a firm fixed price contract and could make award without holding discussions with offerors. Therefore, offerors are encouraged to include their best terms and conditions (both price and technical) in the initial offer. By submitting an offer in response to this solicitation, offerors are agreeing to comply with all terms and conditions contained in the solicitation.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit: Any legally organized Offeror.

2.2 Where to Submit: Submit proposal packages to the Charleston District at the address shown in Block 7 of Standard Form 1442.

2.3 Submission Deadline: Proposals must be received by the Charleston District no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

2.4 General Requirements:

2.4.1 In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive sufficiently detailed information to allow review and evaluation by the Government.

2.4.2 Tabs. Organized and tab the proposal as shown below.

2.4.3 Size of Printed Matter Submissions.

2.4.3.1 Written materials will be on 8-1/2" x 11" paper.

2.4.3.2 Include a detailed table of contents. If more than one binder is used, include the complete table of contents in each. Place any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation, such as company brochures or other information, in appendices following the tabbed sections.

2.4.4 Number of Copies. Submit original and four (4) hard copies of the proposal.

2.4.5 Electronic Copy of Submissions. In addition to the hard copies of the proposal, submit the Proposal on a CD ROM disk. The proposal should be in MS Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF file. The electronic version should either be a single file tabbed in the same order as the hard copy or multiple files hyperlinked to a single table of contents.

2.5 Submission Format

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

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

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

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by an authorized person from the company or Board.

TAB B – Proposal Schedule “ Price/Cost” Submit the properly filled out Bidding Schedule (See Section 00100) and Supplemental Price Breakdown ( See Appendix E)

TAB C – Section 00600 of Solicitation – Representations and Certifications (FAR Clause 52.212-3): Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the solicitation. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1442 and all certifications requiring original signature.

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

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

TAB E –Bid Bond: See Clause 52.228-1 (The amount of the bid guarantee shall be 20 percent of the bid price or $3,000,000, whichever is less.)

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

2.5.2 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, VOLUME II – Technical Proposal. THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SHALL

NOT INCLUDE ANY COST INFORMATION.

2.5.2.1 The Technical Proposal will be tabbed and submitted in a three ring binder in the following format:

(1 original and 4 copies shall be submitted with offerors proposal.) Submission shall consist of the following:

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

TAB G – FACTOR 1: OFFEROR PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Past Performance Information Sheet (See Appendix B) NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire( PPQ) (See Appendix C) Insurance Modifier (Submit current insurance modifier under this Tab)

TAB H – FACTOR 2: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Sheets (See Appendix D) Resumes for key personnel

2.6 TAB G FACTOR 1: OFFEROR PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION.

2.6.1 Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) contracts no more than five (5) (3 to 5 from the prime and 3 to 5 from the major subcontractor) complete or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 60% construction progress completed) during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.

Relevant past performance is any construction contract of similar size, scope and complexity to the requirements of the solicitation with a value greater than $5 million. Projects less than $5 million will not be considered. The description of each project shall indicate the offeror's role in the execution of that project. Each project description shall include information regarding the methods of performance, timelines for performance, the complexity of the work, and the dollar value of the contract or subcontract. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offerors shall also provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination. See the format provided in (Appendix B). The offeror must provide the information requested below for past performance evaluation or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant, directly related, or similar past performance. Projects should demonstrate work similar to that described in the RFP.

Below is a list of project information that needs to be identified for the projects submitted.

Project name, location and description Type of facility

Nature of firm’s responsibility (design, construction or both) Project owner’s name and address and project manager’s (point of contact) name, telephone number, fax, and email address (if known) Original scheduled completion date Actual completion date Overall size of project (in square feet or square meters) Construction cost Duration of construction Problems encountered and corrective actions taken Copies of recent performance evaluations for similar projects Performance rating of that project Letters of Appreciation or Awards

2.6.2 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). The Past Performance Questionnaire (Appendix C) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, via email at william.wallace@usace.army.mil 10 days prior to proposal closing date. 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. Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 3 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. 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 offeror's proposal, 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. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

2.6.3 If the Offeror is made up of separate construction companies that have combined for this project, then Past Performance Information must be completed for each company.

2.6.4 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.

2.6.5 Offeror proposed teaming arrangements, as defined above, and company relationships shall be fully disclosed in the proposal. All prospective Joint Ventures must comply with Part 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

124.513. For reference and evaluation purposes the Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement.

2.7 TAB H – FACTOR 2 CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE:

2.7.1 Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) contracts no more than five (5) (3 to 5 from the prime and 3 to 5 from the major subcontractor) complete or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 60% construction progress completed) during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

Relevant experience is defined as any experience with construction projects of similar size, scope and complexity of this project with a value greater than $5 million. Projects less than $5 million will not be considered. The description of each project shall indicate the offeror's role in the execution of that project. Each project description shall include information regarding the methods of performance, timelines for performance, the complexity of the work, and the dollar value of the contract or subcontract. See the format provided in Appendix D. Offerors are encouraged to identify problems or unique issues encountered on these contracts or subcontracts and discuss both the corrective actions taken and the results achieved by the offeror. Examples provided are limited to contracts or subcontracts completed no later than five (5) years prior to the solicitation issued date.

(1) Contract Descriptions. The Offeror shall include the following information on all contracts listed for corporate relevant specialized experience in the following format:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h) Awarded price/cost.

(i) Final or projected final price/cost.

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

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

(l) Award or recognition –

(m) Final performance rating

2.7.2 Personnel Experience. The offeror shall identify qualifications/experience of key personnel by submission of a one page resume for each key position and the level of direct responsibility for the day to day operation and activities related to this project. Key personnel should include Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Safety Manager. Each key personnel shall have at least 3 years of experience in performing work relevant to this procurement. Resume should also reflect individual training relative to the individual’s function. Resumes shall not include personal information such as individual’s social, civic or fraternal activities.

Data should indicate whether each individual has had a significant part in any of the project examples cited.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1. FACTOR 1: OFFEROR PAST PERFORMANCE. The Government will evaluate and review the completed Appendix B. – Past Performance Information Sheet. The Past Performance data provided by the Offeror and its customers, as well as other data relating to the three projects listed will be evaluated. If there are negative ratings (marginal or unsatisfactory) in a Government database that is less than three years old, the proposal will be rated unacceptable. If there are letters of concern that have not been materially refuted, unresolved show cause or cure letters, terminations for default, or other documentary evidence within the last three years that the Offeror cannot justify, the proposal will be rated unacceptable. Finally, if the customer for any of the projects presented in the Experience volume would rate the Offeror marginal, unsatisfactory, unacceptable in any area of the questionnaire, or if the project experienced a delay greater than 50% without justification, or there were any fatalities on the job site, the proposal would receive an overall rating of unacceptable for this factor.

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

3.1.2 The Government treats an Offeror's lack of past performance as having no positive or negative evaluation significance. Past performance, which is considered by the Government to be similar in size and scope to this project, as defined in paragraph 4.1 of this section, may be considered by the Board to be more advantageous. The Government will evaluate past performance based on the elements listed below:

3.2. FACTOR 2: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE. The Government will review the example projects provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate the recent experience of the Offeror in similar projects. Similar means Construction projects similar in size, scope and complexity of this project with a value greater than $5 million. Offerors are encouraged to provide descriptive analysis of why they feel their example projects meet the criteria for corporate relevant specialized experience. If the Offeror cannot provide suitable relevant experience and the evaluators consider that the information provided indicates that the Offeror has little to no relevant experience, a determination will be made as to the risk this lack of corporate experience presents to the Government and the proposal may be rated UNACCEPTABLE

5. PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. This document establishes a uniform evaluation procedure for the technical evaluation phase of the solicitation based on criterion identified in the Solicitation. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate each proposal individually using the qualitative procedures that follows:

5.1. 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 of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Comments are required for all ratings. Following the completion of the individual evaluations, a consensus evaluation will be derived. The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

5.2 The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the Offeror for information with respect to past performance. These other sources may include CCASS (Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System), telephone interviews and Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability.

5.3 The final overall rating along with ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority. The Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offeror, if any, will receive the contract award.

5.4 All proposals received will be subjected to an initial screening by the Contracting Officer to determine whether proposals are complete in accordance with the solicitation and whether they warrant further consideration.

Proposals that fail this initial screening process may be rejected and the offeror will be notified they are no longer eligible for further consideration.

5.5 Offerors are reminded that unsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient.

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

6. RATING METHODOLOGY

6.1 Proposals will be evaluated in each Evaluation Factor based on the following rating scheme:

6.2 ACCEPTABLE (A) The offeror has presented a satisfactory approach to the RFP requirements that meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the RFP. The narrative provided indicates that the offeror will provide the definable features of work required to meet the RFP requirements. The organizational structure can be responsive to the requirements. The offeror has shown an effective and efficient schedule with no adjustments in the RFP requirements for the successful project completion. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and need not be corrected prior to award.

6.3. UNACCEPTABLE (U) The offeror has presented no approach to the technical requirements that meets the minimum requirements of the RFP. The narrative provided does not indicate that the offeror will provide the definable features of work required to meet the minimum RFP requirements. Overall, the proposed organizational structure would not be responsive to the requirements of the RFP. Without major revision, the proposal has no chance of becoming technically acceptable.

7. PROPOSAL RATING

7.1 Each member of the Government evaluation Board will consider all information provided in the proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed the Board will meet and determine a rating for each of the evaluation factors by consensus decision.

7.2 Following completion of the consensus rating, each proposal will be assigned a single overall ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE rating. This final overall rating, along with ratings on individual factors, will be provided to the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority and used in making the determination of which Offerors are eligible for award.

7.3 It is the responsibility of the Source Selection Evaluation Board to provide and document sufficient strengths, weaknesses, and omissions to support the ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE rating for each factor as well as the overall rating.

8. PRICE.

8.1 Price will not be rated but will be evaluated as to its fair and reasonableness. Pricing for the contract shall be completed and submitted on the Pricing Schedule shown at Section 00010 of the solicitation and Supplemental Price Breakdown (See Appendix E).

8.2 The Government will perform a price analysis on all technical acceptable proposals received for the contract.

Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine fairness and reasonableness as well as to assure an understanding of the work and ability to execute the contract at price proposed. The evaluation will determine the extent to which the price proposal is consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Historical price information, competitive price information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), or any other pricing tool as necessary will be utilized in making this determination. Offerors are advised that any offer wherein pricing is deemed unfair or unreasonable will be rendered ineligible for award.

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

9. BASIS FOR AWARD

9.1 The proposals received will be evaluated for technical acceptability. A technically acceptable proposal MUST be rated as acceptable for each non-price evaluation factor. Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility.

9.2 Award will be made to that Offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable and has the lowest price that is determined fair and reasonable.

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

9.4 Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded based on the following evaluation factors:

9.5 Responsibility: Offerors must meet the standard for FAR 9.104.

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

TAB A

(Appendix A)

NOTE TO OFFERORS

This OFFEROR PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY PROPOSAL DATA SHEET must be completed and attached as the first page of the body of your proposal. The information required by this data sheet may be completed directly on this form or attached to the form as supplemental data sheets.

1. NAME OF OFFEROR.

Name of Offeror(s):

If a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Nature of Association:

2. DUNS NUMBER FOR OFFEROR

(If more than one DUNS number is to be considered, explain affiliation to Offeror)

3. CCASS INDENTIFICATION FOR OFFEROR

4. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

5. CAGE CODE:

6. Tax ID#

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). List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

PAST PERFORMANCE DATA SHEET

TAB G

(Appendix B)

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION.

Using the following format, provide information for a minimum of three projects that are successfully completed, or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 60% construction progress completed), preferably of similar design or features (size, scope and complexity) to that specified in the RFP, that are being or have been constructed by the Offeror to be used for reference and evaluation purposes. Ideally, these should be the same projects for which have been provided under Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience.

For each project provide the following information:

Project Title:

Location:

Contract number:

Procuring activity:

Procurement point of contact and telephone number:

Construction period (month/year start to month/year end or percent complete if construction is underway):

Address…