Amendment__ 0005.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

Port Arthur and Vicinity 03A (PAV03) Fronting Protection For Pumping Stations

See continuation page

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W912HY23R5223

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Jan-2023

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.

U0005

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17-Apr-2023

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

2000 FT. POINT RD.

GALVESTON TX 77550

W912HY 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HY23R5223

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 05

Deleted text is shown with a strikethrough. Added text is shown with underline

1. The purpose of this amendment is to update Section 00 22 16 Proposal Preparation and Evaluation Criteria and to extend the proposal due date.

2. Proposal due date has changed FROM April 18, 2023 TO April 20, 2023 @ 1400 CDT.

3. Offeror is required to acknowledge receipt of this amendment. Failure to acknowledge this amendment may cause rejections of the proposal.

4. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged and in full force.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUTION CRITERIA

W912HY23R5223

Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay Coastal Storm Risk Management and Ecosystem Restoration, Port Arthur and Vicinity Hurricane Flood Protection Project, Jefferson County, Texas PAV03A Fronting Protection for Pumping Stations PART I - GENERAL

INFORMATION

a) MAGNITUDE OF PROPOSED PROJECT

a) Physical Characteristics - Fronting Protection for Pumping Stations.

b) Magnitude - The estimated price range of this work, in accordance with DFARS 236.204(iii) is between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000.

b) INQUIRIES

OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Questions and/or comments relative to these documents should be submitted via e-mail to:

Contract Specialist- Primary POC – ATTN: Carol Hodges Phone:409-766-3198 Email: carol.w.hodges@usace.army.mil Bidder Inquiry:

Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted as discussed in section 00 21 00 para 1.2 via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org/projnet/

c) PREPROPOSAL CONFERENCE I SITE VISIT

See Section 00 21 00 at 52.236-27

IMPORTANT NOTES: (1) Remarks and explanations addressed during the conference shall not qualify or alter the terms and conditions of the solicitation. (2) The terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged unless the solicitation is formally amended in writing.

PARTII—PROPOSAL PREPARATION, SUBMISSION, AND EVALUATION

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. REQUIREMENT FOR SEPARATE PRICE AND TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

1. The Price Proposal and the Technical Proposal must be submitted electronically as separate electronic files. Ensure that each separate electronic file is clearly marked "Price Proposal" and "Technical Proposal" with the name of the offeror and the date specified for receipt of proposals. Information within each file shall be organized sequentially under the specified Tabs to facilitate evaluation.

2. Both the Price Proposal and the Technical Proposal must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals.

3. No dollar amounts from the Price Proposal are to be included in the Technical Proposal.

4. All information intended to be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal must be submitted within the Technical Proposal file. Do not cross-reference similar material in the Price Proposal, or vice versa. Do not include links to websites in lieu of incorporating information into your proposal. Do not submit excess information, to include audio- visual materials, electronic media, etc.

5. Do not include exceptions or deviations to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal. Should the offer include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may be determined "Unacceptable" and thus ineligible for award. Should the offeror have any questions related to specific terms and conditions, these should be resolved prior to submission of the offer. If the offeror must make any assumptions prior to submitting the proposal, the offeror shall list and describe in detail the assumptions on the first page of each Tab. All assumptions shall be fully supported with the offeror's rationale and shall fully explain the impact, if any, on the performance and/or specific requirement of the RFP. The offeror shall clearly describe on the Proposal Cover Sheet submitted with the Price Proposal any assumption to the contractual and/or technical terms and include the monetary impact on the solicitation with the price proposal. Proposal exceptions/deviations will not be considered a part of the contract after award unless specifically approved by the Contracting Officer in writing at the time of contract award.

b. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. Submit only the electronic files specifically authorized and/or required elsewhere in this section. Do not submit excess information, to include audio-visual materials, electronic media, etc.

2. Proposal materials shall be submitted in electronic format as shown below (see paragraph entitled "Electronic Format")."Electronic Format"). Electronic proposals shall be tabbed and labeled in a manner to afford easy identification from a Table of Contents. Font size shall not be less than 10 point, Times New Roman. Do not use condensed font. Each page shall be identified with the appropriate page number centered at the bottom of the page. Sheet size of the proposal contents shall be 8-1/2 inches x 11 inches where sheets are prepared specifically for this proposal; however, if drawings, charts, or other graphics are submitted, sheets no larger than 11 inches xl7 inches shall be used. Eleven-by-seventeen (11 x 17) inch sheets will be counted as two 8-1/2 inch x 11 inch sheets. Technical and Price Proposals shall be provided as separate files. The Price Proposal file shall be named "Price Proposal". The Government will not review any information submitted in an appendix or attachment to the proposal. The Offeror shall not submit verbatim sections of this solicitation as part of their proposal. Offers that do not meet these requirements may be subject to rejection.

3. Electronic Format: The offeror shall provide the complete proposal to the Contract Specialist via PIEE Solicitation Module only in accordance with the instructions issued with this Request for Proposal. Provide the Price Proposal as a separate file. The electronic proposal file shall contain the entire proposal (excluding the Price Proposal) in .pdf format using Adobe Acrobat software to print to a .pdf file; do not scan or copy the documents into a .pdf file. The text portion of the proposal shall be contained as a single .pdf file. The file must be "searchable". Sections of the proposal shall be linked to the index in logical order.

4. "Confidential" projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of the offeror's technical proposal. Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must be clearly marked in accordance with the instructions at FAR 52.215-1, "Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition", paragraph (e), "Restriction on disclosure and use of data".

5. For submissions with page limitations, the pages will be counted as follows: One side of the paper is one page; information on both the back and front of one sheet of paper will be counted as two pages. Where authorized, fold-out pages (11" x 14" or 11" x 17") will count as two pages. Pages furnished for organizational purposes only, such as a "Table of Contents" or divider tabs, are not included in the page limitation.

6. Proposal revisions shall be submitted as page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g., bold face print or underlining. The source of the revision, e.g., Error, Omission, or Clarification, or amendment shall be included and be annotated for each revision. Proposal replacement pages shall be numbered, shall be clearly marked "REVISED", shall show the date of revision, shall be submitted through the PIEE Solicitation Module. with the entire proposal revised and complete.

c. DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS Vendors seeking to do business with the Southwestern Division must complete a vendor registration on https://piee.eb.mil/, as you will be required to submit proposals through the PIEE Solicitation Module.

Please note that it is imperative that thee- mail address you used to register in SAM.GOV MUST be the same e-mail address used to register in PIEE. Identify the Solicitation Number W912HY23R5223 and Project Title in subject line of the email.

There are 10 general steps a vendor must follow in order to register and use PIEE application modules. A complete list can be viewed at the following site:

https://piee.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/web/homepage/vendorGettingStartedHelp.xhtml#step5

d. BASIS OF AWARD:

Selection for award will be determined using the Best Value Tradeoff Process in accordance with FAR 15.101-1.

This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than the price. In accordance with the FAR, no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures have been met.

2. PRICE PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUATION

a. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL

(1) Price Proposal. Submit the Price Proposal in electronic format in accordance with paragraph l .b.(3) above.

(2) Size Restrictions and Page Limits. Use only 8.5" x 11" pages. There are no page limits set for the price proposal. However, limit your response to information required by this solicitation. Excess information will not be considered in the Government's evaluation. Do not use a font size smaller than 10 pt or any unusual font style such as script, or condensed print for any submission.

(3) Format and Contents of the Price Proposal and List of Tabs. The Price Proposal shall be appropriately labeled as such and shall be organized as indicated in the following chart. Note: If the offeror is not required to submit any information under a listed Tab in accordance with the instructions below, that tab can be omitted.

However, do not renumber the subsequent tabs.

TAB

CONTENTS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME 1)

#1

The Proposal Cover Sheet

#2

Signed SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments

#3

CLIN Schedule

#4

Bid Guarantee (Bid Bond)

(4) Detailed Submission Instructions for the Price Proposal

(a) TAB 1: The proposal coversheet is required by FAR52.215-1(2) (c) (i)-(v) and must be submitted by all offerors. This provision, titled "Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition," and the format for the proposal cover sheet as shown here:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number:

2. The name, address, and telephone numbers of the offeror (and electronic address if available):

3. Names, titles, and telephone numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror's behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation:

4. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent's authority unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

5. Tax Identification number, CAGE code, and Unique Entity Identification number of offeror.

(b) TAB 2: The SF 1442 provided to respond to this Request for Proposal is to be completed by all offerors and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with FAR 4.102. All amendments must be acknowledged.

(c) TAB 3: Section 00 11 00, CLIN Schedule is to be completed in its entirety.

(d) TAB 4: Provide a fully executed Bid Bond as required by FAR Clause 52.228-l, Bid Guarantee.

BID BOND STANDARD FORM 24 NOTES:

Submit a scanned copy of the completed Bid Bond, Standard Form 24, with the proposal. Mail or deliver the original bond to the Contracting Officer post marked no later than the date the proposals are due.

Corporate sureties must appear on the list contained in the Department of Treasury Circular 570 titled "Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies." https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/suretyBnd/c570 a-z.htm

The Corporate Sureties' "Liability Limit ($)" must be the dollar amount that is the limit of the Surety, not of the bond being issued.

b. EVALUATION OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

1. Price will be evaluated and considered but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. The proposed prices will be analyzed for reasonableness. They may also be analyzed to determine whether they reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, the risks inherent to the work to be performed, and are consistent with the information provided by the Offeror. Additionally, all offers will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-l(g) and may be rejected if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2. An offeror may be required to confirm its price on either a CLIN, element, or total price basis, and/or provide additional information in support of their price prior to award at the Government's request and discretion.

3. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL_PREPARATION AND EVALUATION

a. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL The Technical Proposal shall consist of the following Tabs, appropriately labeled:

CONTENTS OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME 2)

LOCATION FACTOR

NUMBER

DESCRIPTION

Volume 2, TAB 1

NIA ASSUMPTIONS

Volume 2, TAB 2

Factor #l

PAST PERFORMANCE

Volume 2, TAB 3

Factor #2 PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION & SUMMARY

SCHEDULE

Volume 2, TAB 4

Factor #3 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

(1) The non-price factors are listed above in descending order of importance. Factor 1 is more important than

Factors 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factors 3. All factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

(2) Page Limitations. The following page limitations are established for each factor described above:

(a) Assumptions-no page limit.

(b) Factor #1, PAST PERFORMANCE-No page limitation

(c) Factor #2, PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION & SUMMARY SCHEDULE-Limited to 6 pages.

(d) Factor#3, SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION-Attachment 3 only.

Tables of content, proposal cover letters, and tabs between proposal information do not count toward any page limitations in the proposal.

(3) Detailed Submission Requirements for the Technical Proposal. The following is a detailed description of the information to be submitted under each TAB.

TAB 1: ASSUMPTIONS: The list of any assumptions made by the offeror shall be located under Tab I of Volume 2 - Technical Proposal. All assumptions shall be fully supported with the offeror's rationale and shall fully explain the impact, if any, on the performance and specific requirement of the RFP. If assumptions conflict with the Request for Proposal (RFP), it may be considered a deviation and render the offeror's proposal as unacceptable for award.

The requirements of the RFP will be enforced after award in accordance with the contract order of precedence clause.

TAB 2: FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

a. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

There are three aspects to the performance confidence evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered.

Relevance and quality of performance will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

1. The Offeror's construction entities shall each demonstrate past performance through the submission of similar projects, using the Construction - Past Performance Assessment Worksheet

- (Attachment 1). Firms may expand the forms if needed but shall not exceed two (2) pages per project.

Offerors who submit past performance information of a parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company must describe what involvement such company will have on the instant acquisition. The proposal should clearly indicate how the resources of the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliate company - its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources.

- will be provided or relied upon for contract performance. Past performance of a parent, sister, predecessor, or other affiliated company will only be considered if the offeror is able to demonstrate that the relationship with the related company will affect the performance of the offeror and that it is clear that the related company will have a meaningful involvement in contract performance.

2. The offeror shall submit up to six (6) but no less than three (3) projects to demonstrate the organization's/team's recent and relevant experience. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) see paragraph 5 below. Past performance will only be accepted for the prime offeror, as identified on the proposal cover sheet, and NOT subcontractors.

3. Recent means completed or currently in progress with at least 50% construction completed within the past six (6) twelve (12) years from the date the solicitation was issued.

4. Projects will be considered relevant to this procurement if they are similar in complexity, in type, scope, or magnitude. Relevancy is defined as:

a) Construction, modification, and/or renovation of a flood protection system such as floodwall, locks, dams, pump stations; and

b) Construction value of at least $10,000,000.00; and

c) All projects shall clearly identify the portion of the project they completed, the value of the work completed by the offeror or team member, and the role in the submitted project (prime or subcontractor).

5. Joint Ventures. If Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies for the purpose of this RFP, the proposal shall clearly identify the contractual responsibilities of each firm and the work to be performed by each; describe the nature of the association; indicate whether the firms have experience working together in construction ventures, including how long and how many projects. In addition, each company, including joint ventures, shall list their Government contract experience. Provide a copy of the commitment letter of the firms or the Joint Venture Agreement. Prior to award of any contract, a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement will be required. If approval of the Joint Venture Agreement is required by the Small Business Administration (SBA), failure to timely provide an approved Small Business Administration Joint Venture Agreement may prevent award of a contract.

a) Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV) shall obtain a UEI number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as the offering Joint Venture. The Offeror shall submit up to six (6) "recent," "relevant" projects performed by the JV that reflect the JV’s ability to perform the work required in this solicitation.

b) If the Offeror cannot provide a sufficient number of projects as the JV, the Offeror must provide those "recent", "relevant" projects that it has performed as the JV, and then supplement the record with additional "recent", "relevant" projects performed by each JV member in their individual capacities. In such instance, each JV member may individually submit up to three (3) projects, to exclude any performed as the JV. In such instances the combined experience projects, submitted by each member of the JV, shall not exceed the maximum number of projects stated in Tab 2, paragraph a) 2. projects performed by an individual JV member shall reflect the JV member's experience commensurate with their role on this project or demonstrate how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

c) The Joint Venture shall provide a brief narrative stating the roles that each partner of the Joint Venture will perform on this project and how the presented projects demonstrate the JV member's experience commensurate with their role on this project or how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project. For example: the managing member of the JV should submit at least 50% of the relevant projects for past performance.

6. The offeror or its team member(s) is to submit to the client a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment

2) for each project the Offeror included in its proposal for Factor 1: Past Performance that does not have an interim or final Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation or is a non-Federal Government project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for each client. Completed PPQ should be submitted with your proposal. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If any negative past performance information is received to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Carol Hodges, via e-mail at: carol.w.hodges@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposals PPQ’s previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

7. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the completed questionnaires are submitted by the closing date. The Government may contact and interview the owner’ s representative on the Past Performance questionnaires and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the owner’s representative if the owner’s representative is not available.

8. Do not request past performance questionnaires (PPQ) on projects that have an interim or final CPARS evaluation. If an interim or final CPARS evaluation exists and a PPQ is provided for the same project, CPARS evaluation will be reviewed as the official past performance record for the project, and the PPQ will not be considered by the Source Selection Board or the Source Selection Authority.

9. For USACE or other DoD projects which are underway but do not yet have an interim or final

CPARS evaluation, one PPQ per contract may be submitted; to be considered, the PPQ shall be signed by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) for the contract.

10. To improve accuracy of database searches, the Offeror must also provide the CAGE Codes for the prime contractor and all teaming partners (i.e., design firms, key subcontractors, Joint Venture Partners). This information shall be provided under Volume 1, TAB 1, Proposal Cover Sheet.

11. Offerors are not required to submit any additional past performance information. The Government will utilize CPARS and any other information deemed relevant to assess confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform.

12. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluation of past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/UEI number of team members (Partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquires of owner representative(s), Federal Awardees Performance, and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

13. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rest with the Offeror

b. EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. The Government will review the proposal to ensure the submission requirements have been met. The

Government will then review the Offeror's past performance information, determine the performance recency, relevancy, and quality and assign an overall performance confidence assessment rating. The Government may review any sources of information for evaluation of past performance.

RECENCY DETERMINATION:

2. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine if the past performance is recent. Recent is defined as completed, or currently in progress with at least 50% construction completed, within the past six (6) twelve (12) years as of the date the solicitation was issued. With greater weight assigned to projects completed within the last 6 years as compared to the overall 12- year period.

RELEVANCY DETERMINATION:

3. Relevance of Past Performance. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine relevancy of each offeror's submitted Past Performance projects.

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

The Government will evaluate relevancy more favorably on past performance projects that include, but not limited to, the following list:

a. Projects that meet the definition of Relevance for Factor 1 para a.4

b. Projects valued over $40,000,000.00

c. Fully completed projects rather than partially complete projects

d. Projects performed as the prime contractor.

e. Projects that demonstrate self-performance exceeding 50% of project value.

f. Projects that demonstrate concurrent work on multiple project site locations.

g. Projects that demonstrate one or a combination of

i. Installation of at least 10,000 linear feet of foundation piles; and

ii. Placement of at least 5,000 CY of concrete

h. Projects in the last 6 (six) years as compared to the overall 12-year period.

4. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance to determine how relevant the past performance is to the project under consideration. Past performance on the projects identified in the project forms will receive more consideration than past performance provided in the supplemental narrative. Federal Government project past performance will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project past performance.

5. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

6. Past Performance with lower degrees of relevance will typically have less influence on the final past performance confidence rating; however, any contracts with adverse past performance, regardless of relevance, could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating.

7. Based on the relevancy of the projects submitted, an overall relevancy determination will be assessed as an interim step prior to establishing a confidence rating. For an overall relevancy determination of "relevant" or higher, the offeror must demonstrate past performance that meets all defined aspects of relevancy relative to their role on this project.

QUALITY

8. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror's past performance. The Government determines the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporates these into the performance confidence assessment. Evaluation will include the extent to which the offeror attained applicable goals for small business participation under contracts that required subcontracting plans, if applicable. A separate quality assessment rating is not required.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT:

9. The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include CPARS and other past performance information deemed relevant, to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. If the Government cannot establish the Offeror's relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire to conduct telephone interviews on any source it deems relevant to the evaluation. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will not release the information gathered to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government's evaluation is not limited to past performance of the projects submitted in response to this request for proposal.

10. In determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance, the degree of relevancy /recency of all of the considered efforts; the overall performance record of the offeror on each contract assessed; number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised);

and trend data will be considered. The resulting relevant/recent assessment conclusions will then be combined, along with the assessed quality of performance on prior contracts, to arrive at a single performance confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor.

11. The confidence rating will be established based on the past performance of the firms or that of its predecessor, as defined in FAR 52.204-20, if applicable. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its key personnel apart from that of the entity.

12. If negative information is received, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to provide input as required by FAR Part 15. CPARS evaluations that are part of the official record will be utilized as if the Offeror has already had an opportunity to respond.

13. In the case of firms for which there is no information on past contract performance, or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the firm's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of" neutral." Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may determine, that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating.

TAB 3: FACTOR 2 PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

a. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The summary schedule shall not exceed four 11x17 pages, and explanatory narrative accompanying the graphical schedule shall not exceed two 8 ½ x l1 pages. Submit a summary level schedule for construction for the project as described in the SOW. The summary schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days after NTP by which milestones are to be achieved. The actual NTP date may vary. The Offeror shall acknowledge that they understand that the total contract duration proposed in his schedule shall become contractually binding should that Offeror receive the award. Offeror must use the critical path method.

Schedules shall be graphically presented. The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration.

Attention should be given to the following schedule aspects:

i. Provide a narrative and delivery and fabrication of required materials. If long-lead material must be ordered, describe the requirement in the narrative and show the required ordering date in the schedule.

ii. Schedule must show summary-level activities, durations, sequencing, and logic to include predecessors and successors. All phases of construction shall be represented in the schedule.

iii. Schedule must demonstrate successful project delivery within the proposed contract duration.

iv. Schedule should include potential weather delays as noted in Section 01 10 00.00 45.

b. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

i. The Government will review the summary level schedule to ensure validity of activity sequencing, durations, and logic.

ii. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with the offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule.

iii. Schedules must demonstrate the offeror's ability to deliver the project within the contractual period.

iv. A realistic schedule that adequately demonstrates early construction start and/or a phased approach which allows the work to be completed early may be considered a strength. Proposed contract durations that shorten the Government’s specified review times will not be considered and will be identified as a deficiency. During the subsequent trade-off analysis, differences between proposed contract durations of at least three weeks (differences of 21 calendar days between proposals) will be considered an advantage to the Government, with greater differences also considered, accordingly. Proposals with less than 21 calendar days in comparison will not be considered a strength.

TAB 4: FACTOR 3-SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

a. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors are required to complete the Small Business Participation Proposal (Attachment 3) and submit with their proposal. Offerors should propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this area.

Additional Important Note for Other Than U.S. Small Businesses ONLY:

Small Business Subcontracting Plan is Required (FAR 52.219-9) Separate from Small Business Participation Plan, other than U.S. Small Business offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan with their proposal and meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan). Other than U.S. Small Businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award.

b. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Offerors will be evaluated on the proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The Government will evaluate:

i. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

ii. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform.

iii. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition.

1. The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the Small Business goal. Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {12%} of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): {3%} of the total contract value;

Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {3%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business:

{3%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): {3%} of the total contract value; Service- Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {3%} of the total contract value. Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) {0%} (Note, for example, that a participation p Ian that reflects {l%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the small business goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

4. RATINGS FOR FACTOR 2 (PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE)

Outstanding: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Good: Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Risk Rating Descriptions Low: Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate: Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High: Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable: Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

5. RATINGS FOR FACTOR 3 (SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION)

Outstanding: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good: Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable: Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Marginal: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk ofw1successful performance is high.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

6. RATINGS FOR FACTOR 1 (PAST PERFORMANCE)

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

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

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

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

Confidence Assessment Definitions Substantial Confidence: Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence: 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence: Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence: Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

7. DEFINITIONS

Deficiency. A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength. An aspect of a proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Low. Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable. Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

8. GENERAL TECHNICAL CRITERIA

a. Material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as "Unacceptable".

b. Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail may be considered "Unacceptable". The offeror's failure to include information that the Government has indicated should be included may result in the proposal being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided.

c. The Government cannot make award based on a deficient offer. Therefore, receipt of an "Unacceptable" determination of acceptability for any factor will make the offer ineligible for award, unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with that offeror and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal. Note: It is the Government's intent to award without discussions.

d. If awarded, the Contractor shall construct the project in accordance with the plans and specifications issued with this RFP.

END OF SECTION

(End of Summary of Changes)