Amendment_1_final.pdf

W912P4-14-R-0005

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

The purpose of this amendment is as follow s:

1) Updated Block 10 of the 1442 to indicate that the Government intends to aw ard at least 5 contracts as a result of this solicitation.

2) Extend the due date to 16 Jun 2013 at 1pm EST.

3) Provide answ ers to questions

4) Update Bid Schedules

5) Update Section 00110 and Section 00120.

6) Provide a list of site visit attendees

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Jun-2014

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912P4-14-R-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-May-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

05-Jun-2014

CODE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

USACE, BUFFALO

1776 NIAGARA STREET

BUFFALO NY 14207-3199

W912P4 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

USACE Buffalo Construction MATOC

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 13-Jun-2014 01:00 PM to 16-Jun-2014 01:00 PM.

The required performance has changed to Project Information: Multiple Award Task Order Contract for construction type activities as identified in the scope of work. The Government intends to award at least 5 contracts as a result of this solicitation to provide construction activities for the Buffalo District and the other six (6) Districts (Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Huntington, Louisville, and Nashville) within the Great Lakes and Ohio Rivers Division. This is a total small business set aside.The available capacity for the MATOC Pool is $40,000,000.00 over the five year base ordering period.NAICS: 237990 - Other Heavy and Cilvil Engineering Construction - Size Standard $33,500,000.Offerors MUST be registered in SAM Database (www.sam.gov)Please note: The information in Block 11 will be provided on a task order basis..

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q1. Will the government allow CCASS evaluations in lieu of the PPQ’s?

A1. No, please provide the coversheet as directed in the solicitation. Offerors may provide CCASS ratings within the page limitations.

Q2. Will the Contractor be allowed to spread the excavated soil/material around the construction site?

A2. The Contractor will not be allowed to spread the excavated soil/material around the construction site as a method of disposal. As per Section 31 23 20.13 10, Paragraph 3.3, satisfactory excavation material shall be transported to and placed in fill areas within the limits of the work. All unsatisfactory material, including any soil which is disturbed by the Contractor's operations or softened due to exposure to the elements and water and surplus material shall be removed from site.

Q3. Will the Contractor be allowed to burn the clearing and grubbing material?

A3. Burning will not be allowed on the project site. Section 01 57 20.00 10 (Environmental Protection), Paragraph

3.4.4 (Burning) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with:

3.4.4 Burning

Burning will not be allowed on the project site.

Q4. Can the USACE identify where the silt fence needs to be located, and approximate length of the fencing?

A4. The Contractor is responsible for providing erosion and sediment controls as per Section 01 57 20.00 10, Paragraph 3.2.3. The selection of the types and determination of the locations and lengths of the controls is the responsibility of the Contractor.

Q5. How long does the USACE intend to allow for the construction of the Canada Way Streambank Protection?

A5. The Contractor is responsible for providing erosion and sediment controls as per Section 01 57 20.00 10, Paragraph 3.2.3. The selection of the types and determination of the locations and lengths of the controls is the responsibility of the Contractor.

Q6. Spec 01 45 00.00 10 Section 3.4.2 states that the CQC manager may not be the project superintendent for this contract. Usually on USACE project of this size the project superintendent can be multi “hatted” and serve 3 roles i.e. superintendent, CQC manager and SSHO. Is that acceptable for this project or must two separate individuals serve as the superintendent and CQC manager?

A6. Per Specification Section 01 45 00.00 10 paragraph 3.4.2 the CQC manager may not be the project superintendent. It is not acceptable for the project superintendent to fill 3 roles as superintendent, CQC manager and SSHO. However, per Section 01 35 26 paragraph 1.5.1.1.1, the Contractor Quality Control Person can be the SSHO on this project.

Q7. My company will be submitting on Solicitation No. W912P4-14-R-0005 as a joint venture. Please let me know what is required by the USACE, besides the SAM database registration, to be deemed an acceptable joint venture? SBA does not need to approve any joint venture unless it is a joint venture dealing with an 8(a) Firm for an 8(a) solicitation. Since Solicitation No W912P4-14-R-0005 is a small business set aside, the joint venture would not need SBA approval. Are there are any other requirements regarding joint ventures from your office?

A7. Please see Section 00100, paragraph 1.1 and paragraph 2.1.1 regarding the JV requirements.

Q8. In section 4. Of the Past Performance Questionnaire, Project Description, it asks “How is the project relevant to project of submission?” Is this question referring to the construction MATOC itself or the Canadaway Creek Streambank Protection project included in the solicitation?

A8. It is referring to the construction MATOC.

Q9. Volume 1: Factor 1 – Past Performance: Many of our clients have stated they will not complete a PPQ form if they have completed a CCASS evaluation for the project. Is it acceptable to provide completed CCASS evaluations for relevant projects in lieu of the PPQ form?

A9. See Answer to question 1.

Q10. Are bid bonds, performance bonds and payment bonds required for both the Canadaway project and the performance qualification package? For the performance qualification package, is a bond letter, naming single and aggregate bond amounts, required?

A10. Per Section 00110, Paragraph 2.1.3 of the solicitation:

The offeror must submit a Bid Guarantee for this solicitation. Any offeror failing to submit an acceptable Bid Guarantee will be considered non-responsive to the solicitation and ineligible for initial evaluations and award. The Bid Guarantee shall be in the amount of 20% percent of the offeror's proposed price or $3,000,000.00, whichever is less. In determining the amount of the Bid Guarantee, it is based on the summation of the price proposed on each bid schedule.

An individual bid bond is not required for the Canadaway project. In accordance with Attachment 1 to the solicitation, Performance and Payment Bonds shall be required within 10 days after the Notice to Proceed.

Performance and Payment bonds are not required in an offeror’s proposal.

Q11. Will the government provide the estimated quantities for the JOB and hourly unit line items on the task order?

A11. Estimated quantity for JOB is 1. Hourly unit line items have been removed. Bid schedules updated.

Q12. Is there any way possible to have a secondary site visit for the subject Solicitation?

A12. There is not sufficient time to coordinate a secondary site visit. The property is owned by the Village of Fredonia located in the Town of Dunkirk. There is no access restrictions posted on the property by either municipality. Offerors may visit the site but please provide a courtesy notification to the village. The contact information is as follows:

Stephen W Keefe, Mayor stephenkeefe@netscape.net

Rick St. George Village Administrator adminvilfredonia@netsync.net

Sam Drayo Attorney at Law samdrayo@netsync.net

Q13. Specs state contractor to obtain all permits. We assume this includes NYSDEC and SWPPP. What Federal permits will be required for this task? And will the hourly bid prices for Project Manager, CQC Manager, etc. be paid for time spent to acquire these?

A13. No federal permits are required.

mailto:stephenkeefe@netscape.net mailto:adminvilfredonia@netsync.net mailto:samdrayo@netsync.net

BID SCHEDULE

CANADAWAY CREEK STREAMBANK PROTECTION, TOWN OF DUNKIRK, NEW YORK

Item Estimated Unit Estimated No. Description Quantity Unit Price Amount

1. Mobilization/Demobilization 1 JB $__________

2. As-Built Drawings 1 JB $__________

3. Clearing and Grubbing 1 JB $__________

4. Excavation 3,000 CY $________ $__________

5. Granular Fill and Chinking 575 TN $________ $__________ Stone

6. Riprap 4,250 TN $________ $__________

7. Topsoil and Seeding 1 JB $__________

TOTAL OF ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7 $__________________

NOTE 1: BIDS MUST BE COMPLETE AS TO ALL THE ITEMS ON THE SCHEDULE. FAILURE TO

COMPLETE ALL ITEMS ON THE BID SCHEDULE WILL RENDER THE BID NON-RESPONSIVE

NOTE 2: PLEASE NOTE THE ADDITIONAL PRICING INFORMATION REQUIRED IN SECTION 00110

PARAGRAPH 2.1.2.

BINDING CONTRACT RATE PRICING

Item No.Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Extended Price

Year 1

0001 Project Manager

1,712 hours

0002 Superintendent

4,552

0003 CQC Manager

3,512

0004 Site Safety Health Officer 3,512 hours $ $

Year 1 Total $

Year 2

Year 2 Total $

Year 3

Year 3 Total $

Item No.Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Extended Price

Year 4

Year 4 Total $

Year 5

Year 5 Total $

NOTE 1: The hourly rates proposed on this price breakout schedule will become binding upon award for the life of the MATOC Contract and must be used on each subsequent task order. Each task order will require a cost proposal broken down by line item including the proposed labor rates, materials, subcontractor costs, overhead, profit, etc.

NOTE 2: The number of hours for each discipline are estimated based on past experience and are only used to approximate the total estimated MATOC cost for price evaluation purposes. Rates will not be re-negotiated should the level of effort exceed these estimated quantities. Please see FAR Clauses 52.216-19 Order Limitations and 52.216-22 Indefinite Quantityfor information regarding the contract minimums and maximums.

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SECTION 00110

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF PROCUREMENT

PART 1 GENERAL

The procedures for the submission of all proposals shall be furnished as specified in this Section and in accordance with the additional procedures listed below.

1. ACQUISITION METHOD.

In accordance with FAR 15.101-1, award will be made on the basis of a tradeoff between past performance and price evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. Through use of the best value method of contracting, using the source selection trade off process, the USACE-Buffalo District, seeks to acquire the services described in this solicitation and its accompanying documents. This particular acquisition method considers award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest rated offeror for the non-price factor. In addition, this process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

As this is a competitive negotiation acquisition, there is no public proposal opening and no information will be given out as to the number of Offerors or results of the competition until all awards are made.

Oral explanations or instructions are not binding. Any information given to an Offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.

1.1. WHO MAY SUBMIT.

Competition for this acquisition is set aside for small business. The applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is 237990, with a small business size standard in dollars of $33.5M. The intent of this Solicitation is to select up to five of the most highly rated offerors to provide construction activities for the Buffalo District and Detroit District and the other 5 Districts (Chicago, Pittsburgh, Huntington, Louisville, and Nashville) within the Great Lakes and Ohio Rivers Division.

Offerors must have and must maintain an active registration in the following database:

System for Award Management (SAM): Offerors must possess and must maintain an active registration in the SAM database at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ to be eligible for a Government contract award. Firms organized as construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, or other interested parties, may submit proposals. In the latter case, the association may be a joint venture or a subcontractor. If submitting as a joint venture, ensure that the joint venture business name is registered in like manners in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), the JV entity must have valid SAM registration in the SAM database representing the JV as one business/firm/entity. Note: As mandated by the law, this Agency cannot award a contract to a contractor who is not registered in the SAM database. If at the time of award an Offeror is not actively, completely, and successfully registered in the SAM database, the Government reserves the right to award to the next prospective Offeror.

Also note that if joint venturing with a mentor protégé relationship in place, the mentor protégé agreement must be pre-approved by the SBA prior to the joint venture submitting its proposal to this Agency.

https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/

1.2. SUBMISSION DEADLINE.

Submission of Inquiries: Any explanation desired by an Offeror regarding the meaning or interpretation of the RFP shall be submitted only by e-mail to Oksana Strekha at oksana.strekha@usace.army.mil . Be sure to include the solicitation number, and project title in the subject line of your email with any of your questions/clarifications. Written questions must be received by this office no later than 10 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of offers. TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Directions for Submitting Proposals: Proposals shall be received by the Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District Office no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the SF 1442 (Page 1) of this Solicitation. The bid bond shall be mailed and received at the address in Block 7 of SF 1442 (Page 1) of this Solicitation. The bid bond must be received no later than the date specified in Block 13 of the SF 1442 (Page 1) of this Solicitation. Mail the bid bond to the attention of Ms. Oksana Strekha. The bid guarantee shall be submitted in original form and copy included in the eletronic proposal. The remaining proposal items shall be submitted both in hard copies and electronic format. To be considered for evaluation both mailed proposals along with an electronic copy must be provided by the due date.

Proposals should be mailed to the address specified in Block 7 of SF 1442. Electronic copies shall be sent via e-mail before the set deadline to oksana.strekha@usace.army.mil and jeffrey.g.ernest@usace.army.mil

1.3. SUBMISSION FORMAT AND NUMBER OF SUBMITTALS.

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government.

Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. Failures to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affect an Offeror's evaluation. Offeror’s should provide sufficient detail and clearly define all items required in this section.

The Contracting Officer may remove any Offeror from further consideration during any phase of the procurement if the Offeror fails to meet the submittal requirements of the RFP or to reduce the competitive range for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

The Offeror shall submit all proposal materials in both hard copies and electronic format with a table of contents. Each Section submitted must be parallel with the submission requirements identified below.

The bid guarantee shall be submitted in original form and copy included in the eletronic proposal. All information requested for Sections 1 through 2 must be submitted for the proposal to be considered responsive to the Solicitation.

The response shall consist of two (2) separately bound Volumes, Volume I – Past Performance Information, and Volume II – Price Proposal and Pro Forma Requirements.

mailto:oksana.strekha@usace.army.mil mailto:jeffrey.g.ernest@usace.army.mil

1.3.1. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS:

Submission Format Requirements

Number of Submittals

VOLUME I

Section 1

Past Performance (FACTOR 1)

Submit original and tthree (3) copies &

PDF

VOLUME II

Section 2

Price Proposal and Pro Forma Requirements

(FACTOR 2)

Submit original and three (3) copies &

PDF

A. Completed Bid Sheet for Binding Rates and Completed Bid Sheet for Initial Task Order

Submit original and three (3) copies &

PDF

Email Attachment

B. Price Proposal for the Canadaway Project

C. SF 1442

D. Representations & Certificates

E. Bid Guarantee

2. GENERAL PROPOSAL INFORMATION.

Offerors should limit submissions to the data essential for evaluation so that a minimum of time and funds are spent in preparing the information. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, Offerors must include information that is sufficiently detailed to describe the Offeror's qualifications and experience.

The Government will not be liable for any costs incurred by the Offeror submitting an offer in response to this Solicitation.

The criteria specified in this RFP are binding contract criteria and in cases of any conflict, subsequent to award, between RFP criteria and contractor's submittals, the RFP criteria shall govern unless there is a written agreement between the Contracting Officer and the contractor on the waiving of a specific requirement.

Clarification of the Provisions of this Request for Proposal. Any explanation desired by an Offeror regarding the meaning or interpretation of the RFP shall be requested in writing to the Contracting Branch, Attention: Oksana Strekha at oksana.strekha@usace.army.mil –BE SURE TO INCLUDE THE

SOLICITATION NUMBER AND/OR PROJECT TITLE IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL.

2.1. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS.

2.1.1. VOLUME 1: FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

2.1.1.1. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment 1) is provided for the offeror to submit up to five (5) PPQs in its proposal for Factor 1. The maximum page limit for this factor is 10 pages (the PPQs do not count towards the page limitation). Additionally, offerors are encouraged to provide detailed project descriptions for the submitted projects within the 10 page limitation to demonstrate how the submitted projects are relevant. The contractor shall demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects, using the PPQ. To be considered similar, projects must include construction activities such as operations and maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, building construction, heavy highway construction, building rehab, stone work, and/or bank stabilization work and have a minimum value of $250,000.00. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Submit projects that are currently well underway (at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer than five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. 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. The intent of the PPQ is to determine the relevancy of each project and how well the offeror performed on each project. An IDIQ contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the contract to be considered similar to this project.

Preferably, the completed PPQs will be included in the 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 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, Oksana Strekha via email at oksana.strekha@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

Inclusion with your proposal is the preferred method. 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.

2.1.1.2. The Offeror shall identify the extent and type of work that was subcontracted out for each PPQ submitted. The type of project shall be clearly identified.

2.1.1.3. Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 5 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. These documents count against the 10 page limit.

2.1.2. VOLUME 2: FACTOR 2 - PRICE PROPOSAL (Section 1).

This section is limited to 20 pages, including the bid schedules. Offerors shall submit the completed bid schedules provided in Section 00100 for the Binding Contract Rate Pricing and Section 00100 for the initial Task Order for Canadaway. The total proposed price for evaluation purposes will be the summation of the price proposed on each bid schedule. In addition to submitting the completed bid schedules, offerors shall provide a cost proposal for the Canadaway task order. The cost proposal shall include the cost breakdown for each line item on the Canadaway task order bid sheet. At a minimum, each line item shall include the labor categories from the Binding Contract Rate Pricing bid schedule (with the offeror’s proposed labor rates for each category), material costs, subcontractor costs, overhead, and profit. This will be a standard requirement for all future task orders.

2.1.3. Pro Forma Requirements (Section 2):

All Documents required by this Section shall be submitted in both electronic and hard copy form to the address specified above. The original bid bond shall be submitted in original form and enclosed in Volume II.

Required documents: SF 1442 (Page 2 of the Solicitation document): Blocks #14 THROUGH #16 on the 1442 shall be completed by an authorized person from the company or joint venture. In addition, any amendments shall be acknowledged.

Section 00600 of the Solicitation document (Representations and Certifications): The offeror must complete and submit the Representations and Certifications contained in Section 00600 of this Solicitation.

Bid Bond: The offeror must submit a Bid Guarantee for this solicitation. Any offeror failing to submit an acceptable Bid Guarantee will be considered non-responsive to the solicitation and ineligible for initial evaluations and award. The Bid Guarantee shall be in the amount of 20% percent of the offeror's proposed price or $3,000,000.00, whichever is less. In determining the amount of the Bid Guarantee, it is based on the summation of the price proposed on each bid schedule.

- END OF INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES TO OFFERORS -

(PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS)

FORM A2 - Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment 1

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Note: The past performance questionnaire consists of a total of five (5) pages.

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Offeror to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CCR CAGE Code:

Address: CCR DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: THE GOVERNMENT REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

THE EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

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

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

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

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

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

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

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer? E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force? E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

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

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program) E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

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

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below. Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

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

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

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

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

(End of Summary of Changes)

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00120

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the evaluations and ratings of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence in that technical/quality proposals are reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors.

1.2 The basis of award is the Tradeoff Process. The Contracting Officer will award up to five (5) MATOC contracts to the responsible offerors whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, are fair and reasonable and offer the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer. There are two factors being evaluated, past performance and price. Past Performance is more important than price.

The initial task order will be awarded to the offeror who proposes the lowest price for the task order amongst the offerors selected for a MATOC award.

1.3 Proposal submission requirements are outlined in Section 00110 of the RFP.

1.4 The Government intends to award without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary.

2. EVALUATION PROCESS. The evaluation process essentially consists of three parts: proposal compliance review, past performance/price evaluation, and a tradeoff analysis of the Past Performance and Price factors.

Proposal Compliance Review: The contract specialist will review the proposals to ensure they contain all of the required items as outlined in the RFP. Failure to include the required items may result in an offeror’s proposal from being further considered for award.

Past Performance Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Details of this evaluation are provided below.

Price Evaluation: The SSEB and Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate the price proposals independent of the past performance evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the past performance evaluation.

Cost/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then consider all factors to select the proposals offering the most advantage to the Government.

2.1 Definitions

1. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/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).

2. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

3. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPPIS.”

3.0 FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

3.1 Performance on Previous Relevant Contracts

The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the team's recent (well under way or turned over no longer than 5 years preceding the date of this solicitation), relevant experience. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the prime contractor on projects that are similar to the scope of this project to include operations and maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, building construction, heavy highway construction, building rehab, stone work, and/or bank stabilization work and have a minimum value of $250,000.00. The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience.

3.1.1 The Government will consider the extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience to this project, demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions.

Some examples of relevancy to this project may include, but not be limited to:

Number, size, type work, and complexity of the projects;

Dates (well under way or completed no more than 5 years preceding date of Solicitation);

Firm's role and extent of work self-performed

3.1.2 The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, and/or to review other recent projects rated in CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact offeror furnished references, or to review personal knowledge.

3.1.3 The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope of this contract for overall application to the performance confidence assessment ratings described hereinafter. The projects will include those submitted as well as from other sources described above. This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance relevancy ratings are described below:

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. (i.e. general construction)

3.1.4 The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, The Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as timeliness, management effectiveness, subcontractor management, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, warranty work, etc.

3.1.5 An overall past performance rating for Factor 1 shall be assigned in accordance with the following table. The degree of relevant past performance experience will factor into the overall rating. For example, if all of the offeror’s performance ratings are Exceptional, the overall confidence level may be lowered due to the relevancy of the experience.

RATING

DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

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.

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.

Unknown 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.

4.0 FACTOR 2 – PRICE

4.1 Evaluation Criteria:

The total evaluated price will be determined by adding the Total (all five years) MATOC price from Section 00100 with the Total Proposed Price for the initial task order from Section 00100. The price will be reviewed by the Contracting Officer/SSA for reasonableness through the use of price analysis. Price will also be checked for unbalancing of line items. Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately. Award will not be made to offerors who do not provide reasonable and realistic prices for all disciplines listed in the Contract Rate Pricing proposal, and for all line items in the initial task order proposal. Further, proposals that do not utilize the binding rates proposed in the Contract Rate Pricing proposal to calculate the price for the initial task order will not be considered for award. Failure to submit the required cost proposal may deem an offeror as non-responsive.