W912P5-15-R-0006.pdf

W38XDD43527484

The contract resulting from this solicitation w ill consist of repair and painting of the seven Cheatham Dam Tainter Gates and one bulkhead lif ting beam, as w ell as incidental related w ork as necessary.

The NAICS Code for this project is 238320 (Painting and Wall Covering Contractors), w ith a Size Standard of $15.0 Million. The magnitude of this project is $5,000,000 to $10,000,000. This is a small business set-aside in accordance w ith FAR Part 19.

The documents describing the w ork are provided by attachment and are listed in DFARS Clause 252.236-7001, contained herein.

JAMES W PURCELL (615) 736-7674

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

21-Apr-2015

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________1260 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________3 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________21 May 2015 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______120 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION (JEC)

JAMES.E.CHOATE@USACE.ARMY.MIL

(615) 736-7946

(615) 736-7124

NASHVILLE TN 37202

W912P5

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE W912P5

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

11:00 AM (hour) Sealed envelopes containing offers

CONTRACTING DIVISION (JWP)

JAMES.W.PURCELL@USACE.ARMY.MIL

(615) 736-7674

(615) 736-7124

NASHVILLE TN 37202-1070

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

615--736-7124FAX:TEL: 615-736-7946 TEL: (615) 736-7674 FAX: (615) 736-7124

W912P5-15-R-0006 63

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W912P5-15-R-0006

Section 00010 - Solicitation Contract Form

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job

CHEATHAM SPILLWAY GATE REPAIRS

FFP

REFERENCE SPECS AND PLANS POSTED WITH SOLICITATION

PROJECT DELIVERY DATE IS 42 MONTHS FROM NOTICE TO PROCEED.

Contracting Officer’s Note: During performance of this contract you are instructed and reminded that only two persons are authorized by law and regulations to commit the government to changes, this is the Contracting Officer and the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO). The ACO is only authorized to make changes to the contract within their Warrant Authority Level. Changes performed by the contractor without proper authorization may result in non-payment of the specific changes.

FOB: Destination

PURCHASE REQUEST NUMBER: W38XDD43527484

NET AMT

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

0001 Destination Government Destination Government

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS UIC

0001 42 months ADC 1 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

KY LOCK ADDITION RESIDENT OFFICE

Attn: GEORGE A ELLIS

193 TAYLOR PARK ROAD

P.O. BOX 387

GRAND RIVERS KY 42045

FOB: Destination

W912P5

Section 00100 - Instructions to Offerors/ Price Schedule

SECTION 00100

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1.0. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1.1 Reserved

1.2 Intent: The intent of this solicitation is to issue a single construction contract for repair, strengthening and painting of seven (7) Tainter gates, one (1) spillway bulkhead lifting beam, and other misc.

appurtenant metal components at Cheatham Dam near Ashland City, Tennessee, in support of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District (LRN) mission.

1.3 Project Description:

A construction contract will be issued for repair and painting of seven (7) Tainter Gates, one (1) spillway bulkhead lifting beam and other misc. appurtenant structures at Cheatham Dam located on the Cumberland River near Ashland City, Tennessee.

The Tainter Gates are 27’x60’ gates with skin plate on the Upstream and Downstream face. All seven gates have similar deterioration and will require replacement of a substantial number of bolts and rivets, replacement of all side seals (rubber), member replacement in the lower section of the gate, installation of an access hatch on the top of the gate, straightening or build-up of the lower seal and other miscellaneous metal repairs. Currently the interior of the gates are coated with coal tar epoxy and the exterior with a vinyl paint system. All structural components have been tested for lead based paint and positive results were attained on numerous components. Hence the contractor shall plan for hazardous waste removal. The gates will be repainted with similar paint systems.

The spillway bulkhead lifting beam will require member straightening, minor welding, and replacement of connection hardware. The spillway bulkhead lifting beam shall be blasted and repainted with a vinyl paint system similar to the exterior of the Tainter Gates.

All work will be performed on-site. Government furnished spillway bulkheads shall be placed upstream and downstream of the Tainter Gates for the duration of the repair and painting operations.

Placement of the spillway bulkheads will require marine plant and will be the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor will be required to install downstream bulkhead seal angles via the use of divers.

River conditions fluctuate substantially at Cheatham Dam and the contractor may encounter periods of shutdown and / or demobilization. The construction season for this contract is from June 1 to November 30 (6 months). It is expected that all work can be performed in 3 construction seasons.

The estimated length of the contract is 36 months.

This description is not intended to be all encompassing and is subject to change.

1.4 Disclosure of Magnitude of Construction Project: The estimated magnitude of this requirement is between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000.

1.5 Basis of Selection of Award: Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.

1.6 Type of Contract: The Government intends to award a single construction contract for this solicitation.

1.7 Who May Submit: The procurement is full and open competition for all contractors meeting the requirements set forth in this RFP.

1.8 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code and Small Business Size Standard:

The NAICS code for this project is 238320 (Painting and Wall Covering Contractors) with a size standard of $15,000,000.

1.9 Pre-Proposal Site Visit: An organized site visit has been scheduled to occur during the solicitation period. Offerors are required to attend the site in order to validate their proposal. Proposals received from contractors not in attendance at the pre-proposal site visit will not be considered for award, regardless of qualifications or price. Offerors should inspect the job site prior to submitting a proposal. Offerors will be allowed to access the interior portions of a typical Tainter gate during the pre-proposal site visit. Offerors should take such other steps as may be reasonably necessary to ascertain the nature and location of the work and the general and local conditions that can affect the work or the cost thereof. Failure to do so will not relieve offerors from the responsibility for properly estimating the difficulty or cost of successfully performing the work. The Government assumes no responsibility for any understanding or representations concerning conditions made by any of its officers, agents or employees, unless included in the solicitation, the specifications or related documents. Please refer to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) clause 52.236-27, incorporated by full text in this solicitation, for information pertaining to the scheduled site visit. Note that vehicular access to the site visit is via Dickson County to the West Bank of the Cumberland River. Register via email for the site visit within 48 hours of the start time to James.W.Purcell@usace.army/mil by sending a completed Site Visit Form (see uploaded attachment to FBO).

2.0 WHERE TO SUBMIT & SUBMITTAL DEADLINE

2.1 Offerors shall submit their proposals no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442) of this solicitation to:

If mailing via US Postal Service:

USACE, Nashville Contracting Division Attn: J.W. Purcell (W912P5-15-R-0006) P.O. Box 1070 Nashville, TN 37202-1070

If mailing via courier requiring physical address:

USACE, Nashville Contracting Division Attn: J.W. Purcell (W912P5-15-R-0006) Room #A405 (Mailroom) 110 9th Ave South Nashville, TN 37203

Faxed or emailed proposals will not be accepted. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR clause 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A).

Offeror must provide name and complete address (street, city, state, ZIP code) in Block 14 of Standard Form 1442, as well as a phone number in Block 15. The contractor’s CAGE Code is entered in the “CODE” block of Block 14.

If payment address is different than information in block 14, complete Block 16.

mailto:James.W.Purcell@usace.army/mil

Offeror must annotate the number of acceptance days in Block 17. Amendments (if any) are acknowledged in Block

19. The name, title, signature, and date of signature of the person authorized to commit the company is annotated in Blocks 20A, 20B, and 20C.

Proposal documents must include page 1& 2 of the Standard Form 1442, a completed Price Schedule, and the completed Contractor’s Representations and Certifications (provision 52.204-8). If an Offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically at the SAM website, the Offeror shall complete the representations and certifications contained herein. If the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via https://www.acquisition.gov, then complete only paragraph (b) of this provision.

3.0 SUBMISSION FORMAT AND NUMBER OF SUBMITTALS

3.1 Offerors are required to submit a proposal made up of a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal. All proposal materials shall be submitted in loose-leaf binders with table of contents and tabbed section dividers. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified below. Volume 1 submitted material should be organized sequentially under tabs to facilitate evaluation. Volume 2 shall be placed in a separate sealed envelope as explained below. Materials not organized under the appropriate tabs, and in the sequence of subparagraphs under each tab, may easily be overlooked during evaluations, thus possibly affecting the rating of the offer.

Proposal Requirements (Evaluation Factors) Quantity to be Submitted Technical Proposal (Volume 1)

Factor I – Experience Factor II – Past Performance Factor III – Safety Management

Original and three (3) copies and one

(1) electronic copy on a CD

Price Proposal (Volume 2)

Factor IV – Price A. Price Schedule B. Proposal Data Sheet C. SF 1442 and acknowledged amendments

(if any) D. Section 00600 (unless available at SAM) E. Bid Guarantee F. Proof of Financial Capability G. Commitment letters from major subcontractors (if any)

Original Only and one (1) electronic copy on a CD.

3.2 Submit Proposal together in a three-ring binder labeled: “Volume I – Technical Proposal”. Provide the original, marked “ORIGINAL” and three (3) numbered copies, marked “Copy X of Y” (i.e. COPY 1 of 3). The name, address and telephone number of the Offeror shall be identified on the cover of the binder.

In addition, the entire contents of the Technical Proposal shall be submitted in a single indexed .pdf document on a Compact Disc. The Compact Disc shall be labeled likewise. The Price Proposal shall be submitted in original only and shall be in a separate, sealed envelope labeled “Volume 2 – Price Proposal” and also on a separate Compact Disc. The sealed envelope shall also be labeled with the name, address and telephone number of the Offeror.

3.3 Volume 1, Technical Proposal, shall be limited to no more than 50 pages, 8-1/2” by 11”, printed on the front side only. Illustrations, tables and charts should be limited to 11” by 17” and shall be counted toward the 50 page limit. Pages should have a one-inch margin on all sides. Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman. (Captions for drawings and tables may be 10-point.) Pages exceeding the page limit will be removed and not evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board. Tabs, dividers, and other organizational materials will not count towards the 50 page limit.

3.4 Volume 2, Price Proposal, shall be limited to no more than 30 pages and should include a single copy of the Bid Schedule, a Proposal Data Sheet, the SF 1442 and acknowledged amendments (if any), Section 00100, Section 00600 (unless available at SAM.gov), Bid Guarantee and Proof of Financial Capability.

https://www.acquisition.gov/

The price proposal shall also include commitment letters from all major subcontractors the Offeror intends to employ to meet the requirements of the technical proposal. Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman. Pages exceeding the page limit will be removed and not evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board. Tabs, dividers, and other organizational materials will not count towards the 30 page limit.

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION

4.1 Proposal clarity and material organization in each volume are mandatory. No material shall be incorporated by reference. Offerors are advised that conciseness and relevance of the proposal is important and unrelated information will not be evaluated. Proposals that provide only superficial coverage of the information required may not receive additional consideration and may be excluded from the competitive range. Additionally, should the proposal include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the proposal may be determined to be “unacceptable” and thus ineligible for award. Offerors shall 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, technical approach, and past performance to successfully complete the proposed work within the performance period specified.

4.2 The Government shall not be liable for any cost incurred by the Offeror in submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

4.3 The criteria specified in this Request for Proposal (RFP) and the technical specifications are binding contract criteria, and in cases of any conflict subsequent to award between RFP and criteria and technical specifications and contractor’s proposal, the RFP criteria and technical specifications shall govern unless there is a written agreement between the Contracting Officer and the contractor on the waiving of a specific requirement.

4.4 Clarification of Provisions of this RFP. Any explanation desired by an Offeror regarding the meaning or interpretation of the RFP and / or any contact between the Offeror and USACE concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing to the Contract Specialist via email at James.W.Purcell@usace.army.mil or via courier at the following address:

USACE, Nashville Contracting Division Attn: J.W. Purcell (W912P5-15-R-0006) 110 9th Avenue South Nashville, TN 37203

No questions will be accepted concerning this Solicitation within 14 days of the submission deadline as set forth on Block 13 of the SF 1442 of this Solicitation.

mailto:James.W.Purcell@usace.army.mil

SECTION 00115

PROPOSAL CONTENT

1.0 ORGANIZATION. Proposals shall be organized as follows

Volume 1: Technical Proposal Factor I – Experience Factor II – Past Performance Factor III – Safety Management

Volume 2: Price Proposal (separate from Volume 2, in a sealed envelope) Factor IV – Price Proposal Tab III A – Price Schedule Tab III B – Proposal Data Sheet Tab III C – SF1442 and acknowledged amendments (if any) Tab III D – Section 00600 (unless available at SAM.GOV) Tab III E – Bid Guarantee Tab III F – Proof of Financial Capability Tab III G – Commitment letters from major subcontractors (if any)

2.0 CONTENT

2.1 Content of Volume 1, Factor I – Experience

2.1.1 With respect to the scope of the basic contract, provide descriptions of no less than three (3) and no more than five (5) projects completed by the Offeror, either as a prime contractor or subcontractor, within the past seven (7) years that are similar in scope and similar in magnitude. For purposes of this section, “similar in scope” is defined as contracts with substantial efforts for tasks involving dry blast cleaning in accordance with SSPC-SP5 (white metal), structural steel painting requiring SSPC QP1 & QP2 certifications, and structural steel weld and bolting repairs in accordance with AWS D1.1 criteria and the Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts dated June, 2000 by the Research Council on Structural Connections (RCSC), respectively. Projects presented as “similar in scope” must meet the following criteria:

a) All representative projects must have substantial painting or structural steel repair efforts meeting the requirements in the paragraph above;

b) All representative projects must have been completed on the water. This includes both navigation and flood risk management dams;

c) At least (1) of the representative projects must include application of paint system 5-E-Z (Vinyl);

d) At least (1) of the representative projects must include application of paint system 6-A-Z (Coal Tar Epoxy);

and

e) At least (1) of the representative projects must include lead abatement.

Individual projects may satisfy more than one (1) of the criteria listed as a) through e). Offerors shall clearly indicate which representative projects satisfy the criteria listed as a) through e). Offerors may include representative projects from major subcontractors provided letters of commitment between the Offeror and subcontractor are include with the Price Proposal.

Similar in magnitude is defined as construction contracts greater than $1,000,000 in value as a prime contractor or self performed as a subcontractor. All representative projects must be similar in magnitude (i.e. greater than $1,000,000) to be considered for evaluation.

2.1.2 A Project Detail Sheet is included at the end of this section for your use. Use as many forms as necessary to meet the criteria. If you elect not to use the form, all information identified on the form is still required for evaluation of this item and should be ordered the same.

2.2 Content of Volume 1, Factor II – Past Performance

2.2.1 Submit a Past Performance Questionnaires on Form PPQ-0 (“PPQ”), a copy of which is included at the end of this section, for each and every project submitted for consideration in response to Paragraph 2.1, Content of Volume 1, Factor I – Experience.

2.2.2 USACE requests the Offeror’s client completes the PPQ and submit directly back to the Offeror. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients / references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Mr. J.W. Purcell, via email at James.W.Purcell@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. The Government may not contact all of the identified client references / points of contact.

This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the construction services outlined in the solicitation requirements. If the firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work.

2.2.3 The past performance for all representative projects submitted under Factor II (Past Performance) must be deemed by the client to be satisfactory or greater overall.

2.3 Content of Volume 1, Factor III – Safety Management

The Offeror shall submit documentation substantiating the Offeror’s Experience Modification Rate (EMR) for the past two years. Show evidence that the EMR was calculated by a professional rate service organization such as the National Council of Compensation Insurance.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating Safety, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. In the case of a joint venture, EMR information shall be included for both contractors.

2.4 Content of Volume 2, Factor IV – Price Proposal (separate package) The Offeror shall submit a completed Proposal Data Sheet. The format is provided at the end of this section. The Offeror shall also submit SF 1442 and Section 00010 (Bid Schedule) and Section 00600 (Representations and Certifications), in original only. Unless available at SAM.GOV, Offerors shall submit all representations and certifications at Section 00600, including those incorporated by reference. See FAR Solicitation Provision 52.252-1 for instructions on how to obtain the full-text provisions.

Note: Offerors should distribute their costs appropriately. An award will be made based on the total contract price (base + options).

Note: If any Amendments are issued against this Solicitation, the Offeror shall include its acknowledgment of those Amendments by returning the signed amendments with its proposal and / or filling in block number 19 of the SF 1442 and submitting the signed document with its proposal. The SF 1442, block numbers 20, b, and c must be completed by an authorized person from the company. If the company is a joint venture, then all members of the joint venture must sign. The Offeror shall submit proof of financial capability consisting of the most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities. The firm’s banking institution name, address, point of contact (POC) name, POC email and telephone number shall also be provided.

Project Detail Sheet

Firm Name:

Project Name & Location:

Contract # (if awarded by USACE):

Detailed Scope of Work Related to Solicitation:

Firm role (prime, joint venture, subcontractor):

Type and % of work self performed (based on contract value):

Extent and Type of Work Subcontracted:

Additional detail should include work conditions and any relevant challenges overcome on the project:

Construction Cost At Award: $____________ Final Cost: $____________

Award Date:________ Scheduled Completion Date: _________ Completion Date:__________

If not complete, percentage of completion to-date: _________________

Owner’s POC for Reference (Name, Company and Telephone Number):

USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS

DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE

TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE

SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT

QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED

DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE

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

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR 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 E VG S M U N price(s)?

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):

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

1. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR

Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS#):

2. IDENTIFICATION OF JOINT VENTURE PARTICIPANTS OR MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS

Provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the ACASS or CCASS databases. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture, it must also be submitted. Provide a DUNS number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide DUNS# for each.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

3. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS

Reference FAR 52.215-1. The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

Name of Negotiator:

Negotiator’s Address:

Negotiator’s Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

SECTION 00130

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1.0 GENERAL. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), comprised of representatives of the United States Army Corps of Engineers will evaluate all proposals. In accordance with FAR 15.305, the proposal evaluation is an assessment of both the proposal and the Offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully.

The SSEB will review and rate each proposal without knowledge of the price offered. The number of offers and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process, or to other Offerors. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, price realism and material unbalancing. Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the factors described herein.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

2.1 The evaluation process consists of three parts: 1) proposal compliance review, 2) technical / quality evaluation, and 3) price evaluation.

2.2 Proposal Compliance Review. Compliance review is an initial check to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and the technical and price proposals were received. Specifically, the initial review will verify the Technical Proposal contains Factor I – Experience and Factor II - Past Performance, and verify the Price Proposal is in a separate, sealed and marked envelope. Pages in the Technical Proposal exceeding the total page limit will be removed prior to the evaluation and not evaluated.

2.3 SSEB Technical / Quality Evaluation. The SSEB will evaluate those proposals passing the Proposal Compliance Review. The SSEB will review and evaluate the content and quality of each evaluation factor against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirement. All factors must be technically acceptable for the Offeror to be technically acceptable. All non-cost factors are of equal importance.

2.3.1 Factor I, Factor II, and Factor III will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis.

2.3.2 Factor IV will be rated independently. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical / quality evaluation.

2.3.3 Evaluation Documentation. The Government will support each rating with narrative statements, describing how the Offeror’s proposal meets or fails to meet the minimum requirements of the Solicitation.

2.4 SSEB Ratings

2.4.1 The SSEB shall assign one of the following ratings to Factor I – Experience and Factor III – Safety Management:

Rating Definition

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.4.2 The SSEB shall assign one of the following ratings to Factor II - Past Performance:

Rating Definition

Acceptable

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

Unacceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability / unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

2.5 Price Evaluation. The cost engineer will evaluate price proposals independent of the SSEB’s evaluation of the technical, experience and past performance evaluation. The cost engineer will not have knowledge of the technical, experience and past performance ratings. The SSEB will not have knowledge of the price evaluation until after their technical / quality evaluation is complete. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, price realism and for material unbalancing.

3.0 BASIS OF AWARD.

Subject to the provisions contained herein, the Contracting Officer intends to award a single construction contract with a period of performance of 42 months to an Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, who conform to the requirements set forth in the Solicitation, and whose proposals, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this Solicitation meet the technically acceptable standard for the non-cost factors and provide the lowest evaluated overall prices. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. Proposals are intended to be evaluated and an award made without discussions with Offerors, unless discussions are determined to be necessary.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS.

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below.

4.1 Evaluation of Factor I – Experience

The SSEB will evaluate the Offeror on projects submitted in response to (Section 00100, Factor I). Offerors must meet all of the following standards to receive an “Acceptable” rating on this factor:

4.1.1 With respect to the scope of the basic contract, provide descriptions of no less than three (3) and no more than five (5) projects completed by the Offeror, either as a prime contractor or subcontractor, within the past seven (7) years that are similar in scope and similar in magnitude. For purposes of this section, “similar in scope” is defined as contracts with substantial efforts for tasks involving dry blast cleaning in accordance with SSPC-SP5 (white metal), structural steel painting requiring SSPC QP1 & QP2 certifications, and structural steel weld and bolting repairs in accordance with AWS D1.1 criteria and the Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts dated June, 2000 by the Research Council on Structural Connections (RCSC), respectively. Projects presented as “similar in scope” must meet the following criteria:

a) All representative projects must have substantial painting or structural steel repair efforts meeting the

b) All representative projects must have been completed on the water. This includes both navigation and flood risk management dams;

c) At least (1) of the representative projects must include application of paint system 5-E-Z (Vinyl);

d) At least (1) of the representative projects must include application of paint system 6-A-Z (Coal Tar Epoxy);

and

Individual projects may satisfy more than one of the criteria listed as a) through e). Offerors shall clearly indicate which representative projects satisfy the criteria listed as a) through e). Offerors may include representative projects from major subcontractors provided letters of commitment between the Offeror and subcontractor are include with the Price Proposal.

Similar in magnitude is defined as construction contracts greater than $1,000,000 in value as a prime contractor or self performed as a subcontractor. All representative projects must be similar in magnitude (i.e. greater than $1,000,000) to be considered for evaluation.

Failure to meet all of the requirements under this factor will result in an “Unacceptable” rating and elimination from further consideration for contract award.

4.2 Evaluation of Factor II –Past Performance

The SSEB will evaluate the relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance for projects submitted in response to (Section 00100, Factor II). Offerors must meet all of the following standards to receive an “Acceptable” rating on this factor:

4.2.1 The Offeror shall submit PPQs for each and every one of the projects submitted in response to Factor I – Experience.

4.2.2 All of the PPQs must reflect the work was performed at least satisfactory, as indicated by a specific overall rating of “Satisfactory” or better. A rating lower than satisfactory under any element on the PPQ may result in an unacceptable rating by the Government on past performance. Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include complete information on past efforts, including demonstrated corrective actions, in their proposals.

4.2.3 The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner and engineer satisfaction. The Government may also use other tools such as CPARS, CCASS, ACASS, PPIRS, contacting references, etc., to gather information regarding an Offeror’s qualifications and past performance. Information gathered from these sources, if any, must evidence at least “Satisfactory” performance in the past five (7) years.

4.2.4 In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Instead, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

Failure to meet all of the requirements under this factor will result in an “Unacceptable” rating and elimination from further consideration for contract award.

4.3 Evaluation of Factor III – Safety Management

The SSEB will evaluate the documentation submitted by the Offeror evidencing the Offeror’s EMR. To receive an “Acceptable” rating on this factor, the Offeror’s EMR must be equal to or less than 1.0. A rating greater than 1.0 will result in an “Unacceptable” rating for this factor. If the proposal is a joint venture the EMR rates for both companies is required to be submitted. The rates will be averaged to give the EMR for the joint venture.

Failure to meet the requirement under this factor will result in an “Unacceptable” rating and elimination from further consideration for contract award.

4.4 Evaluation of Factor IV – Price

4.4.1 Price will be evaluated and considered but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation.

4.4.2 Price proposals will be evaluated by a cost engineer (separate from the SSEB) for fairness, reasonableness, price realism, material unbalancing, indications of potential underbidding, and artificially low unit prices, through the use of price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Should certified cost and pricing data be required, then cost analysis may be performed to determine realism and reasonableness.

4.4.3 The otherwise technically-acceptable up to three (3) lowest-priced Offerors may be required to confirm / validate their prices on a CLIN, element, or total price basis, and / or provide additional information in support of their price, prior to contract award at the Government’s request and discretion.

Evaluation Sheet: Factor I, Experience

Evaluator: Date of Evaluation:

Offeror:

Factor: Factor I, Experience

Available Ratings: Acceptable or Unacceptable

Rating:

Evaluation Criteria: The Offeror must meet all of the following standards to receive an “Acceptable” rating on this factor:

1. The Offeror shall provide descriptions of no less than three (3) and no more than five (5) projects completed or substantially completed (90% completed based on contract duration) by the Offeror, either as a prime contractor or subcontractor, within the past seven (7) years that are similar in scope and similar in magnitude.

For purposes of this section, “similar in scope” is defined as contracts with substantial efforts for tasks involving dry blast cleaning in accordance with SSPC-SP5 (white metal), structural steel painting…