W912P522R0001 Amendment 01 Stabilization MATOC 09082022.pdf

W912P522R0001 Amendment 1

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 to: 1) notify offerors of response to industry questions, 2) revise instructions, 3) revise technical specif ic documents, 4) add FAR 52.252-3 Alterations in Solicitation, and 5) extend response date.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Sep-2022

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 W912P522R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Aug-2022

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

08-Sep-2022

CODE

CELRN-RC-N CONTRACTING BRANCH

110 9TH AVE SOUTH, A405

NASHVILLE TN 37203

W912P5 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 12-Sep-2022 10:00 AM to 23-Sep-2022 10:00 AM.

The following have been added by full text:

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT 1 CHANGES

Summary of Changes to Amendment 001:

1) Extended Response date in block 13 of SF 1442 from 12 SEP 2022 until 23 SEPT 2022;

2) Notify offerors of responses to bidder inquires posted in Projnet.

3) Revised Section SECTION 00 22 16 - PHASE I, as follows:

EVALUATION APPROACH AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

2.0 SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS, Paragraphs:

• 2.3, ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION METHOD. Removed email submission requirements.

• 2.3.1, INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS. Added PIEE links for instructions

• 2.3.5, INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS PIEE WEBSITE, removed.

• 2.3.6, REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE, removed.

• 2.4, SUBMISSION DATE AND TIME, removed and added language to clarify need to obtain a digital pin in submission process and clarify what constitutes official date and time of receipt.

• 2.5.2, PHASE I SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: TAB B, added Small Business Teaming and Mentor Protégé language.

• 5.2 TAB B revised title to include Small Business Teaming language included in types of agreements.

• Added language under 5.2.1, to state requiremet agreements must be signed.

• Added language under 5.2.2, inclusion of Small Business Teaming

Arrangements.

6.0 PHASE I – VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR I

• Paragraph 6.2 and 6.3, added requirement to submit past performance questionnaire.

Corrected numbering from Past Peformance Evaluation Criteria after section 6.3, through Primer Past Performance Project Detail Sheet.

Deleted reference to pargraphs 7.01 and 7.04.

4) Revised Technical Specifications, replaced the original specification sections below:

Specification Section Description

01 00 00 Section 1.10 was deleted 01 95 00 The following attachments were included:

• Transmittal example form

• Submittal Register

• LRNP 385-1-2 – Contractor Guidelines For: 1)

Preparation of the Accident Prevention Plan (APP), and

2) Preparation of the Activity Hazard Analysis (AHA);

and

• Example Riprap Gradation Curve Sheet.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

52.252-3 ALTERATIONS IN SOLICITATION (APR 1984)

Portions of this solicitation are altered as follows:

This amendment adds this provision and a Summary of Amendment Changes Section. The Summary of changes include revisions to: Response date in block 13 of SF 1442, Section SECTION 00 22 16 - PHASE I, and Technical Specification Attachment.

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 16 - PHASE I

SECTION 00 22 16

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

Award(s) will be made to the best overall (i.e., best value) proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors:

Past Performance, Technical, and Price. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced proposal. NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE

APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO PRICE.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award(s) will be made to the offerors whose proposals are most advantageous to the

Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Phase I - Factor I: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine the relevancy of recent projects submitted and a confidence assessment will be conducted.

Phase I - Factor II: Technical Approach: Each offeror’s technical approach will be reviewed to determine if they have a clear understanding of the work and an ability to coordinate resources to ensure successful pursuit of the work.

Phase II – Factor I: Design/Technical: The proposing Designer of Records drawings and design narrative will be reviewed for code compliance and completeness.

Phase II – Factor II: Management Plan: Each offeror’s management plan will be reviewed to determine a clear understanding of the work and an ability to coordinate resources to ensure successful pursuit of the work.

Phase II – Factor III: Price: The resulting award will be a firm-fixed price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each factor as it applies to the Plans and

Specifications. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each technical factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

SECTION 00 22 16 - PHASE I

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR PHASE ONE

1.0 OVERVIEW.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select up to four (4) contractors for a firm-fixed-price Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for primarily Design/Bid/Build (D/B/B) and Design/Build (D/B) Construction Activities within the Nashville District (Tennessee and smaller portions of Kentucky, Alabama, Virginia, Georgia, and Mississippi).

1.2 This is a two-phase procurement and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off Process.

1.2.1 Phase I: Potential offerors are invited to submit the information described in this Section 00 22

16 for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the evaluation of Phase I, up to a maximum of five (5) most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase II.

1.2.2 Phase II: The selected offerors for Phase II will be invited to submit the information described in

Section 00 22 18 (to be added later via an amendment), Procedures for Submittal of Offers for Phase II, for review and evaluation by the Government. Price will be evaluated in Phase II through use of a sample project and binding contract rates.

1.2.3 No seed task order will be awarded as a result of this solicitation; only the base Indefinite-

Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) MATOCs will be awarded.

2.0 SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited project, within these instruction limitations. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposal file organization should follow in the order of sequence set forth below in this RFP.

Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror's disqualification from award.

2.2 Firm Inquiries:

Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://ProjNet.org/ProjNet. Bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into the system. The Projnet call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S.

Central Time Zone (Chicago); their telephone number is 800-428-HELP.

The Bidder Inquiry Key or Quick Add Key for this project is GHXTDS-NXYNJ6.

http://projnet.org/ProjNet

Solicitation number W912QR22R0001;

Project: Small Business Multiple Award Task Order Contract for Streambank Stabilization Services

Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

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

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

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

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret

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

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

NOTES:

1. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety and to review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of bids/proposals.

2. Offerors may submit only one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions will be rejected. Only questions pertaining to the Design Services Indefinite Delivery Contract will be entertained.

3. Government responses to technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures that are submitted to ProjNet in accordance with the procedures above are not binding on the Government unless an amendment is issued on beta.SAM.gov. In the case of any conflicts, the last posted notice or, if applicable, amendment posted to beta.SAM.gov governs. Any changes or revisions to the Presolicitation Notice will be issued on beta.SAM.gov.

4. The ability to enter technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures will be disabled ten (10) calendar days prior to the closing date stated in this Presolicitation Notice. No Government responses will be entered into the ProjNet system within five (5) calendar days prior to the closing date stated in this Presolicitation Notice.

5. Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

a. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password.

You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

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

c. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

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

e. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

f. Select Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

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

h. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add an inquiry.

2.3 ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION METHOD: The only authorized transmission method for proposals in response to this solicitation is electronically via PROCUREMENT INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE ENVIRONMENT (PIEE). ALL SUBMISSIONS to this RFP shall be submitted electronically through PIEE. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION

METHODS (EMAIL, FACSIMILE, REGULAR MAI, HAND CARRIED, ETC.) WILL BE

ACCEPTED. Offerors shall email submit their proposals using the PIEE link: – https://piee.eb.mil. Follow the instructions on the PIEE website. Only proposals submitted via the above link will be considered for award. Please send proposals USING the PIEE link to:

• Contract Specialist Sara T. King at Sara.T.King@usace.army.mil AND

• Contracting Officer J.W. Purcell at James.W.Purcell@usace.army.mil.

2.4

2.3.1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS: All proposals shall be submitted electronically through the PIEE site in an Adobe PDF format. See PDF file titled “PIEE Vendor Submit Offer Instructions.pdf” provided as a separate attachment for proposal submission details.

The PIEE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. Information regarding how to set up a vendor registration is included in this link:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/portal/overview/vendorRegister.xhtml. On this page, click on the “Vendor User Registration” Doc and it will take you through the process of registering as a vendor.

If you plan on submitting a proposal, be sure to select “SOL-Solicitation” in the drop-down list and choose the “Proposal Manager” role to be given the proper permissions.

Further training is available at the following links:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml - This link shows information regarding the Solicitation application in PIEE and the different roles available.

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xhtml - This link is for Offerors regarding the Proposal Manager function and instruction on submitting a Proposal.

You are limited to twenty-five (25) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 8GB). If you have a large number of files, combine or ZIP your files before uploading to the PIEE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Electronic copies of each volume shall be compatible with the current software products: Adobe Acrobat Readerand Microsoft Office Suite. Narrative portions of the proposal shall be in Adobe Acrobat portable document file (pdf) searchable text format. The Offeror shall not embed sound or video (e.g., MPEG) files into the proposal files. Electronic files shall be clearly identified for each volume, section, and item. Offerors are responsible for ensuring electronic copies are virus-free and shall run an anti-virus scan before submission.

2.3.2 FILE DESCRIPTION: Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload in the following format: FOUO_Solicitation Number_Volume No._ Firm Name. For example, FOUO_W912P522R0001_Volume I_ USACE. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access https://piee.eb.mil/ mailto:James.W.Purcell@usace.army.mil https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/portal/overview/vendorRegister.xhtml https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xhtml your file(s). Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

2.3.4 TEHCNICAL DIFFICULTIES: It is the Offeror’s responsibility to obtain written confirmation of receipt of all electronic files of the full proposal by the Contracting office. In the event that the Solicitation Module is down, the alternate method for proposal submission is via email the Contracting Officer and Contract Spcailist.

Specialist. The Offeror must obtain prior approval from the Contracting Officer to use the alternate submission method. “In the unlikely event the PIEE system is not operational, experiences technical difficulties, or a Contractor is temporarily unable to access or use the system, the Contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer. This Notification must occur prior to the task order proposal submission deadline. Contractor notification shall be in writing and may be in conjunction with verbal notification, but verbal notification alone shall not be sufficient.

In the event that the Contractor alleges technical difficulties and does not notify the contracting officer until after the closing date and time, the contracting officer will determine the Contractor’s proposal as late. All proposals received after the exact time specified for receipt shall be treated as late submissions and will not be considered except under facts and circumstances allowed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

2.3.5 INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS PIEE WEBSITE: All Offerors must be registered in PIEE in order to submit an offer to the solicitation. See PDF file “PIEE Solicitation Module Vendor Access Instructions.pdf” provided as a separate attachment for registration/access details.

2.3.6 REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE: Offerors must email the above Contract Specialist AND Contracting Officer no later than five (5) working days prior to the proposal due date to receive a request code which will allow for file uploads via the PIEE site. Offerors that fail to email for request a code five (5) working days before proposal submission date may not be able to receive a request code in time to upload their submission. THIS MUST BE DONE FOR THIS PROCUREMENT.

For instructions on how to post an offer, please refer to the Posting Offer demo:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf.

2.5 SUBMISSION DATE AND TIME: The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the

Government by the date/time specified in Block 13 of solicitation Standard Form 1442. The Nashville District is in the Central Time Zone.

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS: It is the responsibility of the Offeror to confirm receipt of proposal. For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the Government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded and posted into the PIEE website, which requires a PIEE electronic signature. The PIEE electronic signature process requires time to obtain through PIEE, a digital pin. Offerors are responsible for allotting sufficient time to obtain this pin during the submission process in order to complete the PIEE signing and posting process prior to the date and time for submission. Once an offeror successfully signs and posts the offer, PIEE will send official submission date and time email to government Contracting Officials.

For proposals larger than the stated capacity of the PIEE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the PIEE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or, in some cases, hours. The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

2.6 PHASE I SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Phase I proposal includes two separate volumes and shall be submitted in two separate files. Each volume must include clear indexes and be logically assembled to parallel the section /tab submission requirements identified herein. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted which exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated. Offerors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their electronic proposal. Each volume sequential ordering shall mirror the following:

2.5.2 Volume I: Pro Forma Information

• Tab A: Standard Form 1442

• Tab B: Small Business Teaming, Joint Ventures, and Mentor

Protégé Agreements

• Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

• Tab D: Pre-Award Information

2.5.1 Volume II: Past Performance and Technical Approach Factors

• Tab A, Factor I: Past Performance o Section I: Prime Contractor Past Performance o Section II: A-E, Designer of Record Contractor Past Performance

• Tab B, Factor II: Technical Approach o Section I: Organization o Section II: Collaborative Approach o Section III: Planning and Scheduling o Section IV: Quality Control

3.0 Proposal Evaluation Process

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives from the Corps of

Engineers, will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. The number and identities of offerors will not be revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off.

3.2 The evaluation process for Phase I essentially consists of two parts: (1) proposal compliance review and responsibility determination; and (2) past performance/technical evaluation.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

3.2.2 Past Performance / Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated based on the overall confidence in the Contractor’s performance (using Table 2, below), with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant, past experience (using Table 1, below), and the quality of the offeror’s performance on that experience. Factor II – Technical Approach will be rated using an adjectival- based system (using Table 3, below). The Contracting Officer / Source Selection Authority will select up to a maximum of five (5) most highly qualified offerors to continue on to Phase II.

4.0 Phase I Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors

4.1 Phase I proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical approach in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award to a conforming proposal without discussions, if it is deemed to be within the best interest of the Government.

4.2 Volume I – Pro Forma Information is not rated. Information will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided. Incomplete, missing, or insufficient information may result in the government eliminating an offeror from the evaluation process and any award consideration.

4.3 Volume II Past Performance/Technical Approach

• Past Performance Factor I is more important that Factor II, Technical

Approach.

• Two Past Performance subfactors are equal to each other.

• Four Technical Approach subfactors are equal to each other

4.3.1 Volume II, Past Performance Factor I (Refer to tables 1 and 3 below)

• Prime Contractor Subfactor

• A/E Designer of Record Subfactor

4.3.2 Volume II Technical Approach Factor II. (Refer to table 3 below)

• Organization Subfactor

• Collaborative Approach Subfactor

• Planning and Scheduling Subfactor

• Quality Control Subfactor

4.4 Ratings: Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

TABLE 1: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involves essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involves a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involves some of the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

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

TABLE 2: Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

TABLE 3: Technical Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

Proposal is unawardable.

4.5 Definitions:

1. Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

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

3. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

4. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

5. Risk: as it pertains to source selection is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

6. 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).

7. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

8. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation. Adverse past performance that must be addressed with Offerors includes unfavorable comments received from sources such as those received from respondents from past performance questionnaires or interviews that have not been finalized within a formal rating system.

9. Recency: as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

10. Relevancy: as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source RFP requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

11. Performance Confidence Assessment: is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the RFP’s requirements; the evaluation is based past performance information.

5.0 Volume I Pro Forma Information:Tab A- Standard Form 1442.Submission Requirements: The offeror shall complete and submit the Standard Form 1442..Evaluation Criteria: The Standard Form 1442 will not be rated. The form will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the offer signed.Tab B – Small Business Teaming, Joint Ventures, and Mentor-Protégé Agreements

5.2.3 Submission Requirements:

If the offeror listed in Block 14 agrees with a small business subcontractor upon certain responsibilities, roles, and percentages or allocations in the work, then a signed agreement describing the arrangement shall be submitted with the proposal.

If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members.

However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (formerly known as DUNS number) with the proposal.

Small business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB) submitting a proposal as a JV or Mentor-Protégé shall submit evidence from the offeror's SBA Servicing

Agency that the offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist. Joint Venture agreements and approved 8(a) Mentor- Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal.

5.2.4 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated. Small Business Teaming Arrangements, Joint Venture Agreements, and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order for an offeror to be eligible for any small business- related price preference.

5.3 Tab C – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

5.3.1 Submission Requirements:

A. Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address and telephone number of firm's banking institution.

B. Bonding Capability. Submit information showing offeror's ability to be bonded for projects up to the task order limit of the awarded contract. Include the name, address and telephone number of the firm's bonding company. Bonding information shall include the offerors current single and aggregate performance and payment bond limits.

5.3.2 Evaluation Criteria: This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

5.4 Tab D – Pre-Award Information

5.4.1 Submission Requirements:

A. The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certification.

B. The offeror shall submit the following information:

i. Number of years the firm has been in business

ii. Name, address, and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references

iii. A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

C. The offeror shall submit the name, address, and Unique Entity Identifier (formerly known as DUNS number) for any and all A-E subcontractors identified in the proposal.

5.4.2 Evaluation Criteria: This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

6 Phase I – Volume II – Past Performance Factor I

6.2 Subfactor I – Prime Contractor Past Performance Submission Requirements: All projects must have completed Past Performance Questionnaire by the client. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience.

6.2.1 Provide descriptions of up to (5) five projects substantially complete or completed by the prime contractor within the last 5 years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar in size and scope. Projects completed more than 5 years before issue of solicitation date may be considered for evaluation purposes but their relevancy ratings may be less due to the lapse in time since they were completed. Projects are considered substantially complete if all the phases of are completed to a point intended for use by the owner. 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 project to be considered.

6.2.2 To be considered similar, projects must include repairs, maintenance, or improvements to existing flood control structures, channels, earthen embankments, rivers, or tributaries, and must have a minimum construction value of $250,000.

6.2.3 Projects must demonstrate work covering multiple-engineering disciplines

(geotechnical, structural, and/or civil) to be considered similar. Projects considered similar in scope shall be D/B or D/B/B projects on flood control structures and might include slope repairs, erosion protection, and improvements or restoration of roadways or accesses. Channel work might include excavation, widening, erosion control features, drainage improvements, and bank stabilization with armor stone, articulated concrete blocks, bioengineering, foreshore dikes, and / or retaining walls, and may involve miscellaneous items such as removal of existing obsolete structures, repairs, or relocations, or replacement of utilities, etc.

Given the lesser degree of overall complexity of D/B/B projects, in that D/B/B projects scope will include either design or build but not both, if D/B/B projects are submitted, they may be considered less relevant than D/B projects.

6.2.4 The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15% of the cost of the contract, and this percentage of work shall consist of direct contract labor (including testing and layout personnel), exclusive of material, equipment, or subcontractors to be considered similar.

6.2.5 The prime contractor shall provide a resume for the Construction Program

Manager. At a minimum, the Construction Manager shall have: a technical degree in engineering, architecture, or construction management from an accredited education institution; demonstrate through project experience a minimum of five (5) years experience on construction project working a construction field site; and a minimum of three (3) years as a Program Manager (management of an overall program). Each resume shall not exceed six (6) electronic pages. Any information provided beyond the six (6) electronic page limit for the resume shall not be considered. The Personnel Resume/Experience sheet is only provided as a sample and is not a mandatory template that has to be used.

6.2.6 Additional consideration may be given for the following:

6.2.6.1 Previous successful working relationships between the prime contractor and design firm for this solicitation.

6.2.6.2 Previous projects for USACE.

6.2.6.3 Demonstrated experience in successfully completing

projects in multi-state areas (at least 3 states) that are in the

LRN Geographic area (KY, GA, MS, AL, TN, VA).

6.2.6.4 Projects that involve flood risk reduction, streambank and upland stabilization, channel clearing and modification, levee repair, improvements, or rehabilitation.

6.2.7 The following information shall be provided for each project:

6.2.7.1 Project Title, Contract Number, and Location.

6.2.7.2 Current percentage of construction complete and when it was or will be completed. For projects that are not yet complete, provide description of work remaining to be completed.

6.2.7.3 Scope of the project to include purpose/use of facility.

6.2.7.4 Size of the project; differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation (if the project includes both).

6.2.7.5 Type and percentage of work that was self-performed.

6.2.7.6 Whether the project was Design/Build (include the name of the Designer of Record (DOR)) or Design/Bid/Build.

6.2.7.7 Customer Primary Point of Contact and alternate POC

(name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current and correct phone number, and current and correct email address)

NOTE: Each project description shall not exceed two (2) electronic pages including all narratives and pictures. Any information provided beyond the two (2) electronic pages limit for the project description will not be considered. Prime Past Performance Project Detal Detail sheet is only provided as a smaple sample and not a mandatory template that has to be used.

6.2.8 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. which support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and NOT sent directly to the agency from the reference.

6.3 Subfactor 2, A-E Designer of Record (DOR) Past Performance Submission Requirements: All projects must have completed Past Performance Questionnaire by the client. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience.

6.3.1 Provide descriptions of up to five (5) projects that have been constructed

(i.e., construction is substantially complete) within the last five (5) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar in size and scope (see paragraphs 6.0.2 and 6.0.3 above). In order to be considered similar, the proposed A-E firm must have been the DOR on the submitted project. The listed design firm must be used for the MATOC contract awarded under this solicitation. No deviations will be permitted unless approved by the Contracting Officer. Identification of more than one (1) design firm will result in an evaluation based on the least qualified firm. Indicate any previous working relationship with the prime contractor. Additional consideration will be given for those projects demonstrating items in paragraph 6.0.5.

6.3.2 The Designer of Record (DOR) shall provide a resume with proof of being a registered Engineer or Architect in the United States and demonstrate through project experience a minimum of 10 years overall deign experience (including Project Manager and Project Engineer experience and a minimum of three (3) years of experience with responsibility for a program as a design program manager. Each resume shall not exceed six (6) electronic pages. A Standard Form (SF) 330 is not required but may be submitted instead of a resume for the DOR. Any information provided beyond the six electronic page limit will not be considered. The personnel resume/experience sheets are only provided as samples and are not mandatory templates that have to be used.

NOTES:

1 The identified individual for the Designer of Record shall be used on the contract.

Any substitution of this individual will not be permitted without prior approval of the Contracting Officer. It is not intended for the identified person to be named for each specific task order, but to retain overall responsibility for the basic contract.

2 Each task order may require specific individual professional licenses or trade licenses; these do not have to be divulged for this solicitation but will be required per task order solicitation.

3 For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture (JV) agreement. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the JV shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the JV must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number (formerly known as DUNS number) with the JV proposal.

Projects performed by other contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a JV offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV will not exceed five (5).

4 Each project description shall not exceed one (1) electronic page including all narratives and pictures. Any information provided beyond the one (1) electronic page limit for the project description will not be considered.

6.4 Past Performance Evaluation Criteria:

6.4.1 For both the Prime and the DOR, the SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraphs 6.0.1 and 6.1.1 above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table above.

6.4.2 For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers; offerors must submit copies of any recent and relevant CPARS records. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

6.4.3 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for both the Prime and DOR by the offeror and government. The SSEB will determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above, based on the SSEB’s assessment of

(1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience. NOTE: The Past Performance of both the Prime and A/E DOR will be weighted equally in the establishment of the overall Performance Confidence rating.

7 Volume II – Factor II: Technical Approach

7.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a narrative that describes the offeror’s Design/Build team and intended technical approach to executing the Design/Build contract per the detailed requirements herein. Clearly but concisely describe the offeror’s Design/Build team, and how members of the team will work collaboratively to ensure timely, quality completion of the project. The Technical Approach narrative shall address the information described in the subfactor paragraphs 7.0.1 – 7.0.4 below.

7.1.1 Organization Subfactor: Describe the firms that compose the offeror’s Design/Build team, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities, and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Present a matrix of responsibilities for each firm in executing the key design and construction activities for each major feature of the effort. Describe the proposed management structure for the Design/Build team, explaining how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the Design/Build team.

7.1.2 Collaborative Approach for Design/Build Subfactor: Describe interactions and communications within the Design/Build team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design. Describe the role of the construction team members during design. Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction, addressing, at a minimum:

• design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design;

• requests for information;

• shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals;

• progress meetings;

• site visits, if any;

• contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation

7.1.3 Planning and Scheduling Subfactor: Describe the offeror’s schedule control capabilities and any systems the offeror will use to plan design and construction activities. Explain how the schedule will be used to manage design and construction. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize time growth or “schedule creep,” include any consideration of fast-tracking design and construction. Discuss how you plan to streamline construction, manage labor, and handle any other resource constraints to reduce cost and achieve task order completion within the period of performance.

7.1.4 Quality Control Subfactor: Describe the Design/Build team’s quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction.

Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan.

Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control and track design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate Government reviews.

Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for…