AMENDMENT_0001_RFP_W912P6-16-R-0031_IHC_CONSTRUCTION_MGMT_SVCS.pdf

W81G6661484366

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 GOVERNMENT HEREBY ISSUES THIS AMENDMENT 0001 TO ITS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO.

W912P6-16-R-0031, PROJECT TITLE: "CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AT THE INDIANA HARBOR CANAL, CONFINED DISPOSAL

FACILITY, EAST CHICAGO, INDIANA"

DETAILS REGARDING THE PREPROPOSAL MEETING ARE CONTAINED HEREUNDER

- OFFERORS SHALL ENSURE THIS AMENDMENT 0001 IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY COMPLETING BLOCKS 15A, 15B, AND 15C, AND

SUBMITTING THE EXECUTED COPY WITH THEIR PROPOSAL PACKAGES.

THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE REMAINS UNCHANGED BY THIS AMENDMENT; THEREFORE, PROPOSALS ARE DUE NO LATER THAN 4:00 P.M.

CDT ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2016.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Aug-2016

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 W912P6-16-R-0031

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Aug-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

18-Aug-2016

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, CHICAGO

231 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 1500

CHICAGO IL 60604-1437

W912P6 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912P6-16-R-0031

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

AMENDMENT PARTICULARS:

PRE‐BID MEETING & PROJECT SITE VISIT

A pre‐bid meeting with a site visit to follow will be held for this project beginning at 10 a.m. (Central Daylight Time) on Tuesday August 23, 2016. The meeting location is 3500 Indianapolis Boulevard, East Chicago, IN 46312.

At the pre‐bid meeting, Government representatives will highlight specific contract requirements. The objective is to provide an information exchange between potential bidders and the Government to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation of the contract requirements.

The Corps of Engineers strongly encourages all potential bidders to attend the pre‐bid meeting and, in the interest of making the meeting more meaningful, prospective bidders are urged to present any written questions concerning the project bid documents, bidding, and construction requirements or other related matters prior to the pre‐bid meeting. Send written questions, by EMAIL to Megan Manis at megan.r.manis@usace.army.mil.

Written questions may be submitted at the beginning of the meeting and oral questions may be submitted from the floor, will only be addressed if they are clarifications of information provided in the solicitation and in subsequent amendments issued before the scheduled prebid meeting and site visit. Answers, interpretations, and decisions made at the meeting will not become official unless and until verified by an amendment to the solicitation issued prior to the receipt of bids.

Following the meeting, prospective bidders will be permitted to inspect the site where services are to be performed and to satisfy themselves as to all general and local conditions that may affect the cost of performance of the contract to the extent such information is reasonably obtained.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

a. The USACE has changed a provision at the Factor 4 (Small Business Participation Plan) to read consistently throughout the RFP that both small and large businesses will be rated on their level of small business commitment.

(Re: Section 00100 at 2.1.4 and at 2.5).

b. Wherein stated at 2.1.4: “ to receive consideration for award,” the word “EACH” has been added; thus, the statement now reads: to receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for EACH individual Subfactor. This relates to Subfactors 2a, 2b and 2c. (Re: Section 00100 at 3.2).

c. As a result of the aforementioned, Section 00100 of the RFP is replaced in its entirely with the revised Section 00100 provided below.

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES TO OFFERORS

(PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS)

NOTE: IN THIS RFP, BID OR BIDDER MEAN "OFFER AND "OFFEROR"

PART 1 GENERAL

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

1.0 ACQUISITION METHOD.

Through use of the best value method of contracting, using the source selection trade off process, the USACE‐Chicago District, seeks to acquire the services described in this solicitation and its accompanying documents. This particular acquisition method considers award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. In addition, this process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non‐cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

1.1 WHO MAY SUBMIT.

Competition for this acquisition is unrestricted to business size. The applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is 237990. The intent of this Solicitation is to select one contractor to mechanically dredge the Indiana Harbor and Canal, hydraulically disposed the dredge material to the Confined Disposal Facility (CDF), and operate the CDF (including maintaining groundwater gradient at the site, treating wastewater from the CDF, and various other activities). Firms organized as construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, or other interested parties, may submit proposals. In the latter case, the association may be a joint venture or a subcontractor. If submitting as a joint venture, ensure that the joint venture business name is registered in like manners in the System for Award Management (SAM) database (visit: http://www.sam.gov/);

Note: As mandated by the law, this Agency cannot award a contract to a contractor who is not registered in the SAM database. Also note that if joint venturing with a mentor protégé relationship in place, the mentor protégé agreement must be pre‐approved by the SBA prior to the joint venture submitting its proposal to this Agency.

1.2 SUBMISSION DEADLINE.

Proposals shall be received by the Corps of Engineers, Chicago District Office no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the SF 1442 (Page 1) of this Solicitation. – ELECTRONIC OR FAXED

PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

1.3 SUBMISSION FORMAT AND NUMBER OF SUBMITTALS.

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross‐referencing are mandatory. Failures to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affect an Offeror's evaluation. Offeror’s should provide sufficient detail and clearly define all items required in this section.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements contained in the contract specifications/plan sheets a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform.

Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

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

The Offeror shall submit all proposal materials in binders with a table of contents and tabbed Section dividers. Each Section submitted must be parallel with the submission requirements identified below.

The documents required by Section 5 shall be submitted in originals only and shall be placed in a clearly marked envelope. All information requested for Sections 1 through 5 must be submitted for the proposal to be considered for award.

Offerors should limit submissions to the data essential for evaluation so that a minimum of time and funds are spent in preparing the information.

Printing should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12‐point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8‐point and may be landscape.

Submission Format Requirements Number of Submittals

Section 1 (Tab 1)

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

Original & 5 copies

Section 2 (Tab 2)

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH AND

MANAGEMENT FACTOR

‐See below Sub‐Factors

(Tab 2A) (Tab 2B) (Tab 2C)

Sub‐Factor 2a Dredging Plan Sub‐Factor 2b Wastewater Treatment Plan Sub‐Factor 2c Groundwater Systems Plan

Original & 5 copies

Section 3 (Tab 3)

FACTOR 3: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION AND

EXPERIENCE

Section 4 (Tab 4) FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN Original & 5 copies

Section 5

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

Originals Only and shall be placed in an envelope

A. SF 1442

1 Original

B. Bid Schedule (will serve as the Offeror’s PRICE

PROPOSAL)

1 Original

C. Representations & Certificates 1 Original

D. Bid Guarantee 1 Original

E. AMENDMENTS (if any)

1 acknowledged copy for each amendment when issued

2.0 GENERAL PROPOSAL INFORMATION.

Offerors should limit submissions to the data essential for evaluation so that a minimum of time and funds are spent in preparing the information. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, Offerors must include information that is sufficiently detailed to describe the Offeror's qualifications and experience, equipment features of the proposal, and management capabilities to successfully complete the project. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposals that meet or exceed these requirements are encouraged, and all proposals shall conform to these requirements only and shall directly correlate to only the information asked for.

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

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

Clarification of the Provisions of this Request for Proposal. Any explanation desired by an Offeror regarding the meaning or interpretation of the RFP shall be requested in writing to the Contracting Branch, Attention: Megan Manis at email address: megan.r.manis@usace.army.mil (PLEASE INCLUDE

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

2.1 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS.

2.1.1 FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE (TAB 1):

The Offeror shall submit with their proposal up to a maximum of ten (10) Past Performance Questionnaire’s (PPQ) in its proposal for Factor 1, whose form is provided in this Solicitation as Attachment A.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) PROJECTS:

Offerors should submit a copy of the Government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluations or, for older projects, a copy of the Government’s

Construction Contract Performance Evaluations (CCASS). If unable to provide the printed CPARS or CCASS evaluations, provide written notification that current ratings are available so that the Government may obtain the printed evaluation.

Offerors should not request PPQs on projects that have final CPARS or CCASS evaluations. If a PPQ is received on a project where a final CPARS evaluation exists, the CPARS evaluation will serve as the official rating of record for evaluation purposes.

PROJECTS THAT DO NOT HAVE A CPARS EVALUATION:

Offerors shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to the points of contact (POC) responsible for monitoring performance under those contracts.

Completed PPQs should be included with the proposal if at all possible. However, if necessary, they can be submitted directly to Contract Specialist Megan Manis by emailing completed documents to both of the following email address: megan.r.manis@usace.army.mil

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1

– Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal.

If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment A), 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, Ms.

Megan Manis at email address: megan.r.manis@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.

Also offerors may include performance recognition documents received within the last 5 years of the issuance date of this solicitation, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Sysems (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSARS), 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 intent of Section 2 of the PPQ is for the Offeror to identify self‐performed work that is relevant to this Solicitation. The self‐performed work shall be expressed as a percentage of the total contract when compared to the “Final Contract Price”.

The intent of Section 4 of the PPQ is for the Offeror to describe in detail how the self‐performed work is relevant to this Solicitation. Such detail should help establish the magnitude and complexity of the past performance and may include, but not be limited to, such items as quantities installed and/or constructed, equipment used, site constraints, and environmental conditions.

If the Offeror is a joint venture (JV), each firm shall only provide information on the PPQ that is relevant to their role on this solicitation. Also, if the JV previously performed work together on a project, the PPQ shall provide information demonstrating relevant experience in the role as a JV and shall indicate the percentage of work the JV completed.

If the Offeror intends to subcontract a particular feature of work, the Offeror is encouraged to submit a PPQ(s) for said subcontractor and specifically identify their role in this Solicitation.

Preferably, only complete PPQs will be included in the proposal and Offerors should follow‐up with clients/references prior to the proposal closing date to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the entire PPQ (with the unfilled evaluation section), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may choose to, but is not obligated to, contact the client during review of the proposal, so the Offeror should ensure that phone numbers and email addresses are current.

New entities without past performance history shall include a letter with the proposal, stating that they have had no previous clients and that the minimum number of questionnaires cannot be provided. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that sufficient reference documentation is provided to substantiate the statement, as the Government may or may not make additional requests for past performance information from persons familiar with the Offeror’s performance history.

The Government may contact references provided as part of the Factor for Experience for information regarding past performance on the project and for assessing and verifying the scope of the work performed. Offerors should provide accurate, current, and complete contact information for references provided in the project descriptions.

2.1.2 FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH AND MANAGEMENT FACTOR (TAB 2)

The rating for Factor 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH AND MANAGEMENT will be a combination of the ratings of Subfactors 2A, 2B and 2C.

Offerors shall submit a proposal describing the methods to be used to ensure successful completion of the specified work in accordance with the plans and specifications. Specifically, the Technical Approach and Management should show the Offeror’s proposed technical approach and management for dredging, waste water treatment, and ground water systems. The government reserves the right to incorporate the winning offeror’s proposal for water treatment, dredging and ground water systems into the contract requirements.

Subfactor 2A: Dredging Plan (TAB 2A):

The Dredging Plan shall describe the equipment, method, and sequence of work for accomplishing the dredging and hydraulic offloading work in accordance with Specification 35 20 23.16 and Specification

35 21 00. Specifically, the Dredging Plan shall include the following:

Equipment size and capabilities of dredging equipment (e.g., bucket size of the environmental bucket and modified clamshell bucket to be used for the project). A plan that demonstrates that a dredging rate greater than 3,000 cubic yards per day can be achieved while still meeting all project requirements (safety, turbidity, emissions, etc.)

using the required buckets may result in a higher rating.

Size and capabilities of hydraulic off‐loaders and related equipment. Provide detailed description of the size, flow or pumping rate, ability of the system to discharge sediment in an even layer within the CDF. Include piping layout and other design information of the systems used.

Preliminary power and space requirement analysis for the dredging and dredge material offloading equipment/setup.

Provide information on the use of real time turbidity monitoring and turbidity controls such as real‐time turbidity monitoring systems, specialized dredging equipment, and silt curtains for at least 2 similar dredging projects. Provide information on the use of oil booms for the control of oil at the dredge site for at least 2 projects. Description of turbidity monitoring and controls must include type of equipment used, reporting and control practices. Description of oil boom systems must include boom layout, type of booms, oil control practices, frequency of boom changes and size of booms.

Demonstrated experience on additional relevant projects with turbidity and oil control may result in a higher rating.

Subfactor 2B: Wastewater Treatment Plan (TAB 2B)

The Wastewater Treatment Plan shall describe the equipment, method, and sequence of work for accomplishing the work in accordance with Specification 44 41 13. Specifically, the Wastewater

Treatment Plan shall include the following:

A process flow diagram showing proposed temporary wastewater treatment system including treatment processes and system components.

A tabulation of the design basis and treatment plant characteristics (i.e. loading rates, detention times, chemical dosages/feed rates, anticipated media replacement intervals, byproduct waste stream generation rates, treatment flowrate, anticipated plant operation period, staff requirement, automated setup), and data sheets for process consumables such as activated carbon.

A plan that addresses potential future changes in water quality and demonstrates the treatment plant’s flexibility for potential future changed water quality conditions may result in a higher rating.

A design and treatment plant mobilization and startup schedule showing that the plant will be online, operational and ready to treat water within 90 days after approval of the treatment plant design for the initial operation. A schedule that realistically demonstrates that a treatment plant will be ready for operation before 90‐day schedule

Subfactor 2C: Groundwater Systems Plan (TAB 2C)

The Groundwater Systems Plan shall describe the equipment, method, and sequence of work for accomplishing the work in accordance with Specification 33 24 13. Specifically, the Groundwater

Systems Plan shall include the following:

Well operation and maintenance procedures, including specifics on well performance analysis and testing that will be used at the site.

Well rehabilitation specifics including how biofouling issues would be addressed/resolved.

Practices for data management, operational interpretation for diagnosing groundwater extraction system issues, and regulatory reporting. Description should demonstrate an understanding of hydrogeology and include experience with well instrumentation, software controls, groundwater control intent.

A plan which demonstrates innovative techniques for well performance analysis and well rehabilitation may receive a higher rating.

2.1.3 FACTOR 3: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE (TAB 3)

The offeror shall provide the resumes of the key personnel that will oversee and execute the work that may be awarded under this contract. The purpose of this submittal is to identify the personnel possessing relevant expertise available to this contract. The resumes should clearly display proposed job title, education, special qualifications, and experience record. Experience record should include title, specific duties, and level of responsibility of assignments for at least the last 5 years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. The offerors must include resumes of the following key personnel:

Quality Control Manager, Site Safety and Health Officer/Manager, Collateral Duty Safety Officer (CDSO) for Dredging, Licensed Hydrogeologist, and Contractor Quality Control System Manager. If other key management personnel are required to perform any work under this contract, the contractor will be required to submit their resumes. Key personnel obtained through a subcontract arrangement should be clearly annotated as such.

The resumes shall include the personnel education, licenses, certifications and any relevant training. The resumes shall describe the experience that qualifies the relevant personnel for the Solicitation work and specifically identify particular experience of the individuals on the projects listed in Factor’s 1 and

Subfactor’s 2a, 2b and 2c.

The identified personnel must be used on the project. Any substitution of these persons will not be permitted without prior approval of the Contracting Officer’s Representative and shall meet the equivalent experience to the original personnel.

The Government will evaluate the qualifications of the following key personnel: Quality Control

Manager, Site Safety and Health Officer/Manager, Collateral Duty Safety Officer (CDSO) for Dredging, Licensed Hydrogeologist, and Contractor Quality Control System Manager. The minimum qualifications for each personnel is list below. Personnel exceeding the minimum qualifications may be considered a strength and may result in a higher adjectival rating:

Quality Control Manager:

The Contractor Quality Control Manager cannot be the Safety Officer on this project, even though the

QC has safety inspection responsibilities as part of the QC duties. The Contractor Quality Control

Manager must have:

a. Experience in construction techniques and construction safety procedures.

b. At the time of proposal submission, a minimum of five (5) years of experience in the following:

(1) Supervising/managing construction activities including control, verification, and acceptance of construction work.

(2) Managing safety programs or processes.

Site Safety and Health Officer/Manager:

In accordance with Specifications 01 35 26 and 01 35 29.13, the , Site Safety and Health

Officer/Manager must have the required training, experience, and qualifications in accordance with EM

385‐1‐1 Section 01.A.17, and all associated sub‐paragraphs. The Site Safety and Health Officer/Manager must have the following qualifications:

a. At the time of proposal submission, a minimum of five (5) years of experience in developing and implementing safety and occupational health programs at remediation sites (including but not limited to

RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, and/or federal facility remediation sites).

b. Documented experience in developing worker exposure assessment programs.

c. Documented experience in managing personal protective equipment (PPE) programs and conducting

PPE hazard evaluations for the types of activities and hazards likely to be encountered on the project.

d. Working knowledge of state and Federal occupational safety and health regulations.

e. Meet 29 CFR 1910.120/29 CFR 1926.65 requirements for 40‐hour initial and 8‐hour supervisor training and, maintain 8‐hour refresher training requirements.

f. Documented experience in construction techniques and construction safety procedures.

Collateral Duty Safety Officer (CDSO) for Dredging:

In accordance with Specifications 01 35 26 and 01 35 29.13, the CDSO must have a minimum of three years of experience within the past five years of the time of proposal submission in one of the following:

a. Supervising/managing dredging activities

b. Supervising/managing marine construction activities

c. Supervising/managing land‐based construction activities

d. Work managing safety programs or processes

e. Conducting hazard analyses and developing controls in activities or environments with similar hazards

Licensed Hydrogeologist:

In accordance with Specification 33 24 13, the hydrogeologist shall hold a valid geologist license, hydrogeologist specialty license, and/or a professional engineering license in their state of residence.

Additionally, the hydrogeologist shall have at least five (5) years of experience, at the time of proposal submission, with operation and maintenance of production wells or gradient control wells at remediation sites (including but not limited to RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, and/or federal facility remediation sites).

2.1.4 FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN (SBPP) (TAB 4): All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of the proposed acquisition. SBPP will be rated independently using an adjectival‐based system as described herein this Solicitation. Offerors shall prepare a Small Business Participation Plan using the below content and format.

The SBPP shall be in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) 215.304. The SBPP will be incorporated into any resultant prime contract as the basis for a formal Small Business Subcontracting Plan the successful Offeror (if a large business) will be required to submit prior to contract award. The Small Business Participation Plan shall be based on the Offeror’s best effort;

however, it must meet the minimum total Small Business Participation goal of 34.5% of the total contract value. Offerors unable to meet the minimum overall small business goal of 34.5% shall provide an explanation of why this target cannot be met with their proposal.

Address each of the following areas individually:

The extent in which the small business programs listed in FAR 19 (small business, small disadvantaged business, woman‐owned small business, HubZone, service disabled veteran owned small business, etc.) are specifically identified in the Small Business Participation Plan;

The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition in percentages; the extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments, i.e. teaming agreements signed, are to be considered more heavily than non‐enforceable ones);

The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform on this acquisition; and, The realism of the Small Business Participation Plan, i.e. aggressive goals.

The intent of the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan is for the Offeror to articulate how small businesses will participate in this award performance through small business subcontracting. The SBPP shall be organized as follows:

(1) Prime Contractor type of business (check all that apply):

( ) Large ( ) Small (also check type of small business) ( ) Small Non‐Disadvantaged Business ( ) Small Disadvantaged Business ( ) Woman‐Owned Small Business ( ) HUBZone Small Business ( ) Veteran Owned Small Business ( ) Service Disabled, Veteran Owned Small Business

(2) Percentage of your participation as a prime contractor :

(3) Total contract value and percentage of total contract value of subcontracts planned for:

Total Contract Value by Percentage*

Total Contract Value

Large % $

Total Small % $

Small Non‐Disadvantaged % $

Small Disadvantaged % $

Small Woman Owned % $

Small HUB Zone % $

Small Veteran Owned % $

Small Service Disabled Veteran Owned

*Each percentage above shall be accompanied by detailed supporting documentation regarding individual commitments. Please ensure the percentage of contract value corresponds to the total contract value.

NOTE: The sum of the percentages of Small Non‐Disadvantaged and Small Disadvantaged should equal the entries for the Total Small; however, the sum of all of the percentages need not equal 100% since the prime is not included and individual subcontractors may be counted towards more than one category.

(4) List principal supplies/services (be specific) to be subcontracted to:

Company Name Type of Service/Supply

Large

Small Non‐Disadvantaged

Small Disadvantaged

Small Woman Owned

Small HUB Zone

Small Veteran Owned

Small Service Disabled Veteran Owned

(5) Prior Performance Information: Provide any information substantiating the Offeror’s track record of utilizing small business on past contracts.

(6) For Large and Small Businesses provide descriptive information for all small business categories. Any information concerning long‐term relationships with Small Business subcontractors, such as mentor‐protégé relationships, should be provided.

(7) Extent of Commitment: Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize any small business category as defined in FAR Part 19 as subcontractors.

NOTE: A Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be required if the proposal deemed the best value is submitted by a Large Business. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan must contain all of the elements required by FAR Clause 52.219‐9. This Plan is submitted separately from the aforementioned Small Business Participation Plan; thus, it shall not be submitted with any offeror’s proposal package.

The Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in this source selection but, rather a requirement for award to a Large Business. Once approved, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into any resultant contract.

2.1.5 SECTION 5: (SIGNED PROPOSAL; PROPOSED PRICE, REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS; BID BOND; AND any AMENDMENTS)

All Documents required by this Section Number 5 shall be submitted in original form to the address specified above. The original bid bond shall be submitted in original form and enclosed in an envelope that is clearly marked as “Section 4 Documents.”

Required documents: SF 1442 (Page 2 of the Solicitation): Blocks #14 THROUGH #16 shall be completed by an authorized person from the company or joint venture. (Not rated, only reviewed for compliance)

Section 00010 of the Solicitation document (Bid Schedule): The Bid Schedule is contained in Section 00010 of this Solicitation and shall serve as the Offeror's Price Proposal.

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

Solicitation or be located in the On‐Line Representations & Certifications Application (ORCA). (Not rated, only reviewed for compliance)

Bid Bond: The offeror must submit a Bid Guarantee for this solicitation. Any offeror failing to submit an authentic Bid Guarantee will be considered non‐responsive to the solicitation and ineligible for initial evaluations and award. The Bid Guarantee shall be in the amount of 20% percent of the Offeror's proposed price or $3,000,000.00, whichever is less. (Not rated, only reviewed for compliance)

Amendments: Any Amendments issued against this Solicitation, shall be acknowledged on a copy of the issued Amendment or on the SF 1442 itself (page 2). (Not rated, only reviewed for compliance)

‐ END OF INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES TO OFFERORS ‐

(PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS)

PROPOSAL EVALUATION SYSTEM

1.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

An evaluation team will evaluate each eligible proposal in response to this RFP. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein. The technical and non‐technical aspects of each proposal will be evaluated.

Key Definitions:

Adverse Past Performance is past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

(FAPIIS).

Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. See FAR 2.101.

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Competitive Range See FAR 15.306(c).

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

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

Evaluation Notice (EN) is a written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

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

Rating is the adjective descriptor assigned by the evaluators’ to the non‐Cost/Price Factors and corresponding Subfactors. It represents the conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write‐ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective.

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.

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 solicitation requirements;

and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

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 of degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

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

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is a group of Government and, if needed, approved non‐ Government personnel, representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition.

Strength is 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.

Tradeoff Process is the process which permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non‐cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non‐cost 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).

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

See FAR 15.001.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS.

The evaluation process essentially consists of the following: 1) proposal compliance review, 2) past performance evaluation, 3) technical evaluation (includes Factor’s 2 & 3), 4) small business participation plan evaluation, 5) price evaluation, and 6) price technical trade‐off analysis.

2.1 PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW.

The Source Selection Chairperson will make an initial review of each of the proposals to look for apparent errors, omissions and areas that require clarification. Thereafter, the findings will be submitted to the Contracting Officer for review. This information will state the specific nature of the question and the page and paragraph of the proposal requiring correction or clarification. The Contracting Officer will review the findings and, if considered appropriate, task the Chairperson to submit questions to the Offerors for a quick response to the Contracting Officer. The Chairperson and the Contracting Officer will not cite apparent deficiencies (parts of the proposal that fail to meet the Government’s requirements).

The proposals will not be evaluated at that time. The purpose of this preliminary review session is to eliminate minor irregularities or apparent clerical mistakes. This preliminary evaluation will assure that each proposal contains all required proposal submittals and that all required forms and certifications have been fully completed. Thereafter, the evaluation team will evaluate each proposal passing the Proposal Compliance Review using the Evaluation process described below.

2.2 FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Past Performance will be rated as follows:

The Government will consider how well the Offeror has performed in their recent, relevant experience.

The adjectival ratings provided by the Client in the submitted PPQ’s will be used and the Government reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with the Client’s identified in the PPQ, and/or to review other recent projects rated in CPARS or other agency performance databases, or to review personal knowledge. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. For example, even if all of the Offeror’s PPQ’s are rated as Exceptional, the Performance Confidence Assessment rating may be lowered if the submitted PPQ’s have not been considered to be relevant.

Based on the aforementioned ratings, an overall Performance Assessment Relevancy and Confidence rating for Past Performance (Factor 1) will then be assigned in accordance with the following descriptions.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

PPQ’s for a project that is either currently underway or has an “Actual Completion Date” within seven

(7) years from the issuance date of this Solicitation will be considered to be recent and will be reviewed for relevancy.

In its determination of relevancy, the Government will consider the similarity of the scope of work, the complexity of the work, contract value, location of work (e.g. familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions), and degree of subcontracting. Some examples of relevant work to this Solicitation may include:

Mechanically dredging contaminated and non‐contaminated sediment;

Hydraulic off‐loading or disposal of dredged sediment;

Design, construction, and operation of temporary wastewater treatment systems;

Operation and maintenance of well fields or groundwater control systems for the purposes of groundwater containment or environmental protection;

Operation and maintenance of air monitoring instrumentation;

Operating upland confined disposal facilities;

Regulatory reporting for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) disposal facilities.

Work described in Sections 2 or 4 of the PPQ form that is not self‐performed may be given a lower relevancy rating. For example, if an Offeror was identified as a prime on a PPQ, but the work described in Sections 2 or 4 was found to have been subcontracted, then the PPQ may be rated lower than if it was self‐performed.

When a PPQ is submitted for a subcontractor(s) that is proposed to be part of the Offeror’s team, the Performance Confidence Assessment rating may be higher if the Offeror provides a signed agreement between the Offeror and the subcontractor. Furthermore, the Performance Confidence Assessment rating may be higher if the submitted PPQ, or the signed agreement, provides evidence that the Offeror and subcontractor have experience working together.

If any Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member.

PPQ’s where the client is the Federal Government will NOT be inherently rated higher in the performance confidence assessment rating than non‐Federal Government clients.

2.3 FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH AND MANAGEMENT‐ Technical approach and management will be a combination of the ratings of: Sub‐Factor 2A( Dredging Plan), Sub‐Factor 2B (Water Treatment Plan), AND, Sub‐Factor 2C (Groundwater Systems Plan). The following adjectival rating system will be used to evaluate Sub‐Factor 2A (Dredging Plan), Sub‐Factor 2B (Water Treatment Plan), and Sub‐Factor 2C (Groundwater Systems Plan).

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.

2.4 FACTOR 3: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE will be rated using the following adjectival rating system.

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.

2.5 FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN ‐ The small business participation goal of this acquisition is for small business, small disadvantage small business, veteran‐owned small business,…