AMENDMENT NO 0010 W912P621R0003 LAKE GEORGE.pdf

W912P621R0003

W81G6603023956

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

REFERENCE: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. W912P621R0003, LAKE GEORGE CANAL MIDDLE SECTION RESTORATION, LAKE

COUNTY, INDIANA

A. The Proposal Due Date is changed by this Amendment. The proposal due time is unchanged. Therefore, proposals are due prior to 5:00 p.m. (Central Time) on August 9, 2021. -For further details regarding offer and evalutation information, please refer to Solictation Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers.

-- THIS AMENDMENT CONTINUES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES --

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 23

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Aug-2021

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 W912P621R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Jun-2021

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

03-Aug-2021

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

B. AMENDED SECTION 00 21 16 – INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The Offeror and Evaluation Information have been modified at Section 4.5 removing Sealed Envelope, Section 5.2.1 modifying Schedule Submission Requirements and Section 5.2.2 Evaluation Criteria. Accordingly, Contractor’s shall remove and replace the OFFER & EVALUATION INFORMATION with the following.

OFFER & EVALUATION INFORMATION

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for Environmental Remediation and Restoration

Activities for the Lake George Canal- Middle Section Restoration project. The basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off process. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

2. 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. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

2.2 Due to COVID-19 impacts, all submissions to this proposal announcement shall be submitted electronically through DoD SAFE no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. Please refer to and follow the instructions specified in the Electronic Proposal Submission Instructions, attached herein.

2.3 Offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted electronically with a table of contents and section dividers.

The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in

Section 00 21 16 and include the following information:

Volume I – Factor I: Technical Approach o Sub factor A: Management Plan o Sub factor B: Schedule

Volume I – Factor II: Past Performance Volume I – Factor III: Small Business Participation Plan

*NOTE: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab 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 that exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

2.5 Volume II shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in

Section 00 21 00 and include the following information:

Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements Volume II – Tab C: Pre-Award Information Volume II – Tab D: Bid Bond Volume II – Tab E: Subcontracting Plan

NOTE: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical proposals (Volume I) will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone 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, as stated above.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility review, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance/Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that both a technical and price proposal were received, 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 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Technical Approach will be rated using Table 3 below. Factor II – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 and 2 below. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor III – Small Business Participation Plan will be rated using Table 4 below.

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

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

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and sub factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are considered approximately equal to price. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Factor Order of Importance

4.2 Volume I – Factor I – Technical Approach 1st

Sub factor A Management Plan 1st Sub factor B Schedule 2nd

4.3 Volume I – Factor II – Past Performance 2nd

4.4 Volume I – Factor III – Small Business Participation Plan 3rd

************************************Amendment 0010********************************

4.5 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated

Tab B Joint Venture Agreement Not Rated

Tab C Pre-Award Information Not Rated

Tab D Bid Bond Not Rated

Tab E Subcontracting Plan Acceptable / Unacceptable

4.6 Ratings

Evaluators will apply the rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

TABLE 1

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings 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.

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 / Risk 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 the requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is un-awardable.

TABLE 4

Small Business Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the small business objectives.

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

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

FAR 15.001.

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

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.

5.0 Volume I – Factor I: Technical Approach

5.1 Sub factor A: Management Plan:

5.1.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a management plan narrative for the project that describes its ability to install an engineered sediment cap at the Lake George Middle Section. Describe how your labor, resources, subcontractors, and material suppliers will be managed, supervised, coordinated, and used to ensure successful completion of the project. Additionally, the Management Plan shall include the following information:

Identify significant areas of risk and provide your plan for mitigating risk during contract performance.

Describe your process for managing, coordinating, and tracking changes that arise during construction.

Describe your proposed construction and management approach for installation of an engineered sediment cap that meets the requirements set forth in the plans and specification. Provide a summary of cap construction methodologies to be used, including a list of equipment, technologies and/or processes to be used. The proposed methods for placing an evenly distributed cap layer, minimizing oil distributed cap layer, minimizing oil displacement, minimizing suspension of cap materials or sediment, identifying and removing debris, verifying cap placement extent and layer thickness, sediment pre-consolidation, ensuring even distribution of sorbents and installing the west tank farm remedy. Indicate whether west tank farm bank control remedy will be installed ‘in the wet’ or ‘in the dry’; note quality control and verification procedures for installation of the west tank farm bank remedy. Explicitly describe how absorbent materials will be evenly distributed throughout the cap.

Describe methods for monitoring, containing, reporting, and addressing floating oil. Describe equipment, methods, and schedules to be used in response to the potential release of free product during any phase of work. Note how oil or oil impacted materials will be removed, stored, and transported. Provide an oil boom and turbidity curtain installation plan. Include a plan for preventing disturbance to the Existing Lake Mary Ecosystem Restoration Area.

Provide an organizational chart for this project showing home office support, on-site management, and the responsible chain of command. JV offerors must show the respective areas of responsibility for each partner. Clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel on the organizational chart.

NOTE: There is a page limit of twenty (20) single sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 10 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides for the Management Plan sub factor. The organizational chart does not count against this page limit.

5.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Management Plan narratives will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the work and the involvement the Offeror will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed during construction of the project. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the solicited project may be rated more favorably by the SSEB.

The offeror’s organizational chart will be evaluated based on the clarity, adequacy, capabilities, and strengths for successfully managing the solicited project. Proposals that provide higher levels of detail that clearly explain the Offeror’s proposed technical approach and management to provide a fully functional, complete construction approach that meets the requirements outlined in the RFP may receive a higher rating.

5.2 Subfactor B: Schedule

5.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a schedule narrative, showing how the work will be performed and completed within the duration shown in Section 00 70 00, clause (Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work).

Discuss the construction phases for the execution of all major features of work, including, but not limited to:

Initial 90 day schedule following NTP

Sitework (debris removal, sediment pre-consolidation, invasive species removal, etc.)

Construction of the sheet pile wall, west tank farm bank controls, sediment stabilization layer, engineered sediment cap, wetland shelf, and ecosystem restoration plantings.

Maintenance and monitoring periods

Physical completion

As-built submissions per specification Section 01 78 00 Paragraph 1.7.1.

The offeror shall discuss their critical path through the project. For purposes of preparing the schedule narrative, all options should be assumed to be exercised on the final day of the option period. Additionally, the narrative shall discuss any proposed mitigation efforts for anticipated schedule risk.

There is a page limit of four (4) single sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the narrative portion of this Sub-factor. There is a page limit of three (3) single sided, 11” x 17” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the bar chart portion of this Sub factor.

5.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The SSEB will evaluate the schedule narrative to assess the offeror’s understanding of events associated with the major features of work listed above and completion requirements. The SSEB will also evaluate the offeror’s capability to complete the project within the required contract duration. Please note that the major features of work listed above are the minimum that must be discussed in your schedule. The SSEB will also evaluate the identified schedule risks and the mitigation measures identified in the narrative.

6.0 Volume I – Factor II: Past Performance

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the Prime

Contractor within the last seven (7) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in scope. Projects completed more than seven (7) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (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 similar.

6.1.2 Projects considered similar in scope to this project include the following:

Placement of active/amended sediment caps Environmental Remediation (contaminated sediment, PAH contamination, oil control and clean-up) Active/amended bank controls for groundwater control Installation of a geotextile In-water sheetpile installation Upland and aquatic ecosystem restoration

6.1.3 The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15 percent of the direct contract labor (including testing and layout personnel), exclusive of other general conditions or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, or subcontractors to be considered similar

6.1.4 Additional consideration may be given for projects that contain the following features:

a) Sediment remedies addressing mobile non-aqueous phase liquids and involving active oil control.

b) Installation of organophilic clay-base sand caps for PAH control

c) Sediment remedies at Great Lakes Area of Concern sites.

6.1.5 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Location, and Contract Number/Unique Identifier

b) Current percentage of construction complete and the date it was or will be complete

a. For projects that are not yet complete, provide description of work remaining to be completed.

c) Scope of the project

d) Type and percentage of work that was self-performed

6.1.6 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that 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. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s respective corrective action.

NOTE: 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 agreement. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture (JV) must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number (formerly known as DUNS) 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 three (3).

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1 The SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 6.1 above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope 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.

6.2.2 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 reserves the right to review past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers. 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.

6.2.3 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected and 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.

7.0 Volume I – Factor III: Small Business Participation Plan

7.1 Submission Requirements

ALL OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN. The Small Business Participation Plan shall be based on the offeror’s best effort and is required to address each of the following areas individually:

The extent to 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 %’s for the base year and for each individual option year; 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;

The practicality of the Small Business Participation Plan, i.e., aggressive goals.

The Small Business Participation Plan 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: __________________ %

NOTE: Small Business primes’ self-performance counts as Small Business Participation, and small business primes may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and/or through subcontracting to other small businesses.

(3) Percentage of total contract value of subcontracts planned for:

% of 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.

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:

Name of Company

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.

(8) Small Business Subcontracting Plan: Each Large Business Offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all of the elements required by FAR Clause 52.219-9. This Plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation information required above which applies to both Large and Small Businesses. The Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection but rather a requirement for award to a Large Business. The approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into any resultant contract(s).

7.2 Evaluation Criteria:

ALL OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN.

The Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated based on the offeror’s best efforts, the level of small business commitment that is being demonstrated for the proposed acquisition, and the prior level of commitment to utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts. The Small Business Participation Plan must meet the minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of 20% of the total contract value (through collective small business participation from any type of small business or sub-category small business).

Pursuant to DFARS PGI 215.304(c), the following elements will be considered in evaluating an offeror’s Participation Plan:

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

The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

The complexity and variety of the work such firms are to perform;

The realism of the plans;

Past performance of offerors in complying with the requirements of the Subcontracting Plan Goals for such firms and monetary targets for participation;

The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the proposed subcontracted value; and The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation percentages, or lack thereof. The Department of Defense (DOD) has established small business goals to help ensure small business receives a fair proportion of DOD awards.

8.0 Volume II - Price and Proforma Information

8.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.

8.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and Section 00 10 00, Proposal Price Breakout Schedule. Both of these forms are included in Section 00 10 00 of this solicitation.

8.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The price will be evaluated on base proposal plus all options. The price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. Price will also be checked for unbalancing of line items.

Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately.

8.2 Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

8.2.1 Submission Requirements:

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 (formally 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.

8.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

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.

8.3 Tab C – Pre-Award Information

8.3.1 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:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

b) Name, address, and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references

c) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

8.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

8.4 Tab D – 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 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.

8.5 Tab E - Subcontracting Plan

8.5.1 Submission Requirements:

Large business offerors shall submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR Clauses 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 DEV. To be acceptable, plans must adequately address the required statutory elements and provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to answer affirmatively questions A through H of Appendix DD, Part 2, AFARS 5119.705. The offeror may use the attached sample sub-contracting plan as a starting point. Percentage goals apply to the total amount being subcontracted.

8.5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Submitted information will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with AFARS 5119.705. To be acceptable, subcontracting plans must:

(a) Adequately address the required statutory elements.

(b) Provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to answer affirmatively questions A through H of Appendix DD (AFARS 5119.705), a copy of which is attached.

(c) To be acceptable, subcontracting plans must meet all of the requirements outlined in Appendix DD, Part 3, AFARS 5119.705. If discussions with offerors are necessary, those areas where the plan is deficient will be reviewed with each offeror with the goal of correcting deficiencies.

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. THE

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

FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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

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

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

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the Contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

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

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

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

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

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING THAT BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

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

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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

responsiveness to administrative reports; efforts to keep lines of communication open)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

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

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution, and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage, and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability, or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance

E VG S M U N

with established budgets, and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

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

Yes No

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

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

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

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

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

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

E VG S M U N

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

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

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this Contractor.

E VG S M U N

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

AFARS -- Appendix DD Subcontracting Plan Evaluation Guide

DD-100 Purpose.

The guide provides a methodology for uniform and consistent evaluation of subcontracting plans within the Army. It is designed to facilitate compliance with the mandates of 15 U.S.C. § 637(d) to increase opportunities for small and small disadvantaged businesses.

DD-101 Applicability.

In accordance with requirements of FAR 19.705-4, DFARS 219.705-4 and AFARS 5119.705-4, the contracting officer shall use this guide to review all subcontracting plans (except those for commercial items), including those submitted in response to the provisions in FAR 19.705-2(d) and (e). When the contract will require subcontracting plans, use the clauses designated by FAR 19.708(b)(1) and (2) and DFARS 219.708(b)(1)(A) in the solicitation. A copy of the completed evaluation shall be included in the contract file.

DD-102 Goals.

Contracting officers must place special emphasis on negotiating subcontracting goals that are realistic, challenging and attainable. The plan must express goals in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars and must be comparable to the dollar commitments in the small business participation plan. In accordance with FAR 19.705- 4(d), the contracting officer must review enough evidence to determine that the:

1. Offeror can meet subcontracting plan goals;

2. Offeror’s goals are consistent with their cost or pricing data or information other than cost or pricing data;

3. Offeror will honor the terms of subcontract agreements (i.e., timely payments of amounts owed, use of firms cited in proposal, etc.); and

4. Offeror’s make or buy policy or program does not conflict with the proposed subcontracting plan and is in the

Government’s best interest.

5. Plan includes the contractor’s commitment to adopt and comply with its requirements and goals for small business utilization.

DD-103 Evaluation Rating.

Either the contracting officer, the small business representative, or both, shall evaluate and rate the subcontracting plan as “acceptable” or “unacceptable,” in the context of the particular procurement. For instance, in smaller dollar value contracts, or contracts for uniquely manufactured items, it might be impracticable or not cost effective for offerors to take the type of actions that might be appropriate in contracts for larger dollar values or commercial components. To receive an “Acceptable” rating, the contractor must satisfy all objectives in Part 2 and meet each statutory subcontracting plan requirement outlined in Part 3. Failure to receive a subcontracting plan rating of acceptable could jeopardize the offeror’s selection for contract award. The contracting officer must document the decisions in the contract file.

DD-104 Modification of Guide.

Pursuant to AFARS 5101.403, only senior contracting officials may approve individual deviations to this…