BaseSpecs.pdf

RFP NO. W912P8-08-R-0075

US Army Corps of Engineers ® New Orleans District

100% SDVO Set-Aside

Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) Greater New Orleans Metropolitan Area Non-Federal Pump Station Repairs and Storm proofing

Multiple Parishes, Southeast Louisiana

Construction Solicitation And Specifications

October 1, 2008

MAIN TABLE OF CONTENTS

Instructions for Proposal Preparation Evaluation Factors Company Specialized Experience Solicitation, Offer and Award (SF-1442) 00100 Instructions To Bidders 00600 Representations and Certifications 00700 Contract Clauses

Division 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01100 General Provisions 01 32 16.00 20 Construction Progress Documentation 01 33 00 Submittal Procedures 01352 Environmental Protection 01 42 00 Sources For Reference Publications 01 45 02.00 10 Quality Control System (QCS) 01 45 04.00 10 Contractor Quality Control 01 57 20.00 12 Environmental Protection 01 78 02.00 10 Closeout Submittals

MTC-i

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, NOTICES TO OFFERORS, AND BASIS OF AWARD

1.0. INTRODUCTION – PROPOSAL OVERVIEW (MATOC):

This Request for Proposal (RFP) or solicitation shall result in the award of Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contracts for the Construction, Maintenance, Repair or Alteration of Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures, specifically Non-Federal Pump Station Repairs and Storm Proofing in the Greater New Orleans Metropolitan Area. It is the intent of the government to award up to eight (8) MATOC contracts from this solicitation. Actual number of MATOC contracts that shall be awarded is unknown as this will be dependent upon the responses received as a result of this solicitation and the government’s needs. Awards shall be made utilizing the Best Value Continuum using the Tradeoff method prescribed by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.101 and 15.101-1. It is important to note that this entire section of the RFP (Section 00100) shall document the process, by which, the government will make its award decision as a result of this solicitation. Therefore, it is imperative that all offerors read the contents of this section in order to understand the process by which the proposals will be evaluated and the source selection decision will be made.

1.1 TASK ORDER ONE: PLAQUEMINES PARISH PUMPING STATION REPAIRS,

NON FEDERAL PUMP STATION REPAIRS – WEST POINTE-A-LA-HACHE AND

DIAMOND PUMP STATIONS:

In addition to the MATOC, this Request for Proposal also solicits price proposals for the first task order to be awarded under the resultant MATOC: Task Order One, Plaquemines Parish Pumping Station Repairs, Non Federal Pump Station Repairs – West Pointe-A-La-Hache and Diamond Pump Stations. It is the intent of the Government to award Task Order One immediately after award of the MATOC contracts. Task Order One will be awarded to the offerors who provides the best value to the government in accordance with the Evaluation Factors and Basis of Award included in this document. Offerors must submit a bid bond along with their price proposal for Task Order One in accordance with the proposal submission requirements described in Paragraph 2.6.2.

1.2. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE:

The Government will hold a pre-proposal conference on Wednesday October 17, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. Central Daylight Savings Time at 7400 Leake Avenue, Conference Room DARM A/B/C, New Orleans, LA 70118 and encourages all prospective Offerors to attend. No recording devices of any kind will be allowed during the conference. The Government intends to explain the concepts and processes involved in the scope requirements, terms, and conditions of this solicitation. Solicitation hardcopies will not be furnished. Any questions regarding the solicitation will be accepted in writing to facilitate the conference process. Written questions must be received no later than three (3) days prior to the pre-proposal conference. The submission of written questions will not preclude anyone from posing questions during the conference. During this conference, the Government will explain the concepts involved in the project and the specifications, terms, and conditions of this solicitation. See paragraph 1.2.1.

The Government will issue an amendment to the solicitation to address the questions and responses pertaining specifically to the solicitation on the FedBizOpps site (www.fbo.gov) within five (5) working days following the conference. The solicitation will remain unchanged unless the Contracting Officer officially amends the solicitation in writing

1.2.1. Those planning to attend the pre-proposal conference shall forward the name(s) of the individual(s) attending, your Company Name, your phone number and any questions regarding the solicitation to Mrs. Michelle Dalmado via e-mail at michelle.r.dalmado@usace.army.mil or fax 504-862-2889. This information must be received no later than three (3) working days prior to the pre-proposal conference. Failure to provide the information regarding conference attendees may lead to an individual not receiving security access to the building. The submission of written questions will not preclude Offerors from submitting written questions during the conference. The Government will construe non-participation and/or non-submission of questions to mean that the prospective Offeror(s) fully understand the requirements of the solicitation.

1.2.2 Meeting Location/Building Access. Building security will be provided a list of names of the attendees that are provide to the Contract Specialist in accordance with paragraph

1.2.1 . Offerors must obtain a pass to access the facility. A valid driver's license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance are required for access. If your name is not on the security list, you may contact Mrs. Michelle Dalmado @ 504-862-2874 or Mr. Rick Torres at 504-862- 1649 for access.

1.3 Request For Proposal Due Date

Offerors must submit their proposal packages via mail or handcarried NO LATER than 30 October 2008 by 2:00PM Central Standard Time to the following address as follows:

US Army Corps of Engineers – Hurricane Protection Office Attn: Ricardo E. Torres – Contracting Officer 7400 Leake Ave, RM 184 New Orleans, LA 70118

POC for RFP is Michelle Dalmado, who can be contacted at michelle.r.dalmado@usace.army.mil or 504-862-2874

1.3.1 Offeror(s) Requests for Information / Questions

The Government request that all written questions be submitted by Monday, 24 October 2008 at

11:00AM CST.

2.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

o This is an all-electronic solicitation release. Hard copies are not available. The Government will post amendments to the solicitation to Electronic Posting System (EPS), which can be accessed via the federal business opportunities website @ www.fedbizopps.gov.

It is the responsibility of each offeror(s) to review the web page for notice of amendments, updates or changes to current information.

2.2 WHERE TO SUBMIT / SUBMISSION DEADLINE:

Proposals for the work described above for this solicitation will be accepted until the date and time indicated on Standard Form 1442, at the following address:

USACE, Hurricane Protection Office ATTN: Ricardo E. Torres 7400 Leake Avenue, Room 184 New Orleans, LA 70118

WARNING: Please do not wait until the last minute to submit your proposals! To avoid submission of late proposals, we recommend your proposal submission 24 hours prior to the required proposal due date and time.

2.3 WHO MAY SUBMIT: SERVICE DISABLED VERTERAN OWNED SMALL

BUSINESSES (SDVOBS):

For this procurement, it has been determined that competition will be limited to Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) firms. Firms must be SDVOSB certified by SBA.

All other firms are deemed ineligible to submit offers. If there is a question concerning a firm’s eligibility, please contact the SBA LA District Office @ 504-589-6685.

2.3.1 JOINT VENTURE OFFERORS: If the offeror(s) is a joint venture, the offeror(s) shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the joint venture agreement. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the joint venture. If the joint venture is comprised of Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business firms, the Small Business Administration (SBA), prior to award, must approve the Joint venture agreement.

2.3.2 TEAMING/PARTNERING OFFERORS: If the offer is based on a teaming/partnering relationship, the offeror(s) shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the teaming/partnering relationship.

2.4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

The proposal should be specific and complete in every detail and effectively describe the capability of the Offeror(s) to perform the requirements or specifications of this solicitation. The proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent. 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. All proposals must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation. No material shall be incorporated by reference or a reiteration of the RFP. Any such material will not be considered for evaluation. Materials shall be presented in a manner, which allows it to stand-alone without need for evaluators to reference other documents.

The Contracting Officer may remove an Offeror(s) from further consideration during any phase of the procurement if the Offeror(s) 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).

2.5 SIZE AND REQUIREMENTS OF PRINTED MATTER SUBMISSIONS:

• Font size (excluding that on charts, graphs, and tables, etc.) shall be no smaller than 12-point font. Font size for charts, graphs, and tables, etc shall be no smaller than 9-point font. Two columns of text per page are acceptable.

• Technical proposals, or Volume I, shall be limited to 110 pages (110 single-sided or 55 double-sided) excluding the organizational chart. The Government will evaluate only the pages allowed for each section. Any pages in excess of the allowed limits will not be evaluated.

• Page limit includes: All appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc. The covers for each volume, tables of contents, indices, title pages, cross reference indices, and section dividers/tales will not be included in the page count if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. They will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.

• Offerors are required to submit an ORIGINAL plus 3 COLOR copies of Volume I - Technical Proposal.

• The price proposal is not limited as to the number of pages. Offerors are only required to submit an ORIGINAL, 1 Hard-Copy, and 1 CD for Volume II – Cost/Price proposal.

• A page shall be an 8 ½ x11” sheet of paper (minimum of ½” margins). Foldouts will be counted as the appropriate number of pages based on an 8 ½ x 11” sheet of paper. The offerors should number each page in order to eliminate any confusion. In the event an offeror(s) creates an ambiguity, the Government may exercise its own discretion in counting pages.

• Executive Summary: Offerors may submit an Executive Summary of no more than 3 pages total, which summarizes the key points from the offeror’s proposal in order to highlight Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price factors. Only one (1) executive summary is allowed and, if included, it should be submitted with the technical proposal, Volume I, in the front of the proposal.

• Table of Contents & Cover Sheet: Each proposal shall include a detailed table of contents. A cover sheet identifying the Offeror(s) (name, address, point of contact), project description, and solicitation number shall be provided, followed by a Table of Contents.

• IMPORTANT: Original technical proposal may have references to Company Name/Emblems or other identifying marks throughout the proposal. Copy 1, Copy 2 and Copy 3 shall not include any references to Company Name/Emblems or other identifying marks, except for the cover page of each Copy.

2.6 SPECIFIC PROPOSAL FORMAT INSTRUCTIONS:

Each offeror(s) is required to submit two (2) separate proposal submissions in order to be considered for award of the MATOC and Task Order One. The first submission required shall be the Technical Proposal – Volume I, and the second submission shall be the Cost/Price Proposal – Volume II. See below for specific requirements and format of proposal submissions.

2.6.1 VOLUME I - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Technical proposals must address all Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors as described in detail in Section 3.0 and in accordance with the format provided below. Offerors are required to submit ORIGINAL plus 3 copies of Volume I - Technical Proposal

• TAB 1 – FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

o SUB-FACTOR 1: Offeror’s Relevant Experience o SUB-FACTOR 2: Management and Key Personnel o SUB-FACTOR 3: Technical Approach (*Submittal shall be based specifically on

Task Order One plans and specifications) o SUB-FACTOR 4: Construction Sequence and Schedule (*Submittal shall be based specifically on Task Order One plans and specifications)

• TAB 2 – FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

o See details of Past Performance in Section 3.0

2.6.2 VOLUME II - COST/PRICE PROPOSAL (*SUBMITTAL BASED ON

TASK ORDER ONE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS)

Cost/Price proposals must be submitted in the following format. Offerors are only required to submit an ORIGINAL, 1 Hard-Copy, and 1 CD for Volume II – Cost/Price proposal.

• TAB A – SF 1442, completed and signed by an authorized person from the company or team, including acknowledgement of any applicable amendments. Amendments are acknowledged on the reverse of the SF 1442).

• TAB B – Section 00010 – Completed Bid Schedule (*Bid Schedule submittal shall be based specifically on Task Order One plans and specifications.)

• TAB C – Section 00600 – Completed Representations and Certifications section

• TAB D – Bid Bond - The offeror(s) shall provide a bid bond/guarantee in accordance with Section 0700, 52.228-1. (*Submittal shall be based specifically on Task Order One plans and specifications.) Additionally, the offeror(s) shall provide a letter from the bonding company stating the offeror’s bonding capacity.

• TAB E – Pre-Award / Financial Information - The offeror(s) shall provide data on its financial capability. The DATA SHEET FOR FINANCIAL INFORMATION shall be used to provide the financial information.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS (PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS):

VOLUME I – Technical Proposal: The content of technical proposals must address all Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors as described below.

3.1 FACTOR I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY (Volume I, Tab 1)

Evaluation Factor I – Technical Capability is comprised of four (4) sub-factors as described below. Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for this factor in accordance with the Evaluation Standards described in Section 4.0, Adjectival Ratings listed in Section 4.1, and Evaluation Factor Weights described in Section 6.0.

3.1.1 SUB-FACTOR 1 - Offeror’s Relevant Experience:

The offeror(s) shall provide experience data for itself and for any proposed division, major subcontractor, consultant, or teaming contractor or partner or key personnel whose effort on this contract will significantly influence performance of the proposed types of Pump and Pump Station construction work including, but not limited to, construction of 600 cfs pump station and power generation, construction of large power plant (15 MW 60 cycle 4160 volt generator), providing direct underground 60 Hz power feeders, repairs of existing pump stations, installing new pumps, constructing buildings, structural retrofitting and enhancing/upgrading, pump station construction or enlargement, heavy construction, elevation or flood-proofing of mechanical and electrical equipment and ancillary systems, installing and commissioning generators, providing and protecting power systems, installing and commissioning control systems to allow for automation and/or remote operation of pump station equipment; installing and commissioning SCADA systems for acquiring, storing, and trending process data; floodwalls, floodgates, electrical work or repairs, mechanical work or repairs, civil work or repairs, geotechnical work or repairs, pile driving, and providing alternative sources of water for equipment operation needs. The offeror(s) shall submit the following information for a minimum of five (5), but no more than ten (10) relevant contracts/projects held within the past six (6) years of similar nature in size and scope as the work to be performed under this contract.

Data must demonstrate experience with pump and pump station related projects. Projects should be similar in size, scope, and complexity as those anticipated under this contract, and include projects with the Federal Government, state and local government agencies, and commercial customers.

• Project owner

• Project description

• Specific work performed by offeror(s) on the project

• Total dollar value of the contract and the value of offeror’s work under the contract

• Date of project completion

3.1.2 SUB-FACTOR 2 - Management and Key Personnel:

The offeror(s) shall submit an organizational chart depicting the management structure for the prime contractor and all subcontractors that identifies all key personnel and if applicable, alternate personnel. Provide a short narrative for each, to include education and applicable experience on projects of similar size, scope, complexity and number of years in each position. All alternate Quality Control Managers, Superintendents and Safety personnel are required to meet the respective minimum experience requirements as the primary. Managers, to include Quality Control Managers, must have a minimum of 3 years of experience on projects of similar size, scope and complexity and the superintendents must have a minimum of 5 years experience on projects of similar size, scope and complexity. Safety personnel shall demonstrate that they have an OSHA 10 hour safety certification and on projects of similar size, scope and complexity.

Management and Key Personnel are further broken down into the following four (4) elements as follows: Organization Chart, Management Approach, Quality Control Management, and Key Personnel.

3.1.2.1 Element 1: Organization Chart - Provide an organizational chart clearly identifying management and construction teams as well as key positions within the organization. Show lines of authority depicting communication and interface between and within the management and construction teams and key personnel including communication with the subcontractors. Purpose is to identify management and construction teams as well as key positions within the organization. Define the lines of authority and interface between and within the teams, and key processes that represent a sound management approach. Include a legend identifying key positions.

INFORMATION WILL BE MEASURED AS FOLLOWS:

Measure of Merit - 3.1.2.1.1: Organizational chart clearly identifies management and construction teams as well as key positions in the organization. Lines of authority, communication, and interface between and within the management and construction teams and key personnel are clear, logical and effective, and demonstrate an overall sound organizational structure.

3.1.2.2 Element 2: Management Approach: Describe overall management approach with regard to organization, coordination, development, monitoring and control of construction project (s). Describe interface with home office, subcontractor operations, construction teams, government personnel, contracting officials, inspectors and user. Demonstrate offeror’s understanding of the construction process and management approach.

Measure Of Merit 3.1.2.2: Management approach demonstrates effective organization, coordination, development and oversight of construction project (s).

Interface with the home office, subcontractor operations and construction teams, as well as interface and partnering with government project managers, contracting officers, inspectors, and user which demonstrates a strong understanding of the construction process.

3.1.2.3.1 Element 3: Quality Control Plan: Purpose is to define the construction quality control activities and ensure adequate quality control measures are in place. Describe the quality control process and understanding of USACE QC system including but not limited to the three phases control system, deficiency tracking procedures and logs. Identify whether a separate consulting firm or other entity, or within the prime offeror’s organization will perform Quality Control Responsibilities.

Also describe the construction quality control process applicable to the on-site construction to include specific methods proposed which will ensure only high quality materials and workmanship are installed and accepted.

Measure Of Merit 3.1.2.3: Quality control processes and construction quality control processes are logical and effective and should ensure only high quality materials and workmanship is accepted.

3.1.2.4 Element 4: Key Personnel: Demonstrate that key personnel, to include, but not limited to: engineers, superintendents, and quality control personnel will possess the requisite skills and experience to review and/or inspect construction work. Examples of key personnel include, but are not limited the following: Project manager, Quality control system manager, Project Superintendent

For each key personnel, describe his/her role in the organization as it relates to the operation, management and construction teams during the construction project. Identify who on the contractor’s team will have the prime responsibility for total coordination of all disciplines if not the project manager.

Measure Of Merit 3.1.2.4: Proposal ensures key personnel to include, but not limited to: engineers, superintendents, inspectors, and quality control personnel possess the requisite skills, experience and training to review/inspect, construction work assigned.

3.1.3 SUB-FACTOR 3 - Technical Approach (Submittal shall be based on Task Order One plans and specifications):

The offeror(s) shall submit a narrative plan of the methodology proposed to accomplish the Task Order One project in accordance with the Plans and Specifications within the prescribed timeframe. The plan must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the job specific requirements, the physical constraints, the required coordination with the owners and utility/facility representatives, and a feasible approach to accomplishing the work within the required performance period. The plan must include the following as a minimum.

Specific equipment available for and proposed for use on each major activity including site work, pump repairs and ancillary equipment repairs and replacement.

• The daily production rate proposed

• The proposed manpower, composition of crews and the number of crews proposed to work concurrently

• The offerors’ plan to provide the equipment and manpower through its own employees or other identified sources

Measure Of Merit 3.1.3: The technical approach demonstrates a thorough understanding of the job specific requirements, the physical constraints, the required coordination with the owners and utility/facility representatives, and a feasible approach to accomplishing the work within the required performance period.

3.1.4 SUB-FACTOR 4 - Construction Sequence and Schedule(Submittal shall be based on Task Order One plans and specifications):

The offeror(s) shall submit a schedule (CPM or equal) depicting the proposed logical construction sequence to be followed in the accomplishment of the work. The schedule must clearly show the critical path and all activity durations to demonstrate that the work is completed within the specified contract duration. The construction schedule shall take into consideration mobilization/de-mobilization, material and equipment availability, clean up, contract duration, execution duration, procurement items with a lead time of 30 days or more, etc. The offeror(s) shall also identify their understanding and required use of the Government provided QCS software which is a module of the Governments

Resident Management Software (RMS). The schedule must include as a minimum, the following specific activities.

• Submittal management

• Material Acquisition •Activity durations

• Building repairs, site work, trash rake repairs, pump repairs, pump drive system repairs, electrical repairs, generator repairs and related sequencing to maintain pumping operations.

Measure of Merit 5.1.3.1: Proposal demonstrates the capability to plan and schedule the different construction phases to ensure completion of Task Order One within the overall required 180 calendar days. The schedule considers any schedule constraints such as mobilization/de-mobilization, material and equipment availability, clean up, etc.

3.2 FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume I – Tab 2)

Evaluation Factor II – Past Performance will be evaluated according to the content requirements described below. Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for this factor in accordance with the Evaluation Standards described in Section 4.0, Adjectival Ratings listed in Section 4.2, and Evaluation Factor Weights described in Section 6.0.

Offerors will be evaluated on construction projects completed (or substantially complete) in the last six (6) years that are same/similar (relevant) size, scope and level of complexity as the project requirements solicited under this RFP. The offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine the demonstrated technical capability to perform the proposed contract and how well it satisfied its customers. The information presented in the Offeror’s submittal, together with that from other sources available to the Government will comprise the input for evaluation of this factor.

3.2.1 PAST PERFORMANCE (Content Requirements)

The offeror(s) shall provide experience data for itself and for any proposed division, major subcontractor, consultant, or teaming contractor or partner or key personnel whose effort on this contract will significantly influence performance of the proposed all types of Pump and Pump Station construction work including, but not limited to, construction of 600 cfs pump station and power generation, construction of large power plant (15 MW 60 cycle 4160 volt generator), providing direct underground 60 Hz power feeders, repairs of existing pump stations, installing new pumps, constructing buildings, structural retrofitting and enhancing/upgrading, pump station construction or enlargement, heavy construction, elevation or flood-proofing of mechanical and electrical equipment and ancillary systems; installing and commissioning generators, providing and protecting power systems, installing and commissioning control systems to allow for automation and/or remote operation of pump station equipment; installing and commissioning SCADA systems for acquiring, storing, and trending process data; floodwalls, floodgates, electrical work or repairs, mechanical work or repairs, civil work or repairs, geotechnical work or repairs, pile driving, and providing alternative sources of water for equipment operation needs. Provide data for a minimum of five (5), but no more than ten (10) relevant contracts/projects held within the past six (6) years. Data must demonstrate experience with pump and pump station related projects. Projects should be similar in size, scope, and complexity as those anticipated under this contract, and include projects with the Federal Government, state and local government agencies, and commercial customers.

Data concerning the prime offeror(s) shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. Note: the government may utilize this information in order to conduct surveys utilizing the past performance questionnaire attached to the solicitation. Please ensure that the information provided is accurate and up-to-date, especially points of contact, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.

(1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions / Past Performance data. This section shall include the following information in the following format:

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

(b) Government contracting activity or Commercial Customer, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer's name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(c) Government’s technical representative/COR or Customer COR / Project Manager, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(d) If Government project, provide the Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer's name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(e) Contract Number(s) and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers also.

(f) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Materials (T&M), etc.) In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc)).

(h) Awarded price/cost.

(i) Final or projected final price/cost.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(k) Final, or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(2) Section 2 - Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1 describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

(a) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. Any Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions over the course of the project. The offerors shall also provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror(s) or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination. In addition, offerors should explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance issues.

(3) Section 3 – Subcontracts. This section is hereby deleted in its entirety.

(4) Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror(s) shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above.

(5) Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire. To assist the Government in verifying experience and quality of performance, offerors shall provide the contract descriptions / past performance data as request in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, 3.2.1, for each relevant contract the offeror(s) wants the evaluation team to consider. Failure to provide the past performance information required above or provide accurate experience information, could delay review of the proposal or result in less than an optimal evaluation rating simply because information is unavailable. This information is a part of the proposal package and is required no later than the RFP closing.

(6) Quality of Work and Customer Satisfaction: This aspect of past performance will address the quality of each offeror's past performance and customer satisfaction. Offeror(s) should provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, independent customer surveys, etc.) to demonstrate customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of the offeror’s completed product.

(7) Safety Record: The offeror(s) shall submit either OSHA Form 300, or 300a showing the incident rates for their firm for all projects within the last three (3) years for the prime contractor and all subcontractors. This form, in Microsoft Excel format, can be downloaded form the Internet at:

http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/new-osha300form1-1-04.xls http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/HR/OSHA Form 300.doc http://www.dir.ca.gov.dosh/dosh publications/oshalog300.pdf

• If the Offeror(s) has a safety incentives program, information shall be submitted describing this program. The description of the safety incentives program shall include, as a minimum, a description of what benefits the firm has seen by implementing the program, benefits to the customer and a description of how the program is administered.

The past performance evaluation will take into account performance of key personnel, predecessor companies, major subcontractors, consultants, teaming contractors or partners whose effort, as demonstrated in the technical proposal, will significantly influence performance of the proposed construction effort. Note that demonstration of previous working relationship with the proposed entity will have a greater influence in the evaluation than a new relationship. Teaming partners supported by written agreements will have a greater influence than partners with no written agreement.

3.2.1.1 SUBCONTRACTOR CONSENT: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Offerors shall provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor. Failure to provide subcontractor consent may be construed to mean prime offeror does not want past performance for the identified major subcontractor considered in the past performance evaluation.

3.2.1.2 OTHER SOURCES: The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the Offeror for information with respect to past performance. These other sources may include, but are not limited to, CCASS, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the Offeror’s performance, and Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability.

3.2.1.3 NOTICE TO OFFERORS – INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION: Offerors should take note that failure to provide sufficient experience information or information the Government cannot verify because of incorrect or incomplete data may delay evaluation of their proposal and/or affect the rating assigned for past performance. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to disregard altogether incomplete or contradictory experience information. Also, if an offeror describes the role of a particular entity in its’ proposal but fails to provide adequate or accurate experience information on that entity, the Government will construe the omission to mean the offeror does not want the experience of that entity taken into consideration in the offeror’s past performance rating.

Neither will the Government consider experience information on entities whose roles are not clearly delineated in the proposal.

3.3 FACTOR III – PRICE (Volume II – Cost/Price Proposal)

Evaluation Factor III – Cost/Price will be evaluated according the Price Evaluation Approach described in Section 5.0 and Evaluation Factor Weights described in Section

6.0. The entire content for Volume II – the cost/price proposal is described below and is also described in Section 2.6.2. See Task Order plans and specifications for Bid Schedule.

3.3.1 Volume II, TAB A – SF 1442, completed and signed by an authorized person from the company or team, including acknowledgement of any applicable amendments.

Amendments are acknowledged on the reverse of the SF 1442).

3.3.2 Volume II, TAB B – Section 00010 – Completed Bid Schedule - Offerors shall submit a completed Section 00100 Bid Schedule as part of the Price Proposal Package. In addition to the completed Section 00100 Bid Schedule, Offerors shall complete the Electronic Bid Schedule on CD, which is part of this solicitation .

The Electronic Bid Schedule is in Word format. Offerors shall enter proposed values in the appropriate labeled columns and return a completed ‘Hard Copy’ Section 00100 and an ‘Electronic Copy’ on an Offeror provided CD. See Task Order plans and specifications for Bid Schedule.

a. In order to be considered acceptable, proposals must contain coefficients for all of the price schedule line items.

b. Failure to submit Section 00100 and failure to complete all Line Items on Section 00100 may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration.

c. Failure to complete all information for the Electronic Bid Schedule on Offeror provided CD may result in the package being rejected in its entirety by the Government. See paragraph below for instructions.

3.3.3 Volume II, TAB C – Section 00600 – Completed Representations and Certifications section

3.3.4 Volume II, TAB D – Bid Bond - The offeror shall provide a bid bond/guarantee in accordance with Section 0700, 52.228-1. Additionally, the offeror shall provide a letter from the bonding company stating the offeror’s bonding capacity.

3.3.5 Volume II, TAB E – Pre-Award / Financial Information - The offeror shall provide data on its financial capability. The DATA SHEET FOR FINANCIAL

INFORMATION shall be used to provide the financial information. See Attachment C for financial information data sheet.

4.0 EVALUATION STANDARDS (Non-Cost Factors):

Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the evaluation factors (criteria) described in Section 3.0 above. As a part the government’s evaluation of each offeror’s proposal, each non-cost evaluation factor will be rated using the adjectival descriptions in the tables that follow. Government evaluators will apply the appropriate adjective to each criterion rated. The evaluator’s narrative explanation must clearly establish that the Offeror’s submittal meets the definitions established below. As each criteria or factor is evaluated, an assessment of Risk will also be made. Section 4.1 describes the adjectival ratings, along with the associated risk assessment, that will be used in order to determine an offeror’s rating for Factor 1 – Technical Capability. Section 4.2 describes the adjectival ratings, along with the associated risk assessment, that will be used in order to determine an offeror’s rating for Factor 2 – Past Performance. See Section 6.0 Evaluation Factor – Weights for details on the relative importance or weight of each evaluation factor.

4.1 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS – Factor 1 – Technical Capability

Rating of this factor shall focus on the proposal strengths, weaknesses and proposal inadequacies, deficiencies, risks, performance confidence and affordability of the offeror's proposal and shall be evaluated using the following ratings. Note that if an offeror's proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror's proposal. (See Next Page for Table with adjectival ratings)

RATINGS

DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

Excellent

The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes numerous advantageous characteristics of substance, and essentially no disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low

Good

The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements.

Risk Level: Low

Acceptable

The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives.

The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect moderate risk in that they are somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Moderate

Marginal

The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High

Unacceptable

The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has numerous disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are far outweighed by disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages will not result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions are further considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision, are unsupported, and do not demonstrate an understanding of the requirement.

Risk Level: Very High

Note: Proposal Risk - Proposal risks are those risks associated with the likelihood that an offeror's proposed approach will meet the requirements of the solicitation

4.2 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS – Factor 2 – Past Performance

The past performance evaluation will be accomplished through an integrated assessment of confidence and performance risk. The performance risk assessment is accomplished by reviewing aspects of the offeror's past performance, focusing on and targeting performance, which is relevant to the technical factor and price. The confidence assessment rating is then established through an integrated analysis of those risks and strengths identified at the sub factor level as determined by the offeror's recent, current, and relevant contract performance. The past performance information must be recent and relevant in order to be evaluated. Recent is generally defined as performance occurring within the last six (6) years. In determining relevancy, consideration will be given but not limited to, such things as project similarity (i.e. pump station), project complexity, contract type, division of company proposing, and subcontractor interaction. Normally, higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort for which that contractor is being considered. The following are relevancy definitions: Relevant: efforts involved the magnitude of effort and complexities, which are essentially what the instant solicitation requires, Somewhat Relevant: efforts involved less magnitude of effort and complexities than this solicitation requires, and Not Relevant: Did not involve any significant aspects of the solicitation requirements. The evaluation will be constrained to a few most recent and most relevant contracts for a comprehensive review. In performing the past performance evaluation each offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings:

Excellent Essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

Risk Level: Very Low

Good Little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: Low

Acceptable Some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: Moderate

Marginal Significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: High

Unacceptable It is extremely doubtful that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: Very High

Neutral The offeror has little/no relevant past performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. Risk Level: Unknown

Note: Performance Risk - Performance risks are those risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of current or past performance.

5.0 PRICE EVALUATION

The Government will perform a price analysis on all price proposals received, which shall be based on the plans and specifications of Task Order One. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine completeness, reasonableness, and understanding of the work. The evaluation will determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), and any other pricing tools necessary.

5.1 Price will not be assigned a rating, but will be an important factor in making the best value determination for award. See Section 6.0 Evaluation Factor – Weights for details on the relative importance or weight of each evaluation factor.

6.0 EVALUATION FACTOR - WEIGHTS

6.1 WEIGHT Technical Factors and Past Performance when combined, are approximately equal to cost/price.

6.1.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY: This factor is approximately equal to Factor 2, Past Performance. Within Factor 1 – Technical Capability, the following sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance.

• SUB-FACTOR 1: Offeror’s Relevant Experience

• SUB-FACTOR 2: Management and Key Personnel

• SUB-FACTOR 3: Technical Approach (*Submittal shall be based specifically on Task Order One plans and specifications)

• SUB-FACTOR 4: Construction Sequence and Schedule (*Submittal shall be based specifically on Task Order One plans and specifications)

FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE: This factor is approximately equal to Factor 1, Technical Capability.

6.2 WEIGHT – (Cost/Price Factor)

FACTOR 3: PRICE - Price is approximately equal in importance to the Non- Technical Factors.

7.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

7.1 This is a competitive, Best Value Continuum source selection that will be conducted using the Tradeoff method prescribed by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.101 and 15.101-1 and source selection process prescribed by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR Part 15.3) and Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS 5115.1). This section outlines the process, by which, the government will make a best value source selection award decision for both the MATOC and Task Order One. In using this best value approach, the Government seeks to award to an offeror(s), which gives the Army Corp of Engineers the greatest confidence that it will best meet our requirements affordability. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection evaluation board report of the evaluation factors and sub-factors as described in previous sections of this document.