A22_-_W912P8-17-R-0005,_Am_0005.pdf

W42HEM12345678

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The above numbered solicitation for Construction Management Services, primarily Quality Assurance Representative Services, primarily w ithin the New Orleans District, is amended as follow s:

1. Delete section M in its entirety and replace w ith attached, revised section M.

2. Provide answ ers to submitted questions.

3. Confirm that the proposal due date of Tuesday, 14 March 2017, 10am CST, room 326, remains unchanged. Electronic submittals, in addition to hard copy proposal packages (as detailed in Section L), are due by that time, as w ell.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Mar-2017

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 W912P8-17-R-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Jan-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Mar-2017

CODE

USACE, CONTRACTING DIVISION

ATTN: CEMVN-CT, ROOM 172

7400 LEAKE AVE.

NEW ORLEANS LA 70118-3651

W912P8 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912P8-17-R-0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 15-Feb-2017 02:00 PM to 14-Mar-2017 10:00 AM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. Technical Acceptability - Technical Acceptability is defined as the documented capability to meet the minimum requirements of the project as specified in this solicitation and the specifications. Proposals will be evaluated as lowest price technically acceptable, and there will be two (2) contract awards made from this solicitation.

Qualifications of proposed subcontractors will be included in the evaluation, as the prime and subs are considered to be a "team" or "firm"; however, the prime contractor must perform at least fifty percent (50%) of the contract work.

Please provide a list of subcontractors, a letter from the individual subcontractors stating that the identified companies will, in fact, be part of the team, and their intent to provide services under the contract. As previously stated, in accordance with FAR 52.219-14, as a service contract, it is essential that the prime contractor performs at least fifty percent (50%) of the work.

To be determined technically acceptable, offerors must meet, at a minimum, the basic requirements, listed below.

Offerors shall submit proof of the following with their proposal:

a. Management Plan Describe your approach and methodology to plan and execute the task of providing construction management services primarily to support the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. The management plan shall be clear and concise and shall demonstrate a complete understanding of all of the Contractor performance requirements. Your plan shall address the following elements, at a minimum:

1. Project Management Organization and Quality Control Plans: To be technically acceptable, at a minimum, the contractor must provide the information requested in C.9 Quality Assurance Organization Plan.

2. Staffing Plan: To be technically acceptable, at a minimum, the proposed team shall demonstrate that the team has twenty (20) quality assurance representatives (QARs) III's available immediately upon award and notice to proceed. In order for a subcontractor to be considered as part of the proposed team, a letter of intent must be included with the proposal.

3. Staff Qualifications: Demonstrate the qualifications of the proposed staff. Offerors shall furnish, at a minimum, the information requested below. Submittal shall include a short summary of experience per individual, identifying the name, qualifications and experience of each credential (qualified individual meeting the requirements) outlined below. Each summary shall not exceed five (5) sentences per credential. Any additional information beyond the five (5) sentences shall not be evaluated. To be considered minimally acceptable, you must meet the following:

a. A minimum of twenty (20) Quality Assurance Representatives (QAR’s) level III’s qualified with a minimum of five (5) years relevant heavy civil and marine construction management experience. All QAR’s shall also have a minimum of three (3) years of specialized Corps related experience. Corps experience shall include, but not be limited to, concrete and earthwork placement, structural, electrical, mechanical, navigation/river work, welding, debris cleanup, environmental, etc.

b. At a minimum, the proposal shall also address each additional disciplines listed on the table in Section C.3.1.2 by providing a summary statement of one (1) credential for each additional discipline. They shall meet the requirements in the table as well as the descriptions within that section.

4. Safety Plan: To be technically acceptable, at a minimum, a contractor must provide a plan that contains the following documents as stated in Section C.6.3:

a. MVN 385-43R, MVN 385-43(1), and MVN 385-43(2) Accident Prevention Administrative

Plan, Accident Prevention Plan Checklist, and Contractor Activity Hazard Analysis

b. Company policy statement of accident prevention

5. Invoicing and Payments: To be technically acceptable, at a minimum, a contractor must provide one

(1) sample invoice and one (1) sample timesheet indicating tracking of multiple task orders on two (2) separate contracts. Invoices and timesheets should meet the requirements referenced in C.10.5.i and C.10.5.j.

6. Testing Lab: To be technically acceptable, at a minimum, an offeror must provide a letter of intent with one (1) Corps validated testing lab for quality assurance testing services as described in Section C.4. The proposal must also include the ERDC validation letter for the lab submitted.

b. Technical Experience of the Firm To be technically acceptable, at a minimum, the proposed team must

a. Discuss experience providing relevant construction management support to commercial and/or federal, state, municipal government agency clients.

b. Demonstrate that support services provided a minimum of twenty (20) Quality Assurance Representatives to the client. The contract should indicate a minimum period of performance of three (3) years with a minimum of $10 million total contract value, with in the last seven

(7) years.

At a minimum, the following shall be furnished with the Offeror's proposal:

1. Contract number and dollar amount

2. Client name/organization (company/firm/government agency) and address of site (where services performed)

3. Detailed description of scope of work including brief narrative on how it is relevant to this solicitation

(scope and magnitude)

4. Your firm’s role (inclusive of prime/sub contractor team)

5. Length of contract including periods of performance (include the start and completion dates by month, or indicate if contract is ongoing)

6. Number of construction management personnel used and classification

The team shall evaluate the offeror’s proposal against these requirements to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below.

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2. Past Performance - To demonstrate satisfactory past performance, the offeror shall provide documentation of satisfactory annual performance on past or current contracts of a similar type, size, scope and complexity, performed within the last seven (7) years, including references, with names and contact information of the references who can verify such past performance. Past performance will be evaluated for the prime contractor only. In order for past performance to be considered, the following details, at a minimum, must be provided for each of the three (3) past performance documents submitted.

1. Contract number and dollar amount

2. Client name/organization (company/firm/government agency) and address of site (where services performed)

3. Detailed description of scope of work including brief narrative on how it is relevant to this solicitation

(scope and magnitude)

4. Your firm’s role (prime contractor)

5. Length of contract including periods of performance (include the start and completion dates by month, or indicate if contract is ongoing)

6. Number of construction management personnel used and classification

At a minimum, to be technically acceptable, as part of the proposal package, a contractor must provide:

a. Three (3) satisfactory or higher ratings in the past seven (7) years with a minimum of $10 million cumulative contract value performed over a minimum of a one (1) year period.

b. Any of the following items may be submitted to satisfy this requirement:

i. Questionnaires – Contractor must provide questionnaires to non-Corps clients to be completed and returned directly to the Government. The POC is listed in this solicitation.

Questionnaires and directions can be found at the bottom of section M.

ii. CPARS/ACASS ratings and full reports – must provide for previous Corps projects as part of the proposal package.

The team shall evaluate the offeror’s proposal against these requirements to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below.

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

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3. Price - All quotes submitted will be evaluated for technical acceptability, satisfactory past performance, and lowest price. The government will issue award to the offeror whose proposal is the lowest overall price of those determined to meet at least the minimum requirements to be determined technically acceptable and demonstrates satisfactory past performance. The Government intends to make award to the lowest two (2) priced offerors whose proposals are deemed to be technically acceptable for all technical requirements.

(b) Evaluation of multi-year contract. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all contract years based on the estimated quantities listed in the schedule B price list. These quantities are listed for evaluation purposes only, and the Government is not bound to any or all of these quantities. Evaluation of price will be as a whole. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if any of the rates or yearly prices are significantly unbalanced.

(c) In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition, a written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract, without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

Past Performance Questionnaire

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

PART 1: INSTRUCTIONS. The company who has provided your name is participating in a Request for Proposal (RFP) with US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District for Construction Management, primarily Quality Assurance Representative Services, primarily within the New Orleans District. We would greatly appreciate you taking the time to complete this form.

Please provide an honest assessment and immediately return to michelle.y.lappen@usace.army.mil

This completed form can also be sent directly to the address below:

US Army Corps of Engineers ATTN: Michelle Lappen (CEMVN-CT-W) 7400 Leake Avenue New Orleans, LA. 70118-3651 Tel: (504) 862-1612

PART 2: GENERAL INFORMATION.

1. Company's Name and Address (Contractor and/or subcontractor being evaluated)

NOTE: Offerer fill out before forwarding

2. Respondent Organization Name and Address

3. a. Evaluator’s Name _____________________________________________________

b. Evaluator’s involvement with contractor: ____________________________________

c. Title/Telephone Number:_________________________________________________

4. Contract Number _____________________________________________________________

5. Contract Value (Basic and Options) ______________________________________________

6. Award Date ________________________________________________________________

7. Contract or Task Order Completion Date (Include extensions): ________________________

8. Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price (FFP) ___________________________________________ Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)________________________________________ Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF)_______________________________________ Other (Please Specify)_____________________________________________ Note: If an award fee contract, please provide a synopsis of available award fee pool and percentage of that pool awarded the contractor each evaluation period over the life of the contract.

9. Brief description of your contract requirements including type of work, degree of complexity, degree of self direction:

10. Additional data:

a. Approximate time contractor worked on project

b. Approximate value of work serviced by this contract

11. Type and extent of any subcontracting support:

12. How was the quality of work produced?

PART THREE: PERFORMANCE RATING. Please summarize performance in each of the rating factors.

Determine the rating that most nearly represents your experience with this company and indicate your assessment by placing the appropriate rating in the space provided. Please include descriptive comments to supplement ratings provided.

Ratings are defined below and should be used as a reference in assessing performance.

Rating “E” for Exceptional – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’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 were highly effective.

Rating “G” for Very Good – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’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.

Rating “S” for Satisfactory – Performance meets 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.

Rating “M” for 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.

Rating “U” for 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 action appear or were ineffective.

Rating "N/A" for Not Applicable - was not required to perform in this area.

____1. Preparation, use and quality of contractor’s internal Quality Control plan/program in identifying, correcting, and preventing problems.

____2. Were the safety rules, regulations and practices properly followed?

____3. How many accident/incident reports were filed for the duration of the contract?

____4. Was there an unusually high turnaround rate in management employees?

____5. Did the work teams report on time with proper working equipment?

____6. Was the contractor able to consistently maintain a qualified and experienced workforce to perform necessary services?

___7. Did the contractor respond timely and effectively to unexpected changes and emergency requirements?

___8. Did the contractor respond timely and effectively in resolving poor performance problems associated with its employees?

___9. How would you rate contractor’s adherence to contract/delivery schedules?

___10. Were reports & documentation submitted timely and in a professional manner?

___11. Prompt response to technical direction & change orders?

___12. Timely responses to resolving problems?

COMMENTS:

___15. Effectiveness of Project Manager

___16. Effectiveness of Management/Field Supervision.

___17. Recruiting, training and retention of staff maintained to service contract at required levels of performance ___a. Recruiting, training and retention of staff considered a management problem ___b. Recruiting, training and retention of staff considered a regional problem

___18. The problem, if any, experienced with recruiting, training and retention was in the staffing area(s) of

___19. The specific issues surrounding problems experienced with recruiting, training, and retention were__________________________________________________________________

COMMENTS:

Would you award another contract to this company? Why?

Yes No

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (PRO AND CON)

PART FOUR: EVALUATOR'S CERTIFICATION:

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS FORM IS ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE

BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

Signature of Evaluator Date

Title of Evaluator

(End of Summary of Changes)

The following items are applicable to this modification:

AMENDMENT 0005 Q&AS

W912P8-17-R-0005 Questions and Answers #3

1. Throughout the amendment it states that the proposed contract team will be evaluated as a whole with the exception of past performance. However, to be technically acceptable the prime needs to have three satisfactory ratings in the past three years with a minimum of $10 million contract value. With this being a small business set-aside, it will be tough for small business primes to meet this requirement since the entire team is not being evaluated. Would you consider revising this requirement?

The prime contractor (only) will be evaluated for past performance. These rating criteria have been adjusted. See updated Section M. It is essential to this project that a company submitting a proposal is capable of handling the magnitude of the requirements listing within the solicitation. Through market research and past requirements, there have proven to be enough small businesses within the industry who can successfully perform this type of work and who are able to meet the listed requirements.

2. The PPQ form allows either the contractor and/or subcontractor to be evaluated but this is not in-line with the Q&A responses. Can you please clarify?

The prime contractor ONLY will be evaluated. The wording of the questionnaire will be revised to reflect that.

3. In an effort to be efficient and to respect contracting officer’s limited time availability, will the Government accept other agency PPQ forms?

The contractor will provide either the Questionnaire provided in Section M or CPARS ratings.

4. On Page 35 of Amendment # 4, item no. 4. Safety Plan, it states that we must include a plan that includes the following documents:

-MVN 385-43R

-MVN 385-43 (!)

-MVN385-43 (2)

- Accident Prevention Administrative Plan -Accident Prevention Plan Checklist -Contractor Activity Hazard Analysis Do a contractor need to include a fully executed copy of each of the documents above with our proposal? If yes, would the documents count towards the 50 page limit?

The forms should be completed in their entirety. Furthermore, the forms will count towards the 50 page limit.

5. On the SF 30 that was posted on FBO Friday, March 3, 2017, in Block 2, it indicates Amendment/Modification No. 0004. However, this document is found on the FBO site under the link entitled “Amendment 5”. Please clarify.

The amendment issued on Friday, 3 March 2017, was amendment 0004. FBO seemed to have had a glitch and uploaded the documents included in amendment 0004 separately, even though both were uploaded on the same date and at the same time. When acknowledging the amendment issued on 3 March 2017, it will be amendment 0004.

This current amendment will be amendment 0005. The correct amendment numbers are listed on the SF 30s of the documents, regardless of what is posted on FBO.

6. On Page 36 of Amendment No. 0004, in the Adjectival Rating Box, it indicates that Past Performance will be rated as Acceptable “if the offeror’s performance record is unknown.” Please explain how an “unknown” Past Performance by an Offeror can be used to achieve an “Acceptable Rating” for Past Performance.

Please refer to the “note” in revised section M in this amendment, in part 2, Past Performance, directly before Part 3, Price. In the case of an offeror not having past performance, the offeror shall be determined to have an “unknown”, which will be considered as “neutral”. A “neutral” rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

7. On Page 36 of Amendment No. 0004, in the Adjectival Rating Box, the first box beneath the Description heading indicates “(See note above)”. Please provide clarification regarding what note the reader is being referred to.

Please see revised section M to include the “note”.

8. On Page 35 of Amendment No. 0004, within paragraph 1. a. 4, it is indicated that the offeror must include a Safety Plan with the Technical Proposal “that contains the following documents as stated in Section C.6.3”.

However, on Page 25 of this same amendment, in paragraph C.6.3, it is indicated that the successful contractor will be required to submit an Accident Prevention Program within 7 days after receipt of Notice of Award. Please explain the differences between what is required to be submitted within the Technical Proposal and what is required to be submitted after contract award.

Both plans will be required. One is required for submission of the proposal (to be counted as part of the 50 pages) as part of the evaluation, and the final, official version with updated information to include specifics and updated personnel, etc. will be required for approval within seven (7) days after award.

9. In the Amendment No. 4 response to Question No. 10, it is okay to use subconsultants for QARs and all other categories as you mentioned, as long as it is understood that Prime must perform 50% of the work with their own staff, correct?

Correct.