W912P820R0087 Solicitation for BetaSAM.pdf

ED 18-078

W912P8-20-R-0087

US Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY

BAYOU SORREL LOCK

SOUTHWEST GUIDEWALL

AND DOLPHIN

REPLACEMENT

Iberville Parish, Louisiana

Construction Solicitation and Specifications

May 2021

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

7400 LEAKE AVENUE

NEW ORLEANS, LA 70118-3651

ED 18-078

SOLICITATION: W912P8-20-R-0087 May 2021

FOR: Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Southwest Guidewall and Dolphin Replacement, Iberville Parish, Louisiana

TO OPEN:

I. NOTE THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM REQUIREMENT OF THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

CLAUSE WHICH MAY APPLY TO THE CONTRACT RESULTING FROM THIS SOLICITATION.

II. NOTE THE CERTIFICATION OF NONSEGREGATED FACILITIES IN THIS SOLICITATION.

Bidders, offerors and applicants are cautioned to note the "Certification of Non-segregated Facilities" in the solicitation. Failure of a bidder or offeror to agree to the certification will render his bid or offer non-responsive to the terms of solicitations involving awards of contracts exceeding $10,000 which are not exempt from the provisions of the Equal Opportunity clause.

III. Prospective contractors must register in the System for Award Management (SAM). See FAR Clause 52.204-7 for required information. The website for SAM is https://www.sam.gov. You will be required to provide your company’s Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) D-U-N-S number. If you do not already have a D&B D-U-N-S number, one can be requested at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform.

BIDDERS MUST PROVIDE FULL, ACCURATE AND COMPLETE INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BY THIS

SOLICITATION AND ITS ATTACHMENTS. THE PENALTY FOR MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS IN BIDS

IS PRESCRIBED IN 18 U.S.C. 1001. (FAR 52.214-4 APR 1984)

DESCRIPTION AND MAGNITUDE OF WORK: The work consists of demolition, removal and replacement of the timber guidewall, pile driving and construction of new dolphin, and other related incidental work.

CAUTION TO BIDDERS: In delivery of hand-carried bids, bidders are cautioned to allow sufficient time for delays which may be encountered as a result of frequent trains which are subject to block all access roads to place of bid opening for various lengths of time and for visitor background checks by MVN security when entering the installation at place of bid opening. Such delays DO NOT permit acceptance or consideration of late bids.

NOTE: ALL WORK UNDER THESE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE PROVISIONS OF EM 385-1-1 "CORPS OF ENGINEERS SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS

MANUAL", DATED NOVEMBER 2014.

ALL INQUIRIES REGARDING THIS SOLICITATION

SHOULD BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING:

KATHERINE YOUNTS

CONTRACT SPECIALIST

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

E‐MAILS:

KATHERINE.B.YOUNTS@USACE.ARMY.MIL

PHONE: (504) 862‐2803

PHONE: (504) 862‐2163

COLLECT CALLS NOT ACCEPTED

NOTE: FOR THE MOST PROMPT REPSONSE, PLEASE SEND ALL QUESTIONS VIA

E‐MAIL.

PTC-i ED 18-078

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

Division 00 – PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

Solicitation, Offer and Award

SF-1442

00010 Bidding Schedule 00130 Proposal Evaluation Criteria 00700 Contract Clauses 00 73 75.00 12 Diving

Division 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01100 General Provisions 01 32 17.00 20 Network Analysis Schedule (NAS) 01 33 00 Submittal Procedures 01 42 00 Sources for Reference Publications 01 45 00.15 00 Resident Management System Control Mode (RMS CM) 01 45 04.00 10 Contractor Quality Control 01 57 20.00 12 Environmental Protection 01 78 02.00 10 Closeout Submittals

Division 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 00 Demolition

Division 03 – CONCRETE

03 11 14.00 12 Formwork for Concrete 03 21 00.00 12 Reinforcing Steel 03 31 00.00 12 Cast-In-Place Structural Concrete

Division 05 – METALS

05 50 13 Miscellaneous Metal Fabrications

Division 09 – FINISHES

09 97 02.01 12 Painting: Coal Tar Epoxy System

Division 10 – SPECIALTY ITEMS

10 00 01.00 12 Miscellaneous Specialty Items

PTC-ii ED 18-078

Division 11 – ELECTRICAL

26 05 00.00 40 Common Work Results for Electrical 26 56 00 Exterior Lighting

Division 31 – EARTHWORK

31 62 17.00 12 Steel Pipe Piles 31 62 19.00 12 Timber Guidewall Construction

Division 35 – WATERWAY AND MARINE CONSTRUCTION

35 59 13.16 Polymeric Girts, Wales and Blocks

KATHERINE B YOUNTS

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

13-May-2021

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

504-862-2803

US Army Corps of Engineers District, New Orleans Attn: CEMVN-ST-E 7400 Leake Ave. Room 172 New Orleans, LA 70118

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________440 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________ copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________ (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time of fers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______30 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

USACE, CONTRACTING DIVISION

ATTN: HPO CT - ROOM 184

7400 LEAKE AVE.

NEW ORLEANS LA 70118-3651

W912P8

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

(hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W912P820R0087 38

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Southwest Guidewall and Dolphin Replacement, Iberville Parish, Louisiana ED 18-078.

This procurement is 100% small business set aside.

The work consists of demolition, removal and replacement of the timber guidew all, pile driving and construction of new dolphin, and other related incidental w ork. (The estimated time of completion is 440 calendar days after receipt of notice to proceed).

**CUTOFF DATE AND TIME FOR ASKING QUESTIONS IS 26 MAY 2021 1:00PM CENTRAL STANDARD TIME. ALL QUESTIONS MUST BE

SUBMITTED IN WRITING VIA EMAIL TO KATHERINE.B.YOUNTS@USACE.ARMY.MIL**

PROPOSAL DUE DATE IS 11 JUNE 2021 AT 11AM CST.

11 AM CST

06/11/2021

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

USACE, New Orleans Area Office 7400 Leake Ave.

New Orleans, LA 70118

US Army Corps of ENGR Finance Center 5722 Intregrity Drive Millington, TN 38054-5005

00010-3 ED 18-078

SECTION 00010 – BIDDING SCHEDULE

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Southwest Guidewall and Dolphin Replacement

Iberville Parish, Louisiana

Item DESCRIPTION Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Estimated Amount

0001 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 JOB

0002 Demolition 1 JOB

0003 Dolphin Construction 1 JOB

0004 UHMWPE Rub Rails 1 JOB

0005 Electrical Work 1 JOB

0006 Steel Pipe Piles 14 EA

0007 Timber Guidewall Construction 1 JOB

0008 Pile Shoes

0008AA First 40 pile shoes 40 EA

0008AB All Over 40 pile shoes 10 EA

TOTAL $

Award will be made as a whole to one bidder.

NOTE 1: The unit “JOB” as used in this Bidding Schedule is synonymous with the term “LUMP SUM” used elsewhere within these plans and specifications.

NOTE 2: Bidders shall furnish unit prices for each item listed in the Schedule requiring a unit price. If the bidder fails to insert a unit price in the appropriate blank for required item(s), but does furnish an extended total, or an estimated amount for such item(s), the Government shall deem the unit price to be the quotient obtained by dividing the extended amount for that line item by the quantity. IF A BIDDER OMITS BOTH THE

UNIT PRICE AND THE EXTENDED TOTAL OR ESTIMATED AMOUNT FOR ANY

ITEM, ITS BID SHALL BE DECLARED NON-RESPONSIVE AND THEREFORE

INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD.

NOTE 3: Any bid may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines in writing that it is unreasonable as to price. Unreasonableness of price includes not only total price of bid, but the price for individual line items as well. Any bid may be rejected if the prices for any line items or sub line items are materially unbalanced (See FAR 14.404-2 Rejection of Individual Bids).

00010-4 ED 18-078

NOTE 4: THE NOTICE TO PROCEED (NTP): The successful bidder is advised that performance and payment bonds shall be submitted in accordance with the time frame in block 12B of SF 1442. The NTP will be issued immediately after verification of acceptable performance and payment bonds. Within seven (7) days after issuance of the NTP, the Contractor shall initiate a meeting to discuss the submittal process with the Area or Resident Engineer or his authorized representative. Physical work cannot start until the Accident Prevention Plan, Contractor Quality Control Plan, and other submittals which may be required, have been submitted and approved and all preliminary meetings called for under the contract, have been conducted.

NOTE 5: RAPID VENDOR PAYMENT: Web based instructions for the submission of invoices;

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/BusinessWithUs/Contracting/RapidVendorPayment.aspx

00010-5 ED 18-078

EVALUATION OF SUBLINE ITEMS (Dec 2019 - AFARS 5152.211-9000).

Item No. 0008 is subdivided into two or more estimated quantities and are to be separately priced. The Government will evaluate each of these items on the basis of total price of its subline items.

(End of Clause)

VARIATIONS IN ESTIMATED QUANTITIES - SUBLINE ITEMS (Dec 2019 –

AFARS 5152.211-9001).

This variation in estimated quantities clause is applicable only to Item No. 0008.

(a) Variation from the estimated quantity in the actual work performed under any second or subsequent subline item or elimination of all work under such a second or subsequent subline item will not be the basis for an adjustment in contract unit price.

(b) Where the actual quantity of work performed for Item No. 0008 is less than 85% of the quantity of the first subline item listed under such item, the Contractor will be paid at the contract unit price for that subline item for the actual quantity of work performed and, in addition, an equitable adjustment shall be made in accordance with the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.211-18, VARIATION IN ESTIMATED QUANTITY.

(c) If the actual quantity of work performed under Item No. 0008 exceeds 115% or is less than 85% of the total estimated quantity of the subline item under that item and/or if the quantity of the work performed under the second subline item or any subsequent subline item under item Nos. NONE exceeds 115% or is less than 85% of the estimated quantity of any such subline item, and if such variation causes an increase or a decrease in the time required for performance of this contract the contract completion time will be adjusted in accordance with the clause FAR 52.211-18, VARIATION IN ESTIMATED QUANTITY.

(End of Clause)

00130-i ED 18-078

Section Table of Contents

SECTION 00130 – PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Contents

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SCOPE

1.2 SOURCE SELECTION USING THE TRADE-OFF PROCESS

1.3 EVALUATION FACTORS

1.4 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PRICE TO THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS .2

1.4.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.4.2 EVALUATION APPROACH

1.5 RESERVED

1.6 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1.7 NON-COST EVALUATION FACTORS & SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1.7.1 FACTOR 1. PAST PERFORMANCE (VOLUME I)

1.7.2 FACTOR 2. TECHNICAL APPROACH (VOLUME I)

1.7.3 FACTOR 3. MANAGEMENT PLAN (VOLUME I)

1.8 COST FACTOR

1.8.1 FACTOR 4. PRICE (Volume II)……………………………………………

1.9 PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS

1.9.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1.10 DISCUSSIONS

1.11 DEFINITIONS…………………………………………………………………

2.0 ATTACHMENTS

00130-1 ED 18-078

SECTION 00130 – PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SCOPE

In accordance with FAR 15.304, the following factors will be considered in evaluating the non-cost aspects of the proposals. Adjectival/narrative color descriptors have been selected to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each Offerors proposal for each evaluation factor, paragraph 1.3 (items (1.) through (4.) below). In evaluating a contractor's proposal, evaluators must document the proposal's strengths and weaknesses. Using succinct, clearly stated narratives, evaluators will indicate the impact to the Government of the strengths and/or weaknesses, providing supporting facts and rationale. If the proposal exceeds the Government's expectations in relation to the evaluation criteria/standards, it forms the basis for "strength." If the proposal is below the Government's expectations in relation to the evaluation criteria/standards, it forms the basis for "weakness." A final narrative summary shall be employed when evaluating proposals in accordance with Section 00130 of the Request for Proposals.

This is a Request for Proposal (RFP). Proposals will be evaluated by a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers. Award will be made to that Offeror, determined by the Government, who can accomplish the requirements set forth in the RFP in a manner most advantageous to the Government considering both cost and non-cost factors. The Government reserves the right to award this Contract to other than the lowest price Offeror after consideration of all factors.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, Offerors shall submit their best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint as Offerors may not be afforded an opportunity to revise their proposals.

1.2 SOURCE SELECTION USING THE TRADE-OFF PROCESS

The Government will select the offer that represents the best value to the Government by using the trade-off process described in FAR Part 15. This process permits tradeoffs between price and technical merit/quality and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer or other than the highest technically rated offer.

00130-2 ED 18-078

1.3 EVALUATION FACTORS

a) TECHNICAL NON-COST FACTORS:

1. Past Performance

2. Technical Approach

3. Management Plan

b) COST FACTOR:

4. Price

1.4 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PRICE TO THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION

FACTORS

The Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between Technical Merit (i.e., quality and timeliness) and cost to the Government (i.e., price). Where competing technical proposals are determined to be substantially equal, price could become the controlling factor.

1.4.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will evaluate non-cost factors and rate the proposals submitted.

Non- cost factors are not all equal in importance. The following terminology is used to describe the relative importance of each non-cost factor:

(1) SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT. This factor is of greater value than other factors. It is approximately twice as much as the next valued factor.

(2) SIGNIFICANTLY LESS IMPORTANT. This factor is approximately one-half (1/2) the value of the factor rated ahead of it.

(3) APPROXIMATELY EQUAL. The value is nearly the same as another factor;

any difference is slight and unimportant.

Factors 1 and 2 are approximately equal in importance and are significantly more important when compared to Factor 3. Factors 1, 2, and 3 when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4, cost or price.

Factor 4, which is Price, may become more significant in contributing to the source selection decision if competing proposals offer approximately equal Past Performance, Technical Approach, and Management. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

00130-3 ED 18-078

1.4.2 EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

1.5 RESERVED

1.6 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

VOLUME I:

1. Past Performance

2. Technical Approach

3. Management Plan

VOLUME II:

4. Price

1.7 NON-COST EVALUATION FACTORS & SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1.7.1 FACTOR 1. Past Performance (Volume I)

NON-COST FACTOR 1 SHALL BE RATED AS FOLLOWS:

An Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source

00130-4 ED 18-078

selection as well as the overall recency of the projects submitted and the contractors performance rating for all projects submitted. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming.

OFFEROR’S EXTENT OF PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY SHALL BE

DESCRIBED USING THE ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AS FOLLOWS:

Table 1a. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS Rating Definition 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.

OFFEROR’S EXTENT OF PERFORMANCE QUALITY SHALL BE ASSESSED AS

FOLLOWS:

The quality of the Offeror’s recent/relevant past performance efforts will be evaluated.

An Offeror’s past performance will also be evaluated to determine how well the Offeror performed on past contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, CCASS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

The Offeror’s strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties relative to how well the Offeror performed will be assessed using the information provided and gathered as described below.

OFFEROR’S PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE RATED

AS FOLLOWS. THIS RATING CONSIDERS THE ASSESSED RELEVANCY AND

QUALITY OF PAST PERFORMANCE PRESENTED:

Table 1b. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS 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.

00130-5 ED 18-078

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.

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

Offerors will be evaluated on the quality of similar work performed within the last FIVE

(5) YEARS using the evidence provided by the Offeror and other sources. Offerors shall submit at least THREE (3) but no more than FIVE (5) past projects for this factor.

Offerors are cautioned to take extreme care in selecting projects for review that are both relevant and accurately reflect the Offeror’s past performance capabilities. Please note that if the Offeror chooses to provide more than FIVE (5) projects, the Government will evaluate only the first Five (5) projects submitted under this evaluation factor. Any additional projects submitted beyond the five (5) allowed will NOT be evaluated.

Offerors submitting more than five (5) projects risk the Government selecting the first five (5) projects which may or may not be the Offeror’s most relevant past performance projects in response to this evaluation factor. Each project will be rated individually as well as collectively. The success of work performed on similar requirements as a prime or significant subcontractor will be evaluated.

Offerors shall include relevant past performance history that demonstrates experience in providing:

*Working adjacent to a busy navigation channel and an operational lock facility and methods used to mitigate and lessen navigation delays at the lock facility.

*Construction of large concrete structures over water including guidewalls, dolphins, bullnoses and navigation structures.

*Design and installation of formwork to permit the placement of concrete underwater.

*Installation of pipe piles and familiarity with the local area and the unique conditions of the soils in the Southern Louisiana region.

*The ability to develop safe and effective demolition methodologies.

The emphasis should be on the capability and performance of construction, and should include project delivery within schedule, ability to adapt to changing requirements and conditions, and by providing specific examples of challenges faced and solutions proposed and executed. The Offeror shall include the percentage of the final contract amount that was self-performed work along with a description of that self-performed work.

00130-6 ED 18-078

The information evaluated may include parent or affiliated companies. A parent company possesses a minority stake of less than 50% of the affiliated company. If past performance information provided is from a parent or affiliated company, the proposal must contain a letter from the parent or affiliated company identifying which of their resources will be available to the Offeror for the proposed work. The letter must also identify what role the parent or affiliated company will have in performance of the proposed work.

Relevant past performance of a parent or affiliate will be evaluated on the same basis as relevant past performance of an individual Offeror, provided that sufficient information is supplied to establish the parent or affiliate's role in the contract work as well as the resources available for such work.

An Offeror relying on the past performance record of a parent or affiliate will not be penalized for that fact. However, such Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate there is a reasonable basis for such reliance; otherwise there will be no basis for crediting the Offeror with the past performance of the parent or affiliate.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included within Section 00130, (Attachment 1) is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client’s point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal from the client to Contracting Division. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). It is the Offerors’ responsibility to follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires prior to the proposal closing date. As a courtesy, questionnaires shall also be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact via email at Katherine.B.Younts@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

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

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/ affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and

00130-7 ED 18-078

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

The Government may also use other tools to gather information regarding an Offeror's qualifications and past performance. The Offeror should provide information on any problems encountered on the identified contracts and the corrective actions taken.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Offerors shall provide their organization’s safety record, including their most current Experience Modifier Rate (EMR), along with any and all documentation on lost time accidents for each project. For each project, the Offeror’s proposal shall describe the quality of products/services provided for each project in narrative form and the customer’s ultimate satisfaction with the products/services.

Offerors shall provide a detailed listing of all exposures and accidents experienced for all work during the past TWO (2) years (as a minimum, these records shall include exposure work hours and a log of occupational injuries and illnesses).

Submittals: For the past performance factor, the Offeror’s proposal as a minimum, shall include, the following for each example:

1. A narrative that describes the Offeror’s past performance that demonstrates the cited work is relevant to the scope, complexity and magnitude of this project.

2. Past contracts established completion date and the actual contract completion date, and an explanation for any delays between the established and the actual completion dates. Include a description of any modifications changing the completion date.

3. Past contract award price and total contract completion price, including any change orders or modifications affecting price.

4. A listing of the major subcontractors utilized for each contract, especially for complex projects. List the percentage of the project self-performed and that percentage performed by the major subcontractors.

5. A listing of the number of crews and subcontractors utilized for each contract, especially for complex projects.

6. List Points of Contact with telephone numbers and other contact information for each contract experience included in the proposal. (See Attachment 1)

00130-8 ED 18-078

7. Offerors shall provide a listing of all exposure and accidents experienced for all work during the past TWO (2) years (as a minimum, these records shall include exposure work hours and a log of occupational injuries and illnesses).

Also include as a Safety Submittal: OSHA Form 300 or equivalent as prescribed by

29 CFR 1904.

8. (a) For U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contracts, provide a copy of the signed Construction Contract Administration Support System (CCASS) and/or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation issued at the completion of the contract. For non-Corps of Engineers contracts, provide a copy of the performance rating issued by the Contracting Agency.

(b) For all cited past performance in an Offeror’s proposal, the Government strongly encourages Offerors to include a PPQ. The template for this survey is provided in this section as Attachment 1. The past performance questionnaire shall be filled out by the Offeror’s past client (Attachment 1, Client Information, Blocks 5-8). The Government may verify all past performance submitted as part of an offer and failure to include valid contact information will prevent that verification.

Evaluation and Rating Guidelines: The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives a rating of No Confidence or Limited Confidence in this factor. Past Performance will be evaluated based on the results of work performed that is determined to be relevant to this requirement. Each project will be evaluated individually as well as collectively. Offerors will be evaluated on the quality of same/similar work performed as a prime contractor or a significant subcontractor within the last five (5) years, reviewing CPARS, the PPQs provided by the clients, and other sources as previously disclosed, using the evidence provided by the Offeror. The information evaluated may include predecessor companies.

Higher relevancy ratings will be given for past performance on those projects that are same/similar in scope, complexity and magnitude of this project and clearly demonstrate an Offeror’s capabilities to successfully construct a similar project with similar schedule and budget. Offerors with experience in construction of large pile founded concrete structures over water will be rated more relevant than those without. Offerors with experience in working in close proximity to busy navigation channels and operational lock facilities will be rated more relevant than those without. Offerors with experience in the design and installation of form work to permit the placement of concrete underwater will be rated more relevant than those without. Offerors with experience in safe demolition practices and methodologies will be rated more relevant than those without.

An Offeror’s past performance as a prime, self-performing Contractor will be evaluated more relevant than that for which the Offeror acted as a subcontractor.

Offerors with a higher percentage of self-performed construction work may be considered more relevant. Projects that are not yet complete will be considered less

00130-9 ED 18-078

relevant than those that are complete. Offerors that demonstrate that they provided innovation, cost control, and/or schedule advancement during previous construction projects will be considered more relevant than Offerors unable to demonstrate they provided innovation, cost control, and/or schedule advancement during previous construction projects.

Offerors with a lower Experience Modifier Rate (EMR) will be rated more favorably than those with a higher EMR.

NON-COST FACTORS 2 AND 3 SHALL BE RATED AS FOLLOWS:

Color Rating Description BLUE Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

PURPLE Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Table 2. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

00130-10 ED 18-078

The technical rating reflects the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

1.7.2 FACTOR 2. Technical Approach (Volume I)

Offerors shall include a detailed technical approach to executing the construction portion of this contract. Offerors shall provide plans and methodology including a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule, including all options, to demonstrate the construction of the dolphin and timber guidewall by the required completion date and show the relationship between submittal approval, material procurement, fabrication, site work, and completion.

Offerors shall provide a narrative of the technical approach for construction of this project and discuss how they propose to streamline construction and manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and maintain the schedule. The narrative shall specifically address the following in detail:

1. Plan including all measures proposed to maintain safe and continuous navigation through the lock for the duration of the contract.

2. Sequencing of the demolition of the existing guidewall and construction of the new guidewall and dolphin installation to minimize impacts on lock operation and navigation through the lock.

3. Demolition plan for the existing southwest quarter round sheet pile fender dolphin and timber guidewall including disposal. Plan should include preventive measures to be taken to ensure existing structures remain undamaged.

4. Pile installation, including details on installation template to ensure pile driving tolerances are met.

5. Formwork plan for concrete dolphin construction, including details on if the formwork will be incorporated into the final design section of the dolphin structure, support for temporary formwork, how formwork will be sealed to prevent water intrusion during concrete placement, adaptability of formwork for piles driven out of tolerance, and adaptability of formwork for high river conditions.

6. Concrete placement plan including methods to control concrete temperatures before, during and after placement.

7. CPM schedule, in Primavera or equivalent scheduling software, including:

*any required periods where navigation will need to be shut down to permit construction activities.

00130-11 ED 18-078

*length of time for removal of the existing southwest quarter round sheet pile fender dolphin and existing timber guidewall, pile fabrication and installation, construction and installation of formwork, concrete placement, timber guidewall construction and miscellaneous steel fabrications.

*the Offeror's construction procedure(s) and phasing plan.

The average number of hours worked per crew per week shall be furnished. Offerors shall identify specific areas that shall be self-performed and areas that shall be constructed by subcontractors. Proposed innovations that gain schedule are a plus;

however, the innovations must have been proven on past projects.

Submittals:

1. Offerors shall provide a narrative of the plans and methodology to be used in accomplishing the construction of the new guidewall and dolphin and demolition of the existing structures. The narrative shall specifically demonstrate the Contractor’s work procedure in maintaining safe and continuous navigation through the lock for the duration of the contract including specifically listing any required periods where navigation will need to be shut down, pile installation, construction of formwork and placement of concrete for the dolphin, and preventive measures taken to ensure existing facilities and utilities remain undamaged.

2. Offeror’s technical approach narrative shall describe the proposed level of prime performed work and major subcontractor activity.

3. Project Schedule. Offerors shall provide a CPM schedule to outline the Offeror’s schedule as required in the above paragraphs.

Evaluation and Rating Guidelines: The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable or Marginal rating in this factor. Thorough, detailed and complete narratives and schedules will be rated more highly than those not providing sufficient detail or discussion of the proposed approach. Narratives and schedules that minimize or eliminate shutdown of navigation due to construction activities will be rated more highly than those that have longer durations of required navigation shutdowns. Omission of requested information will result in lower ratings than those proposals that provide all the information identified.

Offerors will be evaluated on their understanding and capability to meet the described work requirements. Offerors will be evaluated on the completeness and accuracy of the schedule provided and its adherence to the project required duration.

00130-12 ED 18-078

1.7.3 FACTOR 3. MANAGEMENT PLAN (Volume I)

Element A – Key Personnel

The Offeror shall provide qualifications (to include short narrative descriptions of education and experience, years of experience in each position, list of comparable projects, etc.) of available key corporate personnel, project managers, superintendents, and safety and quality control managers identified for participation in the project, for both prime and any contemplated sub-contractor’s personnel. Contemplated subcontractors shall include those for pile driving, formwork design and fabrication, concrete placement and structural design. Offerors shall provide examples of past projects managed by key personnel that demonstrate familiarity with projects of same/similar scope, complexity, and magnitude. If, after award of the contract, the Offeror requests a substitution for any available personnel, the Offeror shall provide the resume the proposed equivalent suggested replacement key personnel to be approved by the Contracting Officer.

Element B – Project Management Plan

Offerors shall provide a detailed project management plan to include their project management philosophy and what tools and management procedures the Offeror will use to ensure the project stays on schedule (scheduling tool used, meetings, look-ahead, schedule updates, etc.); details demonstrating construction management for multiple concurrently operated phases of construction; details of their project safety philosophy and what tools they will use to ensure no lost time accidents will occur;

strategies the Offeror will employ to regain schedule in the face of unforeseen delays; a narrative of their experience with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Quality Control System (QCS) or similar quality control systems, and a summary of their quality control plan, to include testing, labs, and reporting.

Submittals:

1. Offerors shall provide a project specific organizational chart for the key personnel identified for participation on projects under this contract, including prime and subcontractor personnel. If proposed dedicated personnel are currently assigned as dedicated personnel on an ongoing Corps project, the Offeror shall explain expected completion date(s) and/or provide evidence of approved personnel substitution for all Corps of Engineers on-going work where personnel was previously dedicated. The aforementioned requirement is for full time dedicated personnel only.

2. Offerors shall provide resumes that include each key personnel’s years of experience in proposed position, and experience in projects of same/similar scope, complexity, magnitude, and schedule. Resumes should identify the qualifications and experience of key personnel, project managers, superintendents, safety and quality control managers, contemplated

00130-13 ED 18-078

subcontractors, and staff identification for participation on projects under this contract.

3. Offerors shall provide a narrative to address their Project Management Plan.

Evaluation and Rating Guidelines: The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable or Marginal rating in this factor. Omission of requested information will result in a lower rating than those who provide all the information identified.

Offerors will be evaluated on the quality, education, and experience possessed to meet or provide the expertise requirements of proposed work under the contract. The Offeror shall demonstrate that it has the necessary structure, experience, and qualified resources within its proposed organization to effectively manage, control, administer and execute the integrated design and construction operations, safety and quality control programs, and subcontracts.

Offerors with key personnel that have worked on projects of same/similar scope, complexity, and magnitude of the Bayou Sorrel Lock Southwest Guidewall & Dolphin Replacement will be rated more favorably than key personnel without such experience. Offerors with key personnel with more experience in the proposed position will be rated more favorably than key personnel with less experience.

Offerors that demonstrate that safety is a clear company value will be rated higher than those that do not. The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall project management plan and organization and how well it is structured to execute the entire scope of work.

1.8 COST FACTOR

1.8.1 FACTOR 4. PRICE (Volume II)

The Price (Factor 4) submitted in response to this solicitation will not be rated but will be evaluated for reasonableness by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). In the event, during the course of the analysis, the SSA has reason to question the reasonableness of a price proposal, or has reason to believe there are materially unbalanced contract line items within a price proposal, the SSA may conduct such additional reasonable analysis as it requires in order to complete a thorough price analysis. Because the evaluation of the price proposal will represent a portion of the total evaluation, it is possible that an Offeror might not be selected because of an unbalanced or unreasonable price proposal.

The Price/Cost Proposal Schedule submitted in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with Price Analysis procedures listed in FAR 15.404-1(b).

00130-14 ED 18-078

The SSA will utilize the technical ratings and the price evaluations in preparing the SSA’s overall rating of the proposals and as to the Best Value determination for selection of the successful offeror.

1.9 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1.9.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Proposals shall be submitted in two (2) volumes: Volume I and Volume II. All Offerors are required to submit all proposals electronically via DOD SAFE https://safe.apps.mil).

Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and money 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 Past Performance, Technical Approach, and Management, to successfully complete the project. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. All proposals shall be tabbed for each of the evaluation factors.

An Offeror’s response to this solicitation is limited to thirty-five (35) 8.5” x 11” pages for Volume I, not including other performance evaluation forms, schedules, resumes, tabs, Table of Contents, and title sheets, with the font size no smaller than 10pt. Drawings or other graphics shall be reduced only to the extent legibility is not lost. A page printed on both sides will be counted as two (2) pages. Pages shall be consecutively numbered.

Volume I shall include:

i. Past Performance: Submittals as stated in Factor 1.

ii. Technical Approach: Submittals as stated in Factor 2.

iii. Management: Submittals as stated in Factor 3.

Items that must be included in VOLUME I, but are EXCLUDED from the page limitation, are:

i. Title sheets and indices

ii. Table of Contents

iii. OSHA forms

iv. Past Performance Questionnaires (See Attachment 1)

v. Drawings requested under Factor 2, Technical Approach

vi. Resumes of key personnel

vii. Schedule (additionally Schedules/Gantt Charts are not subject to the 8.5” x 11” size

00130-15 ED 18-078

requirement).

viii. Letters of Recommendation, commendation, ratings, etc.

ix. Letter Confirming Availability of Parent/Affiliate Resources (if applicable).

All other items are subject to the 35-page limitation as described above.

Volume II shall include:

i. Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer and Award.

ii. Section 00010, Bidding Schedule.

iii. Standard Form 24, Bid Bond.

iv. Section 00600, Representations & Certifications.

v. Letters of Commitment of Key Subcontractors. (See Attachment 3)

vi. SF 295, Summary Subcontract Report (if applicable).

Items in Volume II are EXCLUDED from the page number limitation.

PROPOSAL FILES:

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled.

Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date, and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created.

b. File Packaging. Proposals shall be submitted electronically via DOD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil). All of the proposal files shall be submitted in read-only PDF format. All price breakdown information to aide in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Read/Write Microsoft Office Excel format that can be viewed in Microsoft Excel 2007. Each file submitted shall be labeled with the volume number, date, and the Offeror’s name.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a…