W912P823R0041 Amend 0002.pdf

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 Old River and Morganza Control Structures, Low Sill Control Structure, Unw atering, Concordia Parish, Louisiana has been amended to:

a) Provide answ ers to previously submitted questions submitted by 17 July 2023. Note: Responses to questions submitted by 19 July 2023 w ill be forthcoming under seperate amendment.

b) Revision to Addendum to 52.215-1 in response to questions.

c) Revision to Section 00700 FAR Clause 52.217-7

d) Attach Appendix E- The results from the 1987 inspections (For Informational purposes only)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 29

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Jul-2023

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 W912P823R0041

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Jun-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

20-Jul-2023

CODE

CONTRACTING DIV-PROJ EAST BR

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 7400 LEAKE AVENUE

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:

W912P823R0041

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

RESPONSES TO PRIOR QUESTIONS

1. QUESTION: FAR clause 52.217-1 indicates Option CLIN’s may be exercised up until 02 April 2025. This appears later than the reasonable time required to perform some OPTIONS (i.e., 0040/41 and 0063-65) within the contract period of 614 CD, in particular if the possible bid acceptance period of 90 days, and in consideration of possible river fluctuations.

RESPONSE: See revised Clause Section 00700 FAR Clause 52.217-7

2. QUESTION: Provide Appendix D (SBPCD Document) referenced in Section II - Factor 2.

RESPONSE: See Appendix D (SBPCD Document) in the revised Addendum to 52.215-1.

3. QUESTION: Please clarify the Small Business goal requirements.

a. Section II Factor 2 indicates the proposal will be evaluated to the extent the “Offer meet or exceed DOD goals…”.

b. Table 3 SB Ratings does not indicate a “meet or exceed” standard.

c. Section D Proposal Submission Factor 2 does not indicate a “meet or exceed” standard.

d. Please indicate the minimum total small business percentage goal required for an Acceptable rating.

RESPONSE: See revised Addendum to 52.215-1.

4. QUESTION: The answer(s) to numerous questions herein have the potential to heavily impact the effort to bid this project. As such, would the Government please extend the bid due date by two weeks and allow enough time after every question has been answered for follow-up questions?

RESPONSE: See SF30 for revised bid submission date.

5. QUESTION: Can the roster from the pre-bid site visit please be shared?

RESPONSE: See below:

Solicitation W912P8-23-R-0041 Old River Low Sill Structure (ORLSS) - Dewatering

Pre-Bid Site Visit Sign-In Sheet

Name Company Phone Email

Leonce Lalonde USACE 337-288-1175 leonce.c.lalonde@usace.army.mil

John Page USACE 337-351-3015 john.r.page@usace.army.mil

Ken Hester Kiewitt Louisiana Co. 817-983-5403 ken.hester@kiewit.com

Seth McDuffie Kiewitt Louisiana Co. 504-331-3654 william.mcduffie@kiewit.com

Tom Thorn Kiewitt Louisiana Co. 817-337-7000 tom.thron@kiewit.com

Kayla LeBlanc USACE 225-492-2169 kayla.l.leblanc@usace.army.mil

Zachary Comeaux USACE 337-258-2807 zachary.p.comeaux@usace.army.mil

Jason Fahr Turner & Turner Contracting, LLC

337-509-9701 jfahr@turnerbuilds.com

Kevin Tonn McMillen 817-751-4457 tonn@mcmillencorp.com

Kevin Guth Paragon Construction 225-936-3456 kmg@pcsop.com

Casey Stavinoha Orion 504-559-0264 cstavinoha@orn.net

Steve Hayes Massman Construction Co. 225-892-2025 shayes@massman.net

Shane Thames USACE 318-305-5725 shane.h.thames@usace.army.mil

Kyle Bishop OCCI 573-544-8149 kbishop@occimofab.com

Cody Wallace Orion 806-549-9351 cwallace@orionmarinegroup.com

Shane Gibson Orion 936-256-9502 sgibson@orionmaringroup.com

6. QUESTION: Specification 01100 Paragraph 3(n) states that OSHA 30-hr training shall have been completed within the last 3 years. This is a non-expiring class and as such restricts this position to less-experienced personnel. Please confirm this is done in error.

RESPONSE: SSHO needs to have taken the 30-hr class in the past, take 8-hours of safety related continuing education per year, and have 5 years of continuous safety experience. (per EM 385-1-1, para 01.A.17 as referenced in the specifications)

7. QUESTION: In order to appropriately schedule around the high-water seasons at the facility, what is the anticipated date of the NTP? The intent of this contract is understood to be completion of the on-site work in one working season, so the timing of the NTP is very critical.

RESPONSE: Reference Section 00700 NOTE: THE NOTICE TO PROCEED (NTP).

8. QUESTION: Section 01100 Paragraph 25(d) begins with an incomplete statement. Please clarify what gate bays shall be inspected (currently it says, “… shall inspect Gate Bays 1 through [missing] as designated on the….”

RESPONSE: Replace the first sentence in its entirety with the following: “The Contractor shall inspect Gate Bays 1 through 11 as designated on the drawings and specifications including inspection and measurements performed by the Contractor on the gate rails assemblies”

9. QUESTION: What are the typical gate operations at this facility, i.e., are they regularly moved and will it affect contractor work on-site?

RESPONSE: Old River Low Sill Structure (ORLSS) is operated, as needed, to maintain the 70/30 flow distribution between the Mississippi, Red, and Atchafalaya Rivers. OLRSS gates will not be operated (i.e., structure will be closed) during onsite construction activities including any pre-construction and post construction inspections and surveys. Reference Section 01100 Paragraph 25 for Special Work Requirements.

10. QUESTION: Will gate movements be transferred to the hydro facility or auxiliary control structure after contractor mobilization, even if dewatering has not yet occurred?

RESPONSE: Reference Response to Question #9. While ORLSS is closed, all required flow will be passed through Old River Auxiliary Control Structure and/or S.A. Murray Hydroelectric Plant.

11. QUESTION: Will contractors be allowed to reach over the highway bridge with a crane?

RESPONSE: Refer to Section 01 55 26.00 12 Paragraph 3.2 (3).

12. QUESTION: At the site visit, it was discussed that the structure may have been dewatered in the 1980’s. Could the Government please provide any photographs of this?

RESPONSE: Reference Response to Question #27.

13. QUESTION: Specification 35 20 16.62 12 Paragraph 3.3 INSTALLATION ends with, “The contractor shall install cofferdams in a maximum of three (3) gate bays at any given time, unless less than 3 gate bays are approved by the COR.” Please confirm this should say, “…unless more than 3 gate bays are approved by the COR.”

RESPONSE: Replace the last sentence in its entirety with the following: “The contractor shall install cofferdams in a minimum of two (2) gate bays and a maximum of three (3) gate bays at any given time, unless approved by the COR.”

14. QUESTION: Will gate bays dewatered be required/allowed to be adjacent to one another?

RESPONSE: Gate bay dewatering sequence will be in the order shown on Drawing S-004.

Modification to the dewatering sequence shall be approved by the COR. If required and approved by COR, adjacent gate bays can be dewatered concurrently.

15. QUESTION: For gate rail inspections, is there criteria for when each type of repair would be triggered? There is grinding, realignment via wedges, etc. but we have not found where it is determined which repair would be required.

RESPONSE: Reference Section 34 11 00 Paragraph 3.8.

16. QUESTION: Section 34 11 00 Paragraph 3.9.1 states that, “The contractor shall have all fabricated rail and hardware components on site prior to the commencement of any dewatering activities.” The replacement of the gate rail and hardware is understood to be an optional item, and paragraph 3.8 states that this option would be awarded contingent upon the review of the inspection report. Is the intent to dewater each gate bay multiple times to accomplish this work?

RESPONSE: No. If option items requiring the fabrication of gate rail and hardware have been executed by the Government, the Contractor shall have all fabricated rail and hardware components onsite prior to the commencement of any dewatering activities. After review of the Contractor submitted Gate Rail Inspection Report, the Contracting Officer may direct replacement of these components by exercising the respective option work repair CLINS.

17. QUESTION: It appears in the solicitation that ratings of Small Business Participation below “Acceptable” will not be considered for award. Are there small business goals that could be proposed which do not meet those outlined in the solicitation which could still be considered “Acceptable”? Please provide mandatory minimums for this rating.

RESPONSE: See revised Addendum to 52.215-1.

18. QUESTION: The small business goal of 46% for this type of contract is very difficult to achieve as there is very little procurement potential outside of the fabricated bulkheads and cofferdams. Additionally, large business general contractors who own their own fabrication shops are put at a disadvantage as the fabrication shop is classified as large in that scenario. Will the Government consider lowering this goal, or allowing a lower proposed goal which would be deemed “Acceptable” and thus awardable?

RESPONSE: See revised Addendum to 52.215-1.

19. QUESTION: The socioeconomical small business goals for this contract are very high for what is understood to essentially be a fabrication and service contract, as there are very few unique trades required to complete the work. Specifically, the Small-Disadvantaged Business goal of 18%. If an offeror proposes a goal lower than any of these as described in Factor 2, Item 5 will the proposal be considered awardable?

RESPONSE: See revised Addendum to 52.215-1.

20. QUESTION: During the on-site visit, it was discussed that dredging will be required in order to get a crane barge on the outflow side of the structure. Please confirm that this (very high) cost should be included in the mobilization pay item.

RESPONSE: Dredging is not a contractual requirement. Reference Section 35 20 16.62 12 Paragraph 3.1. (4).

21. QUESTION: If there is an event after the contractor has dredged for access, which results in filling in of the navigable area downstream of the structure and requires additional dredging, will the Government pay for this under the Changes clause?

RESPONSE: Reference Response to Question #20.

22. QUESTION: Where is the nearest navigation channel on the outflow side, and what is the distance?

RESPONSE: The nearest navigation channel on the outflow side is the Red River which is approximately 7.2 miles from ORLSS.

23. QUESTION: Section II, Solicitation Provisions, Item C.2.i (page 54 of the pdf Solicitation document) references an Appendix D for form and questionnaires related to Past Performance.

Item C.2.vi.4, Factor 2.i (page 58 of the pdf Solicitation document) also references Appendix D for SBPCD degrees of commitment to small business utilization/participation. I am unable to locate an Appendix D (or any other appendices for that matter) in the bid documents. Please advise.

RESPONSE: See Appendix D (SBPCD Document) in the revised Addendum to 52.215-1.

24. QUESTION: Specifications, Section 01100-2, 2. Damage to Work, states that “Except as herein provided, damage to all work (including temporary construction), utilities, materials, equipment and plant shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer at the Contractor's expense, regardless of the cause of such damage.” Does this requirement mean that the Contractor will NOT be compensated for damage caused by flood events for which are greater than the design capacity of the temporary cofferdams and to the contractor’s installed cofferdam?

RESPONSE: USACE designed Upstream and Downstream Needle Dam Sets, Downstream Straight Bulkhead Set, and Downstream Framed Bulkhead Set will be treated as permanent features of work. The Contractor designed localized cofferdam and temporary manhole cover will be treated as temporary construction.

25. QUESTION: Specifications, Section 01100-5, (h) Safety Fence has a requirement that the “Contractor shall provide, erect, and maintain a temporary safety fence around the limits of the work.” Since the “limits of the work” for this contract are the entire spillway structure and the majority of the work will be taking place from barge mounted equipment and inside the structure, Contractor requests USACE provide specific locations they are wanting Safety Fence installed.

RESPONSE: A safety fence shall be installed only around Optional Staging Area 4, if constructed by Contractor.

26. QUESTION: Specifications, Section 05 59 20, page 5, 1.5 System Description states: “All Hydraulic Steel Structures shall be fabricated in a shop certified to AISC requirements for a Certified Bridge Fabricator - Intermediate and meet supplementary requirements for Fracture Critical Members.” Further along in this Section, 1.7.3, Qualification of Structural Steel Fabricator, it states the following: “ The fabricating plant and fabricator must be certified under the AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction) Quality Certification Program, and must be designated an AISC Certified Plant, Category CBR: Major Bridge Fabrication having AISC Fracture Critical Endorsement.” Please clarify this conflicting requirement to allow the fabricator to be qualified as AISC Certified Bridge Fabricator – Intermediate and meet supplementary requirements for Fracture Critical Members.

RESPONSE: Both locations shall state “Fabricators must be certified either: IBR, Certified Bridge Fabricator – Intermediate; ABR, Certified Bridge Fabricator – Advanced; or HYDA, Fabricators of Hydraulic Steel Structures – Advanced. The Fracture Critical Endorsement (FCE) shall also be required.

27. QUESTION: Specifications, Section 35 20 16.62 12, page 24, 3.2 (5) states contractor can request results from 1987 inspections (Old River Low Sill Control Structure Stilling Basin Inspection No 09 (October 1987). Please provide these inspection reports in digital format.

RESPONSE: See Appendix E. The results from the 1987 inspections (Old River Low Sill Control Structure Stilling Basin Inspection No 09 (October 1987)) address areas damaged during the Flood of 1973 and are provided for information purposes only.

28. QUESTION: Pre-Bid Conference, USACE pointed out that the downstream marine area south of the structure is non navigable and not maintained and that the contractor would need to dredge their own path for floatation. Is this dredging already accounted for in the project's permits or does the contractor need to permit this dredging on their own after award and if this is a requirement, what would be the timeline needed to receive this permit approval?

RESPONSE: Reference Response to Question #20.

29. QUESTION: Specifications, Section 35 20 16.62 12, page 28, The RFP contains river elevation limitations for needle gate installation and dewatering, placing a restriction that this work can only be performed when river elevations are below elevation 35.00 NGVD29 and falling. When contractor is unable to work due to high river water elevations, is contract time suspended or are these periods of no work charged and accounted for under the Section 01100 General Provisions 1., Time Extensions for Unusually Severe weather? Please clarify.

RESPONSE: Refer to Section 01100 Paragraph 1 (3).

30. QUESTION: Solicitation, 2.b. Proposal Files, File Packaging, Would USACE consider excluding Section 2 –Factor 2: Small Business Participation Part 1 - Small Business Participation Commitment Document and Part 2 – Past Small Business Participation from the 35-page limit?

RESPONSE: See Appendix D (SBPCD Document) in the revised Addendum to 52.215-1.

31. QUESTION: Solicitation, Factor 2: Small Business Participation i. Factor 2: Small Business Participation refers to "Appendix D," please provide a copy of Appendix D.

RESPONSE: See Appendix D (SBPCD Document) in the revised Addendum to 52.215-1.

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.215-1

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.215-1

Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition

SOLICITATION NUMBER: W912P823R0041

This supplements the Provision FAR 52.215-1. In addition to any proposal instructions contained in that provision, the contractor shall provide the following with its proposal:

This is a full and open competitive acquisition for the single award of a Best Value Firm Fixed Price Construction Contract.

This requirement will be competed on SAM.gov at https://www.sam.gov and is an UNRESTRICTED solicitation. Any responsbile and responsive offeror may propose.

1. Offers shall be submitted prior to the closing date and time via email to the following address:

Margaret C. Maine, Contracting Officer, Margaret.C.Maine@usace.army.mil Calvin Fogle, Contract Specialist, Calvin.D.Fogle@usace.army.mil

2. Proposals must be submitted via ELECTRONIC MEANS ONLY (EMAIL). Proposals will not be accepted by any other means. The acceptable electronic formats for proposal shall be compatible with MS Office 2013, specifically MS Word and MS Excel; PDF format is acceptable for the technical proposal and price narrative. The price proposal must be in MS Excel format.

Electronic media suspected by Government computers as possibly containing virus/malware will not be opened or considered. Facsimiles will not be accepted.

Note: The size limit for incoming emails is 25MB. Any proposal over this size may not be accepted by the server and will constitute the bid not being received timely. Please note that embedded links, URLs, and other html language included may interfere with the USACE server security, which may cause emails to be removed prior to being received by the contracting office. Vendors are advised to refrain from including external links, embedded links, URLs, and other html language not germane to the proposal.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION I

A. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The USACE MVN Contracting Division has a requirement from the Mississippi River & Tributaries (MR&T) Old River Project to award a single Best Value Firm Fixed Price Construction Contract for the ORLSS Dewatering Project. The work consists of clearing, grubbing, and construction of staging areas and access roads; fabrication, painting, delivery, and installation of steel bulkheads/cofferdams above and below the water surface; diving services; unwatering of the cofferdam area(s) and maintaining the areas in a dry condition throughout unwatered period;

installation of instrumentation for piezometers and settlement reference markers with real time data collection systems; monitoring of instrumentation; assisting USACE with typical dewatering mission, which includes cleaning concrete surfaces in unwatered areas and lowering Government equipment, materials, and personnel for Government inspections and coring operations;

miscellaneous concrete and metal work; removal of steel bulkheads/cofferdams; and other related incidental work.

B. ACQUISITION STRATEGY

This is a full and open competitive acquisition for the single award of a Best Value Firm Fixed Price Construction Contract. Award will be made to the best overall proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. Evaluation methodology for the instant procurement consists of (3) three factors: Cost/Price, Past Performance and Small Business Participation. The Government intends to evaluate proposal(s) and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, Offeror(s) shall submit their best terms from a cost/price and past performance standpoint as Offeror(s) may not be afforded an opportunity to revise their proposals.

SECTION II

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the of (3) three factors: Cost/Price, Past Performance and Small Business Participation. The Government will evaluate each non-cost factor and rate the proposals. 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.

The Past Performance factor is significantly more important than Small Business Participation factor. The NON-PRICED FACTORS when combined are significantly more important than the Cost/Price. Under the Past Performance factor. To receive consideration for award, an Offeror must NOT receive a rating of “No Confidence” for the Past Performance Confidence Assessment under the Past Performance factor or receive a rating of no less than “Acceptable” for the Small Business Participation factor. Additionally, any other than small business offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.702(a). Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost/price offered. NOTE: THE NON-PRICED FACTORS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE

IMPORTANT THAN COST/PRICE.

In accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2) and included in FAR clause 52.215-1, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in competitive range for purposes of efficiency.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and factors described below.

Factor 1: Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy, and confidence assessment.

Factor 2: Small Business Participation: Each Offeror’s level and degree of commitment to utilize small business in execution of the requirement will be evaluated.

Factor 3: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the FFP effort.

The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Past Performance and Small Business Participation evaluation results of all the Offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. 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.

2. The Past Performance factor: The Government will evaluate the Offeror(s) record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the solicitation.

i. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

ii. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror(s) (and major subcontractor(s)) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractor(s). For the purposes of this SSP/Requirement, major subcontractor(s) are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 15% percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offeror(s) will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within TEN (10) years from the solicitation issue date) in their proposal.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror(s) in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the Offeror and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 237990. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of proof rests with the Offeror(s) to provide past performance information that is accurate, detailed, current, and complete.

iii. Offeror(s) shall submit at least FOUR (4) but no more than SIX (6) past projects performed within the last TEN (10) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. Offeror(s) are cautioned to take extreme care in selecting projects for

Government consideration that are both relevant and accurately reflect the Offeror(s) past performance capabilities. If the Offeror(s) chooses to provide more than SIX (6) projects, the Government will evaluate only the first SIX (6) projects submitted under this evaluation factor.

Any additional projects submitted beyond the SIX (6) allowed will NOT be evaluated.

Offeror(s) submitting more than SIX (6) projects risk the Government selecting the first SIX

(6) 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 major subcontractor will be evaluated. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

iv. Offeror(s) shall include relevant past performance history that demonstrates experience in providing:

Fabrication of steel structural components such as gates, bulkheads/cofferdams, etc... (off-site and on-site) Installation of bulkheads/cofferdams Dewatering major structural features

The emphasis shall be on the capability and performance of construction, and shall 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.

Offerors shall include the percentage of the final contract amount that was self-performed work along with a description of that self-performed work.

v. The information evaluated may include parent or affiliated companies. 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 affiliates’ 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.

vi. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements.

There are four (4) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, quality assessment, and performance confidence assessment.

1. RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance.

Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

2. RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 1) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming.

Table 1 - 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.

3. QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the quality of the Offeror(s) past performance to determine how well the Offeror(s) performed on past contracts. Past Performance Quality will be rated in conjunction with the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating scale based on the Offeror(s) overall record of recency and quality of performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, Construction Contract Administration Support System (CCASS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

4. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final aspect utilizes the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 2 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts. In evaluating an Offeror’s proposal, the Government must document the proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties relative to how well the Offeror performed and provide supporting facts and rationale for the conclusions reached by the SSEB.

TABLE 2 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

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

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

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives a Performance Confidence Assessment rating of “No Confidence” in this factor. Higher evaluation ratings will be given for past performance on those projects that are similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude of this RFP and clearly demonstrate an Offeror’s capabilities to successfully construct a similar project with similar schedule and budget. Offeror(s) with experience in large structural dewaterings will be rated higher than those without. Offeror(s) with experience in fabrication of large steel structural components including gates, bulkheads, and /or cofferdams will be rated higher than those without. Offeror(s) with experience in safe dewatering practices and methodologies will be rated higher than those without. An Offeror’s past performance as a prime, self-performing Contractor will be evaluated more favorably than that for which the Offeror(s) acted as a subcontractor. Offeror(s) with a higher percentage of self-performed construction work may be rated higher than those with a lower percentage. Projects that are not yet complete will be rated lower than those that are complete. Offeror(s) that demonstrate their ability to provide innovation, cost control, and/or schedule advancement during previous construction projects will be rated higher than Offeror(s) unable to demonstrate they provided innovation, cost control, and/or schedule advancement during previous construction projects.

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

Factor 2: Small Business Participation. IAW Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.304(c)(i), all Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small businesses small subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein:

i. All Offerors shall identify the extent to which small business participation shall be utilized in the performance of the RFP. Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD), refence Appendix D, which specifies the offeror’s level and degree of commitment to small business utilization/participation in performance of this requirement. An SBPCD is a separate requirement and is different than the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. An SBPCD is required from all offerors, including companies with commercial plans and comprehensive subcontracting plans. The Government will evaluate the following:

1. The extent to which such small businesses, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals.

2. The extent of commitment to use such small businesses (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones). Offeror(s) shall provide Letter(s) of Commitment of Key Subcontractor(s) on subcontractor’s letterhead.

3. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small businesses are to perform.

Provide the small business company name and classification that will participate in the proposed contract; descriptive information identifying specific types of services and/or supplies to be subcontractor by small businesses including estimated dollar value(s) of subcontractor(s).

4. The extent of participation of each small business category in terms of the percentage of the Total Contract Value. For purposes of this requirement, Total Contract Value is defined as the value of all work to be performed on this project. Small business prime offerors may achieve small business participation through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses. Small business participation commitments will become requirements and be incorporated into the resulting contract. The following are the current USACE New Orleans Annual Small Business Goals for reference only (percentage of Total Contract Value ):

Small Business (SB): 46% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): 18% Women Owned Small Business (WOSB): 15% HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone): 12% Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB): No established Goals Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): 3%

ii. Provide a description of the Offeror’s performance over the past THREE (3) years, in complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan, including description and available documentation of the methods employed to promote small business participation and the internal methods used to monitor such participation. Provide any information substantiating the Offeror(s) track record of participating with small businesses on past contracts. Provide any information concerning long term relationships with small business subcontractor(s), such as mentor-protégé relationships.

iii. For Large Businesses: Department of Defense (DoD) began using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) in October 2008. For contracts with DOD, Offerors shall submit a copy of their Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR) (SF295). For contracts with non-DoD agencies, Offerors may submit an SSR and/or hard copy of Summary Subcontracting Report.

iv. The Government shall rate the Small Business Participation factor utilizing the Small Business Ratings (see Table 3 below) depicting how well the offeror’s proposal meets the factor requirements.

3. Factor 3: Cost/Price Factor. The RFP will be a Firmed Fixed Price (FFP) Construction Contract. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for Offeror(s) Cost/Price proposal. The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate (if required) all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs, including option CLINs, will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated as follows:

a. FFP Evaluation: For a cost/price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a cost/price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

b. Overall Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

TABLE 3 – Small Business Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

i. Compliance: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Cost/Price Volume instructions. Failure to comply with the RFP requirements for cost/price information may result in ad adverse assessment of an Offeror(s) proposal and reduce or eliminate its chance of being selected for award. Offerors shall ensure that the information presented in the proposal is consistent and correlates with the information contained in the other proposal volumes. Also, Offeror(s) shall ensure that the information submitted is consisted with and fully support the amounts set forth in the SF1442 and continuation sheets.

ii. Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

iii. Errors: The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

iv. Business Systems: The Government will verify the adequacy of the Offeror’s business systems.

v. Total Evaluated Cost/Price: The Total Evaluated Cost/Price consists of summing all the Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLIN costs/prices.

D. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Proposals shall be submitted in three (3) separate volumes: Volume I, Volume II, and Volume III via electronic version to Calvin Fogle and Margaret Maine as identified in the below emails.

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 and Small Business Participation Plan to successfully complete the project. 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. Calvin.D.Fogle@usace.army.mil and Margaret.C.Maine@usace.army.mil .

b. Each paragraph should be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required.

Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Title Digital

Copies Maximum Pages

I NON-PRICE FACTORS:

Factor 1- Past Performance Factor 2- Small Business Participation **(Appendix D: Small Business Comitment Document excluded from page count)**

2 35

II PRICE FACTORS:

Factor 3: Price

2 No page limit

III Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations

2 No page limit

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

2. 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 Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in Microsoft (MS) Word. MS Word (.docx) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

b. FILE PACKAGING. Proposals must be submitted via ELECTRONIC MEANS ONLY (EMAIL) and may NOT be password protected. Proposals will not be accepted by any other means. The acceptable electronic formats for proposals shall be compatible with MS Office latest edition, specifically MS Word and Excel; PDF format is acceptable for the Volume I and III proposal and price narrative. The Volume II cost/price proposal must be in MS Excel format and may contain electronic links. If Volume II contains links, the links must be intact and maintained through all revisions. The Offeror shall NOT include pivot tables in MS Excel spreadsheets.

Electronic media suspected by Government computers as possibly containing virus/malware will not be opened or considered. Facsimiles will not be accepted.

Note: The size limit for incoming emails is 25MB. Any proposal over this size may not be accepted by the server and will constitute the proposal not being received timely. Please note that embedded links, URLs, and other html language included may interfere with the USACE server security, which may cause emails to be removed prior to being received by the Contracting Office. Prospective offerors are advised to refrain from including external links, embedded links, URLs, and other html language not relevant to the proposal. **Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.**

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. CCASS or CPARS, Past Performance Questionnaires (See Attachment 1), and other Contracting Agency evaluation forms

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

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

vii. Letters of Commitment of Key Subcontractors

viii. SF295, Summary Subcontractor Report (if applicable)

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 complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.

The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

VOLUME I – NON-PRICE FACTORS. The volume shall be organized into the following sections: Section 1 –Factor 1: Past Performance & Section 2 –Factor 2: Small Business Participation.

Section 1 –Factor 1: Past Performance. This factor evaluates the offeror’s Past Performance.

This factor shall contain past performance information regarding similar projects performed within the last TEN (10) YEARS, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237990 required by the RFP. Offerors shall submit at least FOUR (4) but no more than SIX (6) past projects for this factor. Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors for their past performance to be considered. This section shall be organized into the following sub-parts:

1. Part 1 – Contract Descriptions: This part shall include the following information in the following format for each past performance project.

a. Contractor name, address, Point of Contact (POC) including email address and telephone number, place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS/UEI Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and POC within the prime contractor organization including name, current address, e-mail address, and…