A21 W912P922R0023 Amemdment 0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

J

PAGE OF PAGES

1 18

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

09-Jun-2022

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE W912P9 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY ENGR DIST ST LOUIS

1222 SPRUCE STREET, RM 4.207

ST LOUIS MO 63103-2833

See Item 6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

W912P922R0023

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-May-2022

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one ofthe 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 telegramor letter, provided each telegramor 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 CONTRACT S/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.)

The above solicitation number is hereby being amended to revise Volume II - Factor 3- Small Business Participation & Subcontracting, upload the Pre-Bid Site Visit Sign-In Sheet and Questions and Government Answers. Proposals are due by 10:00 AM local time 24 Jun 2022.

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

TEL: EMAIL:

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

09-Jun-2022

EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

30-105-04 STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

W912P922R0023

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 20-Jun-2022 10:00 AM to 24-Jun-2022 10:00 AM.

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

VOLUME II – SMALL BUSINESS (REVISED)

TAB A: Factor 3 – Small Business Participation & Subcontracting

1. All offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (Appendix C), in accordance with DFARS 215.304. Offerors should propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime, joint venture, teaming arrangement, and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this Factor 3 (in Section 00 22 16) and provide substantiating documentation to demonstrate how you will meet these requirements. A percentage goal of greater than 0% should be provided for all Small Business Socio-Economic Categories; if a percentage goal of 0% is provided for any Small Business Socio-Economic Category, a justification is required of why there will be no attempt made to include that category in your small business participation. This required information will be used to evaluate the extent of your proposed participation/commitment to use U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition. These Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) will be incorporated into any resulting contract.

2. Other than Small Businesses must also submit a Subcontracting Plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219- 7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan).

a. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document.

Other than small business contractors may achieve the small business participation goals through subcontracting to small businesses.

Small business contractors may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and subcontracting to other small businesses.

F. EVALUATION OF VOLUME II – FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION &

SUBCONTRACTING

The offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

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

2. The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

3. Identification of the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

4. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

5. The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed quantitative participation

6. Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan

7. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine which offeror proposes the best value in terms of Small Business Participation. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract.

Small Business (SB) - 32.25% Socio-Economic Small Business Categories Goals:

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) – Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) – HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) – Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) – Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) –

The total contract value is to be calculated based on the total dollar amount of the offer (i.e.

Small Business dollars + Large Business dollars = Total dollars). The Government will evaluate dollars, not only percentages.

All offerors are required to submit Small Business Participation Commitment Documents in accordance with the instructions in Section 00 21 16. Small business participation commitments will become a requirement incorporated into the resulting contract. A Quarterly Report will be due to the Small Business Specialist to monitor the progress to meet the commitment of the Small Business Commitment Document. Liquidated damages will be assessed if the Small Business Commitment Document is not met, in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-16.

Lock & Dam 25 Lock Wall Modifications – NESP Phase 1 – St. Louis District

Contractor Questions & Government Answers

1. Factor 1, Subfactor (c) – Management Plan with Narrative, part 5 requests that offerors provide a description of the number of workers, required shifts, schedule of activities, required equipment, critical path elements, anticipated risk, anticipated downtime, and anticipated lead time for materials for full completion of the contract work. This requirement appears to be nearly duplicative of the requirements listed Factor 1, Subfactor (b) – Work Plan. Given the page limitations for Factor 1 (20 page), will the government consider removing this requirement in Factor 1, Subfactor (c)?

ANSWER: The page limitation for Factor 1 shall be increased to 25 maximum pages.

Except for the increase to the page limitation, Factor 1 shall remain as published in the original solicitation.

2. Page 35 of the solicitation under Tab A: Factor 3 – Small Business Participation &

Subcontracting, it states that a percentage goal of greater than 0% should be provided for all Small Business Socio-Economic Categories; if a percentage goal of 0% is provided for any Small Business Socio-Economic Category, a justification is required of why there will be no attempt made to include that category in your small business participation. On page 47 of the solicitation, a required total small business goal of 32.25% is provided and it is further noted that any offerors who fail to meet this goal will be rated unacceptable. Given this discrepancy, please confirm the total small business goal for the solicitation. Further, please confirm that any offeror who does not meet this goal, regardless of justification, will be rated unacceptable and therefore unawardable.

ANSWER: For the Small Business Participation Plan, the Small business goal of 32.25% is the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR). The socio-economic categories are not apart of the MQR, therefore it is not a discrepancy in the Small business participation plan section.

It has been decided to remove the following language from the evaluation portion, “Offerors whose proposal fails to meet the 32.25% small business participation requirement will be rated unacceptable.” The removal of the MQR will be incorporated through an Amendment, as well as the percentage goals of the Small Business Socio-economic categories.

3. Given the large number of competing solicitations that are currently out for bid and uncertainty surround the small business goals for this procurement, will the Government consider extending both the proposal due date and inquiry date by a period of no less than 14 days.

ANSWER: The proposal due date shall be extended as follows. Proposals are due by 10:00 AM local time 24 Jun 2022.

4. Plan sheet S-518 calls for a CJP weld in a couple of locations that cannot support a CJP weld, because the CJP weld has to be backgouged or have a backing bar which cannot be done with those members. Can this requirement for a CJP weld in the locations on S-518 be revised?

ANSWER: Contractor shall bid as specified and as shown on the drawings.

5. Page 47 of the solicitation provides a total small business participation goal of

32.25% for this contract. The scope of work for this project is geared toward self-performing marine contractors and therefore does not present many subcontracting opportunities, especially for small business concerns. Given current market conditions and the limited number of interested subcontractors in attendance at the site visit on 6/1/2022, meeting the current goal of 32.25% will likely result in extremely inflated pricing as offerors will be required to pay a large premium to generate interest from qualified small business concerns. To help control pricing, we respectfully request that the Government consider reducing this percentage to 5% of the total contract value, which is in line with similar navigation lock rehabilitation projects that have recently been procured by USACE.

ANSWER: When providing your Small Business Participation Commitment Document, include the Small Business goal you are capable of meeting as well as the commitment agreements with the subcontractors. This will improve your overall rating.

6. Could I get the site visit attendees for your site visit held?

ANSWER: A scanned copy of the site visit sign in sheet shall be published with this amendment.

7. Paragraph B. (3) found on Page 13 of Document 0 08 00 provides for one 8-hour lock closure period for placement of new concrete required for each of the three Floating Mooring Bit Recess/Line Hooks (one closure for each location). Each of these placements is 37’ tall which would necessitate a forming system capable of holding back 37 feet of liquid concrete. The following specification paragraph, Paragraph 4, permits three closure periods for placements to accomplish filling of the existing miter gate recess. Clearly the USACE anticipates 3 separate concrete placements for the similar 40.5’ tall concrete placement required for the miter gate recess filling. Since the placement depths in the two areas are similar, could the specifications be revised to allow 3 closure periods at each of the three FMB/Line Hook placements for a total of 9 closures? Otherwise it may be extremely difficult and costly to provide a forming system capable of withholding the form pressure generated by 37 feet of liquid concrete.

ANSWER: See revised paragraphs 00 08 00-1.19 B (2), (3), and (4) included in this amendment.

8. Tab B – Factor 2, paragraph 2, page 34/210 states “Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations.

This does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.”

ANSWER: No question asked. Solicitation shall remain unchanged.

9. If we are unable to get an updated PPQ, can we submit a previously filled out PPQ?

ANSWER: A previously filled out and complete PPQ may be submitted.

10. Specification 00 08 00, Part 1.19.A.9 states that the Contractor must be able to demobilize, including removal of all floating plant, from the project area at the Government's discretion during severe high water conditions. Please provide a unit price bid item (Unit: Each) for all Government directed demobilization from the project area and include in the price and payment of this bid item provisions for remobilization costs following the high water event.

ANSWER: Bid schedule shall remain unchanged.

11. Will additional site visits be permitted? Many key subcontractors were not available for the organized site visit on June 1, 2022 and will need to see the site in order to prepare a responsible pricing proposal.

ANSWER: No additional site visit shall be provided.

12. Please provide weight and dimensions of the stoplog to be removed, stored, and transported back to site by Contractor.

ANSWER: The total weight of the bulkhead and sill beam combined is approximately 84,000 lbs. Drawings of the existing bulkhead and sill beam are provided. See reference drawings included in this amendment for information.

13. Given the large number of competing solicitations that are currently out for bid, uncertainty surround the small business goals for this procurement, and requirements for Contractor designed cofferdams for the project, will the Government consider extending both the proposal due date and inquiry date by a period of no less than 14 days.

ANSWER: The proposal due date shall be extended as follows. Proposals are due by 10:00 AM local time 24 Jun 2022.

The following documents are attached:

00 0800 Prebid Sign in Sheet W912P922R0023 L27 Bulkhead Plans Ref

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with FAR 9.103, no contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR 9.104-1 requirement that no award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined a responsible contractor, Offerors must meet the following general standards:

a. Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain them.

b. Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule taking into consideration all existing commercial and Governmental business commitments.

c. Have a satisfactory performance record.

d. Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

e. Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them.

f. Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them.

g. Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

B. BASIS OF AWARD

1. Award will be made based on the best overall (subjective best value trade-off) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Factor 1 – Technical Approach, Factor 2– Past Performance, Factor 3 –Small Business Participation & Subcontracting, and Factor 4 – Price.

2. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Marginal” must be achieved for all non-cost factors. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not be made to the lowest price offered.

Factor 1 and Factors 2 are of equal importance. Factor 3 is less important than Factors 1 and 2. Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are of equal importance to Factor 4.

3. Award will be made based on Subjective Best Value, using the tradeoff process for proposals in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and FAR subpart 15.3. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and it is reasonably determined that the technical superiority, and/or overall business approach, and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

4. The failure of a proposal to meet any of the three (3) non-cost factors will result in a technically unacceptable rating and preclude award unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with that Offeror and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal.

5. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the solicitation will be considered unacceptable.

6. Offerors may NOT be credited with the past performance of a separate corporation, whether that of a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary, unless the proposal clearly establishes that the resources of those companies will be available for performance on the contract to be awarded.

7. The contracting officer will begin the evaluation process by conducting a proposal compliance review for all timely-received proposals to determine basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators (the Source Selection Evaluation Board). Failure to provide a complete proposal will result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based up on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors listed below:

Volume I – Factor 1 – Technical Approach (includes subfactors a-c)

Volume I – Factor 2 – Past Performance

Volume II – Factor 3 – Small Business Participation & Subcontracting

Volume III – Factor 4 – Price (Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Amendments, Bid Schedule, and Representations & Certifications)

2. Volume I, Factor 1 will receive one of five ratings, in accordance with the following tables.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

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

TABLE 1 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unnacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

TABLE 2 – Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3. Volume I, Factor 2 - Past Performance will receive ratings in accordance with the tables below, based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments

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

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

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

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

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.

TABLE 4 - 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.

4. Volume II, Factor 3 Small Business Participation & Subcontracting will receive a rating in accordance with the table below, based on the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum small business requirements.

TABLE 5 – Small Business Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

5. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors are 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 solicitation.

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 00 21 16) of the solicitation.

b. Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which: 1) the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable, 2) successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques, and 3) the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposal tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

6. DEFINITIONS:

a. Rating – The adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators to the non-cost/price factors and corresponding subfactors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Technical factor and subfactor ratings will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable.

b. Technical Rating Evaluation Processes – The technical rating reflects the degree to which the 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.

c. Trade-Off Ratings – The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the tables above in section C. 2.

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

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

f. Weakness – a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

g. Significant Weakness – a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

h. Deficiency – a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

i. Uncertainty – any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

j. Adverse Past Performance – past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

D. EVALUATION OF VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness of the offeror’s Technical Approach to determine the offeror’s technical capability and resources to perform project work in an efficient, quality, and safe manner.

The three (3) subfactors associated with this evaluation factor are of equal importance.

Subfactor (a): Key Positions

The Government will evaluate the feasibility for successful execution of this project based on the minimum qualification standards of Key Positions proposed for this requirement. The Government will evaluate how well the proposal demonstrates that the offeror’s Key Positions meet or exceed the qualifications required to perform the work under this solicitation. The evaluation of Key Positions will focus on minimum qualifications and experience necessary to provide quality workmanship, quality control, safety, scheduling, and general construction management.

Minimum qualifications for Key Positions that include more than the minimum required in the solicitation may be evaluated more favorably by the SSEB.

Subfactor (b): Work Plan

The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness of the offeror’s means and methods for performing the work required for this project.

Proposals with thorough, detailed, and complete narratives, work plans, and equipment lists demonstrating the offeror’s understanding of the complexity of the project, importance of developing a logical sequence of work, and risks associated with completing the work may be evaluated more favorably by the SSEB. Work Plan must demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding that will lead to successful completion of work associated with solicitation.

In addition, the Evaluation Team will evaluate the ability of the submitted information to establish technical/risk ratings that commensurate with the confidence level that the offeror has a sound technical approach that would result in successful execution of contract requirements and adherence to the schedule including the approved lock closure periods. This should feature information to ensure the evaluation team can properly evaluate means and methods associated with the following: structural demolition and removal of concrete, design and installation of contractor furnished cofferdam, reinforced concrete placement, fabrication of floating mooring bitt and miscellaneous metals, acceptance testing of installed floating mooring bitts, providing required electrical work.

Subfactor (c): Management Plan with Narrative

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Management Plan and the feasibility for successful execution of this project. Proposals with through, detailed, complete narrative, indicating a management approach and sound Management Plan that would commensurate with ensuring exceptional performance, schedule adherence, quality control, coordination, communication and control of subcontractors that would result in successful execution of contract requirements and adherence to schedule will be rated ore highly.

E. EVALUATION OF VOLUME I – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

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 Plans & Specifications.

Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider past performance information obtained from other sources, the responsibility of proving past performance information rests with the offeror.

The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and proposed major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. 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, offerors are reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts within the past ten (10) years in their proposal.

Evaluation ratings will be based on the comprehensiveness of the offeror’s relevant experience as it relates to the elements provided in Section 00 21 16, which are similar in scope to this requirement.

The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant past performance or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. Relevant past performance is performance under contracts or efforts within the past ten (10) years (recency) that is of the same or similar scope, complexity, and magnitude to that which is described in the solicitation. A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) should be submitted for each project the offeror includes in its proposal.

Please see Section 00 21 16, Factor 2, Past Performance for additional information on Past Performance Questionnaires.

The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local Government or commercial contracts for same or similar contracts. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past ten (10) years prior to the issue date of the solicitation.

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

Aspects of Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

Recency & Relevancy – The first is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. Therefore, the solicitation has established the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement being procured. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement.

Recency – expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The base standard for recent work under this solicitation is considered to be within the last five (5) years from the issue date of this solicitation.

Relevancy – same or similar scope, complexity, magnitude, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming to that which is described in this solicitation.

Note: providing information in all relevancy elements will be evaluated as more relevant than proposals that do not provide information in all elements.

Quality – The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts;

rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

F. EVALUATION OF VOLUME II – FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION & SUBCONTRACTING

The offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

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

2. The extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones)

3. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform

4. Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan

5. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the small business participation goals relative to the total contract value as follows:

Small Business (SB) - 32.25% (required)

Socio-Economic Small Business Categories Goals:

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) - 5%

Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) - 5%

HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) - 3%

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) - 0.5%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) - 3%

The total contract value is to be calculated based on the total dollar amount of the offer (i.e. Small Business dollars + Large Business dollars = Total dollars). The Government will evaluate dollars, not just percentages alone.

Small business prime offerors may achieve small business participation (meet or exceed MQR) through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses. All offerors are required to submit Small Business Participation Commitment Documents in accordance with the instructions in Section 00 21 16. Small business participation commitments will become requirements and be incorporated into the resulting contract. A Quarterly

Report is due to the Small Business Specialist to monitor the progress to meet the commitment of the Small Business Commitment Document. Liquidated damages will be assessed if the Small Business Commitment Document is not met, in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-16.

Offerors whose proposal fails to meet the 32.25% small business participation requirement will be rated unacceptable. Offerors whose proposal meets the 32.25% small business participation requirement and meets or exceeds the socio-economic small business category goals will be rated higher than those that meet the 32.25% small business participation requirement and do not meet the socio-economic small business category goals.

G. EVALUATION OF VOLUME III – FACTOR 4 – PRICE (SOLICITATION,

OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS, AMENDMENTS, BID SCHEDULE AND

REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS)

Price will be evaluated and considered but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. Price reasonableness will be determined in accordance with techniques in FAR 15.404-1. Such determination will be made to ensure the offeror’s proposed prices are fair and reasonable considering quality, delivery, and other factors. Price realism will be utilized to determine if the offeror’s proposed prices are too low, indicate a misunderstanding of the requirements, or there is unbalanced pricing between CLINs or Option Periods. The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. During this process offerors may have to provide additional information supporting their Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs), element, or total price. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis and will be considered a performance risk.

This source selection will result in award of Firm Fixed Price contract.

Offeror must sign the Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and all amendments.

(End of Summary of Changes)