Amendment_W912PM-17-R-0019-00004Island_Creek.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 purpose of this amendment is to correct discrepencies noted regarding referenced attachments. A "Project Information Sheet" is not required for submission of proposals. See summary of changes below .

The hour and date specif ied for receipt of offers has NOT been extended as a result of this amendment.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Aug-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912PM17R0019

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Jun-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Aug-2017

CODE

U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON

CONTRACTING - WILMINGTON DISTRICT

69 DARLINGTON AVENUE

WILMINGTON NC 28403

W912PM 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912PM17R0019

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The Issued By organization has changed from

U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON

WILMINGTON DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

69 DARLINGTON AVE

WILMINGTON NC 28403-1343

to

U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON

CONTRACTING - WILMINGTON DISTRICT

69 DARLINGTON AVENUE

WILMINGTON NC 28403

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

Background/Objective:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Contracting Division at the Wilmington District office has a requirement to repair the berm at Island Creek located at the John H. Kerr Reservoir Project in Boydton, VA.

Acquisition Strategy:

This is a competitive acquisition for the single award of a Firm Fixed Price contract set aside 100% for service disabled veteran owned small businesses.

Award will be made to the offeror with the best valued proposal meeting the lowest price technical acceptability criteria outlined within this plan. The evaluation methodology for the procurement consists of two (2) factors:

Technical Acceptability including demonstrated experience and past performance, and Price. Demonstrated experience is slightly more important than past performance and all non-cost/non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price.

The source selection will be based on the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) approach utilizing an informal source selection process. Per UAI 15.300-100(b) and (d), informal source selection is used when the procuring contracting officer is the SSA. (Threshold < $50 Million)

Acquisition Responsibilities:

From the date of issue of the Request for Proposal (RFP) through the date of receipt of proposals, any questions regarding the RFP will be directed to the Contracting Officer. All questions and answers will be documented.

Appropriate RFP amendment(s) will be issued to address questions and answers.

General Instructions:

In accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions, the Government reserves the right to make award without discussions. Therefore, offerors should submit their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interests of the Government.

In accordance with 15.306(c)(1) and FAR Clause 52.215-1(f)(4), Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions,the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Contractor Team Arrangements. The Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor teaming arrangements, provided the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. As further described in paragraph 2.3, below, the Government will only evaluate the information submitted by the legal entity with whom the Government would enter into a contract. This is the legal entity represented in Tab E, as registered in System for Award Management (SAM) and identified by its specifically assigned CAGE Code.

If applicable, the offeror shall submit evidence from the offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel. For 8(a) set- aside procurements, all prospective Joint Ventures must comply with Title 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 124.513. For HUBZone set- aside procurements and awards to HUBZone SBCs through full and open competition after a price evaluation preference in favor of qualified HUBZone SBCs, a Joint Venture must comply with

13 CFR 126.616.

Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, information submitted about any company other than the offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractor, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor.

Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in Block 7 of Standard Form 1442.

Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

Basis for Award:

Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of technically acceptable proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. To be considered technically acceptable, no non-cost factor in the proposal may be determined to be unacceptable. The failure of a proposal to meet any of the acceptability standards for non-cost factors will result in a technically unacceptable rating and preclude award.

The Government reserves the right to make award without discussions and without giving offerors an opportunity to revise their offers. Therefore, offerors are encouraged to include their best terms and conditions proposed for all evaluation factors in their initial proposal. By submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation, offerors are agreeing to comply with all terms and conditions contained in the solicitation. Including exceptions in the offer may be cause for the Government to reject the offer.

The Offeror’s accepted proposal will be made a part of the awarded contract.

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process

Technical representatives shall review all proposals for acceptability and provide the Contracting Officer with a written technical analysis of each Offeror’s proposal. The Contracting Officer, in conjunction with the Source Selection Evaluation Board members, will review these for correctness and completeness. Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using non-cost/price factors. Tradeoffs will not be permitted. To be considered technically acceptable, no technical factor in the proposal may be determined to be unacceptable. The failure of a proposal to meet any of the acceptability standards for non-cost factors will result in a technically unacceptable rating and preclude award. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal.

Announcement of Selection

The Contracting Officer will make the announcement of the selection of a successful contractor directly or through his/her designee.

Debriefing of Unsuccessful Offerors

Unsuccessful offerors will be afforded the opportunity to request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.506.

Written debriefing requests must be received within three (3) days of receipt of the unsuccessful offeror letter.

Pursuant to FAR 15.506(b), all debriefings will be conducted in writing.

FFP Requirements

1. The RFP requires Firm-Fixed-Price contract line items. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in” or unbalanced pricing between CLINs or Option Periods is not occurring.

The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. 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.

GENERAL PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION AND TABBING REQUIREMENTS

W912PM-17-R-0019

Island Creek Berm Repair John H. Kerr Lake, Boydton, VA

1. REQUIREMENT FOR SEPARATE PRICE AND TECHNICAL PROPOSALS:

Each offeror must submit both a Price Proposal and Technical Proposal, in addition to Past Performance Questionnaires. The Price Proposal, Technical Proposal, and Past Performance Questionnaires must be submitted as separate volumes/files.

The Price and the Technical Proposals in addition to the Past Performance Questionnaires must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals.

No dollar amounts from the Price Proposal are to be included in the Technical proposal.

All information intended to be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal must be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal. Do not cross-reference similar material in the Price Proposal, or vice versa.

Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal. Should the offer include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may be determined “unacceptable” and thus ineligible for award.

Should the offeror have any questions related to specific terms and conditions, these should be resolved prior to the submission of the offer.

The technical data criteria specified for each factor identified herein and as described in Appendix B shall be submitted as part of the proposal.

The offeror is responsible for including sufficient details in its proposal to permit a complete and accurate evaluation. Accordingly, the offeror shall be clear and concise in its proposal. The Government will not make assumptions concerning the offeror’s intent.

Failure to submit all the data required by the RFP, this Appendix and Appendix B, may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and therefore may not considered for award.

2. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT:

Each offeror must submit both a Price Proposal and a Technical Proposal via the AMRDEC SAFE website. No hard paper copies will be accepted or evaluated. Both the Price Proposal and the Technical Proposal must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals. In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format and shall be on 8 ½ x 11 size pages in no less than a 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W912PM-17-R-0019_ COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I

W912PM-17-R-0019_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

W912PM-17-R-0019_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME III

Submit the Price and Technical proposals electronically via the AMRDEC SAFE website at:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/welcome.aspx. At the AMRDEC SAFE website, select the blue button labeled ‘Click Here’, below the ‘Non-CAC Users’ title. Register, access the site and submit your proposal(s).

[Note: It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the AMRDEC SAFE website when using a Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.]

When your proposal is submitted via the AMRDEC SAFE website, the website will provide notification of the submittal to the Government recipients. When completing the information for transmittal at the AMRDEC SAFE website, you will be required to enter email addresses for the recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients will be the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. The Contract Specialist for this project is Karri Mares, whose email address is karri.l.mares@usace.army.mil. The Contracting Officer for this project is Ros Shoemaker, whose email address is Rosalind.m.shoemaker@usace.army.mil These email addresses are the ones you will enter as recipients.

In addition, after uploading your documents, you will be required to verify your email address before AMRDEC will send notification to the Government recipients. This is a very important step – even if you successfully upload your proposal to AMRDEC SAFE, notification will not be sent to the Government until you verify your email address, which may result in the rejection of your proposal for lateness. Follow the instructions on the AMRDEC website and confirmation emails you receive from AMRDEC.

Proposal due Date and Time:

Request For Proposal No: W912PM-17-R-0019 Due Date of Proposal: 2 August 2017 3 15 August 2017 Time by which Proposals are due: 2:00 P.M. (Eastern Time) Title of Project: Island Creek Berm Repair in John H. Kerr Lake, Boydton, VA

The date and time of delivery will be established by the time of receipt of the email notification to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer by the AMRDEC SAFE website, not by the date and time of uploading of the proposal into the AMRDEC SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous

– in fact, it can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal. If an electronic submission is uploaded minutes before the deadline but notification is not actually received in the recipients’ email inboxes until after the deadline, the submission will be considered late. The Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient of proposals. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

3. VOLUME I: Technical Proposal (Factor 1; Sub-Factor 1):

TAB CONTENTS OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

A Factor 1: Technical Acceptability Sub-Factor 1 – Demonstrated Experience Sub-Element A - Permanent Earthen Dam Experience Sub-Element B – Dewatering System Experience Sub-Element C – Automated Data Acquisition System Exp

Page Limitations: The following page limitations are established for each factor described above:

Factor 1, Sub-Factor 1: Demonstrated Experience – Limited to 20 pages mailto:Rosalind.m.shoemaker@usace.army.mil

Sub-Elements A-C: Limited to 5 pages per sub-element.

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.

Tables of content, proposal cover letters, and tabs between proposal information do not count toward any page limitations in the proposal.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the Scope of Work 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.

4. VOLUME II: Past Performance (Factor 1; Sub-Factor 2):

TAB CONTENTS OF THE PAST PERFORMANCE

A Sub-Factor 2 - Past Performance

Past performance refers to the quality of recent and relevant project experience from the owner’s perspective.

The offeror shall complete and provide a Past Performance Questionnaire Sheet (Appendix A, Example 3) on no fewer than two (2) and no more than three (3) projects. Projects submitted under this factor must first be deemed recent and relevant.

(1) Recent: Projects of similar size, scope and complexity that must have been completed within the last five (5) years or close to completion which is defined as a “project” that is over 75% physically complete and the completed work has been accepted by the customer.

(2) Relevant: Offer must demonstrate experience as a prime contractor on projects of similar size, scope, or complexity.

Ideally project past performance information submitted under this factor would be on the same projects submitted for consideration under Factor 1. Individual project Past Performance Questionnaire shall not exceed five (5) pages; Government evaluators will review and evaluate only the information contained on the first five

(5) pages. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. The Government will call and confirm information provided by the offeror on the Past Performance Questionnaire with the points of contact, to the extent necessary to conduct a meaningful evaluation. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available.

Other Sources. The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the offeror for information with respect to past performance. These other sources may include but are not limited to: Contract Performance Assessment Report (CPAR), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), other Government sources, and interviews with organizations or individuals familiar with the offeror’s performance.

(SEE PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE)

NOTE 1: 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.

NOTE 2: The past performance of individuals will not be considered under the Past Performance factor.

5. VOLUME III: Offerors Certifications and Price (Factor 2): One (1) original shall be submitted electronically as specified above.

TAB CONTENTS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

A The Proposal Cover Sheet B Standard Form 1442 C Acknowledgement of Amendments (If Applicable)

D FACTOR 2: PRICE

E Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications F Teaming Arrangement (If Applicable) G Bid Guarantee (Bid Bond)

TAB A – The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1(c)(2) and must be submitted by all offerors.

The format for the proposal cover sheet is as follows:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. The solicitation number;

2. The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror (and electronic address if available);

3. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

4. Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation; and

5. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal.

Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

TAB B - If applicable - All amendments must be acknowledged by all Offerors and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with FAR 4.102.

**AMENDMENT 4**

TAB C - Proposal price schedule is to be completed in its entirety by all offerors. See CLINS above Attachment 1.

TAB D – Provide a fully executed Bid Bond as required by FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee.

TAB E - Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications. Offerors shall include any narratives as it pertains to the requirement at 2.2 to document any teaming arrangement the offeror has or will enter into.

TAB F - Teaming Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 2.1 and 2.2 Note to 8(a)—SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture.

TAB G - Offerors shall provide a fully executed Bid Bond as required by FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee in both Hard copy and electronically in Tab G.

For purposes of this Request for Proposal, if the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies in a Contract Team Arrangement as defined in paragraph 2.1 above please note that in accordance with (IAW) FAR 25.001 Definitions:

“Bond means a written instrument executed by a bidder or contractor (the “principal”), and a second party (the “surety” or “sureties”) (except as provided in 28.204), to assure fulfillment of the principal’s obligations to a third party (the “obligee” or “Government”), identified in the bond. If the principal’s obligations are not met, the bond assures payment, to the extent stipulated, of any loss sustained by the obligee.”

Bonds shall therefore be executed in the name of the legal entity, whether a joint venture, partnership or the Prime Contractor of an informal teaming arrangement, with whom the Government would enter into a contract for a successful offeror. The entity named on the bond must be able to acquire bonding capacity on its own merits, and not as the result of indemnification from a subcontractor or third party.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

W912PM-17-R-0019

Island Creek Berm Repair

John H. Kerr Lake, Boydton, VA

An evaluation for acceptability will be performed on each proposal in accordance with FAR 15.101- 2(b)(3). The proposal that provides the lowest price and is otherwise technically acceptable in all factors will be selected for award. To be considered technically acceptable, no technical factor in the proposal may be determined to be unacceptable. The failure of a proposal to meet any of the acceptability standards for non-cost factors will result in a technically unacceptable rating and preclude award.

Material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable.

Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail may be considered unacceptable. The offeror’s failure to include information that the Government has indicated should be included in the proposal may result in the offer being found unacceptable.

The Government cannot make award to an offeror that is determined to have a technical proposal that is unacceptable. Therefore, receipt of an “UNACCEPTABLE” determination of acceptability for any factor will make the offer ineligible for award, unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with that Offeror and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY: In responding to this factor, the objective should be to instill confidence that the offeror has the knowledge and experience required to meet or exceed the terms and conditions of the specifications and the ability to successfully complete the project within the required timeframe.

Offerors must receive an overall rating of Acceptable for ALL Sub-Factors and Sub-Elements to receive an overall proposal rating of Technically Acceptable.

Submission Requirements:

Provide a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of three (3) examples of completed or close to complete projects for each sub-element. It is not necessary that all sub-factors and/or sub-elements below be performed on the same project. A project may also be utilized for multiple sub-elements as long as the project meets the criteria for each sub-element.

A completed project is defined as work performed under a “project” that was physically completed within the last five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation and has been accepted by the customer.

A close to complete project is defined as work performed under a “project” that is over 75% physically complete and the completed portion has been accepted by the customer.

The same projects submitted under Sub-Factor 1, Demonstrated Experience, may also be submitted and evaluated under Sub-Factor 2. Past Performance.

Sub-Factor 1: Demonstrated Experience

Sub-Element A – Permanent Earthen Dam Experience

Successful construction of permanent earthen dam or new (non-modified) permanent levee embankment (water retaining structure) at least 15 feet in height, as measured from the toe of the constructed embankment to the embankment crest.

Sub-Element B – Dewatering System Experience

Successful installation, operation, and maintenance of a dewatering system, with a minimum head differential of 10 feet maintained during dewatering operations, immediately adjacent to or within a labeled body of water. The dewatering systems must include pre-drainage, defined as dewatering prior to excavation (Examples: deeps wells, well point systems and/or ejectors).

As a part of each project submission under this sub-element, the offeror must also:

• Clearly state the type of dewatering system used.

• Clearly state the head differential maintained by each system submitted.

• Clearly describe the geology in which each dewater system was installed.

Sub-Element C – Automated Data Acquisition System Experience

Successful installation and operation of an automated data acquisition system (ADAS) on a dam.

The system must have used vibrating wire transducer technology and a wireless base station with the capability of remote data transfer.

As a part of each project submission under this sub-element, the offeror must also:

• Clearly state the type and number of instruments in the system installed.

• Clearly state the method for data retrieval from the system.

** AMENDMENT 4**

The Project Information Sheet (Attachment 1) must be utilized to The offeror shall provide project information in response to Sub-Element A, B, and C. The offeror shall ensure that all information required by the Project Information Sheet is provided and all descriptions and explanations are in great detail to provide the technical evaluation team with a clear understanding of the work completed and how it is similar to this project.

The technical evaluation team will evaluate each of the projects submitted to determine if they are similar to this project and include the specified criteria as outlined within each factor, sub-factor and sub-element.

Offerors must receive a demonstrated experience rating of Acceptable for each sub-element to receive an overall rating of Acceptable for this sub-factor.

NOTE: Do not submit more than three (3) projects as no additional consideration or evaluation will be given for the submission of more than three (3) projects.

Ratings for this sub-factor are defined below:

Acceptable - Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable - Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Sub-Factor 2: Past Performance:

The offeror shall complete and provide a Past Performance Questionnaire Sheet (Appendix A, Example

3) on no fewer than two (2) and no more than three (3) projects. The projects submitted for Past Performance may have a corresponding submission under Sub-Factor 1 Demonstrated Experience.

The past performance evaluation is 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 performances that pertain to the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation.

The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent and relevant to the effort to be acquired. The offeror may submit the same projects for Sub-Factor 1 and Sub-Factor 2 for evaluation.

**AMENDMENT 4**

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed a demonstrated experience. This will be determined by utilizing the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire attached at Attachment 2, CCASS records or official performance evaluation from a non-federal entity. The offeror must have received a rating of Satisfactory or better for each submitted project and each relevant and recent project available to the Government through its sources, to be considered acceptable.

Offerors must receive a Past Performance rating of Acceptable for ALL submitted demonstrated experiences to receive and overall rating of Acceptable for this sub-factor.

Overall ratings for this factor are defined below:

Acceptable - Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is neutral.

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

Note: If an offeror’s provided NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaires cannot be verified with the POC, 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, “neutral” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Failure to demonstrate the minimally acceptability standards under this factor will result in an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating and possible elimination from further consideration for contract award.

Factor 2: Price Evaluation:

Price analysis will be performed to determine fairness and reasonableness as well as to assure an understanding of the work and ability to execute the contract at the price proposed. The evaluation will determine the extent to which the price proposal is realistic and consistent with the requirements of the RFP, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the information provided by the offeror.

Historical price information, competitive price information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), or any other pricing tool will be utilized as necessary in making this determination. Offerors are advised that any offer wherein pricing is deemed unfair or unreasonable, to include offers deemed to be unreasonably low, will be rendered ineligible for award. Additionally, all offers will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

Price will be evaluated and considered but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation.

The otherwise technically-acceptable, lowest-priced offeror may be required to confirm its price on either a, CLIN, element, or total price basis, and/or provide additional information in support of their price, prior to contract award at the Government’s request and discretion.

DEFINITIONS OF KEY EVALUATION TERMS

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACQUISITION

1. PROPOSAL MERIT RATING SCALE WITH RISK INCORPORATED INTO THE RATINGS:

Each evaluation factor and its risk rating combined will be determined and assigned using the adjectival and color descriptions contained herein. Upon assessment of each individual sub- factor and its risk rating, the appropriate overall rating for the technical proposal will be assigned using these acceptable and unacceptable (pass/fail) ratings as defined below:

Color Rating Description

Green Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Upon assessment of past performance information, the appropriate overall rating for past performance will be assigned using these acceptable and unacceptable (pass/fail) ratings as defined below:

Color Rating Description

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

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

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

To be considered technically acceptable, no technical factor in the proposal may be determined to be unacceptable.

The failure of a proposal to meet any of the acceptability standards for non-cost factors will result in a technically unacceptable rating and preclude award.

3. CONSENSUS

The primary purpose of the consensus process is to reconcile opinions by focusing on the reasons for the disparities.

The Board’s rating for each factor must be reached by consensus, not by “averaging” or by vote. Each proposal will be analyzed by the Board in terms of the appropriate adjectival rating, the rationale supporting that rating, and questions that still need to be resolved. Consensus requires a meeting of the minds (i.e., reaching agreement) on technical and past performance acceptability determinations. The supporting rationale for the resulting consensus evaluations will be documented on the worksheets provided, as these will serve as the foundation of the technical report and the lowest price technically acceptable decision by the Source Selection Authority.

4. EXCHANGES WITH OFFERORS

There are three types of exchanges that may occur between the Government and Offerors: clarifications, communications, and discussions. They differ on when they occur, their purpose and scopes, and whether Offerors are allowed to revise their proposal as a result of these exchanges. The following chart provides a side-by-side comparison of the three types of exchanges:

ADAPTED FROM FAR 15.306 EXCHANGES WITH OFFERORS AFTER RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS

Clarifications Communications Negotiations/Discussions When They Occur

When award

WITHOUT

discussions is contemplated

When award WITH discussions is contemplated— prior to establishing the competitive range

After establishing the competitive range

Note: The term “negotiations” applies to both competitive and non-competitive acquisitions.

In a competitive acquisition, negotiations are also called discussions.

Scope of the Exchanges

Most limited of the three types Of exchanges

Limited; similar to fact finding

Most detailed and extensive

Purpose To clarify certain aspects of Proposals

To enhance the Government’s understanding of the proposal by addressing issues that must be explored to determine whether a proposal should be placed in the competitive range

To allow the offeror an opportunity to revise its proposal so that the Government obtains the best value, based on the requirement and applicable evaluation factors.

Examples of Topics of Exchanges

*Relevance of an offeror’s past performance

*Adverse past performance information

*Resolution of minor or clerical errors

*Ambiguities or other concerns (e.g., perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes)

*Relevance of an offeror’s past performance

*Adverse past performance information

See examples of potential discussion topics at Figure 7-3.

Are Resultant Proposal Revisions Allowed?

No No Yes

(End of Summary of Changes)