SOLICITATION NOTICE
Y -- Waste Compost Facility at US Army Garrison, West Point West Point, NY
- Notice Date
- 7/1/2015
- Notice Type
- Presolicitation
- NAICS
- 562219
— Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACE District, New York, Attn: CENAN-CT, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York, 10278-0090, United States
- ZIP Code
- 10278-0090
- Solicitation Number
- W912DS-15-R-0013
- Archive Date
- 9/15/2015
- Point of Contact
- Rippert P. Roberts, , ,
- E-Mail Address
-
Rippert.P.Roberts@usace.army.mil, NYDContracting@usace.army.mil
(Rippert.P.Roberts@usace.army.mil, NYDContracting@usace.army.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Synopsis of Waste Compost Facility at US Army Garrison, West Point West Point, NY The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District intends to issue a request for a design-build contractor to conduct an assessment and study of current solid waste streams at United States Military Academy-West Point (USMA-WP). Based on this assessment, the design-build contractor will review available technologies, make recommendations and develop a design for the waste composting system. The recommendations from the completed assessment will be integrated in the system design. The design-build contractor will obtain all permits, construct the waste composting system, provide training to USMA personnel and develop a program that will allow USMA- Department of Public Works (DPW) to collect data to ensure waste stream amounts are documented and the right combination of waste stream are maintained for optimal operation of the system. The final design and function of the composting system must be formally accepted by the Government prior to issuance of the construction notice to proceed. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 562219 In accordance with FAR 36.204 and DFAR 236.204, the estimated magnitude of construction is between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. The anticipated period of performance for this acquisition is 365 calendar days from the date the contractor receives the Notice to Proceed (NTP). This acquisition will be Unrestricted for Full and Open Competition. The acquisition process that will be used is a Design-Build, One-Step Request for Proposal, Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procurement. Design-Bid-Build (DBB) type procurement is not appropriate. Award will be made to one (1) offeror who is deemed by the Government to be responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), conforms to the solicitation requirements; and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria, represents the best value to the Government. Offerors will be evaluated based on technical factors including Specialized Experience, Past Performance, and Qualifications of the Offeror's Team and Price. The One Step Design Build evaluation will use the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable method to determine the awardee among those offerors that have provided proposals. The following will be the technical evaluation factors for informational purposes only. If you are interested in submitting a proposal for this project you must respond to the solicitation and any amendments. Final information regarding the selection criteria and requirements for this procurement will be provided in the solicitation on or about 16 July 2015. FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE - SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: To demonstrate recent, relevant experience, the Offeror must use the Specialized Experience forms - (Attachment 2 for construction experience). If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, Limited Liability Corporation, members of a Teaming Agreement, or integrated design-build firm provide experience information for design and construction, demonstrating the experience of each proposed design and construction entity as is relevant to their proposed role on this project. Submit projects that are currently well underway (designed and at least 75% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer than seven (7) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. If any firm has multiple divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division submitting the offer. The Offeror shall submit a minimum of two (2) projects, one of which must have been performed by the Prime Contractor, but no more than seven (7) projects for Factor 1. At least one (1) project must demonstrate adapt/build or design/build experience. If the Offeror proposes to use an architect-engineer firm as part of the Offeror's team, the architect-engineer firm shall submit a minimum of two (2) projects for Factor 1. The total number of projects submitted for Factor 1 shall not exceed seven (7) project examples. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The Offeror will be evaluated on the relevancy of the experience demonstrated in the submitted EXPERIENCE INFORMATION FACT SHEET, Form A2. Factor 1 shall be rated in accordance with information provided below. The projects submitted should include the following criteria.  Projects shall be considered similar in scope if they contain any of the following: o If the project included waste stream analysis of food, yard waste (leaves, grass, tree trimmings, etc.) and wastewater treatment sludge. o If the project required the Offeror to obtain the required environmental permitting associated with implementation and construction of a composting facility o A composting facility which handles an estimated amount of waste greater than or equal to ten (10) tons per day. o Required the Offerors involvement in stakeholder and public relations facilitation associated with implementation of a solid waste treatment system.  Projects shall be considered similar in magnitude if they contain any of the following: o Any project where the construction cost was greater than or equal to $500,000. Where this combination of experience includes the following, the proposal may be rated as deficient (the following list does not encompass all possible deficiencies): - Experience examples are not verifiable. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience by reviewing the Construction Contractor (or Architect-Engineer) Appraisal Support System (CCASS/ACASS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview commercial owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. The relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project will not be evaluated or considered under this factor. Rating Guidelines for Factor 1: The government will not award to an Offeror that receives an unacceptable rating for this factor. Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. 3.1.2. FACTOR 2 - CONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE The Offeror will provide past performance information on the projects submitted under Factor 1 using the past performance questionnaires included in the solicitation. In addition to the past performance questionnaires provided, the Government intends to use the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). However, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s) or other personnel with knowledge of performance, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources. The past performance evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance competence assessment as described in the guidelines, below. Negative performance information includes the issuance of cure notices, terminations for default, or the requirement for excessive oversight in order to achieve satisfactory completion. A single example of negative performance, if significant enough, may lead to a negative rating for this factor. Likewise, multiple examples of less significant negative performance may lead to a negative rating for this factor. In conducting the performance competence assessment, the Government will consider the relevancy of the past performance information available. Highly relevant projects are those that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the current solicitation, although the past performance may still be considered if the projects do not fully meet the criteria for Factor 1, Past Experience. In addition, the Offeror is required to provide any information on past projects (within the past five (5) years) that were terminated (for any reason) or in which they have been issued a CURE NOTICE and provide accompanying information as to the details for such action(s) with an explanation of why they were terminated or issued a cure notice. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The Government will evaluate the relevancy of the Offeror's record of past performance information in accordance with the table shown below. Based on the Offeror's recent relevant performance record, the Government will make a determination as to the expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned in accordance with the table shown below. Where 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 will receive an Unknown Confidence (neutral) rating. This rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable. Rating Guidelines for Factor 2 PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS 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. 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort. Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unsatisfactory Rating for this factor. The Government will review the relative risk of the contractors ratings but normally not award to an Offeror that receives unacceptable rating in this factor: EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM 3.1.2.1 General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor and sub-factor(s). The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified under Phase 1 to short-list for participation in Phase 2. 3.1.2.2 Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications. 3.1.2.3 Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of "Acceptable",, or "Unacceptable" to factor 1 and factor 3 and sub-factor (except those factors rated as GO/NO-GO and except for the Past Performance Factor), which reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment: 3.1.2.4 Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. 3.1.2.5 Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. 3.1.2.6 Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable. 3.1.3 FACTOR 3 - QUALIFICATIONS OF THE OFFEROR'S TEAM QUALIFICATIONS OF THE OFFEROR'S TEAM a. Submission Requirements i. Offerors must submit resumes for the following Key Personnel: 1. Overall Project Manager 2. Senior Environmental Engineer (Responsible for Waste Stream Analysis and Environmental Permitting Requirements). 3. Senior Civil Engineer (Responsible for Civil Design) 4. Site Superintendent (Overall Field Manager responsible for Construction). ii. All resumes must include the following information and may NOT exceed three (3) pages per Resume: • Name and title • Assignment on this project • Name of firm with which associated • Years experience with the firm (in the employee's field of expertise/discipline) and years of experience with other firms (in the field of expertise/ discipline) • Educational degree(s), year of degree, and institution • Active professional registration and year first registered, if applicable • Other experience and qualifications relevant to same/similar work required under this contract • List of projects in which the individual has worked to include Name of project(s), project location(s) and the role or position filled by the individual. iii. The resumes of the key personnel listed above must indicate that they have the experience and degrees as prescribed in the table below. iv. Degrees listed in resumes must be from institutions of higher education, such as United States universities or colleges. v. Resumes of key personnel must demonstrate that key personnel candidates have the minimum of number of years of relevant professional experience (see Table 1, below, for minimum qualifications). For example, the Senior Civil Engineer must have a degree in Civil Engineering and a minimum of five (5) years of professional mechanical engineering experience (for example, from September 2010 to Present). vi. The Offeror must document whether personnel proposed for work under the project are currently employed by the Offeror. When the Offeror is a joint venture, key personnel who are employees of any of the joint venture partners meet this requirement. When resumes indicate that key personnel candidates are not currently employed by the Offeror (this includes key personnel candidates currently employed by subcontractors), the Offeror must provide a signed letter of commitment, dated within one month before the date the Offeror submitted its proposal under the Solicitation, signed by both the key personnel candidate and the Offeror, and specifically referencing the Solicitation number and title. The signed letters of commitment will not count towards the page limitation of either the resumes or the overall page limitation of this Section.   b. Evaluation Criteria i. The Offeror's proposed key personnel will be evaluated against the minimum qualifications stated below: Table 1 Position Experience and Education 1Overall Project Manager Architecture or Engineering Degree (civil, electrical, mechanical or structural; see paragraph a. iv., above) with a minimum of 5 years professional experience as a Project Manager. Resume must identify at least 2 examples of previous construction projects on which he or she was the Project Manager. 2 Senior Environmental Engineer Environmental Engineering Degree with a minimum of 10 years experience as an Environmental Engineer. Resume must identify at least 3 examples of previous waste stream/composting analysis and facility construction projects on which he or she was involved in the permitting, design and construction process. 3 Senior Civil Engineer Civil Engineering Degree (see paragraph a.iv., above) with a Minimum 5 years professional experience as a Civil/Structural Engineer. A Professional Engineer's License as a Civil Engineer. Resume must identify at least 2 examples of previous projects on which he or she was the Civil Engineer of Record. 4 Senior Electrical Engineer Electrical Engineering Degree (see paragraph a.iv., above) with a Minimum 5 years professional experience as an electrical Engineer. A Professional Engineer's License as an Electrical Engineer. Resume must identify at least 2 examples of previous projects on which he or she was the Electrical Engineer of Record. 5 Site Superintendent Site Superintendent with a minimum of 5 years of construction experience. Resume must identify at least 2 projects of construction projects in which he or she performed the duties of a Site Superintendent. Rating Guidelines for Factor 3 The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an unacceptable rating in this factor. Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation The media selected for issuance of Synopsis/Solicitation and amendments shall solely be at the discretion of the Government; accordingly, the media utilized for this project shall be the internet. Paper copies of this solicitation and amendments, if any, will not be available or issued. In accordance with DFARS 252.204-7007, all vendors who want access to the solicitation must be registered with System for Award Management (SAM), located at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ and Federal Business Opportunity (FedBizOpps), located at http://www.fbo.gov, in order to safeguard acquisition-related information for all Federal Agencies. Interested parties may download and print the solicitation at no charge from the FedBizOpps website http://www.fbo.gov. Some contractor tools are as follows: 1. Register to receive Notification, and 2. Subscribe to the Mailing List for specific solicitations at Federal Business Opportunities (www.fbo.gov) or utilize the Vendor Notification Service in ASFI (https://www.acquisition.army.mil/asfi). FedBizOpps directs vendors to hyperlinks for Federal Business opportunities, such as solicitations, plans, specifications, and amendments. Check www.fbo.gov frequently for information and updates. Project specification files and drawings are portable document files (PDF). The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition Technology & Logistics (OUSD{AT&L}) A Guide to Collection & Use of Past Performance Information dated 2003 and FAR Part 36 requires the collection and use of past performance information (PPI) in acquiring best-value goods and services. FAR Subpart 36.3 and DFARS Subpart 236.2 mandate the use of Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) by all DoD agencies for construction contracts greater than or equal to $650,000 or more than $10,000 if the contract was terminated for default. CPARS is located at: https://www.cpars.gov/index.htm. More definitive guidance and instructions will be incorporated in the solicitation and resultant contract. For further information, contact: Rippert P. Roberts III, Contract Specialist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1843, New York, NY 10278-0090. E-mail: rippert.p.roberts@usace.army.mil or NYDCONTRACTING@usace.army.mil
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USA/COE/DACA51/W912DS-15-R-0013/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: US Army Garrison, West Point, West Point, New York, 10996, United States
- Zip Code: 10996
- Zip Code: 10996
- Record
- SN03783025-W 20150703/150701235825-96bf26dcdc06b61579f10a19ba89b614 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |