Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 FBO #1759
SOLICITATION NOTICE

V -- Fixed Price Contract for FC/MR&T, MS RV - Warren County, MS, Lower MS RV Museum & Riverfront Interpretive Site, MV MS Relocation

Notice Date

9/18/2006
 

Notice Type

Solicitation Notice
 

NAICS

483211 — Inland Water Freight Transportation
 

Contracting Office

US Army Engineer District, Vicksburg, ATTN: CEMVK-CT, 4155 Clay Street, Vicksburg, MS 39183-3435
 

ZIP Code

39183-3435
 

Solicitation Number

W912EE-06-R-0026
 

Response Due

11/20/2006
 

Archive Date

1/19/2007
 

Small Business Set-Aside

N/A
 

Description

1. CONTRACT INFORMATION: One (1) Fixed Price Contract will be negotiated and awarded. The anticipated contract award date is Dec 2006. The work will be accomplished in Vicksburg, Mississippi. This procurement is unrestricted. The small business si ze standard is 500 employees and the NAICS code 483211. If large business, a subcontracting plan is required to be submitted with the proposal. 2. PROJECT INFORMATION: The work consists of furnishing all plant, labor, materials and equipment, and perfo rming all work for relocating the retired U.S. Army Corps of Engineers towboat M/V Mississippi from the Yazoo River Diversion Canal to an exhibit site adjacent to the proposed Lower Mississippi River Museum and Interpretive Site, between Washington and Can al Streets in downtown Vicksburg, Mississippi. Principal features of the work include devising acceptable methods and means, planning and coordinating the work with all affected entities, temporary project fencing, auger cast grout piles, concrete cradle, neoprene bearing pads, termite control, relocation of tow boat, chain link fence, and environmental protection. 4. SELECTION CRITERIA: (PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD) 1. Proposal Evaluation. The proposals will be evaluated by a Source Selecti on Evaluation Board (SSEB) made up of qualified personnel. Board members will not be available for contact or discussion prior to submission of proposals. 2. Proposal Evaluation Criteria. The evaluation criteria below correspond to the requirements spec ified in the PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. The elements are listed in descending order of importance with Technical Proposal the most important and the remaining elements becoming increasingly less important. Unless noted otherwise, sub-criteria withi n each element are listed in their descending order of importance. a. Part 1 - Technical Capability: (1) Technical Solution. The degree to which the summary report and computations for the subject project provide the Government with confidence all aspect s of this project will be handled competently, that the vessel will be placed in its final position with minimal disruption to impacted entities and services, and that the vessel will be in a condition ready for easy development into an exhibit. (2) Quali fications and Experience of Key Personnel. The offeror shall identify key personnel with their proposed designated job positions in order to be fully evaluated. At a minimum, key personnel shall include the project superintendent, the onsite supervisor, the item curator, the ship work supervisor, and the salvage master. The degree to which key personnel have experience in technical areas and the recentness of that experience shall be listed in the resumes. The resumes shall include as a minimum the foll owing qualifications for the key personnel, the project superintendents experience managing large, interdisciplinary projects, coordinating with public agencies and interfacing with private firms. The onsite supervisors experience shall include civil wo rk projects, especially in developed urban areas, including site preparation, foundation emplacement, concrete construction, and protection of existing infrastructure from new work operations. The item curators experience shall include inventorying and c ataloging items for museum exhibits and familiarity with ships and with items and equipment normally used on board vessels. The ship work supervisors shall include experience with work normally done by a shipyard including vessel cleaning, structural rep airs and modifications, dry-docking procedures, and painting of vessels. The salvage masters experience shall include handling, lifting and transporting items or vessels of similar size to or greater than the M/V MISSISSIPPI. (3) Qualifications and Exper ience of Management Staff. The degree to which the management staff has experience in furnishing support for operation that involve project management, schedul e control, coordination with public agencies and regulatory bodies, inventorying and cataloguing of museum exhibit, shipyard work coordination and support, civil construction work, and vessel salvage mobilization and support. b. Part 2 - Project Schedule . The schedule will be evaluated to assess the offerors understanding of the, project scope, phasing requirements, milestones and constraints, and critical elements in construction. The project periods offered, the proposed contract durations, and the ove rall project schedule will be evaluated for realism and for benefits they provide to the Government. c. Part 3 - Past Performance. The offerors proposal will be evaluated by the degree to which the offeror has demonstrated successful performance in compl etion of projects similar in scope and complexity to the work listed for this project. The Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance. In this context, offeror refers to the proposed prime contractor and all proposed major subcontractors. In each case, the prime contractor and proposed major subcontractors will be assessed individually and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the offerors Performance Risk rating. The Government will conduct a Performance Risk assessment based on the quality, relevancy and currency of the offeror's past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. Areas of relevance include contracts which are similar in scope. When assessing Performance Risk, the Government will focus its inquiry on th e past performance of the offeror and its proposed major subcontractors as it relates to all solicitation requirements. These requirements include all aspects of performance, including the offerors record of: 1) adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; 2) effectiveness of project management; and 3) business-like concern for the interest of its customers. In conducting the performance evaluation, the Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources. d. Part 4 - Subcontracting Plan. This paragraph does not apply to small businesses. The offeror will be evaluated on the extent of participation of small and disadvantaged business on the project. Proposals will be eval uated with respect to utilization of Small, Small Disadvantaged, and Women-Owned Small Business Subcontractors. The SSEB will evaluate the offeror's presentation of facts, details, and narratives which identify the firm's efforts and degree of success in complying with FAR Clause 52.219-8, Utilization of Small, Small Disadvantaged, and Women-Owned, Small Business Concerns or similar requirements of other Government agencies or non-Government contracts. The SSEB will evaluate the effectiveness of the offero r's efforts to solicit and degree of success in subcontracting labor or materials to such firms. The offerors subcontracting plan will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with AFARS 19.705. To be acceptable, subcontracting plans must: (1) Adequately address the six required statutory elements. (2) Provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to answer affirmatively questions A through H of Appendix CC, Part 2, Number 8, (AFARS 19.705). (3) Any subcontracting plan th at is rated 70 percent or less under the AFARS evaluation system will be carefully considered for acceptability. If discussions with offerors are necessary, those areas where the plan is deficient will be reviewed with the offeror with the goal of correcti ng deficiencies. Due to requirements for review of the successful offeror's subcontracting plan by other agencies, the Government reserves the right to negotiate the fin al plan with the successful offeror before award. e. Part 5 - Cost and Price. The offerors proposed cost and price will be evaluated for reasonableness and affordability. Technical Capability and Past Performance are more important than price. 3. Metho d of Proposal Evaluation. a. Governments Rights and Goals. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award, to negotiate with any or all offerors, to award a contract to other than the offeror submitting the l owest price offer, and to award a contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to be most advantageous to the Government. b. Evaluation Process. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), comprised of qualified personnel, will evaluate the proposals. The team will independently evaluate each proposal in response to this RFP and rate them in accordance with the provisions established in the RFP. The technical and non-technical aspects of each proposal will be evaluated. Weighing of evalua tion criteria takes into consideration the importance of a particular element. The SSEB will review each proposal to determine if they contain the required minimum procurement and technical data. Each proposal must contain all the information required by the RFP. A proposal may be determined to be unacceptable and eliminated if requi red information is missing or the proposal materially deviates from the requirements of the RFP. The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review, technical/quality evaluation, price evaluation, and cost/technical trad e-off analysis. (1) Proposal Compliance Review. This is an initial check by Contracting Division on the basis of the RFP requirements. This review may eliminate those proposals that fail to provide all required information and documents in the format and detail specified. This review is to ensure that all required information is complete. (2) Technical/Quality Evaluation. The SSEB, using technical advisors, if necessary, will evaluate all proposals submitted in response to the RFP. (3) Price Evaluation. The Government will initially evaluate price independently from the technical evaluation. Price will not be rated, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearan ce of unbalancing of bids. Offerors are cautioned to include all applicable costs in the appropriate bid items, and to evenly distribute indirect costs (such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc.) to the appropriate bid items. (4) Cost/Technic al Trade-off Analysis. After the price analysis and technical/quality evaluations are complete, the Government will then consider the price in connection with the technical/quality evaluation to determine the proposal offering the most advantage to the Gov ernment. The Government will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of the technical proposals and compare prices. The trade-off analysis will be conducted upon completion of the quality/price evaluations of Final Proposal Revisions, if discussi ons are necessary, or after evaluation of initial offers, if discussions will not be necessary. Some trade-off considerations are usually part of the process of determining which firms will be included in the competitive range for discussions, if discussio ns are necessary. The requirements of Section 00700, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HubZone Small Business Concerns, will be applied in making the cost/technical trade-off analysis. If discussions are not needed, the Government will award to th e contractor submitting the best overall value. If it is determined that discussions must be held, a competitive range shall be established. The competitive range shall consist of those firms considered to be the highest qualified and having the best cha nce of being awarded a resultant contract. At that time, the entire proposal su bmitted by the contractor may be targeted by the Government for discussions. An award will be made to the offeror whose offer contains the combination of the criteria offering the best overall proposal to the Government based on consideration of technical merit, project schedule, past performance, cost, and other pertinent factors as specified in the RFP. All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest cost offer provided the superior offer provides a technical advantage which offsets the additional cost. Using the above basis for determination, the Contracting Officer will select the firm submitting the overall best va lue to the Government for award of a contract. c. Selection. Selection of a Contractor will be made by an integrated assessment of the proposals submitted. In essence, the integrated assessment will involve a determination by the Government of the overal l merit of each Contractor's proposal, recognizing that subjective judgment on the part of the Government's evaluators is implicit in the entire process. This award will be made to the offeror whom the Government determines is able to accomplish the necess ary work and provide the required service to satisfy the objectives and requirements set forth in the Request for Proposals in a manner most advantageous to the Government. The Government may reject any or all proposals and waive minor informalities or min or irregularities in proposals. This award will result in a firm fixed-price contract. NOTE: ALL OFFERORS ARE ADVISED THAT THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS AND AWARD A CONTRACT, WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS WITH OFFERORS (OTHER THAN DISCUSSIONS CONDUC TED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MINOR CLARIFICATION). HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT DISCUSSIONS IF IT IS LATER DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO BE NECESSARY, AT WHICH TIME DISCUSSIONS WILL BE CONDUCTED WITH ALL OFFERORS DETERMINED T O BE IN THE COMPETITIVE RANGE. THEREFORE, EACH INITIAL OFFER SHOULD CONTAIN THE OFFEROR'S BEST TERMS FROM A TECHNICAL AND COST OR PRICE (IF APPLICABLE) STANDPOINT. DO NOT ASSUME YOU WILL BE CONTACTED OR AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY, DISCUSS, OR REVIS E YOUR PROPOSAL. d. Notification of Selection. The Contracting Officer will notify the selected offeror upon Contract Award. e. Notification of Non-Selection. At the end of the establishment of the competitive range and Contract Award, the Contracting Officer will notify each offeror not selected, advising them of their right to request a debriefing. Plans and specifications will be available on the Technicl Data Solutions (FEDTEDS) Web Page at http://www.fedteds.gov. Compact discs and hardcopies will not be available. Offerors should check http://www.fedteds.gov often for new solicitations and/or changes (AMENDMENTS) to existing ones. Issue date on or about 05 Oct 2006. Proposals are due not later than 1645 hours, 20 Nov 2006. Funds are not presentl y available for this acquisition. Rights-of-Way are not presently available for this acquisition. No contract award will be made until appropriated funds and required rights-of-way are made available.
 

Place of Performance

Address: US Army Engineer District, Vicksburg ATTN: CEMVK-CT, 4155 Clay Street Vicksburg MS

Zip Code: 39183-3435

Country: US
 

Record

SN01147140-W 20060920/060918221247 (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 |