20220801 - 00 22 00 - RF - clean (PIVOT Language)_DRAFT.pdf

SECTION 00 22 00

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK

Construct a Radio Frequency Facility (RF Hangar) at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota: This project will be executed using a design-bid-build (DBB) project delivery method, which will require the contractor to provide the government with a complete facility and warranty based on the Request for Proposal (RFP).

The estimated construction cost of this project is between $60,000,000 and $80,000,000.

This project will provide a new, approximately 64,500 SF, Radio Frequency Facility (RF Hangar) with a single aircraft measurement bay and all associated back shop, administrative and facility support spaces. This project will include a space or spaces constructed to secure area standard Intelligence Community Directive/Intelligence Community Standard 705 (ICD/ICS 705) See 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS for additional information and requirements.

The facilities will be designed as permanent construction in accordance with the DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-01, General Building Requirements and UFC 1-200-02, High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements. Each facility should be compatible with applicable DoD, Air Force, and base design standards. In addition, local materials and construction techniques shall be used where cost effective. This project will comply with DoD antiterrorism/force protection requirements per unified facilities criteria. All work shall be in accordance with RFP documents issued within this solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.215-1. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint. Offerors shall organize their proposals as described herein. Proposals may be determined non-compliant for failure to follow this format and may be rejected from further consideration.

Competition for this contract will be full and open competition. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction), with a corresponding small business size standard of $39.5M.

THE OFFEROR SHOULD BE REGISTERED IN SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

WEBSITE (SAM.GOV) FOR NAICS CODE 236220 PRIOR TO THE DATE PROPOSALS ARE

DUE.

2. TECHNICAL RATINGS

The acquisition approach for this project will be a Bifurcated Best Value RFP following FAR Part

15. It provides the advantages of a traditional Best Value Trade-off procurement method but advertises the 95% or 100% backcheck design while the 100% ready to advertise design is being developed. The Bifurcated Best Value process means that a portion of technical proposals will be due first. At that time, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will convene and begin to independently evaluate each proposal against the factors in the solicitation. Not less than 30 days after submission of Volume I proposals, the amendment for 100% ready to advertise design will be issued and offerors will have not less than 30 days to submit their price proposals (Volume II) to include Factor 4, Small Business Participation Plan and Price. Upon receipt of Volume II, the SSEB will reconvene to evaluate the remaining evaluation factors. Price Analysis review and the Source Selection Authority review of the Best Value Trade-off will commence after Volume II submission.

Offerors must submit a Volume I (Technical) proposal in order to submit a Volume II (Pricing) proposal. Offerors shall assume that revisions to Volume I (Technical) proposals will not be allowed, accepted, or evaluated after formal Volume I submission on the requested date – unless requested by the Government by amendment or other formal correspondence.

The evaluation ratings for Technical Factors 2 and 3 will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the particular strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The Source Selection Team (SST) will use a combined technical/risk rating system that 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 Table 1. The Combined technical/risk ratings will be used to evaluate Factor 2 Project Management Plan and Factor 3 Key Personnel. The evaluation rating that will be used for Factor 1 Past Performance and Factor 4 Small Business Participation is described further below.

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

RATING DEFINITIONS

Strength: is 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

Significant Strength: is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance

Weakness: a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

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

3. PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

The Past Performance evaluation factor (Factor 1) assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror's recent Past Performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the Past Performance evaluation, Relevancy and Contractor Performance, which are described below:

a. Relevancy. The first aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how relevant previous projects accomplished by the Offeror is to the anticipated work to be accomplished under this project scope. Recent is defined as Past Performance on contracts that had a construction completion date (otherwise known as a building occupancy date (BOD)) within the past ten (10) years of this solicitation release. Relevancy is defined as similarity of items stated within this solicitation such as: types of projects, dollar value, contract type, and relative complexity. With respect to relevancy, more relevant Past Performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance confidence assessment. Relevancy is not a separate proposal rating but is used to develop an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The four levels of relevancy ratings are:

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

Not Relevant. Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope

b. Contractor Performance. 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 stakeholders on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Source Selection Evaluation Board will review this Past Performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

After evaluating relevancy and contractor performance, a Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be determined. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings:

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. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a) (2) (iv), “In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance.”

4. SMALL BUSINESS RATING METHOD

The small business evaluation for Factor 4 will utilize the following ratings as stated in the below table for this solicitation.

Table 2: Small Business Rating Method Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

5. OBTAINING PAST PERFORMANCE RECORDS

Past performance records may be obtainable by Offerors using one of the following methods:

(1) Accessing Past Performance information directly from Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) website at https://www.cpars.gov/ for CCASS completed before 27 June 2014 and for merged CPARS completed after 1 July 2014. CPARS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major federal performance reporting systems and can be accessed at the aforementioned website.

All Department of Defense (DoD) employees (military and civilian), including DoD Contractors that are working on site (military/government facilities) or contractors working offsite using Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) are required to use certificates from DoD Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) to access CPARS. If the contractor doesn't work on site or with GFE they are encouraged to obtain and use a certificate from an External Certificate Authority (ECA). For DoD users, the use of PKI Login is Mandatory. Federal and Contractor users can use the PKI login category if they have PKI.

External Certificate Authority External Certificate Authorities (ECAs) and Interim External Certificate Authorities (IECAs) provide digital certificates to the DoD's private industry partners, contractors using their own equipment or working in non-government facilities, allied partners, and other agencies.

Additional information about the PKI certificate is at https://www.cpars.gov/pki_info.htm web page.

You will also need your Unique Entity ID (EID) and Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) to log onto CPARS. The MPIN number was selected by whoever registered your company in the System for Award Management (SAM) Registry at https://sam.gov/. If you do not know your MPIN number, you will need to contact the SAM help desk by emailing them from the email link on the SAM web page. Please be aware that they will only release the MPIN number to the person who originally registered your company. Additional instructions on locating your MPIN is located in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section under the Help tab, or -

(2) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) may be used to provide or supplement a firm’s past performance with other than U.S. Governmental clients. Contact your client point of contact (POC) for the project you need a past performance record and request the POC to https://www.cpars.gov/ https://sam.gov/ https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ complete the PPQ. The PPQ included in this solicitation is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project the Offeror may need a past performance record for to meet the requirements in this synopsis. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client POC. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). It is the Offeror’s responsibility to follow-up with client POCs to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Shawn Adkins, Contract Specialist, via email at Shawn.A.Adkins@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs; this does not preclude an Offeror submitting a previously completed PPQ as long as the full PPQ is submitted and completed in its entirety. This also does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If a PPQ is to be submitted for a project, the complete PPQ shall be submitted (either by the client POC or the Offeror) prior to proposal closing date.

6. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

Table 3: Volume I Required Submittal Items (Not Rated) Location Description Descending Order of

Importance TAB A SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments Not Rated

TAB B Representations & Certifications Not Rated

TAB C JV Agreement or Teaming Agreement (if applicable). Not Rated

Table 4: Volume I Evaluation Factors

Importance

TAB D Factor 1 – Past Performance 1st Most Important Factor

TAB E Factor 2 – Project Management Plan 2nd Most Important Factor

TAB F Factor 3 – Key Personnel 3rd Most Important Factor mailto:Shawn.A.Adkins@usace.army.mil

Table 5: Volume II Required Submittal Items (Not Rated)

Importance TAB A SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments Not Rated

TAB B (See Vol II Evaluation Factors Below)

TAB C (See Vol II Evaluation Factors Below)

TAB D Small Business Subcontracting Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable

TAB E Any new JV Agreement or Teaming Agreement (if applicable). Not Rated

Table 6: Volume II Evaluation Factors

Location Volume II Factors Descending Order of Importance

TAB B Factor 4 – Small Business Participation 4th Most Important Factor

TAB C Factor 5 – Section 00 10 00, Pricing Schedule

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

7. BASIS OF AWARD

The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described within the solicitation, and will award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the Government utilizing a bifurcated approach under the best value tradeoff process as described in FAR 15.101-1.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without conducting discussions with Offerors. However, in the event the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) concludes conducting discussions is in the best interest of the Government, the PCO will document the rationale for the competitive range determination, in which the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will review and approve the PCO’s determination. If the PCO 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 PCO 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. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Preaward Debriefing of offerors or FAR 15.506 Postaward Debriefing of Offerors.

7.1. EVALUATION OF OPTIONS. Per FAR 52.217-5, except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

8. VOLUME I

Proposals shall be submitted by the time and date as specified in Section 00 10 00, Page 1. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) applied to all documents that will enable word searches to be conducted using Adobe-compatible PDF software. The two (2) volumes listed below shall be submitted as “SEPARATE” single files. Due to heightened security at Government installations, the proposal shall be delivered to the following. Offers must be submitted electronically via DOD Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) at https://safe.apps.mil/ to the following recipients:

1. Shawn Adkins, Shawn.A.Adkins@usace.army.mil

2. Glenda Canty, Glenda.A.Canty@usace.army.mil

**Offerors accessing the DOD SAFE site as a GUEST (a “Guest” is defined as a user who is not assigned a CAC) must request a package invitation from the Contract Specialist listed in Section 00 22 00 a minimum of 48-business hours prior to the close of the RFP.**

For the purposes of determining whether the proposal was received "late" in accordance with FAR 15.208, the date and time the file(s) are received by the USACE Outlook Server or uploaded into the DOD SAFE website as identified in the DOD SAFE notification e-mail sent to the Contract Specialist(s)/ Contracting Officer will be the time and date the Government received the proposal. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal.

Page limitations for Volumes I & II (Evaluation Factors 1 through 4) are identified within the instructions for each factor where applicable. Title Sheets, Tables of Content, Dividers, and blank pages are not included in the page limitations and will not be counted as such. A one-page cover letter or title sheet is recommended as the first page of each file identifying your firm’s name, the file’s title, and describing any applicable contractor team arrangements as defined in Tab C below. Any extraneous information or cover letters that provide additional information about your firm that is not requested by this solicitation will not be reviewed or evaluated.

Pages for each factor should be separately and sequentially numbered (i.e., the first page submitted for evaluation for each factor should be “1”). All text shall be at least 10 pt. font and easily read. All text shall be typed and single-spaced. Each page shall be 8-1/2” x 11” (organizational chart, risk assessment and project schedule are the only documents that may be submitted on an 11” x 17”). Margins should be no less than 1” (right, left, top, and bottom).

Pages that exceed the page limitations for any factor will not be reviewed and the information contained on those pages will not be considered for evaluation. Page limitations are per factor, i.e., an Offeror may not reduce the page count for one factor in order to submit additional pages for another factor.

8.1. TAB A. Standard Form (SF1442), Solicitations, Offer, and Acknowledgement of Amendments. The SF1442 shall be completed by the offeror and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with instructions at FAR

4.102. Include with the offeror’s name and address in BLOCK 14 of the SF1442, your company’s EID, CAGE, and Tax Identification numbers. Offerors shall acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in Block 19. If the offeror fails to acknowledge all amendments, the proposal (Volumes I and II) will be considered as non-compliant and shall not be evaluated further.

8.2. TAB B. Certifications/Representations and other Statements of Offerors. This TAB shall contain Section 00 45 00, Certifications/Representations which are provided in this solicitation, including the Representation & Certifications cover page. Fill in all applicable areas. Offerors shall include in this TAB their completed electronic Representation and Certifications from the SAM.gov website. Since FAR Clause 52.204-7 System for Award Management is applicable to this solicitation, the offeror in accordance with FAR 52.204-8 (d) is required to complete the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM website accessed through https://www.sam.gov. After review the SAM database information, the offeror verified by submission of the offer that the representations and certifications currently posted electronically that apply to this solicitation as indicated in paragraph ( C ) of this provision have been entered or updated within the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), as of the date of this offer and are incorporated in this offer by reference (see FAR 4.1201); except for the changes identified by the offeror under this provision.

8.3. TAB C. Contractor Team Arrangements. If applicable, the offerors shall provide a copy of the firm’s JV Agreement.

8.3.1 Contractor Team Arrangements Other Than Joint Venture/ Mentor-Protégé.

All offerors proposing a team arrangement other than a Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé, shall submit the following information in the Required Documents file:

a. A listing of each team arrangement member’s corporate name (no abbreviations), address, point of contact, phone number, EID, and Cage Code.

b. A copy of the signed team arrangement agreement or binding letter of commitment between each team member. All team arrangement agreements and letters of commitment shall:

(1) Clearly identify the expected relationship, role and responsibility between the firms, Prime Contractor, and of the subcontractor or other entity (type and proportion of work to be performed); and

(2) Be signed by the appropriate individual(s) of each company.

8.3.2. Joint Venture Team Arrangements (Including Mentor-Protégés).

No contract may be awarded to a Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé that is not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. The Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé must have its own registered Unique Entity ID (EID) and/or Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. Any Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé agreement that is required to be approved by the Small Business Administration (SBA) shall be approved in accordance to the applicable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If the applicable requirements are not met prior to the due date for proposals, the proposal will be rendered unawardable.

a. In the title sheet/cover letter of your proposal, provide the complete names, addresses, and phone number of the firms comprising the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé.

b. A copy of the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé agreement.

c. Signature requirements: SF 1442, SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD, Block 20, requires that the name and title of a person authorized to sign the offer for the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé be provided. In the case of a Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé, subject Standard Form shall be signed by the principal representative of the Joint Venture/ Mentor-Protégé (or the alternate principal representative, if the principal representative is unavailable).

d. In addition to the requirements stated above, and to assure a single point of contact for resolution of contractual matters and payments, the Offeror shall submit a certificate signed by each participant in the Joint Venture containing the following statement:

“The parties hereto expressly understand and agree as follows:

1. (Name, title, and company) is the principal representative of the Joint Venture. As such, all communications regarding the administration of the contract and the performance of the work thereunder may be directed to him or her. In the absence of (same name, title, and company), (enter name, title, and company of alternate) is the alternate principal representative of the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé. These individuals have authority to sign on behalf of the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé.

2. Direction, approvals, required notices, and all other communications from the Government to the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé, including transmittal of payments by the Government, shall be directed to (enter name, title, and company of principal), principal representative of the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé.”

NOTE: Provide telephone numbers and email addresses for the points of contact listed in the above statement.

8.3.3. Integrity and Validity of Contractor Team Arrangements

The Contracting Officer will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements;

provided that the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed and validation of formal agreements and relationships (i.e., Mentor-Protégé agreements, Joint Ventures, partnerships, etc.) are provided in the offer and submitted with the proposal responding to the solicitation. Nothing in the solicitation authorizes contractor team arrangements in violation of antitrust statutes or limits the Government’s rights to:

a. Require consent to subcontracts (see FAR Subpart 44.2);

b. Determine, based on the stated contractor team arrangement, the responsibilities of the

Prime Contractor (see FAR Subpart 9.1);

c. Provide to the Prime Contractor data rights owned or controlled by the Government;

d. Pursue its policies on competitive contracting, subcontracting, and component breakout initial production or an any other time; and

e. Hold the Prime Contractor fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of team arrangement between the Prime Contractor and its subcontractors.

8.4 TAB D. VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

8.4.1 Submission Requirements (Page limitations: no more than a three (3) page narrative per project example submitted; no more than a two (2) page narrative to describe any past teaming experience; no page limitations on official past performance records such as PPQs and/or

CPARS)

There are three aspects to the performance confidence evaluations: recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. Relevance and quality of performance will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. The project examples requested within this factor must be of relevant scope and complexity to the solicited project.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EXAMPLES: The Offeror should submit three (3) projects similar in project size, scope, and complexity to this project to be performed by the Prime Offeror. Offeror should limit each project example to three (3) narrative pages per project submitted. If more than three (3) narrative pages are submitted per project, only the first three pages will be evaluated. In addition to the three (3) project examples, the Offeror may submit a two (2) page narrative to describe any past teaming experience between current team members as it relates to any or all of the three (3) submitted project examples. The page limitation for Factor 1 shall be a maximum of eleven (11) pages, plus past performance evaluations for each project (described below). Any information presented beyond the page limit will not be evaluated. All project examples submitted should have a completion date (or BOD) no greater than the past ten (10) years from the advertisement of this solicitation. Projects should be substantially complete, meaning more than 90% invoiced and paid.

Each project example submitted shall meet the following criteria:

1. Past project examples submitted for this factor shall have been awarded to the Offeror

(either singly or one of the participants in a JV named on the SF1442 for this solicitation (W9128F22R0054)). The company shall have been the Prime Contractor for the past project, either singly or as a member of the Joint Venture to which it was awarded.

The table below provides example scenarios based on the requirements above:

Scenario Examples Project Examples Qualify for Evaluation for Factor 1 (if all other requirements are met)

1 Past project was awarded to Company X only. Company X is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F22R0054 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F22R0054.

Yes

2 Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”). Past project was awarded to Company Y only. Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F22R0054 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F22R0054.

Yes

3 Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”). Past project was awarded to JV Company YZ. Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F22R0054 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F22R0054.

Yes

4 Past Project was awarded to Company “AY,” a JV composed of Company A (not Prime Offeror for RFP W9128F22R0054) and Company Y. Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”). JV Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F22R0054.

Yes

5 Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”).

Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F22R0054 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F22R0054. Company Y performed work on the past project, but was not the Prime Contractor for the past project (either singly or as a member of a JV).

No

6 Company X is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F22R0054 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F22R0054. Company X will use Company R as a teaming member/subcontractor but Company R is not part of a JV with Company X for W9128F22R0054. The past project was awarded to Company R as a Prime Contractor (singly or as a member of a JV), but not Company X (singly or as a member of a JV).

7 Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”).

Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F22R0054 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F22R0054. Company YZ will use Company R as a teaming member/subcontractor but Company R is not part of the JV. The past project was awarded to Company R as a Prime Contractor (singly or as a member of a JV), but not to Companies Y or Z (singly or as a member of a JV).

PROJECT INFORMATION: Additionally, each project example submitted should demonstrate experience on similar building and site improvement projects of similar or greater value ($60M- 80M) and scope. Projects whose contract award was less than $25M shall not be considered for evaluation. At least one project submitted shall demonstrate experience constructing a hangar facility, or similar clear-span storage or maintenance facility (motorpool, large vehicle storage, large bay facility, etc.) of at least 20,000 total square feet.

Project information per project example should CLEARLY include:

• Summaries for each project submitted to include the name, address, telephone and email of a representative of the owner (as well as one alternate individual not affiliated with your firm) familiar with your firm’s experience on the project that can verify the experience cited;

• Original contract award amount and final construction cost;

• Location of project;

• Original contract completion date and actual completion date (Month/Year);

• Identify if the project was a construction project or a design-build project;

• Percentage (%) performed by the Prime Offeror; and

• Percentage (%) and type of work subcontracted out.

Do not include extraneous information that is not requested.

The Offeror should demonstrate recent, relevant construction experience on similar building projects using Attachment 1, ‘Construction – Specialized Experience Form’. Offerors may identify other federal, state or local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements set forth in the solicitation. If the Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Offerors may list government, private or commercial customers.

In addition, the Offeror shall submit past performance evaluations and ratings for each project the Offeror included in its proposal this factor. Reference Paragraph 5 above for obtaining a past performance record. There are no page limitations on official past performance records such as PPQs and/or CPARS. No other past performance records shall be submitted other than those related to the three (3) projects submitted for this factor.

If available, submit the respective CPARS record for the project. For projects which were designed and/or constructed for other government entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available. For projects submitted that are not covered in the CPARS database or other Government Performance Rating System, submit a PPQ. A PPQ form is attached to this solicitation for convenience (see Attachment 2).

A CPARS record or a complete PPQ shall be submitted for each project submitted under this factor prior to proposal closing date.

The Government reserves the right to contact any persons who may be knowledgeable about the project or projects (this is not limited to contracts identified by the Offeror) submitted in an Offeror’s proposal. In addition, the Government may review and take into consideration other sources of information pertinent to the evaluation of the Offeror’s Past Performance, including both the previous experience projects and other similar projects performed by the Offeror. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, Past Performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE)/Unique Entity ID (EID) numbers of team members (partnership, Joint Venture, teaming arrangement, or parent firm/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of ensuring detailed, current, accurate and complete Past Performance information rests with the Offeror.

8.4.2 Evaluation Criteria

The Government’s overall confidence level for this factor will be based on the Offeror’s Past Performance to include recency and relevancy of the projects submitted and the quality of performance.

Past Performance on projects will examine how well an Offeror has performed on relevant projects considering such criteria as: cost growth and adherence to budget; time growth, timeliness and adherence to schedule; quality and quality control measures; management of personnel and subcontractors; compliance with safety standards/safety plan; overall customer satisfaction; responsiveness to customer concerns.

CPARS/CCASS records will be given more weight than PPQs. The Government may, at its discretion, contact individuals other than those identified by the Offeror as references in order to verify the information contained therein. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror's performance history but may attribute more importance to work that is similar to the scope contemplated for this project.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSAC may recommend and the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

8.5 TAB E. VOLUME I – FACTOR 2 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

8.5.1 Submission Requirements (The page limit for this factor is twenty (20) pages total including organizational approach, technical approach, proposed duration, and schedule).

Provide a narrative that describes the Offeror’s Project Management approach to executing the contract pursuant to the following requirements. Clearly and concisely describe the organizational, technical, and risk management approaches to project management and execution, proposed contract duration, and summary schedule.

Organizational Approach. List and describe key subcontractors, their roles and responsibilities, how they will be utilized, and any contractual arrangements that have been established to this point. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each entity’s roles and responsibilities on the project. Identify the work (including %) which will be self-performed by the Prime Contractor. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its lead entity(ies) and key subcontractors. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include an Organizational Chart, including the proposed quality control group(s). Include key personnel in the organization chart. Clearly illustrate key positions, names of the personnel, their firm affiliations, job locations and their job/position title within the organization (see specification 01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS and 01 45 00.00 10 QUALITY CONTROL).

Technical Approach for Construction. Describe the technical approach to construction of the facility. Include any considerations to the project which will increase efficiencies in the schedule (panelization, pre-engineered components, commissioning, efforts to minimize the impacts to the active taxiway), increased quality (batching of concrete), etc. This approach should also include site security and access management procedures (see specification 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS) or special procedures to address the potential concurrent construction of a large hangar facility and airfield paving.

Risk Assessment. In spreadsheet format, submit a list of risks specific to this project. Identify the degree of risk, impact of the risk (schedule, cost, safety, etc.), whether it’s within or outside the Offeror’s control, and a brief statement on how to mitigate the risk(s).

Summary Schedule. Provide a schedule on your plan to complete all work based on an arbitrary estimated, non-binding Notice to Proceed date of 1 May 2022. Provide a summary schedule or diagrams separately in an appendix to the TAB. Clearly label the summary schedule under the TAB. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule. The schedules shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his/her choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented. The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration. Give attention to the following features:

(a) Show the overall construction phase for the facilities, the site work and the utilities.

Include any long lead items and any fast-tracking starts. It isn’t necessary to show the detailed breakdown construction (e.g., by trades) of each facility, site work and utilities.

(b) Show schedule line items for environmental permits and notifications and utility connection permits.

(c) Show turnover of facility. The duration to complete the facility and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

(d) Show as-built submissions (See section 01 78 39.00 24 AS-BUILT DRAWINGS).

(e) Constraints: Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather). Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

8.5.2 Evaluation Criteria

Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

• Proposals that demonstrate a detailed and coherent plan and provides logical methodology to execute the entire scope of work. Joint Venture/Subcontractors participants’ contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

• Proposals that offer methods to streamline construction and manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule to completion.

• Proposals that demonstrate a clear understanding and/or usage of local subcontractors, the subcontractor market, and economy and/or how it will impact this project.

• Proposals with schedules that demonstrate an understanding of processes inherent to

USACE/NAVFAC/AFCEC.

• Proposals with schedules that demonstrate an understanding of processes inherent to USACE/NAVFAC/AFCEC airfield paving projects.

• Proposals that demonstrate an understanding of the site security and access management requirements documented in 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS.

• Proposals that demonstrate an understanding of how the requirements associated with UFC 4-010-05 and ICD/ICS 705 will affect the construction of this project.

• Proposals that illustrate an understanding of construction practices inherent to northern climates.

• Proposals that demonstrate a very clear understanding of the project’s risks and how to best mitigate them.

• Self-performance of major construction tasks by the Prime Contractor

• Any other aspect of a proposal that the evaluators and/or the SSA believe enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

• A project management plan that does not demonstrate a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements associated with the 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS specification.

• A risk assessment that does not provide specific risks to this project and a demonstration of how to mitigate those risks.

• Proposals that do not demonstrate a clear understanding and/or usage of local subcontractors, the subcontractor market, and/or economy and how it will impact this project.

• A proposed schedule whose duration is greater than that stated in the subject solicitation (without discussion for exceeding duration).

• A proposed schedule that unreasonably condenses contract duration well below the period of performance (without discussion) which as determined by the government may increases cost or create a risk of contract/performance failure.

• A proposed schedule which does not address the five features as described under Para

8.5.1 Summary Schedule (a) through (e).

• Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government identifies as a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiencies shall be given for each of the following criteria:

• A Project Management Plan that does not demonstrate the Prime Offeror as the lead entity for this project.

• Omission of one (1) or more of the four (4) elements as stated above for the Project Management Plan (Organization Approach, Technical Approach, Risk Assessment, Summary Schedule). Any other material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

• Any other material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

8.6 TAB F. VOLUME I – FACTOR 3 – KEY PERSONNEL

8.6.1 Submission Requirements (The page limit for this factor is two (2) pages per resume for a total of no more than six (6) pages)

Submit resumes for the following key personnel. If more than two (2) pages are submitted per resume, only the first two pages will be evaluated. Each resume should demonstrate experience and expertise on similar projects in the same roles as proposed for this solicitation.

- Project Manager responsible for the overall project: The project manager should have 5 or more years of experience as a project manager, managing similar projects to this solicitation.

- Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager(s): CQC System Manager should have 5 years of experience as a Quality Control Manager on similar projects to this solicitation. CQC System Manager shall comply with personnel requirements listed in Section 01 45 00.00 10.

- General Superintendent: The superintendent should have 5 years’ experience as superintendent managing multiple trades and subcontractors.

Each resume should include the following information:

- Proposed role/title for this solicitation

- Recent relevant projects: information should include the project name, role on project, prime contractor, owner, dollar amount, date of start and completion of role referenced, and brief scope of each project listed.

8.6.2 Evaluation Criteria

• Key personnel that demonstrate experience that is recent (within 7 years of date of proposal submission) and exceeds the minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar type work.

• Key personnel with recent relevant experience with ICD/ICS 705 and the ICD/ICS 705 tech spec on new construction projects.

• Key personnel with recent relevant experience with hangar projects constructed in compliance with UFC 4-211-01 and/or UFC 4-211-02.

• Key personnel with recent relevant experience with projects constructed near an active military flightline.

• Federal government experience.

• Key personnel who also worked on the projects in Factor 1.

• Resumes that do not clearly demonstrate the capabilities and experience of the proposed key personnel.

• Past projects that do not represent recent relevant experience in the same capacity/role as this solicitation.

• One or more personnel with a preponderance of past projects that do not exhibit experience with projects of similar scope, magnitude, or complexity to the proposed project.

• Omission of one (1) or more of the resumes required for evaluation.

9.0 VOLUME II

9.1 VOLUME II SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: Volume II will be requested for submission separate from Volume I, via an amendment issued after receipt of Volume I proposals. A Price Schedule will be included in the amendment for submission of Volume II and will be due approximately 30 days after issuance of the referenced amendment.

This volume shall consist of all information required to support proposed prices. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408 and the requirements set forth below.