36C10F18R0452_0001.docx

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NUMBER

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED

BPA NO.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE

CODE

Offers 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:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(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 electronic communication 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 is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 11/2016)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office.

is not, 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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

D. OTHER

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30

PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243 (Type or print) (Type or print) (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (If other than Item 6) (Specify type of modification and authority) (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

CHECK

ONE

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

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer) 01-04-2019 915-007 003C4D Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Construction and Facilities Management (003C4D) 1425 Tri State Pkwy, Suite 140 Gurnee IL 60031 101F Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Construction and Facilities Management (003C4D) 1425 Tri State Pkwy, Suite 140 Gurnee IL 60031 To all Offerors/Bidders

36C10F18R0452 12-06-2018

X X X

X Amendment 0001 contains the following:

1. Solicitation Sections D through L are hereby removed & replaced with Sections D through L included in this amendment.

2. Governemnt Responses to Phase One Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs) received from potential offerors

Date/time for receipt of proposals remains unchanged as 1/16/2019 at 12pm CST.

End of Amendment 0001

Jeffrey C Gerbensky Contracting Officer As part of this amendment, solicitation sections D through L are hereby removed in their entirety and replaced with the following:

D. PHASE I – REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ)

DO NOT SUBMIT PHASE-II WITH PHASE I ONLY THE MOST HIGHLY QUALIFIED OFFERORS WILL BE INVITED TO SUBMIT A PHASE II PROPOSAL.

D.1 Written Submission

1. Number of Copies - Offerors shall submit an original and 4 copies of their qualifications as described herein.

2. Text - Text shall be at least single spaced, on 8 1/2 inch paper, with a minimum one-half inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Printing double-sided is encouraged but each printed side will count as a single page towards the total sheet count limitation for the respective section. No foldout pages shall be used except for drawings as described in (c) below. Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations stated throughout this document will not be evaluated.

3. Drawings – Drawings will be submitted as full size (30” x 40” maximum) hardcopy sheets and may be reduced and bound into the response booklet without being counted as sheets.

4. Font Size - Print shall be of a minimum 12-point font size or a maximum 10 characters per inch (10-pitch, pica) spacing. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text that is easily readable.

5. Bounding/Binder - Proposals shall be spiral bound (no 3-ring binders). The cover or title sheet shall include identification information at a minimum, the solicitation number, contractor name and volume number.

6. The technical proposal shall not exceed the maximum page limits identified in the table below.

7. Proposals will be identified with the following information.

a. Solicitation Number

b. Solicitation Title

c. Contractor Name

d. Volume Title (Technical Proposal)

8. The first page of the proposal shall include the information identified in provision 52.215-1 paragraph (c)(2). Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) is modified to read “A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the solicitation.” This statement should be placed on the first page of Technical Proposal with the contact information.

Reference Total Page Limit**

Volume I

Factor I - Technical Qualifications

1. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) (see Attachment #3)

Factor II - Technical Approach

**NOTE: Cover pages, index pages, and PPQ’s do not count towards page limitations. The Government will not review any information that exceeds the page limitation, including attachments, enclosures, charts, etc. For instance, if the total page limitation is 10 pages, the Government will only review 10 pages. Information submitted on the 11th page and beyond will not be reviewed.

D.2 Electronic Submission In addition to the paper copies identified above, the Offeror shall submit all proposal information in electronic format (CD). Text, data, and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable Adobe Acrobat DC. Drawings as described in D.5(c) above shall be in PDF format. PDFs shall not be password protected and must be word/data searchable.

D.3 Confidential Information The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its amendments have resulted in an increasing number of requests from outside the Government for copies of contractor qualifications and proposals submitted to federal agencies. If an Offeror’s submissions contain information that he/she believes should be withheld from such requestors under FOIA on the grounds that they contain “trade secrets and commercial or financial information” [5 USC§552(b)(4)], the Offeror should mark its submissions in the following manner:

The following notice should be placed on the title page: “Some parts of this document, as identified on individual pages, are considered by the submitter to be privileged or confidential trade secrets or commercial or financial information not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Material considered privileged or confidential on such grounds is contained on page(s) _______”.

Excluding the Phase II conceptual design submission, each individual item considered privileged or confidential under FOIA should be marked with the following notice: “The data or information is considered confidential or privileged, and is not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act”.

D.4 Phase I Evaluation The Phase I evaluation will select no more than (3) of the most highly qualified Offerors to advance to Phase II. A responsibility determination will be made in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors.

D.5 Evaluation Factors The Phase I evaluation will select no more than (3) of the most highly qualified Offerors to advance to Phase II. A responsibility determination will be made in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors. Offerors will be evaluated using the following technical evaluation factors:

1. Factor I – Technical Qualifications

a. Sub-factor A: Relevant Past Performance

b. Sub-factor B: Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

c. Sub-factor C: Capability to Perform

2. Factor II – Technical Approach

a. Sub-factor A: Management Structure

b. Sub-factor B: Staffing Plan – Subcontractors/Consultants D.6 Order of Importance Factor I Technical Qualifications is equal in importance to Factor II Technical Approach. Sub-factors A, B and C under Factor I are equal in importance. Sub-factors A and B under Factor II are equal in importance.

The evaluation team will utilize the adjectival definitions below to assess each Offeror.

Past Performance Evaluation Standards

The following definitions apply to relevancy considering all the elements listed above;

Relevancy Standards

D.7.2 Technical Factor Evaluation Standards The evaluation team will use the scale below to assign adjectival ratings to offers received for Phase-One. All technical factors & sub-factors will be evaluated using these technical factor evaluation standards.

Technical Factor Evaluation Standards

Exceptional

An exceptional proposal contains significant strengths and no weaknesses. The proposal exceeds the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator has no doubt that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW if the technical approach proposed is followed. The Offeror acknowledges risks and develops an approach that proactively identifies and mitigates risks, and looks to reduce or eliminate future risks.

Good

A good proposal contains significant strengths, and only a few weaknesses. The Offeror’s proposal meets the performance and technical capability requirements as defined in the SOW. The evaluator has a high degree of confidence that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW if the technical approach proposed is followed. The Offeror acknowledges technical and schedule risk and develops an approach capable of mitigating all apparent risks effectively.

Acceptable

An acceptable proposal contains strengths that outweigh any existing weaknesses. The Offeror’s proposal meets the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator is confident that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW if the technical approach proposed is followed. The Offeror acknowledges technical or schedule risk and develops an approach capable of mitigating most of the apparent risks effectively.

Marginal

The proposal meets the bare minimum performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW and at the same time have multiple weaknesses. The evaluator is not confident that the Offeror can successfully complete the required tasking without significant Government oversight or participation. The proposal either fails to address risks or the proposed risk mitigation approach is not deemed to be sufficient to manage the risk.

Unacceptable

An unacceptable proposal that contains one or more weaknesses and deficiencies. Proposal fails to meet specified minimum performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator is confident that the Offeror will be unable to successfully complete the required tasking. The proposal does not adequately acknowledge or address risk, mitigate risk, or may actually introduce risk.

Standard Definitions

Strength

A strong attribute or quality of particular worth or utility; an inherent asset. Note: Simple adherence to the requirements or ability to meet a requirement is compliance but should not be listed as strength.

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement(s) in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

E. PHASE 1, FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS

Technical Qualifications evaluation factor consists of three sub-factors which are equal in importance: (1) Relevant Past Performance, (2) Specialized Experience and Technical Competence and (3) Capability to Perform

Each Offeror shall complete and submit summaries, as described below, for up to ten (10) relevant projects. The projects must demonstrate relevant construction experience and relevant design experience. A project performed by both the GC and AE that demonstrates both relevant construction and relevant design experience will be counted as one relevant project.

“Relevant” projects are defined as those design and construction contracts ongoing or completed within the last 5 years of a similar size (exceeding $20M in construction costs) and comparable level of complexity to the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, Phase 3, project. Relevant complexity aspects include:

1. Design-build projects

1. Cemetery projects (Federal, State, or private)

1. Projects requiring the construction of multiple features typical to a National Cemetery such as pre-placed crypts, columbarium niches, memorial walls, cast or natural stone columbarium caps, cast or natural stone veneers, turf (sod) placement and maintenance, tree and shrub placement and maintenance, irrigation systems with mainlines exceeding 4-inch in diameter, irrigation central control systems, roadways, wetlands/environmental remediation or restoration.

1. Building construction, golf courses, regional parks, multiple sport-fields complexes, multi-phased recreation oriented land development projects larger than 15 acres.

1. Multi-division or regionalized firms should submit projects performed by the division/business segment that would, if selected, perform the design/construction of the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, Phase 3, project. Projects performed by other divisions/business segments may be submitted but may be considered less relevant than projects performed by the local division/business segment proposing on this project.

1. For the up to ten (10) relevant projects selected, Offerors shall summarize the following information, not to exceed one (1) page for each project (total page limit – 10 pages):

1. Describe the relevance to the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, Phase 3, project.

1. Describe the project team composition (design/construction firms involved)

1. Describe the cost and schedule performance including explanations for any cost and/or time growth experienced

1. Include the project’s safety record (i.e., number of lost time accidents)

1. Describe how sustainable design principles were incorporated into the project; indicate to what extent environmental program goals (e.g., Energy Star, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) were achieved.

1. Provide the Owner's name, & POC information including a current phone number.

E.1.2 Past Performance Questionnaires Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience, from the owner's perspective, on the relevant projects identified in section E.1.1, above.

If CPARS evaluations are available, the Offeror shall provide a summary listing (table format) of interim & final past performance evaluations for those projects. Using PPIRS, the Government will download the identified CPARS assessments for review and analysis.

All offerors must follow the process outlined below for all relevant projects identified in section E.1.1 that do not have CPARS evaluations available:

The Offeror shall initiate Past Performance Questionnaires, or PPQs , by completing blocks 1 through 7 on the form (see Solicitation Attachment 3). The Offeror shall request that the owner’s representative most knowledgeable of the project complete blocks 8 on the form and email the PPQs directly to the Contracting Officer identified on the form no later than the Phase 1 technical proposal due date/time.

In case PPQs are not received by the Contracting Officer prior to the submission due date for the Phase 1 technical proposal, the Offeror shall provide a listing of all owner references to whom PPQs were sent including name, email address, and phone number.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring that the contact information provided for the owner’s representative indicated for each relevant project is accurate and that the representative is aware that the Contracting Officer may be contacting them regarding the questionnaire and the Offeror’s past performance. If completed Questionnaires are not received timely by the Contracting Officer from the owner’s representative, the Government reserves the right to contact the references directly or obtain the requested information from any other sources.

The evaluation team will assign one rating to the Past Performance factor: The evaluation team will assign an adjectival rating based on the information provided by PPIRS, the PPQ references received, & any other sources. 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 will receive a neutral past performance rating. However, the proposal of an Offeror with no relevant past performance history, while rated neutral in past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government. The Evaluation Team may consider past performance data from a wide variety of sources both inside and outside the Federal Government. The Government evaluation team will conduct an evaluation based on the Past Performance Evaluation Rating Standards and Relevancy Standards identified in Section D.7.1 above.

The purpose of this factor is to holistically evaluate the Offeror's team with particular emphasis on the major contributing sub-contractors of both the design and construction team. The evaluation will focus on the specialized experience of the team and their specific experience designing and constructing major features typical of a national cemetery including but not limited to the following:

1. mass and fine grading,

1. wetlands mitigation & storm water management,

1. pre-placed crypts, columbarium niches and in ground cremains,

1. memorial walls,

1. committal shelters,

1. public assembly area with main flag pole,

1. roadways and utility systems,

1. landscaping and irrigation,

1. site furnishings and signage,

1. retrofitting existing buildings for compliance with sustainable buildings and renewable energy mandates,

1. physical security/access control requirements,

1. geographic information system (GIS) site integration,

1. updating existing master plans, Specialized experience can be with VA National Cemetery major construction projects, VA construction projects, Federal Government projects, local government projects and commercial projects completed or substantially under way within the last five years.

The Government will prioritize the offeror’s experience in the following order (1=highest priority, 5 = lowest priority) with higher priority experience carrying more weight in the evaluation:

1. NCA national cemetery projects

1. VA projects

1. Federal government projects

1. local government projects

1. commercial projects Other factors that the Government will take into consideration include but may not be necessarily limited to contract amount, performance period, sub-contractor trades, percentage of work performed by the prime, and whether the project was completed on time and within budget.

E.2.2 Technical Competence

1. The Offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of the project requirements, complexity and constraints.

1. The Offeror shall demonstrate an acceptable strategy for managing the design and construction of the project.

1. The Offeror shall provide information on any termination for defaults on Federal Government projects within the last ten years for the prime contractor as well as its major subcontractor(s). Offeror must respond with Not Applicable, if termination for default does not apply.

E.3 Sub-Factor C - Capability to Perform Offerors shall clearly demonstrate their ability to perform all aspects of the RFP. Offerors shall also demonstrate their experience, capabilities and resources. The offeror’s response to this sub factor shall address, at a minimum, the following criteria:

E.3.1 Financial Capacity The Offeror shall demonstrate that it has adequate financial resources required to successfully perform the work required for a project of this magnitude or the ability to obtain them. The Offeror shall submit financial statements for their most recent accounting period. It is preferred, though not required, that the statements are completed by an independent accounting firm. The Offeror is notified that the Government may further review the Offeror’s financial stability through other sources such as the Dun and Bradstreet report. Any negative information may be provided to the Offeror to address.

E.3.2 Bonding Capacity The Offeror shall demonstrate that it has adequate bonding capacity or the ability to obtain the required bonds. The Offeror shall submit documentation such as a commitment letter for its bonding company. Additionally, the documentation submitted shall provide the Offeror’s total aggregate bonding capacity, the amount currently in use to bond other contracts and the remaining amount.

E.3.3 Existing Workload The Offeror shall demonstrate that it has sufficient capacity to successfully perform the work required by a project of this magnitude taking into consideration the prime contractor, D/B AE of Record, and major subcontractor(s)’ existing workload. The Offeror shall provide detailed information concerning the assignment of its project managers and superintendents for its current workload and the project managers and superintendents that will be assigned to the proposed Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery project.

F. PHASE I FACTOR II - TECHNICAL APPROACH

Technical Approach evaluation factor consists of two sub-factors which are equal in importance: (1) Management Structure and (2) Staffing Plan F.1 Sub-Factor A - Management Structure The Offeror shall demonstrate its ability to manage a project of this magnitude. The Offeror shall describe its management approach and demonstrate that it has the necessary organization, experience, accounting, operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as schedule control procedures, quality control measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be procured and stored or services to be performed by the prospective contractor employees and its subcontractors) to design and build a National Cemetery.

F.2 Sub-Factor B - Staffing Plan - Consultants/Subcontractors The Offeror shall demonstrate its ability to staff a project of this magnitude with highly skilled, experienced personnel. The Offeror’s staffing approach should describe its approach for its firm as well as its consultants and/or subcontractors. The Offeror shall provide the organizational structure of its major consultants and/or subcontractors that will provide the necessary skills, experiences, licenses, etc. to design and build a National Cemetery in Elwood, IL. The Design/Build team must be able to comply with the licensing laws of the state where the project is located. Provide resumes of all key personnel.

G. SELECTION

Selection of Phase II participants may be made without discussions.

A Phase-II Request for Proposal will be provided to no more than three (3) of the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase-I. Phase-II Proposals will be evaluated and award will be made on the basis of both price and technical considerations most advantageous to the Government as per FAR Part 15.101-1(a), Tradeoff, as the Government may consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror if it is in the best interest of the Government.

H.2 Evaluation Factors The Phase II evaluation will be conducted using the following factors:

1. Technical Factors

a. Factor I-Technical Compliance

i. Sub-factor A: Construction Management

b. Factor II- Project Management

i. Sub-factor A: Team Qualifications

ii. Sub-factor B: Project Management Plan

iii. Sub-factor C: Conceptual Schedule

2. Non-Technical Factors

a. Factor III – Veteran Involvement

b. Factor IV - Price Proposal

i. Sub-factor A: Reasonableness

ii. Sub-factor B: Completeness H.3 Order of Importance The Phase I factors are not to be resubmitted in Phase II; however, the ratings from the Phase I factors will carry through to Phase II. Phase I, Factor I - Technical Qualifications; Phase I, Factor II - Technical Approach; Phase II, Factor I - Technical Compliance; Phase II, Factor II - Project Management; and Phase II, Factor III - Veteran Involvement; and their associated sub-factors are all equal in importance. When combined, Phase I, Factors I & II; and Phase II, Factors I, II, and III; ratings are significantly more important than Phase II, Factor IV- Price Proposal. Sub-factors A and B under Factor IV are equal in importance.

The evaluation team will use the scale below to assign adjectival ratings to Offerors for Phase-II. All technical factors and sub-factors will be evaluated using the technical evaluation rating standards and standard definitions.

Technical Factor Evaluation Standards

Exceptional

An exceptional proposal contains significant strengths and no weaknesses. The proposal exceeds the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator has no doubt that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW if the technical approach proposed is followed. The Offeror acknowledges risks and develops an approach that proactively identifies and mitigates risks, and looks to reduce or eliminate future risks.

Good

A good proposal contains significant strengths, and only a few weaknesses. The Offeror’s proposal meets the performance and technical capability requirements as defined in the SOW. The evaluator has a high degree of confidence that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW if the technical approach proposed is followed. The Offeror acknowledges technical and schedule risk and develops an approach capable of mitigating all apparent risks effectively.

Acceptable

An acceptable proposal contains strengths that outweigh any existing weaknesses. The Offeror’s proposal meets the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator is confident that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW if the technical approach proposed is followed. The Offeror acknowledges technical or schedule risk and develops an approach capable of mitigating most of the apparent risks effectively.

Marginal

The proposal meets the bare minimum performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW and at the same time have multiple weaknesses. The evaluator is not confident that the Offeror can successfully complete the required tasking without significant Government oversight or participation. The proposal either fails to address risks or the proposed risk mitigation approach is not deemed to be sufficient to manage the risk.

Unacceptable

An unacceptable proposal that contains one or more weaknesses and deficiencies. Proposal fails to meet specified minimum performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator is confident that the Offeror will be unable to successfully complete the required tasking. The proposal does not adequately acknowledge or address risk, mitigate risk, or may actually introduce risk.

Standard Definitions

Strength

A strong attribute or quality of particular worth or utility; an inherent asset. Note: Simple adherence to the requirements or ability to meet a requirement is compliance but should not be listed as strength.

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement(s) in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

The evaluation team will use the evaluation standards below to assign adjectival ratings to Offerors for Phase-II, Factor III – Veteran Involvement Veterans Involvement Evaluation Standards

H.4.2.2 Price Proposal The evaluation team will evaluate the overall price and use the evaluation standards below to assign a price risk rating to Offerors price proposals for Phase-II, Factor IV – Price Proposal The Government will evaluate the following aspects of the Offeror’s price proposal:

Sub-factor A: Reasonableness, and Sub-factor B: Completeness.

The price evaluation team will use the above sub-factors to evaluate the Offerors Phase-II price proposal. All sub-factors are of equal importance. The Offeror is directed to provide a price breakdown for each Contract Line Item(CLIN) by major feature and division of work. The CLIN items will be identified in the Phase II solicitation. The Government will evaluate the price breakdown against the IGCE to determine if the Offeror’s proposal for the each CLIN Item is reasonable and complete.

Reasonableness:

FAR Part 15 does not explicitly define the term “fair and reasonable.” The concept of a fair and reasonable price has elsewhere been described as the price that a prudent businessperson would pay for an item or service under competitive market conditions, given a reasonable knowledge of the marketplace. The Federal Acquisition Regulations clearly establishes the need for determining a price to be fair and reasonable prior to a Government Contracting Officer or Ordering Officer making a contract award or awarding orders against an established contract. The Government anticipates adequate price competition to establish price reasonableness. The Government may use current market prices, the Independent Government Cost Estimate or any other reasonable method to determine price reasonableness.

Completeness:

The Government shall review the Offeror’s price proposals for completeness and accuracy. The Government shall verify the proposal includes prices for all CLIN Items. The Government shall also perform a general review of the submission to verify math calculations in the schedules and perform a cross-check of amounts that are common to two or more of the schedules. Based upon proposed prices for the CLIN Items, a determination will be made as to whether the Offeror properly understands the price proposal instructions and properly completed the pricing tables. A determination will be made regarding whether the price appears unbalanced either for the total price of the proposal or separately priced line items. An unbalanced proposal is one that incorporates prices that are less than cost for some items and/or prices that are overstated for other items. An unbalanced price proposal will be considered grounds for rejection.

Based upon the review, the Government shall assign an overall Price Risk Rating to each Offeror’s price proposal using the following Price Risk Standards:

Price Risk Standards

H.5 Phase-II Submission Requirements

1. Phase II proposals will be accepted and considered for award of a firm-fixed price contract. Submitted proposals that do not adhere to the following instructions may be determined nonresponsive and not considered for an award.

2. Proposals will be submitted in two separately bound volumes.

a. Volume I shall be the Technical Management Proposal and shall include the offeror’s responses to Phase II Evaluation Factors I, II, & III as well as their sub-factors. (maximum 75 pages); and

b. Volume II shall be the Price Proposal and shall include the offeror’s responses to Phase II Evaluation Factor IV and its sub-factors (maximum 30 pages).

3. Offerors are required to submit one (1) sealed original offer (Volumes I & II), and four (4) copies of their Technical Management Proposal (Volume I) and two (2) copies of the Price Proposal (Volume II) to Mr. Jeff Gerbensky, Contracting Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Construction & Facilities Management by the date and time shown on the SF 1442.

4. Electronic Copy, offerors shall include one copy of everything being submitted in paper to be also submitted on a CD. This CD shall be submitted at the same time and along with the paper copy. MS Word, PDF and Excel format files only. If pdf is used then each Section submitted shall be a separate file. For example, all required licenses must be one file, the technical proposal must be another file, and therefore there shall be more than one pdf file on the CD

5. Postal Address/Courier Address for mailing proposals:

Department of Veterans Affairs Office Construction & Facilities Management 1425 Tri State Parkway Suite 140 Gurnee, IL 60031 Attn: JEFF GERBENSKY

6. Proposals shall be identified with a cover page that contains the following information.

a. Solicitation Number

b. Solicitation Title

c. Contractor Name

d. Volume Number (1 or 2);

e. Volume Title (Technical Management Proposal or Price Proposal)

f. Index of the sections contained in the volume

7. The first page of the proposal shall include the information identified in provision 52.215-1 paragraph (c)(2). Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) is modified to read “A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the solicitation.” This statement should be placed on the first page of Volume 1 and 2 with the contact information.

8. Proposals shall be spiral bound (no 3-ring binders).

9. The proposal shall not exceed the number of pages identified in the table below. A page is considered to be one side of an 8-1/2 inch sheet of paper.

10. Proposals shall contain all applicable information as required by the evaluation factors.

11. All transmittal envelopes or other packaging shall be clearly marked with the solicitation number, offeror(s) name and return address.

12. All proposals should be mailed by fastest traceable means (i.e. FedEx, UPS, Airborne Express, etc.) to avoid delays.

Reference Total Page Limit**

Phase II Volume I - Technical Management Proposal

1. Understanding of the project, work requirements and anticipated challenges (construction)

1. Description of critical operational and environmental constraints and strategy for addressing constraints to ensure timely delivery of the project

1. Description of quality control measures

1. Understanding of local conditions I.1

I.1.1

I.1.2

I.1.3 I.1.4

1. Org chart and Communications Plan J.1

J.1.1

1. Construction

1. Design

1. Quality Assurance

1. Commissioning Plan

1. Closeout Plan

1. Training Plan

1. Turnover & Activation Plan

1. Risk Management - Discussion of potential difficulties and approaches for proactive resolution J.2 J.2.1 J.2.2 J.2.3 J.2.4 J.2.5

J.2.6 J.2.7 J.2.8

1. Design & Construction Sequencing J.3 J.3.1

TOTAL PAGE LIMIT

**NOTE: Cover pages and index pages do not count towards page limitations. Except as noted, the Government will not review any information that exceeds the page limitation, including attachments, enclosures, charts, etc. Exception: Reduced size drawings of the conceptual design maybe be included in the bound proposal in addition to a full-size drawing set and will not count towards the total number of sheets.

The Offeror’s construction approach will be evaluated as a measure of the Offeror’s understanding of the construction project requirements, equipment delivery, quality control and understanding of local conditions.

Project Management evaluation factor consists of three sub-factors: (1) Team Qualifications, (2) Project Management Plan (3) Conceptual Schedule J.1 Sub-Factor A - Team Qualifications The Offeror’s proposed team will be evaluated as a measure of the Offeror’s ability to fulfill the requirement based on the proposed team composition, and key personnel. Offeror will provide the following to demonstrate their capability:

The Offeror’s project management plan will be evaluated as a measure of the Offeror’s ability to develop a sound project management plan that identifies and addresses all aspects of the project including the following:

This conceptual schedule shall demonstrate an understanding of the duration of all design and construction activities and how seasonal weather conditions will be accommodated and sequencing.

The Offeror must include with the proposal, a summary of how the Offeror plans to comply with at least 15% self- performance of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees. See FAR 52.219-14, and VAAR 852.219-74, & VAAR 852.219-75 J.3.1 Design & Construction Sequencing The Offeror shall submit a proposed Level 3 project schedule in the format of a Gantt chart specific to this acquisition. The schedule’s time frame shall be from Notice to Proceed through Final Acceptance in accordance with the performance period specified in the SF 1442. The schedule shall be broken down by Phase and major division of work showing start and completion dates. The major work divisions shall be further broken down in sufficient detail to demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the project requirements, critical path, and major milestones. The Offeror shall specify allowances for bad weather, days of the week and hours of operation, and the percentage of contract completion achieved at the end of each month of the contract period. The schedule shall be presented in 11” x 17” format, with a supporting narrative on letter sized paper.

K. PHASE II, FACTOR III – VETERAN INVOLVEMENT

For SDVOSB/VOSB concerns: In order to receive credit under this Factor, an offeror shall submit a statement of compliance that it qualifies as a SDVOSB or VOSB in accordance with VAAR 852.215-70, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Business Evaluation Factors. SDVOSB and VOSB offerors are cautioned that they must be registered and verified in Vendor Information Pages (VIP) database (http://www.VetBiz.gov) to receive credit under the Veteran’s Involvement Factor.

For Non-SDVOSBs/VOSBs: To receive some consideration under this Factor, a prime offeror must state in this volume, the names of SDVOSB(s) and/or VOSB(s) with whom it intends to subcontract, and provide a brief description and the approximate dollar values of the proposed subcontracts. Additionally, proposed SDVOSB/VOSB subcontractors must be registered and verified in VIP database (http://www.VetBiz.gov) in order to receive some consideration under the Veteran’s Involvement Factor.

Note that the Government requires the Contractor to honor the evaluation factor commitment to the SDVOSB/VOSB concern throughout the life of the contract or to substitute one or more SDVOSB/VOSB businesses for subcontract work of the same or similar value (percentage) in accordance with VAAR 852.215-71 Evaluation Factor Commitments.

With regard to the requirements for registration and verification in the VetBiz database, reference VAAR 804.1102.

Basis for Evaluation: In accordance with VAAR 852.215-70, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Business Evaluation Factors, the Government will assign full evaluation credit for an Offeror (prime Contractor) which is a CVE registered and verified SDVOSB and partial credit for a verified VOSB prime Contractor. Non-SDVOSB/VOSB offeror proposing to subcontract 10% or more of the contract value to a verified SDVOSB concern or 12% or more of the contract value to a verified VOSB concern will receive some evaluation credit. Note that in order to receive credit under this evaluation factor, prime Contractor SDVOSBs and/or VOSBs or proposed subcontractor SDVOSBs and/or VOSBs must be registered in SAM, the Vendor Information Pages (VIP) at http://www.vip.vetbiz.gov/, and verified by the CVE at the time of quote submission.

Also note that the Government requires the Contractor to honor the evaluation factor commitment to the SDVOSB/VOSB concern throughout the life of the contract or to substitute one or more SDVOSB/VOSB businesses for subcontract work of the same or similar value (percentage) in accordance with VAAR 852.215-71 Evaluation Factor Commitments.

L. PHASE II, FACTOR IV - PRICE PROPOSAL

Offerors shall provide a detailed price breakdown with prices itemized and totaled according to the corresponding specification section of the work. For General Condition items such as mobilization, etc. that are not specifically described shall be included in Section 01.00.00. The Government will evaluate the following aspects of the Offeror’s price proposal 1) reasonableness, and 2) completeness.

L.1 Price Proposal The offeror shall submit the following as a separate volume (Volume II).

Price Proposal - Volume II (One Original and Two Copies)

Name and address of offeror Business Arrangement Contact Name and Phone Number Email Address DUNS Number

36C10F18R0452 Amendment 0001

RFI REQUESTER:

Pre Proposal Inquiries (PPIs)

RFI DATE:

PROJECT NUMBER:

915-007

CONST. PROJECT MANAGER:

RFI RESPONDER:

Jeff Gerbensky

RFI DATE RESPONDED:

January 4, 2019

Requested Information/Clarification:

1. Page 11 of 87 of the Solicitation indicates: “This project will expand the burial capacity by developing about 50 acres of land with approximately 12,000 pre-placed crypt gravesites for casket interments including 600 oversized, 600 traditional gravesites, 3,000 garden niche cremains sites, and 5,700 columbarium niches, for a total of 21,900 interment sites. The Bridging Documents supplements and further clarifies the minimum requirements for this project’s program requirements.” If the 12,000 pre-placed crypt gravesites for casket internments includes 600 oversized, then there is a conflict in the total count.