6_Horizontal Construction MAC Section L and M.pdf

ATTACHMENT 06

HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION MAC

FA4626-26-R-0008

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

1. Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation

A. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by this information to offerors and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Solicitation and all attachments in Section J. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this information to offerors may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation or elimination from consideration of award. The response shall consist of three (3) volumes: Volume I – Combined Technical/Risk, Volume II – Past Performance, Volume III – Price/Required Documentation. These listed parts MUST be submitted as prescribed in paragraph 3(F).

2. General Instructions

A. The offeror's proposal shall include all data and information requested by this ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Solicitation and all attachments in Section J of the solicitation.

B. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal will not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

C. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. However, if used, elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments must be incorporated within the page limitation set forth by this ITO.

D. The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal’s documentation subpart that the proposal is valid through this date.

E. In accordance with (IAW) RFO 4.309(a), the Government will retain one (1) copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

3. General Information

A. Points of Contact: Please address requests for clarification regarding this acquisition to the points of contact (POCs) identified below. Note: Questions must be submitted no later than 16 July 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time (MDT).

Primary POCs: Cody Babinecz, (406) 731-4608, cody.babinecz@us.af.mil

2d Lt Branden Lawson, (406) 731-4353, branden.lawson@us.af.mil

Secondary POC: Colleen Goad, (406) 731-3473, colleen.goad@us.af.mil

B. Site Visit: The Government will conduct one (1) site visit for this solicitation. The site visit will occur as follows:

Date: 09 July 2026

Time: 9:00 am MDT

Location: 341 CONS Auditorium (located at 7015 Goddard Drive, Bldg. 145, Malmstrom AFB, MT)

This will be the only opportunity for offerors to access the site prior to proposal submission. The Government will not accommodate additional, individual, or alternate site visits outside of the existing conditions scheduled. Failure to attend the site visit does not relieve the contractor from responsibility of fully understanding the requirements of the solicitation and all site conditions that may impact performance.

C. Base Entry Information: A blank Contractor Entry Authorization List (CEAL) is provided as Attachment 11. Offerors requiring base access for the site visit shall complete the CEAL by filling in the required information for the individuals requiring base access, convert the CEAL to PDF format (not Excel), sign the CEAL where is says “Project Manager” and email the CEAL to the primary POCs no later than 01 July 2026 at 2:00 PM MDT.

Please Note: Effective 7 May 2025, all contractors requiring unescorted access to Malmstrom Air Force Base must present Real ID-compliant identification in accordance with the REAL ID Act of 2005. Real ID-compliant forms of identification include state issued driver’s licenses or identification cards that meet the security standards outlined in the REAL ID Act. REAL ID-compliant forms of identification can be found at the following site: https://www.dhs.gov/real-id.

D. Notices and Debriefings: The Contracting Officer (CO) will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from competition before award. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing in accordance with RFO 15.206-2.

Upon contract award, the CO will notify unsuccessful offerors. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request a post-award debriefing in accordance with RFO 15.301.

Please note, offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or may elect to delay the debriefing until after award. However, offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal.

E. Discrepancies: If an offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

F. Electronic Reference Documents: All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the System for Award Management website (SAM) at http://www.sam.gov.

Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

G. Communications: Source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the CO. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See RFO 2.101 & 3.104” in the Subject line.

H. Volume Organization: The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table below. The titles and contents of the volume shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified below. The attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary. Offerors are permitted to submit one

(1) CD containing all required documents for the three (3) volumes with their proposals.

The contents of the CD copy must be organized to match the table below. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below:

Proposal Organization Table

Volume Subpart

ITO

Paragraph Number

Title Copies Page Limit

I 4 Combined Technical/Risk 1 Original 2 Copies

1 CD copy

1 4(B)(1) Project Management Plan 5 Pages

2 4(B)(2) Gantt Chart/Project Timeline 1 Page

II 5 Past Performance 1 Original 2 Copies

1 CD copy 40 Pages

III 6 Price/Required Documentation 1 Original 2 Copies

1 CD copy Unlimited

1) Page Limitations: Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following: Cover pages, Tables of Contents, Tabs, Glossaries or Resumes.

2) Page Size and Format: A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be no less than single-spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 11-point. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾- inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume or subpart. The same page size and format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs.

Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size.

Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume or subpart, and each 8.5 x 11 surface of a foldout shall be counted as a separate page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics, not for pages of text.

For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8-point.

3) Cross-Referencing: To the greatest extent possible, each volume and subpart shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with minimal cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume/subpart, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume/subpart is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. The offeror shall provide a Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix indicating by ITO, SOW/SOO/PWS, and/or specification paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item.

4) Indexing: Each volume and subpart shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume/subpart. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

5) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms: Each volume/subpart shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each.

Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volume/subpart.

6) Binding and Labeling: Each volume of the proposal shall be separately bound in a three-ring, loose-leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed IAW RFO 52.215-1(e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data, and RFO 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

G. Distribution: Volume I – Combined Technical/Risk, Volume II – Past Performance, and Volume III – Price/Required Documentation MUST be submitted in paper and CD form only. No form of electronic proposal (fax, email, etc.) form will be accepted by this Contracting Office.

All proposals must be received no later than 30 July 2026 at 2:00 p.m. MDT and shall be delivered to the Contracting Office at:

341 CONS/PKA (Attn: Cody Babinecz & 2d Lt Branden Lawson) 7015 Goddard Drive, Bldg. 145, Malmstrom AFB, MT, 59402-6863

NOTE: Hand carried deliveries shall be received and accepted at the address shown above. Delivery may be accomplished from 8:00 am – 4:00 pm on the date set forth for receipt and up to one week prior. Please call the primary POC at least one hour prior to your anticipated arrival time to ensure there will be personnel available to receive your proposal. Offerors should speak personally with one of the individuals listed below and not rely on voice mail. Contractor personnel delivering proposals are advised that they may be unable to access Malmstrom, AFB without a valid U.S. Uniformed Services Identification Card or DoD Force Common Access Card (CAC) that has been through the Biometrics process. Be advised your vehicle may be subjected to random vehicle searches, and/or you may encounter unexpected delays at the gates and plan accordingly.

Phone numbers for the Contracting Office are as follows:

Primary POCs: Cody Babinecz – (406) 731-4608

2d Lt Branden Lawson – (406) 731-4353

Secondary POC: Colleen Goad – (406) 731-3473

Contracting Squadron Front Office – (406) 731-3744

4. Volume I – Combined Technical/Risk

A. General Instructions: The purpose of the technical evaluation is to assess the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach meets the performance and capability requirements of the contract. The combined technical/risk subparts should be specific and complete.

Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. With your proposal’s submission, you are representing that your firm will fulfill all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal.

1) Volume Organization: The Combined Technical/Risk volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

a. Table of Contents

b. List of Tables and Drawings

c. Glossary

d. Cross Reference Matrix (if required)

e. Factor I – Combined Technical/Risk

(1) Subfactor 1 – Project Management Plan (PMP)

(2) Subfactor 2 – Gantt Chart/Project Timeline

B. Format and Specific Content:

1) Subfactor 1 – Project Management Plan (PMP): The offeror shall provide a written project management plan (PMP) describing the offeror’s specialized knowledge, skills, experience, certifications, capacity, planned subcontractors and overall technical capabilities they possess to perform the Repair North/South Base Water System, Phase 2 project AND potential requirements awarded under the Horizontal Construction MAC. The information in the PMP shall clearly describe the Offeror’s capabilities to deliver a quality product, effectively manage subcontractors, and coordinate work throughout all construction phases.

2) Subfactor 2 – Gantt Chart/Project Timeline: The offeror shall provide a Gantt

Chart or Project Timeline which outlines all major work elements showing a logical sequence of events to complete construction, clearly identifies the critical path for the subject project, and a description of the procedures, processes, and methods for tracking the progress of the Repair North/South Base Water System, Phase 2 project.

5. Volume II – Past Performance

A. General: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s performance history. Each offeror shall submit recent and relevant past performance references which demonstrate their ability to meet the requirements of the Horizontal Construction MAC. Past performance references may include but are not limited to 1) federal contracts/task orders or 2) non-federal contracts/task orders.

1) Volume Organization: The Past Performance volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

a. Table of Contents

b. List of Tables and Drawings

c. Glossary

d. Cross Reference Matrix (if required)

e. Factor II – Past Performance

(1) Past Performance Reference 1

(2) Past Performance Reference 2

(3) Past Performance Reference 3

(4) Past Performance Reference 4

(5) Past Performance Reference 5

B. Format and Specific Content:

1) Each offeror shall submit between three (3) to five (5) recent and relevant past performance references in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 7 – Past Performance Reference Sheet.

2) Recent and Relevant Contracts:

a. For this evaluation, “recent is defined as “completed or ongoing projects within the last six (6) years from the date of release of this solicitation”.

b. For this evaluation, “relevant” is defined as “design-build and design-bid-build heavy civil construction projects for the repair, alteration, and/or demolition of transportation infrastructure, utilities & energy systems (communication, electricity, natural gas, sewer, water, etc.), and site development valued between $100,000.00 and $3,000,000.00”.

3) This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming arrangements, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform 25% percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance. The offeror shall also submit a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information (Attachment 10). For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

4) In addition to past performance references, Government may pull past performance history from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases to aid in the assessment of an offeror’s past performance. The submission of past performance references that may be found from any of these sources will not increase the overall assessment of an offeror’s past performance rating. As such, offerors are highly encouraged to submit past performance references for consideration of the Government not already archived within these databases. In the event of an offeror does not have a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will be evaluated as prescribed in RFO 15.104(b)(3).

5) In the event the Government identifies issues or has questions during the assessment of a past performance reference, a conversation of efforts may be accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to demonstrate clear management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems are required.

C. Organizational Structure Change History: Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal subpart a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes affect the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation or performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

6. Volume III – Price/Required Documentation

A. General Instructions: The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the

Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. Offeror proposals shall include a signed copy of the solicitation (SF 1442) and completed copies of Sections A through K. Offerors are required to complete all blocks requiring offeror information.

Signature by the offeror constitutes an offer which the Government may accept.

Completed pricing information in Section B of the solicitation is not required due to the nature of the Horizontal Construction MAC CLIN structure. In lieu of filling out Section B, Offerors are required to submit a completed Bid Schedule (Attachment 4).

1) Cost/Price Reasonableness: This section is to assist you in submitting data other than certified cost or pricing data if it is required to evaluate the reasonableness of your proposed cost/price. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in the rejection of your proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror.

2) Rounding: All dollar amounts for all CLINs/SLINs should be proposed in whole dollar amounts rounded to two decimal points, for example: $1,423.78.

3) Volume Organization: The Price/Required Documentation volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

a. Table of Contents

b. List of Tables and Drawings

c. Glossary

d. Cross Reference Matrix (if required)

e. Factor III: Price/Required Documentation

(1) Solicitation Representations and Certifications

(2) Acknowledgement of All Amendments

(3) Repair North/South Base Water, Ph. 2 Bid Schedule (Attachment 4)

(4) Bid Bond

(5) Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

(6) Other Information Required

4) Format and Content

a. Solicitation Representations and Certifications: The purpose of this section is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the solicitation and Sections A through K

(1) Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form: Completion of blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and signature and date for blocks 20A, 20B and 20C of SF 1442.

Signature by the offeror on SF 1442 block 20B constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. The "original" copy should be clearly marked under a separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes.

(2) Sections I through K – Representations, Certifications, and other

Statements of Offerors: Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety.

b. Acknowledgement of all Amendments: Each offeror must sign and return one copy of the Standard Form (SF) 30 by the date specified on the form.

c. Bid Schedule: Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Section B for each sub-CLIN (SLIN), even if it is $0.00 to be considered for award. The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units.

ALL SLINs on the Bid Schedule will count towards the total evaluated cost.

(1) Rounding: All dollar amounts for all CLINs/SLINs should be proposed in whole dollar amounts rounded to two (2) decimal points, for example:

$1,234.56.

d. Bid Bond: The offeror shall submit the bid bond or guarantee for the Repair

North/South Base Water System, Ph. 2 project in this section of the proposal. The bid guarantee shall be submitted on an SF 24 and be in the amount of 20% the bid price or $1,000,000.00, whichever is less.

e. Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format of the table below.

Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document Page/Paragraph Requirement/Portion Rationale SOO, SOW, Specs, Model Contract, ITO, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph

Numbers

Identify the requirement or

Describe why the requirement portion to which the exception is taken can/will not be met

f. Other Information Required: Offerors shall provide the following information in Volume III of their proposal:

(1) Authorized Offeror Personnel: Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal, and who can obligate your company contractually and those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

(2) Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable

Designations: Provide company/division's street address, county, and facility code; UEI number (can be found on SAM.gov); size of business (large or small); all applicable socio-economic categories; and labor surplus area designation. This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

(3) Teaming Arrangement: If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement and relationship and copies of any teaming or joint venture agreements.

(4) Bonding Capability: Offerors shall provide proof from their bonding company that the offeror has the capability to obtain up to $10,000,000.00 in available bonding capacity IAW RFO 52.228-15.

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Basis for Contract Award

A. Basis for Award: This is a competitive best value source selection utilizing subjective trade-off procedures in which competing Offerors Past Performance and Combined Technical/Risk will be evaluated as significantly more important than Price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined non-responsive. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the solicitation. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their technical, past performance, and price records.

B. Number of Awarded Contracts: The Government is targeting the award of eight (8) firm-fixed price (FFP) contracts. However, the Government reserves the right to award more or less than eight (8) FFP contracts if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

C. Evaluation Process: The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Step 1: Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for responsiveness. Offerors deemed responsive to the requirements of the solicitation will be evaluated utilizing the criteria in step 2. Offerors deemed non-responsive will not be evaluated further.

Step 2A: The Government Evaluators will evaluate each Offeror’s technical subfactors and assign an adjectival technical risk rating in accordance with (IAW) the evaluation criteria described in TABLE 1.

Step 2B: The Government Evaluators will then evaluate and assign each Offeror’s proposal an overall adjectival combined technical/risk rating IAW the evaluation criteria described in TABLE 2. Proposals receiving a combined technical/risk rating of Acceptable (Green) or higher will be evaluated as prescribed in step 3.

** Offerors receiving a Combined Technical/Risk rating of Marginal (Yellow) or lower will not be evaluated further and will not be eligible for contract award/inclusion of the On-Ramp Program pool.**

Step 3A: The Government Evaluators will evaluate each Offeror’s past performance references and assign a relevancy rating IAW the evaluation criteria described in TABLE 3.

Step 3B: The Government Evaluators will evaluate each Offeror’s past performance proposal and assign a past performance confidence rating IAW the evaluation criteria described in TABLE 4. Proposals receiving a past performance confidence rating of Neutral or higher will be evaluated as prescribed in steps 4-6.

** Offerors receiving a past performance rating of Limited or No Confidence will not be evaluated further and will not be eligible for contract award/inclusion of the On- Ramp Program pool.**

Step 4: The Government Evaluators will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed price for the initial task order IAW RFO 15.404-1.

Step 5: Proposals will be sorted in descending order based upon the offeror’s Past Performance, Combined Technical/Risk, then Price.

Step 6A: Each Offeror’s determination of responsibility will be made IAW RFO Part 9.

The CO shall then award FFP contracts to the responsible offerors whose proposals are determined to be most advantageous to the Government for the Horizontal Construction MAC requirement based on the comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria.

Step 6B: The CO shall then award an FFP task order for the Repair North/South Base Water System, Phase 2 project to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the Government based on the comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria.

Step 6C: The CO shall then award FFP task orders for the guaranteed contract minimum to those the responsible offerors awarded a Horizontal Construction MAC contract but not the Repair North/South Base Water System, Phase 2 project.

1) The Government intends to award the contracts without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

2) Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and, in the format specified in Section L, Instructions to Offerors. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

3) On-Ramp Program Pool: The Government intends to maintain a pool of small business contractors with a proven track record of competing for and then delivering quality construction projects. As such, all Offerors not awarded a contract, but who received a technical rating of Acceptable (Green) or higher and a past performance confidence rating of Neutral or higher may be included in the On-Ramp Pool. See Attachment 8 and 9 for more information about the On-Ramp Program

2. Evaluation Factors for Award

A. Three (3) evaluation factors and two (2) sub-factors will be used to evaluate proposals:

Combined Technical/Risk (Factor I), Project Management Plan (PMP) (Sub-Factor 1), Gantt Chart/Project Timeline (Sub-Factor 2), Past Performance (Factor II), and Price (Factor III).

1) Factor I: Combined Technical/Risk

a. A technical evaluation of each offeror's proposal shall be made using the combined technical/risk rating method. The technical rating provides an assessment of the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach meets the performance and capability requirements of the Government. The focus of the combined technical/risk rating is to identify if the contractor has an adequate capability, capacity, and understanding of the requirements of the Government.

This rating will be based on the Government’s technical knowledge and historical data.

b. To satisfy the technical requirements of this solicitation, Offerors shall provide the following information as prescribed in Section L:

(1) Subfactor 1 – Project Management Plan (PMP): The offeror shall provide a written project management plan (PMP) describing the offeror’s specialized knowledge, skills, experience, certifications, capacity, planned subcontractors, and overall technical capabilities they possess to perform the Repair North/South Base Water System, Phase 2 project AND potential requirements awarded under the Horizontal Construction MAC. The information in the PMP shall clearly describe the Offeror’s capabilities to deliver a quality product, effectively manage subcontractors, and coordinate work throughout all construction phases.

(2) Subfactor 2 – Gantt Chart/Project Timeline: The offeror shall provide a Gantt Chart or Project Timeline which outlines all major work elements showing a logical sequence of events to complete construction, clearly identifies the critical path for the subject project, and a description of the procedures, processes, and methods for tracking the progress of the Repair North/South Base Water System, Phase 2 project.

c. The Government evaluation team will evaluate the subfactors above to identify weaknesses, potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Each offeror’s technical subfactors will be assessed an adjectival technical risk rating as described as in TABLE 1:

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RISK

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that cause an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

d. The Government evaluation team will then evaluate each offeror’s technical proposal for quality. It will include consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies found in the proposal. Each offeror’s technical proposal will be assessed an overall adjectival combined technical/risk rating as described in

TABLE 2.

TABLE 2 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

2) Factor II – Past Performance

a. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform requirements based on previous and current contract efforts. The following will be used to define the criteria:

(1) Recent is defined as “completed or ongoing projects within the last six (6) years from the date of release of this solicitation.”

(2) Relevant is defined as “design-build and/or design-bid-build heavy civil construction projects for the repair, alteration, and/or demolition of transportation infrastructure, utilities & energy systems (communication, electricity, natural gas, sewer, water, etc.), and site development valued between $100,000.00 and $3,000,000.00.”

b. Each offeror’s past performance references will be evaluated and assessed a relevancy rating as described in TABLE 3.

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/Past performance effort involves essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort, and is determined to be Very Complex in accordance with the requirements of this solicitation.

Relevant Present/Past performance effort involves similar scope, magnitude of effort, and is determined to be Moderately Complex in accordance with the requirements of this solicitation.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/Past performance effort involves some of the same scope, magnitude of effort, and is determined to be Moderately Complex in accordance with the requirements of this solicitation.

Not Relevant Present/Past performance effort involves little or none of the same scope, magnitude of effort, and is determined to be Not Complex in accordance with the requirements of this solicitation.

c. Each offeror’s past performance references will be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s performance then assessed a Performance Confidence Rating as described in TABLE 4. The Government evaluation team will then assess each offeror an overall integrated Performance Confidence Rating based on the cumulative ratings of the Government evaluation team.

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

d. The Government may use past performance information submitted by the offeror’s references, other sources such as other federal government offices, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), and private and commercial sources. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

e. Where the relevant past and present performance records indicate performance problems, the Government may consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts, or performance evaluations, to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. If the offeror clearly demonstrates management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified, this may allow the offeror to be rated higher than might otherwise be indicated. The Government will evaluate/assess all past performance information, positive and negative. Offerors may be offered the opportunity to respond to negative past performance reports if they had not had the opportunity to do so previously. An offeror without a record of relevant past performance will receive a past performance rating of “Neutral Confidence.”

3) Factor III: Price

a. An offeror’s proposed price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Attachment 4 – Repair North/South Base Water System, Ph. 2 Bid Schedule by the proposed unit price for each CLIN to confirm extended amount for each. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with RFO 15.404 and RFO 31.201-3) may not be considered for award.

b. All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the Government. In case of variation between the unit price and the extension, the unit prices will be considered the offer.

c. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to RFO 15.404. For additional information, see RFO 31.201-3.

d. All offerors are required to submit offers on all items listed in Attachment 4.

B. Contractor Responsibility

1) Prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made IAW RFO Part 9.

2) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer has specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer) whether there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

3) Bonding Capability: Offerors shall provide proof from their bonding company that the offeror has the capability to obtain up to $10,000,000.00 in available bonding capacity IAW RFO 52.228-15.