AM 0001 RFP W9128F21R0008_03Feb21.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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 (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. The purpose of this amendment is to make changes in the 00 22 10. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 25

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Feb-2021

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W9128F21R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Jan-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer 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:

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

03-Feb-2021

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DIST

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVENUE

OMAHA NE 68102-4901

W9128F 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9128F21R0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

00 22 10 PHASE 1

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

INDEX

1. SCOPE OF WORK

1.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

1.2. TYPES OF PROJECTS

1.3. ON-RAMP PROCEDURES

2. SELECTION PROCEDURE OVERVIEW

3. PHASE 1 PROPOSAL FACTORS IN PHASE 2

4. GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

4.1. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

4.2. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

5. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

6. INQUIRIES/QUESTIONS

7. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

7.1. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGMENT OTHER THAN JOINT VENTURE

7.2. JOINT VENTURE TEAM ARRANGMENT

7.3. INTEGRITY AND VALIDITY OF CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

8. BASIS FOR AWARD

9. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

10. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

11. TECHNICAL RATING

12. PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

13. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

14. RATING DEFINITIONS

15. CPARS AND CCASS RECORDS

16. DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

17. DEFINITIONS

18. TECHNICAL FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

18.1. VOLUME 1, TAB 1 – FACTOR 1 – PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

18.1.1. Submission Requirements

18.1.2. Evaluation Criteria

18.2. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

18.2.1. Submission Requirements

18.2.2. Evaluation Criteria

18.3. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT APPROACH

18.3.1. Submission Requirements

18.3.2. Evaluation

19. ATTACHMENT 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (FORM PPQ-0)

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

1. SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of this request for proposal (RFP) includes all work required for Design-Build Construction in Support of POL Facilities – Infrastructure for Various locations in the United States (CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii) and outlying areas. In Phase 1 of 2 Phase Selection Procedures a maximum of six (6) of the most highly qualified firms will be selected by the Government to participate in Phase 2 of this solicitation. This solicitation is a open to both large and small business participants. In Phase 2 of this solicitation, the Government intends to award a target of four (4) Firm-Fixed Price, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts under one Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) in support of the Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants – Mandatory Center of Expertise (POL- MCX). The work shall be in accordance with Request for Proposal documents issued within this solicitation.

1.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

The purpose of this MATOC is to provide design-build and construction services in support of sustainability, restoration, modernization (SRM) and design-build construction of DoD Fuels Infrastructure within the United States (CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii) and outlying areas. The scope of work for this acquisition includes, but is not limited to: replacement of aging fuel infrastructure and/or components, repair of storage tanks and containment areas, POL system upgrades and maintenance (modernization), facility demolition, construction of fuels support facilities, regulatory compliance, and design to support the construction work projects for primary customer, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). As requirements develop, Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for projects will be issued under individual Task Orders.

The majority of the work to be performed under these contracts is necessary due to the age of the infrastructure, absence of maintenance, and safety/environmental regulatory compliance requirements for the imperative and successful operation of the POL facilities. The DoD petroleum infrastructure consists largely of real property facilities and supporting infrastructure which transfer, receive, store, and dispense petroleum products in support of day-to-day, training and operational missions across the globe. Petroleum products are typically transferred by rail, pipeline and truck. Storage is accomplished by bulk storage (tank farms) or operational storage tanks.

Dispensing is from operational storage or dispensing points into vehicles, mobile tanks, refueling vehicles or aircraft/equipment refueling points.

The total value of all task orders awarded under this MATOC will not exceed $150,000,000. The minimum guarantee amount for each contract will be $2,500.00. Task orders will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and generally within the value range of approximately $2,000,000.00 or above. Orders will follow the ordering procedures in Paragraph 1.3 below.

1.2. TYPES OF PROJECTS

Work anticipated under this MATOC includes design and construction work identified in Table 1 - SPECIALIZED WORK for POL fuel storage complexes, or portions thereof, in support of fuel distribution systems. Task order projects will include fuel system design services, inspection services and other services needed to complete each task order construction project. Task orders may include incidental excavation and proper disposal of POL contaminated soils. Broader mitigation efforts would not be executed under this

MATOC. The majority of the task orders will be design-build, with a minor amount being design-bid-build task orders.

Where a project task order includes installation or modification of a control system, such as tank gauging equipment, fuel dispensing management systems, pump control systems, HVAC controls, fire alarm systems, etcetera, the designs completed and the equipment provided shall be in accordance with current cyber security requirements applicable, based upon the security controls required for the system categorization.

All work will be accomplished in compliance with Military Fuel Standards, UFC 3-460-01, DoD, American Petroleum Institute (API), state and federal regulations.

Table 1 – SPECIALIZED WORK

a. Construction, maintenance, repair and demolition of POL facilities and infrastructure, to include design. Facilities and infrastructure include facilities in direct support of the fuel receipt, pipeline, above-ground storage tank (AST), under-ground storage tank (UST), transfer, containment, laboratory testing, POL operations, quality control, equipment, and dispensing systems

b. Tank rehabilitation. Work consists of construction, repairing, replacing, and upgrading coatings, worn components, corrosion, and deficiency to the tank systems necessary to make the tank fully functional for support of mission requirements. Components typically include valves, pumps, piping, controls, dikes/berms, structural components (shell/tank bottom), life safety, and fire safety systems.

c. Tank cleaning prior to inspection and upgrades. Internal tank cleaning prior to inspection and upgrades.

Work includes cleaning to remove residual fuel products, water/sludge removal, and preparation of tank for inspection.

d. Repairs and Emergency Inspections Only. Emergency inspection with follow-on repairs. This includes POL facility inspections to determine condition. The inspection report documents current conditions and requirements for servicing, repairs, and upgrades.

THE OFFEROR SHALL BE REGISTERED FOR NAICS CODE 237120 AT A MINIMUM BY THE DATE

PHASE 1 PROPOSALS ARE DUE.

1.3. ON-RAMP PROCEDURES

Reference Section 00 73 00, paragraph 1.6 ON-RAMP PROCEDURES.

2. SELECTION PROCEDURE OVERVIEW

In Phase 1 of the two phase selection procedure, Offerors submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute task orders under a contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the qualifications submitted in Phase 1 of 2 Selection Procedures and will invite a maximum of six (6) of the most highly qualified Offerors to compete in Phase 2 for award of the

MATOC.

Offerors must submit a complete Phase 1 proposal to be considered for Phase 2. PHASE 1 DOES NOT INVOLVE

PRICING SUBMISSION.

Prior to Phase 2, an amendment will be issued to only the selected Offerors from Phase 1 inviting them to submit Phase 2 technical and price proposals for consideration. The amendment will request additional information needed to complete the submission of Phase 2 proposals. In Phase 2, the Source Selection Authority and Contracting Officer’s intent is to award a target of four (4) contracts under this MATOC to the Offerors whose proposal offers the best value to the Government. DO NOT SUBMIT ANY PHASE 2 DOCUMENTS DURING PHASE 1.

Offerors must submit a complete Phase 2 proposal to be considered for award. Failure to submit a complete proposal may result in the entire proposal being rejected.

3. PHASE 1 PROPOSAL FACTORS IN PHASE 2

The Phase 1 evaluations will be carried forward into the Phase 2 evaluation. There is no separate submission of Phase 1 information required or allowed for Phase 2. The Government will incorporate the Phase 1 individual factor ratings, underlying narratives, etc. when evaluating the Phase 2 proposals to determine the proposals which provides the best value to the Government.

4. GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

This solicitation is unrestricted and is open to all potential Offerors.

Offerors formally organized as Design/Build (DB) entities, or design firms and construction contractors that have formed a teaming arrangement specifically for this contract, or any other interested party may submit proposals. All Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) in the same manner as they are proposing for this solicitation (i.e. a single entity proposing as a Joint Venture must be registered as a Joint Venture).

The North American Industry Classification System code for this project is 237120, with a size standard for Small Business of $39.5 million dollars.

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the proposal. There will be no public proposal opening. All proposals submitted will become, upon receipt, the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned. After evaluation of proposals, any extra copies of the proposals deemed unnecessary by the government will be destroyed.

The original will be retained for the official contract file. In addition, extra copies of the awardees’ proposal will be submitted to the Field and Areas Offices in support of their contract administration functions.

4.1. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically. All submissions will 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 files via email. Offerors may use compression utilities such as 7-Zip, WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission. Offerors are encouraged to send both files in the same email transmission, if possible.

PHASE 1:

Volume I: Technical Proposal, Factors 1-3 Volume II: Required Documents

Title the single files in the following format:

W9128F21R0008_COMPANY NAME_PHASE1_VOLUME_I

W9128F21R0008_COMPANY NAME_PHASE1_VOLUME_II

For this solicitation, the recipients will be:

1. Tyler Hegge, whose email address is tyler.hegge@usace.army.mil and

2. Glenda Canty, whose e-mail address is glenda.a.canty@usace.army.mil and

3. Ericka T. Collins, whose email address is ericka.t.collins@usace.army.mil

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 via email 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.

Electronic Proposals shall be received via email No Later Than (NLT) the date and time indicated in Block 13 of the SF 1442 for this solicitation or as identified in subsequent amendments.

The Government is not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the proposal is submitted so as to reach the designated recipient and is responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the information provided.

Failure to submit a complete proposal IAW instructions and requirements may result in the entire offer being rejected.

4.2. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

Offers shall be submitted at the location stated and by the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442 (Section 00 10 00, Page 1).

5. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1. In order to be considered for award of a contract for the requirements of this solicitation, the Offeror must submit a complete proposal with its offer. Failure to submit a complete proposal may result in the entire offer being rejected. The proposals shall be submitted in Volumes as follows:

Phase 1

Phase 1, Volume I, Technical Proposal:

Table of Contents FACTOR 1 Previous Experience FACTOR 2 Past Performance FACTOR 3 Technical/Management Approach

Phase 1, Volume II, Required Documentation:

Cover Letter Table of Contents Completed SF 1442 Bond Letter Contractor Team Arrangement Requirements Completed SF 30 (if applicable)

TABLE 1: Phase 1 Evaluation Factors

Volume Eval Factor Tab –Title Page Limitations

I Factor 1 Previous Experience

I Factor 2 Past Performance No Page Limitations for Past

Performance

I Factor 3 Technical/Management Approach

10 - If an offeror utilizes 11”x17” paper for the organization structure, it will be counted as one (1) page.

2. Proposal Characteristics

a) Each Volume shall contain a table of contents and all pages of each factor shall be sequentially numbered. All text shall be typed single-spaced with minimum 10 point font. and easily read. The page size of the Offeror’s proposal shall not exceed 8-1/2 by 11 inches. Diagrams, charts and tables shall conform to the paper size. All text shall be typed single-spaced. Margins (1-inch) shall be clean and clear of any text except for proprietary statements, security markings and page numbers which may fall within the defined margin area. Solicitation number and company name of Offeror may also be included within the margins. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror.

ONLY PHASE 1 VOLUMES I & II NEED TO BE SUBMITTED DURING PHASE 1 OF THE TWO

PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURE.

b) Offeror shall submit a cover letter containing:

i. Solicitation number

ii. Name, title, address, email, and telephone number of the offeror.

iii. Names, titles, emails, and telephone numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

iv. Name, title and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal.

v. A statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the RFP.

c) Offerors shall submit a completed SF1442 with their proposal.

d) Offerors shall submit a letter from their bonding company agent certifying the current maximum bonding capacity per project and the aggregate capacity.

e) For Contractor Team Arrangements including Joint Ventures, submit the information required by Paragraph 7 “Contractor Team Arrangements”.

f) Offerors shall submit acknowledgement of all amendments to the RFP in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 (amendment form).

3. Prior to Phase 2, an amendment will be issued to selected Offerors from Phase 1 inviting them to submit

Phase 2 technical and price proposals for consideration. The amendment will request additional information needed to complete the submission of Phase 2 proposals. The following evaluation criteria will be included in Phase 2 Selection Procedures:

Evaluation Factor 4: Key Personnel Evaluation Factor 5: Technical Approach for the Sample Project Evaluation Factor 6: Small Business Participation Plan Cost / Price Proposal for the Sample Project

6. INQUIRIES/QUESTIONS

Prospective Offerors shall submit contracting and technical inquiries and questions concerning this solicitation document via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at www.projnet.org/projnet. Please refer to Section 00 21 00 of this solicitation for Bidder Inquiry instructions.

***Please Note: Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions shall be rejected.

7. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

7.1. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGMENT OTHER THAN JOINT VENTURE

PHASE 1 Requirements:

All Offerors proposing a team arrangement other than a Joint Venture, shall submit the following information in Phase 1:

a. Provide a listing of the team arrangement members’ corporate name (no abbreviations), address, point of contact, phone number, DUNS Number, and Cage Code.

b. Indicate to what extent the members of this team arrangement have worked together in the past, including identifications of magnitude and complexity of projects worked on.

c. Submit 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) shall be signed by the appropriate individual(s) of each firm.

7.2. JOINT VENTURE TEAM ARRANGMENT

No contract may be awarded to a Joint Venture that is not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. The joint venture must have its own Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and register as such. An 8(a) joint venture agreement must be received by Small Business Administration (SBA) prior to the Phase 1 proposal due date and approved before award of any resulting contract.

PHASE 1 Requirements:

a. In the cover letter of your proposal, provide the complete names, addresses, and phone numbers of the firms comprising the joint venture.

b. A copy of the Joint Venture agreement.

c. Signature requirements: SF 1442, SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (pages 00 10 00- 1 and 00 10 00-2), Block 20 requires that the name and title of a person authorized to sign the offer for the joint venture be provided. In the case of a joint venture, subject Standard Form shall be signed by the principal representative of the joint venture (or the alternate principal representative, if the principal representative is unavailable).

d. Indicate to what extent the members of the joint venture have worked together in the past, including identifications of magnitude and complexity of projects worked on.

e. 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 there under 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. These individuals have authority to sign on behalf of the joint venture.

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

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

f. Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key positions are employees of the individual Joint Venture parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the Joint Venture.

g. If one of the Joint Venture parties possesses Prime Contractor or Joint Venture experience and/or past performance as a Federal Government contractor or as a Corps of Engineers contractor, that experience and/or past experience will be included as the experience and/or past experience of the Joint Venture.

PHASE 2 Requirements:

Joint Ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities during Phase 2:

a. For 8(a) Joint Venture agreements, a certified copy of the Joint Venture agreement. This agreement must be certified by SBA before award of any resulting contract.

b. A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate, shall be submitted during Phase 2 of the two phase selection procedures.

1. The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

2. The structure of the joint venture and decision-making responsibilities of the Joint Venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

3. Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the Joint Venture to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the Joint Venture.

4. Joint Ventures shall also state who will have custody and control of the assets of the Joint Venture and perform the duties necessary to complete the work. Identification of party maintaining the Joint Venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the Joint Venture.

5. Identification of party having overall control of the Joint Venture.

7.3. 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, on the basis of 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. BASIS FOR AWARD

The agency will use Two-phase Design-Build Selection Procedures authorized by FAR 36.301.

The Phase 1 selection will be based on evaluation of technical factors and past performance. There are three non-price factors in Phase 1: Factor 1 – Previous Experience, Factor 2 – Past Performance, and Factor 3 – Technical/Management Approach. Price will not be considered during Phase 1. Only those Offerors who submitted the most highly rated proposals in Phase 1 will be invited to submit a proposal for Phase 2, and they will be the only Offerors eligible to compete in Phase 2.

In Phase 2, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without conducting discussions with Offerors. However, in the event the Source Selection Authority (SSA)/Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) concludes conducting discussions is in the best interest of the Government, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer 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 Offerors initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

A sample project may be used to meet price competition requirements for this unrestricted Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) in Phase 2.

9. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Previous Experience Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Technical/Management Approach Factor 4: Key Personnel (Phase 2 Only) Factor 5: Technical Approach for the Sample Project (Phase 2 Only) Factor 6: Small Business Participation Plan (Phase 2 Only) Factor 7: Cost/Price Proposal for the Sample Project (Phase 2 Only)

All Evaluation Factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

Proposals will be evaluated using the Best Value-Tradeoff process as identified in FAR 15.101-1.

10. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

All offers received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.3, DoD Source Selection procedures, and Army Source Selection Supplement. The principal objective of this process is to select responsible Offerors who submit the offers that are the Best Value to the Government. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all technically acceptable, responsible proposals received in response to this particular solicitation.

11. TECHNICAL RATING

The evaluation ratings for Technical Factors 1, 3, 4, and 5 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 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 2. The Combined technical/risk ratings will be used to evaluate Phase 1 – Factor 1 Previous Experience, Phase 1 – Factor 3 Technical/Management Approach, Phase 2 – Factor 4 Key Personnel and Phase 2 – Factor 5 Technical Approach to the Sample Project. The evaluation rating that will be used for Phase 1 - Factor 2 Past Performance is described in Paragraph 12 below. The evaluation rating that will be used for Phase 2 – Factor 6 Small Business Participation Plan is described in Paragraph 13 below.

Table 2: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates and 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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

12. PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

The past performance evaluation factor 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 a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Recent is defined as past performance on contracts that had a construction completion date within eight (8) years of the date that Phase 1 proposals are due. Relevancy is defined as similarity of items stated within this solicitation such as: types of projects, dollar value, contract type, and customer(s). 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:

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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 customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The SSEB 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:

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.

13. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

The Small Business participation factor (Factor 6) will be assigned a rating based on the Table 3, below:

Table 3: Small Business Participation Plan Ratings

Rating Adjectival 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.

14. RATING DEFINITIONS

Strengths, Significant Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies are defined as follows:

Strength: 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: an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness: a flaw 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.

15. CPARS AND CCASS RECORDS

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)/ Construction Contract Administration Support System (CCASS) records may be obtainable by Offerors by visiting https://cpars.cpars.gov/.

16. DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Preaward Debriefing of Offerors, and FAR

15.506 Postaward Debriefing of Offerors.

17. DEFINITIONS

Civil: For this solicitation, civil is defined as a non-military government agency that supports the general public. Civil agencies or stakeholders may include VA, NIST, USACE Civil Works Projects, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, National Parks Service, etc.

Construction: means construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, structures, or other real property. For purposes of this definition, the terms “buildings, structures, or other real property” include, but are not limited to, improvements of all types, such as bridges, dams, plants, highways, parkways, streets, subways, tunnels, sewers, mains, power lines, cemeteries, pumping stations, railways, airport facilities, terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways, lighthouses, buoys, jetties, breakwaters, levees, canals, and channels.

Construction does not include the manufacture, production, furnishing, construction, alteration, repair, processing, or assembling of vessels, aircraft, or other kinds of personal property (except that for use in FAR Subpart 22.5, see definition at 22.502).

Design: means defining the construction requirement (including the functional relationships and technical systems to be used, such as architectural, environmental, structural, electrical, mechanical, and fire protection), producing the technical specifications and drawings, and preparing the construction cost estimate.

Design-Build: combining two components, design and construction, in a single contract with one contractor; one component is not incidental to the other but rather dependent on each other.

Design-Bid-Build: the traditional delivery method where design and construction are sequential and contracted for separately with two contracts and two contractors.

Institutional: relating to an established organization or agency

Modernization: the alteration or replacement of facilities solely to implement new or higher standards, to accommodate new functions, or to replace building components that typically last more than 50 years (such as the framework or foundation).

Military: for this solicitation, military is defined as a secure government installation that supports national defense.

Restoration: the restoration of real property to such a condition that it may be used for its designated purpose.

Restoration includes repair or replacement work to restore facilities damaged by inadequate sustainment, excessive age, natural disaster, fire, accident, or other causes.

Similar: having characteristics in common and is strictly comparable to a referenced item.

Structure: an item that is constructed. This may include but is not limited to bridges, dams, plants, highways, parkways, streets, subways, tunnels, sewers, mains, power lines, cemeteries, pumping stations, railways, airport facilities, terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways, lighthouses, buoys, jetties, breakwaters, levees, canals, and channels.

Sustainment: the maintenance and repair activities necessary to keep an inventory of facilities in good working order. It includes regularly scheduled adjustments and inspections, preventive maintenance tasks, and emergency response and service calls for minor repairs. It also includes major repairs or replacement of facility components that are expected to occur periodically throughout the life cycle of facilities. This work includes regular roof replacement, refinishing of wall surfaces, repairing and replacement of heating and cooling systems, replacing tile and carpeting, and similar types of work.

18. TECHNICAL FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

18.1. VOLUME 1, TAB 1 – FACTOR 1 – PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

18.1.1. Submission Requirements

The specialized work to be performed pursuant to these contracts includes that described in Table 1

– SPECIALIZED WORK above. The specialties are not mutually exclusive and will be grouped by the type of work.

The project examples should demonstrate recent experience on design-build and design-bid-build construction project types similar to the typical projects listed in Paragraph 1 – Scope of Work.

For previous experience project examples in Factor 1 that will include Section 1.2, Table 1, sub-section b. specialized work, the project example shall have been performed on one of the following:

tank shell, tank roof, tank bottom or internal floating roof of an above ground storage tank.

For previous experience project examples in Factor 1 that will include Section 1.2, Table 1,sub- section c., the project example shall not include pipeline or pipe cleaning unless it is ancillary to the AST/UST cleaning features of work.

In this tab, the Offeror shall submit (3) design-build project examples and (1) design-build or design-bid-build project example. The Offeror shall have actively participated in the design and construction aspects in each design-build project example submitted. Project examples should illustrate the types of projects described in Paragraph 1.2. Project examples submitted should be similar in size, scope, and complexity as it relates to this solicitation. Only those project examples for which the Offeror was the prime contractor or joint venture participant at the time of project execution shall be submitted. Projects for which the Offeror was a subcontractor or a teaming member of a subcontractor at the time of project execution are not acceptable.

If an Offeror of a small business contractor includes a proposed team of small business contractors and those first tier subcontractor(s) are identified in the proposal and a binding teaming arrangement has been executed and provided in Volume II, the small business Offeror can utilize the prime contractor experience of the first tier subcontractor(s). Experience from a first tier subcontractor acting as a subcontractor or a teaming member of a subcontractor at the time of project execution is not acceptable. (AM#0001)

Each project example should consist of no more than a two (2) page narrative and should clearly demonstrate the design-build or design-bid-build capabilities of the Offeror.

NOTE: If more than four (4) project examples are submitted, only the first four (4) contained in the proposal will be evaluated. If more than a two (2) page narrative per project example is submitted, only the first two pages will be evaluated.

Each project example cited shall have a contract (stand-alone contract or single task order) dollar value at award that is $1,000,000 or greater and a Building Occupancy Date (BOD) or date when construction was complete and system was operational that is within eight (8) years of the date that Phase 1 proposals are due. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts, where numerous Task Orders are summed to meet the minimum contract dollar value identified herein, are not acceptable.

The narrative should include the items below in the following order:

1. Project title

2. Contract number, task order number, or unique customer-assigned identifier

3. Location (include: installation/base/facility, city, state, country)

4. Contract (stand-alone contract or single task order) dollar value at award

5. Final Design Cost

6. Final Construction Cost

7. Notice to proceed date

8. Original construction completion date (BOD or construction complete and system was operational date)

9. Actual construction completion date (BOD or construction complete and system was operational date)

10. Explanation for any cost or schedule growth

11. Designer of Record (DOR) (for both D-B and D-B-B project examples)

12. Name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of a representative of the customer or an alternate individual not affiliated with your firm and familiar with your firm’s experience on the project example that can verify the experience cited

13. Project description

14. Briefly explain the relevance of the project example compared to the types of projects stated within this solicitation

15. Briefly explain how the Offeror participated in the design portion of a design-build project.

NOTE: "Offeror" and "prime contractor" as used in this solicitation shall mean ONLY the named entity entered on SF1442 of Section 00 10 00 of the proposal submission. In the event the Offeror is a Joint Venture (reference Paragraph 7 “Joint Venture” above), project examples submitted for this evaluation factor shall be those completed by the Joint Venture Offeror or any party of the Joint Venture at the time of project execution. In the event the Offeror or prime contractor intends to have contractor team arrangement(s), whereby a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractor(s) under this Government contract or where two or more committed companies form a partnership other than a certified Joint Venture, projects submitted for this evaluation factor shall be limited to projects completed by the Offeror/prime contractor entity ONLY. If an Offeror includes an affiliation, such as a subsidiary or sister company, of a company with a named offeror, then the proposal must include a factual basis showing the planned relationship between the companies on the contract at issue, i.e. the proposal must indicate the involvement of the affiliate in performance of the contract before the agency can attribute the affiliate’s past experience or performance to the offeror. The Government will not accept for evaluation project examples completed as a subcontractor.

18.1.2. Evaluation Criteria

The Government intends to evaluate the four (4) projects submitted by each Offeror to determine each Offeror's previous experience. Under this evaluation factor, the Government intends to evaluate the projects submitted with each Offeror’s proposal to assess the breadth, depth and relevance of each Offeror’s proposed experience with performing the design-build requirements called for in this RFP and as described in Paragraph 1.2. An Offeror that submits projects that demonstrate the breadth, depth and relevance of its experience with performing the work called for under this RFP will be rated more favorably than Offerors that submit proposals that do not demonstrate the breadth, depth or relevance of an Offeror’s experience with performing the work called for in this RFP. Each Offeror’s proposal will be thoroughly evaluated against this evaluation criteria and, using the definitions noted above, the Government intends to identify specific features in each proposal that it considers “strengths,” “weaknesses,” and “deficiencies” before assigning an overall adjectival rating consistent with the definitions as set forth in Paragraph 11.

To ensure that each Offeror has a better understanding of the areas that the Government intends to emphasize when assessing an Offeror’s relevant experience with performing work called for under this RFP, the Government provides the following guidance concerning the assignment of proposal “strengths,” “weaknesses,” and “deficiencies.”

Strengths or Significant Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

Diversity of experience across the four (4) project examples submitted that clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to perform the scope of work identified in Paragraph 1.2 and have similar characteristics, such as size, complexity, the number of trades employed and whether the DoD was the customer.

Offeror clearly demonstrates the successful completion of a project that included construction of a new, or repairs to an existing, DoD pressurized hydrant fueling system (Type III, IV, or V). For project experience demonstrated by repairs to an existing hydrant fueling system, the contract value of the completed system repairs shall be equal to or greater than $1,500,000.

Offeror clearly demonstrates the successful completion of a project that included repairs to a field fabricated vertical aboveground fuel storage tank, which required the relocation and reinstallation of the tank in order to perform under tank improvements to include the complete removal of the tank floor, removal and re-installation of soils, removal of any contamination, installation of an FML, Cathodic Protection, Leak Detection and new tank floor.

Offeror clearly demonstrates successful completion of a project that included the proper closure and complete removal of an underground fuel storage tank in accordance with the applicable state regulations, replacement with a new aboveground fuel storage tank, and system upgrades to integrate the new tank to a truck loading and/or vehicle dispensing system.

Offeror submitted four (4) design-build project examples.

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…