Attachment 27- Section L and M.pdf

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

INFORMATION TO OFFERORS & INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

1. PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVE

The Government intends to award a contract to construct the Honor Guard Facility at Tyndall Air Force Base. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions with offerors. Award will be made on the basis of best value utilizing subjective tradeoff source selection procedures where past performance is significantly more important than price. It is the intent of the Government to award the contract to a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) that provides the best value to the Government over the entire period of performance.

2. GENERAL INFORMATION

(a) This section of the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by this ITO and be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Evidence of experience, capability, and qualifications that clearly demonstrate and support the offeror's claims are essential.

Nonconformance with the instructions provided in the ITO may result in the proposal being ineligible of award or an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

(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 shall provide rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the 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, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(d) The proposal acceptance period is a minimum of 90 calendar days from date of submission. The offeror shall make a clear statement in the proposal Volume I that the proposal is valid for the stated period of time.

(e) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain a copy of all proposals.

(f) Offerors should submit any questions they may have in writing to SSgt Mario Carrasco (Contract Specialist) at mario.carrasco@us.af.mil and Bernard Husted (Contracting Officer) at bernard.husted.2@us.af.mil, utilizing Attachment 17 RFI Template. All questions are due no later than 19 July 2024, 2:00 PM CST. Questions received after this date may not be answered. All answers will be posted to Sam.gov. Responses to questions shall be posted to SAM.gov web site. NOTE: Offerors are encouraged to submit all questions and requests for clarifications no later than 19 July 2024, 2:00 PM CST. The decision whether to respond to questions and requests for clarification after the due date shall be at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer (CO).

(g) Site Visit Details: Date: 12 July 2024

Time: 10:00 AM, CST Location: Visitor's Center Parking Lot, Tyndall AFB, FL

Directions: Each Prime Contractor is allowed to bring two personnel. Contractors shall provide the names of who will be attending the site visit no later than 08 August 2022, 4:00 PM CST by filling out Attachment 18 Base Access Request EAL and sending to all Points of Contact listed above.

3. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

(a) Proposals must be completed and submitted prior to the time and date specified in Block 13 of the SF 1442. It is the Offeror's responsibility to confirm receipt of correspondence. The proposal shall be sent electronically to the below Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer.

SSgt Mario Carrasco (CS) mario.carrasco@us.af.mil Bernard Husted (CO) bernard.husted.2@us.af.mil

(b) To submit electronic proposals, offerors shall request a DoD SAFE Drop-off link from the Contract Specialist and/or Contracting Officer identified above, no later than four (4) hours prior to the date and time the proposals are due. Requests shall include the name and email address of the individual(s) that will receive the DoD SAFE Drop-off Request. Drop-off requests remain valid for 14 days from receipt with a maximum total upload size of 8GB. The Government is not responsible for late proposal submissions from Drop-off requests requested after the stated timeline.

(c) To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, and representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The proposal shall consist of four (4) separate volumes:

Volume I – Executed Contract Documents Volume II –Technical Volume III –Past Performance Volume IV –Price.

(d) Debriefings: The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503.

Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR

15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

(e) Point of Contact: The Contracting Officer (CO) and Contract Specialist (CS) are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the CO and CS at the email addresses located in paragraph 3(a) above.

(f) Discrepancies: If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO and CS 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 discussions.

(g) Electronic Reference Documents: All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the SAM. gov web site. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real time e-mail notifications from the website for this solicitation.

(h) Block 14 of SF1442 must include Name and Address of Offeror (include Zip Code) and CAGE Code, TIN, and unique entity identifier used in SAM.gov.

(i) Amendments to Solicitation: If this RFP is amended, the terms and conditions that were not amended remain in full force and effect. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment and provide confirmation upon submission of the offeror's proposal. Any unacknowledged amendments in the offeror's proposal will be considered as non-acceptance and will negatively affect their evaluation.

(j) Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals: Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted via electronic media to the CO and CS, as stated in paragraph 3a above, showing the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the offeror.

(k) 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. Page limitations may also be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if any. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page shall be counted with exception of blank pages or title page tables of contents, tabs, glossaries, and those parts of the proposal noted as unlimited.

(l) 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 single-spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the font size shall be no less than 12 point. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Margins shall be set at a minimum of 1 inch at the top and bottom and 3/4 inch at each side of each page. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall also apply to responses to ENs, if any. These limitations shall apply to the proposal (as applicable).

Solicitation attachments shall not be altered and are exempt from stated formatting.

(m) 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 and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single 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 font size shall be no smaller than 12 point. These limitations shall apply to the proposal (as applicable).

(n) Electronic Copy: One (1) electronic copy of the entire proposal shall be submitted via DoD SAFE. Ensure in DOD SAFE "Short Note to the Recipients" includes the project title, the solicitation number, the date and time of submission and the name of the offering firm.

The electronic copies via DoD SAFE of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2016 (r), MS Excel 2016 (r), MS Power Point 2016 (r), and Adobe Acrobat (r) as applicable.

(o) Cross Referencing: Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal.

Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

(p) Overall Table of Contents (TOC): The proposal shall have an overall TOC. The TOC shall delineate the sections and any subsections within those volumes. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

(q) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms: The proposal shall contain an overall glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each.

(r) Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

4. OFFERS

(a) The proposal and other information shall be submitted through DoD SAFE. A DoD SAFE Drop-off request shall be sent to the Contract Specialist as identified in paragraph 3b above. The overall outline of the proposal shall consist of the following:

Table of Contents

Volume I - Executed Contract Documents

Tab 1: Executive Summary Tab 2: Section A, Solicitation, Offeror and Award ( SF1442) Tab 3: Proof of Financial Responsibility Tab 4: Section L, Contract Provisions (SF1442)

Tab 5: Section K, Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors

(SF1442)

Tab 6: Exceptions to Solicitations Requirements

Volume II - Technical

Tab 1: Contractor Quality Control Plan (CQC) Tab 2: Environmental Requirements Tab 3: Experience in Building Projects

Volume III - Past Performance

Tab 1: CPARS or Past Performance Information Sheets Tab 2: Adverse Information

Volume IV – Price

TAB 1: Division Cost Estimate Worksheet (Attachment 20)

(b) Glossary. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Therefore, only a limited amount of pricing information is required in the initial proposal. Upon examination of the initial proposals, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO's opinion, there is adequate price competition, no additional price information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition, the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

4.1 VOLUME I – EXECUTED CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

TAB #1 Executive Summary

(a) Each offeror shall submit an Executive Summary of no more than one (1) page that summarizes the key points from the offeror's Price and Past Performance areas. The summary shall begin with company/division's street address; CAGE Code; Unique entity identifier (SAM.gov) and size of business, and a summary of the key points from the offeror's Price and Past Performance volumes.

(b) Exterior cladding, components and structure of the building: As part of the Summary of Work in the SOW - Include in the executive summary the main structural method(s) to be used for the buildings superstructure.

TAB #2

- Section A, Solicitation, Offeror and Award (Standard Form 1442), with amendments, if any, acknowledged, signed, and dated by a person legally authorized to bind the company.

- Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20a, b, c.

- Provide electronic copy of completed SF1442 and amendments. Copy must be legible.

(a) Offerors shall submit the SF 1442 with a signature of a person legally authorized to bind the company. Offerors shall provide the name, title and telephone number(s) of the company/division point(s) of contact regarding decisions made with respect to the proposal and who can obligate the company contractually. Offerors shall identify those individual(s) authorized to negotiate with the Government for this solicitation. All amendments, if any, must be included and signed by a person legally authorized to bind the company.

TAB #3

- Proof of Financial Responsibility

(a) The Offeror shall include Proof of Financial Responsibility (fill out Attachment 19 Proof of Financial Responsibility) as evidence to the CO that the Offeror has sufficient financial resources to cover start-up expenses for this acquisition IAW FAR 9.104-3(a).

TAB #4

- Section L, Contract Provisions (Standard Form 1442)

- Provide only those pages that require offeror responses.

- Electronically generated documents required.

TAB #5

- Section K, Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors (Standard Form

1442)

- If the offeror is a small business Joint Venture (JV), include a copy of the JV Agreement. If the JV Agreement requires approval by the SBA, furnish SBA supporting documentation.

- Electronic copy of documents is required.

TAB #6

- Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

(a) Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors shall 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.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. The information provided shall include, at a minimum the following:

- Solicitation Document: Document to which exception is taken.

- Paragraph/Page: Applicable page and paragraph numbers.

- Requirement/Portion: Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken.

- Rational: Offeror justifies why the requirement will not be met

4.2 VOLUME II - TECHNICAL (FACTOR 1): Page Limitation: unlimited unless otherwise noted.

TAB #1 (Subfactor 1)

- Contractor Quality Control Plan (CQC)

(a) Quality Control Plan: Offerors shall submit a Quality Control Plan following UFGS 01 45 00.00 10 Quality Control including:

(b) A table of contents, with major sections identified, pages numbered sequentially, and that documents the proposed methods and responsibilities for accomplishing quality control during the construction of the project. The CQC Plan must at a minimum include the following sections:

(i) A description of the quality control organization and acknowledgment that the

CQC staff will implement the three-phase control system for all aspects of the work specified.

(ii) An organizational chart showing the quality control organization with individual names and job titles and lines of authority up to an executive of the company at the home office.

(iii) NAMES AND QUALIFICATIONS: Names and qualifications, in resume format, (including position titles and durations for qualifying experiences) for each person in the QC organization. Include the Construction Quality Management (CQM) for Contractor’s course certifications for the QC personnel as required by the paragraph CONSTRUCTION QUALITY MANAGEMENT

TRAINING

(iv) DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY OF QC PERSONNEL:

Duties, responsibilities, and authorities of each person in the QC organization.

(v) OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS: A listing of outside organizations, such as licensed architectural and consulting engineering firms, that will be employed by the Contractor and a description of the services these firms will provide.

(vi) APPOINTMENT LETTERS: Letters signed by an officer of the firm appointing the QC Manager and Alternate QC Manager, Design Quality Control Manager, CxC, and stating that they are responsible for implementing and managing the QC program as described in this Contract. Include in this letter the responsibility of the QC Manager and Alternate QC Manager to implement and manage the three phases of control, and their authority to stop work that is not in compliance with the Contract. Letters of direction are to be issued by the QC Manager to [the Assistant QC Manager and all other QC Specialists] or quality control representatives outlining their duties, authorities, and responsibilities. Include copies of the letters in the QC Plan.

(vii) SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES AND INITIAL SUBMITTAL REGISTER:

Procedures for reviewing, approving, scheduling, and managing submittals, including those of subcontractors, designers of record, consultants, architect-engineers (AE), offsite fabricators, suppliers, and purchasing agents. Provide the name(s) of the person(s) in the QC organization authorized to review and certify submittals prior to approval. Provide the initial submittal of the Submittal Register as specified in Section 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

(viii) TESTING LABORATORY INFORMATION: Testing laboratory information required by the paragraph ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS, as applicable.

• TESTING PLAN AND LOG: A Testing Plan and Log that includes the tests required, associated feature of work required, referenced by the specification paragraph number requiring the test, the frequency, and the person responsible for each test.

• Procedures to complete design and construction deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action. Establish verification procedures that identified deficiencies have been corrected. This phase is performed prior to beginning work on each definable feature of work, after all required plans, documents, materials are approved, and after copies are at the work site.

• Reporting procedures, including proposed reporting formats.

• Procedures for submitting and reviewing design changes/variations prior to submission to the Contracting Officer

TAB #2 (Subfactor 2)

- Environmental Requirements

(a) Provide a detailed analysis of what is required to obtain a SWPPP, ERP, Construction Generic Permit (CGP) and various environmental testings.

(b) Provide examples of when you coordinated with FDEP to obtain SWPPP and CGPs.

TAB #3 (Subfactor 3)

- Experience in one story federal building projects.

(a) Offerors shall submit three (3) building projects showing construction experience with at least two projects that constructed a new facility from the ground up as the prime contractor.

(b) Contractors shall provide the required documentation for each project being submitted within this tab:

a. Project Title; Contract Number; Base/Federal Installation; Contracting Officer and project inspector contact information.

b. Copy of SOW

c. Copy of approved schedule

d. A completed final inspection report /final documentation paperwork signed by all parties showing project completion for each project listed as relevant experience for this solicitation.

4.3 VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2):

TAB #1

- Completed Past Performance Information Sheets / Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(a) Offerors shall provide past performance information in the form of Past Performance Information Sheets (Attachment 26) or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System for each of the three contracts for the building projects represented in Vol II Tab 03. to be considered. THE OFFEROR IS

RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBMITTING ALL COMPLETED INFORMATION

SHEETS AND/OR CPARS REPORTS WITH THEIR PAST

PERFORMANCE VOLUME

(b) Ensure primary points of contact for references are currently available to provide past performance information.

(c) The Government will only consider past performance performed by the Offeror.

Offerors shall submit information on three (3) recent contracts considered most relevant. When proposing as a Joint Venture (JV), offeror shall include three (3) recent contracts performed by members of JV partnership considered most relevant. Recent past performance is defined as any work completed within the past five (5) years to include on-going contracts. The recent/relevant past performance information submitted for evaluation must be valued at no less than $500,000 with a minimum performance length of 180 calendar days to be considered for evaluation.

(d) Each offeror shall submit completed Past Performance Information Sheets for each past performance effort the offeror wishes to be considered in this offer/proposal.

This information is required on the offeror, all teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform the work outlined in the solicitation. Offerors are advised that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume along with data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance. All past performance information shall be evaluated in accordance with the Past Performance factor as defined in Section M, Evaluation Criteria, of this solicitation.

Electronic copy must be legible; electronically generated and E-signed documents are required.

TAB #2

- Adverse Information (if any)

(a) Offerors shall provide any adverse information they or the JV received in the past 3 years, such as Letters of Concern, Cure and or Show Cause Notices, Terminations for Cause/Default and a narrative explaining the circumstances resulting from its receipt and corrective actions taken, if applicable. This may include a discussion of efforts 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 past performance 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 shall clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. Submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an Offeror has overcome past problems is required.

(b) Joint Venture (JV) relationships are not assumed IAW 13 C.F.R. 121.103(h).

Therefore, offerors shall identify whether they are bidding as JVs, and if so, the organization of the relationship.

(c) JV Agreements require SBA approval prior to award of this effort. It is imperative that offerors intending to perform as a JV submit their SBA-approved JV Agreement upon submission of their proposal.

4.4 VOLUME IV – PRICE (FACTOR 3): Page Limitation: unlimited unless otherwise noted.

- Fill in the CLINS to include the total cost found in Section B of the SF 1442. This can be a copy of what is submitted in Volume I, Tab 2.

- Contractors shall submit a completed Division Cost Estimate Worksheet (Attachment 20)

5.0 OTHER NOTES

- INCURRED EXPENSES The Government is not responsible for any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation. NO OFFERORS WILL BE COMPENSATED FOR SUBMITTING A

PROPOSAL.

- ALTERNATE PROPOSALS: No alternate proposals will be accepted.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will utilize Subjective Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3, where past performance is significantly more important than price, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made between past performance and price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. A contract shall be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by evaluation factors of this request for proposal) and is chosen, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirements at a fair and reasonable price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Decision Authority reasonably determines that the superior past performance of a technically acceptable higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

While the Government source selection evaluation team and the source selection decision authority will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, therefore each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

2. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the construction of the Honor Guard Facility as a SDVOSB set-aside.

3. REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically low in price when compared to Government estimate and competitive pricing, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

4. CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any deficiency or proposal inadequacy. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

5. EVALUATION FACTORS

(a) Evaluation: The basis of award will be a subjective tradeoff with past performance being significantly more important than price, when evaluating proposals. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Quality Control Plan Subfactor 2: Environmental Requirements Subfactor 3: Past Experience

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

(b) Process (Stepped Approach):

Step 1 - Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability (Factor 1), based on Quality Control Plan, Environmental Requirements, and past experience.

Step 2 - Proposals will be evaluated using the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating (Table 1 in Section

M).

Step 3 - Proposals meeting an Acceptable Technical rating, and received a substantial, satisfactory, or neutral confidence, will be evaluated for price reasonableness by comparison of: all proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), and other methods/means such as RS Means. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Step 4 – The contracting officer will hold discussions if deemed necessary.

Step 5 - The Source Selection Decision Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision by selecting the best value to the Government.

(c) Factor 1 - TECHNICAL (Volume II):

The technical evaluation team will evaluate all proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or

Unacceptable.

The technical factor will receive one of the technical ratings described below based on the criteria listed. An unacceptable assessment in any of the technical subfactors will result in an overall technically unacceptable rating.

ACCEPTABLE: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. UNACCEPTABLE: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

(Subfactor 1) Quality Control Plan: At a minimum, an acceptable Quality Control Plan must provide a detailed narrative to include any graphic representations of the offeror's plan to ensure successful execution of the construction of the new Honor Guard facility. The offeror's proposal shall clearly convey the following:

a. Overall understanding of submittal review, construction management, and closeout processes and logical measures to ensure the successful execution of the project;

b. Clear processes for the logical, effective, and expedient documentation and resolution of quality problems;

c. Logical measures to identify poor performing subcontractors, to include appropriate corrective action, management tools, methods, and documentation;

d. Key quality control personnel (with no overlapping duties and responsibilities) and the extent of their authority;

e. Methods and frequency of inspection for ongoing projects; and

f. Methods the offeror will utilize to update the Government on project status and how interface with

Government inspectors will be accomplished (status updates shall be a minimum of weekly).

(Subfactor 2) Environmental Requirements: To be acceptable the contractor shall provide sufficient level of knowledge, understand, and the processes on what is required to adhere to and obtain FDEP requirements to include SWPP, CGP, ERPs, and various testings. Also show understanding of how maintain SWPPP BMPs.

(Subfactor 3) Past Experience: For acceptability, offerors shall provide documentation showing completion of three (3) construction projects, with a minimum contract value of $500K, on federal installations with at least two

(2) of the projects where new facilities were constructed from the ground up and where the offeror was the Prime.

Offeror shall provide proof of recency and relevancy.

Recency: For the purpose if this evaluation, all projects must have been performed within the last five (5) years

(from the date of issuance of this solicitation).

Relevancy: The offeror submits three (3) projects from past experience that show relevance to the construction activities required for this project. To be acceptable, relevancy will include documentation from projects completed or in progress by the Offeror that resemble the project within this solicitation to include but not limited to new vertical construction, new vertical additions to real property, site layout, and civil work.

Projects that do not meet the recency and relevancy definition shall be deemed "Unacceptable".

If any of the Technical Subfactors are rated "Unacceptable" then Factor 1: Technical, will be rated as

"Unacceptable" and the proposal shall not be evaluated any further.

(d) Factor 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume III): The Government will perform a Past Performance evaluation on all offers to determine a Performance Confidence Assessment rating and then perform a best value trade-off in accordance with paragraph 4 below. The Government will only consider past performance performed by the Offeror. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror's ability to successfully perform the requirements of this effort. The evaluation is based on recency, relevancy, and a demonstrated record of performance quality.

(1) Performance Quality: The quality review consists of an evaluation of the Past Performance Information Sheet

(Attachment 26) responses, CPARS or other similar systems, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may also include interviews with Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) officials or other sources known to the Government. Particular attention will be paid to the following areas, which are addressed in the Past Performance Information Sheet and/or CPARS reports: management; schedule; cost control, and quality. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

(2) Recency: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Efforts that have not yet been completed must have at least six (6) months of performance from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails to meet these conditions may not be evaluated. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the information in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

(3) Relevancy: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the construction of a new Honor Guard facility.

Construction efforts/projects showing the capability to perform and manage a new facility construction from the ground up. Relevant efforts/projects are defined as new construction efforts/projects valued at $500,000 or greater with a minimum performance length of 180 calendar days.

(4) Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings: As a result of review of all three aspects of past performance, offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Although the Past Performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the areas addressed by the Past Performance Information

Sheet and/or CPARS reports (management, schedule, cost control, and quality control), the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

Offerors will receive an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, and No Confidence, as defined in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Performance Confidence Assessment

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

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

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

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.

(e) Factor 3 - PRICE (Volume IV): The Government shall evaluate all offerors' price proposals for completeness and accuracy. Failure to provide complete and detailed Division Cost Estimate Worksheet as required in this solicitation may cause the Government to remove a proposal from further consideration. The Government will then rank all technically acceptable offers with a Confidence Performance Rating of Neutral or better from lowest to highest price.

(1) The offeror's total proposed cost will be evaluated for award purposes.

(2) Analysis of cost proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1. Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror's price proposal.

Reasonableness will be determined by comparison of all proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, Division Cost Estimate Worksheet, as well as comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE). For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

(3) The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more-line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6. BEST VALUE TRADEOFF The Source Selection Decision Authority will make a subjective evaluation to determine which offer represents the best value to the Government. For the purposes of the tradeoff, past performance will be considered significantly more important than price. Price will become increasingly important as the non-price evaluation factors become increasingly equal. Price will not be a numerically weighted factor in the evaluation of proposals and the importance of price does not bear a linear relationship to the importance of past performance. The importance of price in the evaluation for award will depend upon the differences in evaluated past performance among offerors and, as stated above, will increase as the differences decrease.

7. DISCUSSIONS It is the Government's intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that each offeror submit their best terms with their initial proposal. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

8. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS 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. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

9. CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and, in the format, specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal.

Clarification conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions.

10. RESPONSIBILITY A Contractor Responsibility Determination will be made IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 for the prospective awardees.