Attachment 5 Instructions.pdf

ATTACHMENT #5

SOLICITATION SECTION 00 22 10

PERTAINING TO OFEROR’S SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION GENERAL SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR PREPARATION OF

PHASE ONE PROPOSALS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. OVERVIEW

a. This solicitation is for the Design-Build contract for the P203 Naval Operations Support Center (NOSC) at Hill AFB, UT.

b. This solicitation utilizes a two-phase source selection process requiring two separate proposal submittals.

c. The Phase-One proposal consists of only non-price technical factors. The Government shall select approximately 3-5 of the most highly qualified offerors from Phase-One who will be given the opportunity to submit a Phase-Two proposal that consists of price and technical factors.

d. In accordance with FAR 15.306 the Government does not intend to conduct discussions during either phase of this solicitation, but reserves the right to do so if discussions appear to be in its best interest.

2. BASIS OF CONTRACT AWARD

2.1 ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with the requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

2.2 SOURCE SELECTION USING THE “BEST VALUE” THE LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPABLE (LPTA)

The Government will select the offer that represents the best value to the Government by using the LPTA method described in FAR Part 15. The Government shall evaluate the lowest- priced offeror first. Should that offeror’s proposal be found to be technically acceptable in all non-price factors, the Government shall stop evaluations and make direct award to said offeror, assuming their price is found to be fair and reasonable.

Should the proposal not be technically acceptable in all non-price factors or should the price offer not be found fair and reasonable, the Government shall evaluate the next lowest-price offeror. This process will repeat until a technically acceptable offeror whose price offer is fair and reasonable is selected.

2.3 THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical proposal against the evaluation criteria contained herein in order to determine the proposal’s technical acceptability. The process will continue until a technically acceptable proposal is identified. Once a technically acceptable proposal is identified, proposal evaluation will cease; and the Government will proceed to evaluate the technical acceptable offeror’s price proposal and upon the contracting officer’s affirmative determination of responsibility, the Government will proceed to award the contract. Each of the evaluation factors will be evaluated by the Government and an acceptability rating will be determined by consensus of the Government evaluation board for all technical factors other than past performance. The Past Performance factor will be evaluated by the Government and an acceptability will be determined by consensus of the Government evaluation board.

b. The evaluation factors correlate directly to the main organizational tabs identified in the proposal submission instructions.

Phase-One Proposal.

(1) Factor 1: Experience (separate PDF submitted electronically)

(2) Factor 2: Bonding Capacity (separate PDF submitted electronically)

(3) Factor 3: Past Performance (separate PDF submitted electronically)

Phase-Two Proposal. To be included with the amendment initiating Phase two.

c. The Source Selection Authority will consider only the Phase One proposals during Phase One, however both the Phase One and the Phase Two proposals will be used in determining the lowest price technically acceptable to the Government in Phase Two.

2.4 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Beginning with the lowest priced offer, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical proposal against the evaluation criteria contained herein in order to determine the proposal’s technical acceptability. The process will continue until a technically acceptable proposal is identified. Once a technically acceptable proposal is identified, proposal evaluation will cease; and the Government will proceed to evaluate the technical acceptable offeror’s price proposal and upon the contracting officer’s affirmative determination of responsibility, the Government will proceed to award the contract. Each of the evaluation factors will be evaluated by the Government and an acceptability rating will be determined by consensus of the Government evaluation board for all technical factors other than past performance. The Past Performance factor will be evaluated by the Government and a relevancy acceptability will be determined by consensus of the Government evaluation board.

b. The evaluation factors correlate directly to the main organizational tabs identified in the proposal submission instructions.

Phase-One

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Bonding Capacity Factor 3 – Past Performance

Phase-Two

“Phase Two criteria will be supplied once we are that point in the acquisition.” *Note: Phase One criteria will be used in the ultimate award decision.

2.5 GENERAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

a. The offeror’s conformance with the specified format and submission requirements will be considered during the technical evaluation. Failure to comply with the formatting and/or submission requirements may be seen as indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during contract performance. More than a nominal number of errors/mistakes or egregious errors/mistakes may affect the offeror’s ability to clearly meet the minimum requirements. Material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable. However, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals.

b. Technical proposals which do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions may be found to be unacceptable. The Government is under no obligation to search for information that is not in the specified location.

c. Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail may be found unacceptable. Responses that are essentially blanket offers of compliance are not adequate substitutes for the detailed and complete technical information necessary to establish that an offeror can meet the specified requirements. The proposal submission instructions are written to give prospective contractors, where feasible, an indication of the level of detail desired by the Government. The offeror’s failure to include information that the Government has indicated should be included may result in the proposal being found unacceptable if inadequate detail is provided.

d. Any prescribed page and formatting limitations will be strictly adhered to and enforced by the Government. The Government will not evaluate any excess information resulting from the offeror’s failure to comply with the submission instructions. Examples: If an offeror were to submit three pages in response to an item with a two page limitation, the information on the first two pages would be evaluated but the information on the third page would not be evaluated.

e. The degree of risk to the Government inherent in the offeror’s technical proposal will be a consideration under every evaluation factor.

f. The Government cannot make award based on an unacceptable offer. Therefore, a rating of “Unacceptable” under any factor will render the offer ineligible for award, unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with that offeror and the revised proposal is found to be acceptable.

g. Technical Ratings: Other than Past Performance

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

ADJECTIVAL RATING

DESCRIPTION

“ACCEPTABLE”

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

“UNACCEPTABLE”

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

h. Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the resulting contract requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Past performance shall be used as an evaluation factor within the LPTA process, unless waived by the PCO in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii). It shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table 1.

Past performance should be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each LPTA source selection. Therefore, the solicitation shall establish the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement being procured. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract performance history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the requirements of the contract that is contemplated to be awarded as a result of the evaluation of proposals in the current procurement.

Second, the past performance evaluation should determine how well the offeror performed on the prior 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.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR

15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Table 2 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note above)

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation.

Sources are as follows:

Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition.

Past Performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of entities (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror's proposal, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency, and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, PPQs submitted on prior RFPs, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

The technical evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine whether the proposal is technically acceptable or unacceptable based on the definition above at Table 2. Per FAR 15.101-2(b)(1), small business offerors that are found to be technically unacceptable will be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination.

3. GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR PHASE-ONE PROPOSALS ARE PROVIDED IN PHASE-ONE.

THE INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR PHASE-TWO WILL BE PROVIDED AFTER PHASE-ONE. PHASE-TWO

INSTRUCTIONS WILL BE ISSUED VIA AN AMENDMENT TO THE SOLICITAION.

3.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. PHASE-ONE

3.1.1 Media, Page Size, Margins, Fonts, and Page Limitations.

Submit only one electronic copy specifically authorized in this section. Do not submit excess information, to include audio-visual materials, electronic media, etc. Do not include links to information on websites in lieu of incorporating the information physically into the proposal. Except where another size is specifically authorized for a specific submission, use only 8 1/2” x 11” paper. Use at least 1 inch margins, which may include headers and footers. Do not justify the right margin. Ensure that all text and graphics are clearly legible. Do not use a font size smaller than 10, unusual font styles such as script, or condensed fonts. For submissions with page limitations, the pages will be counted as follows: One side of the paper is one page;

information on both the back and front of one sheet of paper will be counted as two pages. Where authorized, a foldout sheet will count as one page. Pages furnished for organizational purposes only, such as a “Table of Contents” or divider A = Actual which means it has been completed tabs, are excluded from page limitations.

3.1.2 Proposal Binding.

This will be an electronic submission. Please follow instructions (proper Tabbing, etc.) for preparing the electronic file.

3.1.3 Conditioning of Offer.

Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal volumes.

Inclusion of any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in a determination that the offer is unacceptable and thus ineligible for award. Resolve questions about the terms and conditions or technical requirements of the solicitation prior to submission of the offer; see “Inquiries”, located in Section 00 21 16, for points of contact. Notwithstanding the above, the offeror must clearly describe in the proposal cover sheet submitted with the price volume any exceptions, within the offer, to the contractual and/or technical terms and conditions of the solicitation.

3.1.4 Restrictions on Offeror-Provided Information.

“Confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can nonetheless be provided to the Government as part of the offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must clearly mark the information in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offeror – Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”. Files shall not contain classified data.

3.2 GENERAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION. PHASE-ONE

The proposal shall be submitted as summarized below and as required by the specifications.

DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS/BIDS

The Government will not accept telegraphic or facsimile bids.

Proposals/Bids MUST BE submitted electronically using the DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE): https://safe.apps.mil/

Proposals/Bids submitted through SAFE require an Offeror-unique link sent by the Contract Specialist to the Contractors point of contact and associated e-mail address. Registration with DoD SAFE is not required to upload files. Submissions are limited to 8 GB and are due regardless of technical difficulties.

Please request a link from the Contract Specialist by e-mail to sara.d.kimsey@usace.army.mil

To ensure accurate receipt and prompt processing, Offerors are encouraged to request a DoD SAFE invitation link from the Contract Specialist no later than 24 hours prior to proposals/bid due date.

Links must be requested from the Contract Specialist at least 2 hours prior to the proposal/bid opening due date and time.

Only one (1) SAFE submission is allowed per Offeror.

Once sent by the Contract Specialist, a SAFE invitation link is only active ONCE (i.e., multiple sessions or versions are not allowed -if the link is clicked, it will not be active later for changes to be made). The Contract Specialist can verify bid submission receipt upon request; e-mail requests for confirmation are preferred. SAFE links are valid for 14 days after being issued.

Late proposals/bids will NOT be accepted for any reason.

Naming of proposal electronic files:

Each ‘tab’ as defined below, will be a separately uploaded file. Note, with DoD safe the link will allow you to upload multiple files for one submission.

“Offeror_Name” Tab 0: Preface (separate PDF submitted electronically) “Offeror_Name” Tab 1 Factor 1 Experience (separate PDF submitted electronically) “Offeror_Name” Tab 2 Factor 2 Bonding Capacity (separate PDF submitted electronically) “Offeror_Name” Tab 3 Factor 3 Past Performance (separate PDF submitted electronically)

4.0 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR PHASE ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSALS:

REQUIRED CONTENTS OF PHASE ONE PROPOSALS

4.1 NUMBER OF SETS OF THE PHASE ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, physical bids/proposals will not be accepted.

All bids/proposals must be submitted electronically.

DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS/BIDS

The Government will not accept telegraphic or facsimile bids.

Proposals/Bids MUST BE submitted electronically using the DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE): https://safe.apps.mil/

Proposals/Bids submitted through SAFE require an Offeror-unique link sent by the Contract Specialist to the Contractors point of contact and associated e-mail address. Registration with DoD SAFE is not required to upload files. Submissions are limited to 8 GB and are due regardless of technical difficulties.

Please request a link from the Contract Specialist by e-mail to sara.d.kimsey@usace.army.mil

To ensure accurate receipt and prompt processing, Offerors are encouraged to request a DoD SAFE invitation link from the Contract Specialist no later than 24 hours prior to proposals/bid due date.

Links must be requested from the Contract Specialist at least 2 hours prior to the proposal/bid opening due date and time.

Only one (1) SAFE submission is allowed per Offeror.

Once sent by the Contract Specialist, a SAFE invitation link is only active ONCE (i.e., multiple sessions or versions are not allowed -if the link is clicked, it will not be active later for changes to be made). The Contract Specialist can verify bid submission receipt upon request; e-mail requests for confirmation are preferred. SAFE links are valid for 14 days after being issued.

Late proposals/bids will NOT be accepted for any reason.

4.2 FORMAT, CONTENTS, AND LIST OF TABS FOR THE PHASE ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Use 8-1/2” x 11” pages with a minimum 10 font for the narrative portions of the proposal. The overall technical proposal has no page limit; however, limits may be imposed at the tab level. Number the pages by Tab so that the first page under each tab is numbered “Page 1” and following pages are numbered consecutively. The tabs directly correlate to the technical evaluation factors. Although the Government may use information contained anywhere within the technical proposal in its evaluation of any technical evaluation criteria, the Government is not obligated to search for or to consider information that is not located in the specified location. Do not include any information pertaining to proposed pricing for this project in the technical proposal; price proposals shall be submitted only during Phase Two of the source selection process. Limit your submittals to the information specified; excess information will not be evaluated. Organize your technical proposal as indicated below.

4.3 ORGANIZATION OF PHASE-ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

TAB Content to be included under each tab

TAB 0. – PREFACE (a separate PDF)

Proposal Data Sheet Prime Contractor / Key Subcontractor Introduction The completed Standard Form 1442 with continuation pages, without a price, duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company. Ensure that the firm’s DUNS or DUNS+4 Number is entered in the block with its name and address.

Your acknowledgement of all Amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 Amendment.

Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable) Your completed Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Bidders/Offerors

(Section 00 45 00).

TAB 1. FACTOR 1 - Experience (a separate PDF) TAB 2. FACTOR 2 - Bonding Capacity (a separate PDF) TAB 3. FACTOR 3 - Past Performance (a separate PDF)

4.4 DETAILED SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PHASE-ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

4.4.1 Tab 0 of the Technical Proposal: Preface

See 4.3 for content of Preface.

4.4.1.1 Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Introduction

a. The Offeror is required to propose a specific project team including key subcontractors for evaluation in response to this Request for Proposals. For purposes of this procurement, the terms “key subcontractors” are used to refer only to the prospective subcontractors whose qualifications, experience, and past performance will be evaluated by the Government as part of the source selection process.

For reasons of efficiency, not all of the subcontractors critical to successful post-award contract performance have been included in this group. In order to streamline the proposal submission and evaluation process, please limit your submission to the information specifically requested. Information pertaining to other subcontractors not designated as “key” by the Government will be considered excess and may not be evaluated.

b. For the purposes of this procurement, a key subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor performing “key” major work elements for which capability information is required to be submitted for evaluation as part of the Offeror’s Phase-One technical proposal. The Government has designated the following major work elements as “key”:

- Architect-Engineer Design

c. Any changes to key subcontractors in your Phase 2 proposal from your Phase 1 proposal will not be allowed.

d. Any subcontractors and outside associates or consultants required by the Contractor in connection with the services covered by the contract will be limited to individuals or firms that were specifically identified and agreed to during negotiations. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitution for these subcontractors, associates, or consultants.

e. Provide a brief introduction narrative. Identify and provide the name, DUNS number, address, point of contact e-mail address, and a brief description of the role and authority of each firm that will be involved in performance of this contract at the prime contractor and key subcontractor level. If the proposed prime contractor is a Joint Venture, describe the relationship, role, and authority (to include management authority) of each firm. (Note: If a proposed firm has branch offices, provide information for each individual branch office that will perform work under the contract with its own workforce.) List the major work elements to be self-performed by the offeror’s in-house work force, the major work elements to be performed by each key subcontractor, and any other major work to be subcontracted to other contractors. The submission is limited to two (2) 8-1/2”x11” pages for narrative.

f. The Government will not evaluate the Preface - Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Introduction. The purpose of this narrative is to provide a brief introduction for information purposes; however, if applicable, the government reserves the right to consider it throughout the evaluation of the other factors.

4.4.2. Tab 1 of the Technical Proposal: Factor 1 – Experience:

The example projects submitted at Tab 1 provide the primary basis for the Government’s evaluation of each offeror’s project experience and capability. Use Attachment – Offeror’s Project Experience form.

4.4.2.1 Prime Contractor / Key Subcontractor Example Projects Demonstrating Experience.

Offerors shall submit at least four (4) example projects, but no more than six (6) for the proposed “relevant” projects demonstrating that the prime and subcontractor(s) demonstrate recent and relevant experience and capability to successfully perform work similar in size, scope, and complexity to the project described in this solicitation.

For this factor, projects considered must meet at least one “each” of the following criteria:

(1) Prime contractor experience on “similar” design-build projects;

(2) Architect-Engineer designer experience on “similar” design-build projects;

(3) Prior experience on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) construction projects or Air Force construction projects totaling at least $10,000,000 in construction value;

a. The offeror shall, submit “example projects” (either commercial or institutional) that demonstrate the prime’s and key subcontractor’s experience and capability meeting the evaluation criteria to successfully perform under the resulting contract.

b. When combined, example projects must meet all the criteria above. Projects must have been completed and turned over within the 10 years preceding the date of this solicitation to the time that proposals are due. Do not submit construction projects that are not either complete or substantially complete. For this purpose, “substantially complete” means that only punch list items remain for project acceptance or that the 95% of the elements of the project have been turned over to the customer for beneficial occupancy. If an

Offeror presents a project that is less than 95% complete, the proposal must include an explanation why that project should be considered substantially complete.

c. For this solicitation “similar” projects must be at least 25,000 square feet and a mixed use office facility. The offeror must provide a narrative to explain how the experience and capabilities shown by the example projects are relevant to this project and show the contractor’s and key subcontractor’s understanding of the risks, and work requirements and approach necessary to successfully complete this project. Relevant projects are of similar scope, square footage, security requirements, scope and square footage of security requirements, and complexity of the requirements.

(1) The offeror’s experience and capabilities as a prime contractor to successfully perform this contract. Explain how the experience and capabilities shown by the example projects are relevant to this project and show the contractor possesses an understanding of the risks and requirements and approach necessary to successfully act as the prime contractor for this project.

(2) The offeror’s design-build management capability. Explain how the experience and capabilities shown by the example projects are relevant to this project and show the contractor’s and/or key subcontractor’s possess an understanding of the risks, and requirements and approach necessary to successfully manage the design-build requirements of this project.

(3) The experience and capabilities of the lead designer to design this project. Explain how the experience and capabilities shown by the example projects are relevant to this project and show the contractor and/or the key subcontractor possesses an understanding of the risks and requirements and approach necessary to successfully act as the lead designer for this design-build project.

(4) Explain whatever other characteristics that the offeror feels the example projects show that the contractor and/or its key subcontractor possess an understanding of the risks, and requirements and approach necessary to successfully complete this project.

d. Demonstrate experience in the following areas:

(1) Prime contractor and Architect-Engineer designer experience on similar design-build projects;

(2) Prior experience on USACE construction projects or Air Force construction projects;

(3) Prior Experience designing and constructing mixed-use office and training facilities.

e. Example projects may demonstrate multiple experiences and capabilities. If an example project is submitted for multiple experiences and capabilities, identify each attribute of experience and capability the offeror seeks to demonstrate. Each example project submitted does not need to demonstrate multiple experiences and capabilities, but all the example projects must collectively demonstrate the offeror’s range of relevant experience and capabilities.

f. Do not submit construction projects that are not substantially complete. (For this purpose, “substantially complete” means that only punch list items remain for project acceptance, or that the major elements of the project have been turned over to the customer for beneficial occupancy.) If a design-build project is submitted to demonstrate the design capability of an A-E firm, the design portion of the contract must be complete in order to be considered.

g. Provide a Summary Matrix that indicates which submitted example project(s) demonstrate which experience and/or capability. The example provided is instructional only; develop and provide your own matrix that best explains your proposal.

h. Formatting and other restrictions:

(1) Start the information for each example project on a new page.

(2) Example projects are limited to four (4) 8-1/2" x 11" pages each and a maximum of 18 two-sided pages total, for all projects.

(3) The Summary Matrix is limited to one (1) 8-1/2”x11” page.

(4) Use the “Offeror’s Project Experience” Form provided as an attachment in this solicitation for submitting example projects. Use of an alternate format could result in an unacceptable rating if all of the specified information is not provided. (Note: Do not submit a group of related jobs as one project unless all of the work was done under the same contract, or for indefinite delivery contracts, under one task order.)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

A-E Design USACE Project

Capability/Example Project Prime A-E

Prime Contractor Design-Build

i. Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will review each of the example projects provided by the Offeror to assess whether they meet the specified minimum criteria for this factor. Offerors providing at least the minimum number of projects each of which meets all of the minimum criteria will be rated ACCEPTABLE for this factor. Offerors failing to provide at least the minimum number of projects which individually meet all of the minimum criteria will be rated UNACCEPTABLE for this factor. The burden is on the offeror to establish in its proposal that the submitted projects clearly meet the minimum requirements. Offerors should not assume that there will be any additional opportunity to substantiate that their projects meet the criteria for Relevant Experience.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

j. Past Performance Evaluation. 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.

Past performance shall be used as an evaluation factor within the LPTA process, unless waived by the PCO in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii). It shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table 1.

Past performance should be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each LPTA source selection. Therefore, the solicitation shall establish the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement being procured. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract performance history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the requirements of the contract that is contemplated to be awarded as a result of the evaluation of proposals in the current procurement.

Second, the past performance evaluation should determine how well the offeror performed on the prior 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.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Table 2 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note above)

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation.

Sources are as follows:

• Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

• Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition.

• Past Performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of entities (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror's proposal, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency, and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, PPQs submitted on prior RFPs, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

The technical evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine whether the proposal is technically acceptable or unacceptable based on the definition above at Table 1. Per FAR 15.101-2(b)(1), small business offerors that are found to be technically unacceptable will be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination.

INSERT AMENDMENT FOR PHASE 2 – SECTION 00 22 20

5.0 GENERAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION. PHASE-TWO

The proposal shall be submitted as summarized below and as required by the specifications.

(1) Price Volume (separate PDF submitted electronically)

(2) Technical Volume (separate PDF submitted electronically)

5.1 Marking of Proposal Volumes.

DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS/BIDS

The Government will not accept telegraphic or facsimile bids.

Proposals/Bids MUST BE submitted electronically using the DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE): https://safe.apps.mil/

Proposals/Bids submitted through SAFE require an Offeror-unique link sent by the Contract Specialist to the Contractors point of contact and associated e-mail address. Registration with DoD SAFE is not required to upload files. Submissions are limited to 8 GB and are due regardless of technical difficulties.

Please request a link from the Contract Specialist by e-mail to sara.d.kimsey@usace.army.mil

To ensure accurate receipt and prompt processing, Offerors are encouraged to request a DoD SAFE invitation link from the Contract Specialist no later than 24 hours prior to proposals/bid due date.

Links must be requested from the Contract Specialist at least 2 hours prior to the proposal/bid opening due date and time.

Only one (1) SAFE submission is allowed per Offeror.

Once sent by the Contract Specialist, a SAFE invitation link is only active ONCE (i.e., multiple sessions or versions are not allowed -if the link is clicked, it will not be active later for changes to be made). The Contract Specialist can verify bid submission receipt upon request; e-mail requests for confirmation are preferred. SAFE links are valid for 14 days after being issued.

Late proposals/bids will NOT be accepted for any reason.

Naming of proposal electronic files:

Each ‘tab’ as defined below, will be a separately uploaded file. Note, with DoD safe the link will allow you to upload multiple files for one submission.

5.2 Tabbing of Proposal Volumes.

Offers are to be formatted and tabbed in accordance with the Detailed Submission Requirements instructions that follow for each proposal volume.

“Offeror Name” Volume I – Price (separate PDF submitted electronically)

TAB CONTENTS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

1 Proposal Cover Sheet 2 SF 1442; Acknowledgement of Amendments; Joint Venture Agreement 3 Pricing Schedule 4 Work Breakdown Structure 5 Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors 6 Bid Guarantee (electronic with hard copy) 7 Pre-Award Survey Information

“Offeror Name” Volume II – Technical (separate PDF submitted electronically)

5.3 NUMBER OF VOLUMES FOR PHASE TWO PROPOSALS

“Offeror Name” Volume I – Price (separate PDF submitted electronically) “Offeror Name” Volume II – Technical (separate PDF submitted electronically)

6. PHASE TWO VOLUME I – PRICE (PRICE PROPOSAL)

6.1 NUMBER OF SETS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

Submit the price proposal volume in an electronic format, using a searchable bookmarked “pdf” file format which will become part of the contract as the technical proposal, but both volumes must be in separate PDF files. Submit a copy of the bid guarantee.

6.2 FORMAT, CONTENTS AND LIST OF TABS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL

Use only 8-1/2” x 11” pages. There are no page limits for the price proposal; however, limit responses to required information. Excess information will not be evaluated. Organize your price proposal as indicated below. If a tab is not applicable to your proposal, omit that tab but do not renumber the subsequent tabs.

PHASE TWO PRICE PROPOSAL VOLUME

TAB CONTENTS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

1 Proposal Cover Sheet 2 SF 1442; Acknowledgement of Amendments; Joint Venture Agreement 3 Pricing Schedule 4 Work Breakdown Structure 5 Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors

6 Bid Guarantee (electronic with hard copy) 7 Pre-Award Survey Information

6.3 DETAILED SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PHASE 2 PRICE PROPOSAL

6.3.1 Tab 1 of the Price Proposal: Proposal Cover Sheet.

The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1 (c)(2). This provision, titled “Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition” is incorporated by reference in Section 00 21 00. The format and content for the proposal cover sheet follows:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

a. Solicitation Number.

b. The name, address, DUNS Number, and telephone numbers of the offeror.

c. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the Solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item.

d. Names, titles, E-MAIL address, and telephone numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the

Government in connection with this solicitation.

e. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

(End of the Proposal Cover Sheet)

6.3.2 Tab 2 of the Price Proposal: SF 1442; Acknowledgement of Amendments; Joint Venture Agreement.

The Standard Form (SF) 1442 must be completed by the offeror and duly executed with an original signature by the official(s) identified in the proposal cover sheet as authorized to bind the offeror in accordance with FAR 4.102, which includes specific instructions pertaining to individuals, partnerships, corporations, Joint Venture participants, and agents. Include the offeror’s DUNS number in block 14 of the SF 1442, along with the offeror’s address. All amendments must be acknowledged in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment. If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), include a copy of the JV agreement and indicate its status.

6.3.3 Tab 3 of the Price Proposal: Pricing Schedule.

Submit the completed Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule (Section 00 10 00) with the offeror’s proposed contract prices inserted in the appropriate spaces. Prices must be proposed for all contract line items (except for those CLINs deleted from the solicitation). Unit prices must be extended to the actual “dollar and cents” amounts (e.g., to two decimal places). Do not round off the extended prices to the nearest dollar. Check your pricing submission very carefully for mathematical and clerical errors prior to submission. Any qualification of pricing may render the proposal unacceptable and therefore not eligible for award.

6.3.4 Tab 4 of the Price Proposal: Work Breakdown Structure.

Submit a Work Breakdown Structure of the offeror’s proposed contract prices, for each line item in the CLIN Schedule, using the format below, in accordance with Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-740-05.

01 SUBSTRUCTURE 11 ELECTRIC POWER AND LIGHTING

02 SUPERSTRUCTURE 12 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

03 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 13 EQUIPMENT

04 ROOFING 14 FURNISHINGS

05 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 15 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

06 INTERIOR FINISHES 16 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION

07 CONVEYING SYSTEMS 17 SITE PREPARATION

08 PLUMBING 18 SITE IMPROVEMENTS

09 HVAC M2 19 SITE CIVIL/MECHANICAL UTILITIES

10 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS 20 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES

21 DESIGN EFFORT

6.3.5 Tab 5 of the Price Proposal: Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors.

The offeror must have electronically completed the annual representations and certifications on the “System for Award Management” (SAM) website in accordance with FAR 52.204-8. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that these on-line Representations and Certifications are updated as necessary to reflect changes, but at least annually to ensure that they are kept current, accurate and complete. In addition, the offeror must also complete and return the “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” included in Section 00 45 00 of the solicitation. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, all participants must separately complete both the SAM Representations and Certifications and Section 00 45 00.

6.3.6 Tab 6 of the Price Proposal: Bid Guarantee.

All offerors must submit an electronic copy of the bid guarantee, (e.g., Standard Form 24, Bid Bond) which complies with the requirements of FAR 28.101 Bid Guarantees, and any Defense and Army supplements thereto.

6.3.7 Tab 7 of the Price Proposal: Pre-Award Survey Information.

a. The contracting officer is required to make an affirmative pre-award determination of the prospective contractor’s responsibility in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and its supplements. The contracting officer must have sufficient information available to determine that a prospective contractor meets these minimum standards. Therefore, the offeror is requested to provide the pre-award survey information described below with its price proposal:

(1) The completed Construction Contractor Data Form with Supplemental Schedules A-C (see format which follows). If the offeror is a large multi-segmented business concerns, the data provided on the supplemental schedules may be limited to information that directly pertains to the specific segment of the business concern (i.e., the division, group, unit, etc.) proposed to perform work under the prospective contract with its own work force. If the offer is being submitted by a Joint Venture, submit a separate form for each Joint Venture participant. The offeror may submit pre-award survey information in another format, provided that the information furnished is substantially the same as that which would be furnished on the Construction Contractor Data Form and its supplemental schedules.

(2) Current financial statements. If the financial statement is more than 60 days old, submit a certificate stating that the firm's financial condition is substantially the same, or, if not the same, state the changes that have taken place. If a Joint Venture, provide this information for each participant in the Joint Venture.

(3) Banking information. Provide letters from banks or other financial institutions with which the contractor conducts business. The letters should contain information about your firm's accounts, loans, lines of credit, etc. The Government is interested in financial stability, timely payments, the length and nature of the relationship between the firm and the financial institution, and the firm's financial ability to perform the contract. The letters should also provide the name and telephone number of the bank representative the Government may contact. If a Joint Venture, provide this information for each Joint Venture participant.

b. The Government will treat the pre-award survey information submitted by the offeror as proprietary.

(Tab 7 of the Price Proposal: Pre-Award Survey Information) See Table of Contents for Attachment.

7.0 GOVERNMENT EVALUATION OF PHASE-TWO PRICE PROPOSALS:

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

The government will evaluate offers received in response to this Phase-two solicitation by confirming that the offeror has submitted a complete proposal meeting the Detailed Submission Requirements presented above. Offers will be evaluated to confirm that they include all of the information specified to be submitted for the Tab 1 Proposal Cover Sheet; Tab 2 SF1442, Acknowledgement of Amendments, Joint Venture Agreement; Tab 3 Pricing Schedule; Tab 4 Work Breakdown Structure; Tab 5 Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements to Offerors; Tab 6 Bid Guarantee, and; Tab 7 Pre-Award Survey Information. The government may elect to waive minor irregularities, omissions, or mistakes, but is under no obligation to do so. Offerors are cautioned to carefully align their proposals to the Phase –two submission requirements. Prices received in response to a confirmed suitable Volume 1 Price Proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the best value Basis of Contract Award Lowest Price Technically Acceptable guidance presented at the Phase-one Solicitation Section 00 22 00, paragraph 2, and the Phase-two Relative Importance of Technical Evaluation Factors and of Price to the Technical Evaluation Factors paragraph guidance.

8. PHASE TWO VOLUME II – TECHNICAL (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL)

8.1 NUMBER OF SETS OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Submit the technical proposal volume in an electronic format, using a searchable bookmarked “pdf” file format which will become part of the contract.

8.2 FORMAT, CONTENTS AND LIST OF TABS FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Unless specified otherwise, use 8-1/2” x 11” pages for the narrative portions of the proposal. There is not a page limit for the overall technical proposal; however, there may be limits imposed at the tab level. Organize your technical proposal as indicated below. The tabs directly correlate to the technical evaluation factors. Although the Government may use information contained anywhere within the technical proposal in its evaluation of any technical evaluation criteria, the Government is not obligated to search for or to consider information that is not located in the specified location. Number the pages. Do not include information pertaining to your proposed pricing for this project in the technical proposal. Limit your submittals to the information specified; excess information will not be evaluated.

PHASE TWO TECHNICAL PROPOSAL VOLUME

TAB CONTENTS OF THE TECHNICAL…