HQ0034-16-R-0211-0003_Amendment_0001.pdf

HQ0034-16-R-0211

6098DHAC40665000

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purposes of this amendment is to:

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Aug-2016

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X HQ0034-16-R-0211

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Aug-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17-Aug-2016

CODE

WHS - ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE

1225 SOUTH CLARK ST., SUITE 200

ARLINGTON VA 22202-3909

HQ0034 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

Amendment 0001

Administrative Facility Interior Renovations

The Site Walk is changed from 9 September 2016 to 1 September 2016

The due date for RFI’s is changed from 14 September to 8 September, 2016

The proposal due date is changed from 7 October, 2016 at 1:00 PM to Monday 03 October, 2016 at 1:00 PM EST

The below question was submitted and is answered as follows:

1. In reviewing the RFP, it appears the Government is requesting classified proposals from Offerors. In order for us to prepare a classified proposal, we require a DD254 designating that we are authorized to use classified information systems. Once this is received, we are then required to submit an Automated Information Systems request for approval to a separate Government agency before we can establish the classified system. This process may impact the ability of Offerors to receive AIS approvals and prepare proposals within the established proposal submission period.

Answers:

Update Section L.1.1 Proposal Preparation iii.

i. CLASSIFIED SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS: To obtain the classified solicitation documents necessary to participate in this solicitation, prospective offerors must submit their cage code and the cage code for their lead design firm via email to Wanza Jonjo and Lawrence Yates by 22 August 2016 to verify Active Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) for the offeror and its lead design firm. Once the prospective offeror and its lead design firm’s current, active SECRET facility clearances are verified then bidders will be notified via email they are eligible to pick-up the Secret classified bid documents. A solicitation DD254 will be issued to each prospective offeror with their Facility Security Officer responsible for distribution to the subcontractors. Washington Headquarters Services/Acquisition Directorate (WHS/AD) will NOT sponsor potential offerors or their lead design firm for the facility clearance requirement.

Update Section M-2 Pass/Fail Evaluation Factors Secret Facility Clearance (FCL): Pass/Fail

Each offeror and its lead design firm must both possess an Active Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) on the proposal due date to be eligible for award. This is a pass/fail requirement. If the offeror and its lead design firm do not each have an Active Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) on the proposal due date then the offeror is not eligible for award and its proposal will not be evaluated further. There are no exceptions to this factor.

Changes to the solicitation based on the above answers are highlighted in yellow.

END

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 07-Oct-2016 01:00 PM to 03-Oct-2016 01:00 PM.

The required performance has changed from DETAILS: The contractor will provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment, supervision, and all other items to complete the work as described in the Statement of Work (SOW).PROJECT TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITY INTERIOR RENOVATION (AFIR) RAVEN ROCK MOUNTAIN COMPLEXMETHOD OF SOLICITATION: RFP (Request for Proposal)TYPE OF CONTRACT:

Firm Fixed Price – Construction IAW DFAR 236.204 - The Magnitude of Construction is between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000OFFEROR INSTRUCTION: Complete the information in Blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20a-b-c, 30a,30c.NAICS: 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction Size Standard: $36.5M, Davis Bacon Wage Determination General Decision Number: PA160097 0729//2016 PA97Questions and RFIs are due no later than Wednesday 14 September, 2016, 1:00pm EST. All offers shall be delivered to the primary POC for this solicitation: Wanza B. Jonjo at wanza.b.jonjo.civ@mail.mil no later than Friday 7 October, 2016, 1:00pm EST. The offeror shall submit a letter of "bondability" on the Surety's letterhead stating the offeror has the bonding capacity available with their proposal to DETAILS: The contractor will provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment, supervision, and all other items to complete the work as described in the Statement of Work (SOW).PROJECT

TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITY INTERIOR RENOVATION (AFIR) RAVEN ROCK MOUNTAIN

COMPLEXMETHOD OF SOLICITATION: RFP (Request for Proposal)TYPE OF CONTRACT: Firm Fixed Price

– Construction IAW DFAR 236.204 - The Magnitude of Construction is between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000OFFEROR INSTRUCTION: Complete the information in Blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20a-b-c, 30a,30c.NAICS: 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction Size Standard: $36.5M, Davis Bacon Wage Determination General Decision Number: PA160097 0729//2016 PA97Questions and RFIs are due no later than Thursday 08 September, 2016, 1:00pm EST. All offers shall be delivered to the primary POC for this solicitation: Wanza B. Jonjo at wanza.b.jonjo.civ@mail.mil no later than Monday 03, October, 2016, 1:00pm EST.

The offeror shall submit a letter of "bondability" on the Surety's letterhead stating the offeror has the bonding capacity available with their proposal.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been modified:

52.236-27 SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (FEB 1995)

(a) The clauses at 52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions, and 52.236-3, Site Investigations and Conditions Affecting the Work, will be included in any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation. Accordingly, offerors or quoters are urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed.

(b) Site visits will be held. 1 September, 2016

Each offeror is limited to a maximum of six (6) attendees. Each attendee must have an active Industrial Personnel Security Clearance at the SECRET level. Offeror’s Security Managers are to complete the visitor access spreadsheet (shall be provided) and submit it to the security SEE SECTION L no later than noon on Friday August 22 2016 for vetting. All personnel are required to bring PPE.

(End of provision)

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

Section L - Instructions to Offerors

Proposal Format and Content

L-1 Submission Requirements and Evaluation

L.1.1 Proposal Preparation

Offerors must submit offers using the following submission guidance and information. Failure by an offeror to address any items listed may make the offer unacceptable and may result in its proposal not being considered for award.

ii. SECURITY CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS: To be eligible for award, Offerors AND their Lead Design Firm must each have a current/active DoD Industrial Facility Security Clearance at the SECRET level on the proposal due date and maintain the CLEARANCE at contract award and throughout performance. This security clearance is a PASS/FAIL requirement to be verified. Offerors and their lead design firm without a current/active DoD Industrial Facility Security Clearance at the SECRET level on the proposal due date in this solicitation will not be evaluated or considered for award. Washington Headquarters Services/Acquisition Directorate (WHS/AD) will NOT sponsor potential offerors or their lead design firm for the facility clearance requirement.

iii.

iv. AMENDMENTS: Amendments to the solicitation will be posted to Fed Biz Ops. It is the responsibility of each offeror to review the web page for notice of amendments, updates, or changes to current information.

If this solicitation is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged. Offerors must acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this solicitation by the date and time specified in the amendment(s) to be evaluated and considered for award.

v. CLASSIFIED SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS: To obtain the classified solicitation documents necessary to participate in this solicitation, prospective offerors must submit their cage code and the cage code for their lead design firm via email to Wanza Jonjo and Lawrence Yates by 22 August 2016 to verify Active Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) for the offeror and its lead design firm. Once the prospective offeror and its lead design firm’s current, active SECRET facility clearances are verified then bidders will be notified via email they are eligible to pick-up the Secret classified bid documents. A solicitation DD254 will be issued to each prospective offeror with their Facility Security Officer responsible for distribution to the subcontractors. Washington Headquarters Services/Acquisition Directorate (WHS/AD) will NOT sponsor potential offerors or their lead design firm for the facility clearance requirement. The Secret classified bid documents must be picked-up in person on 26 August 2016 between 0900 – 1100 at the following location:

450 Harbaugh Valley Road Fairfield, PA 17320

Personnel picking up the Secret classified bid documents shall have a courier card or authorization letter from the company Facility Clearance Officer (FSO): To schedule a meeting time please contact Wanza Jonjo, Contract Specialist: 717-878-2124 or BB 703-309-8112- to meet you at the gate.

vi. PRE PROPOSAL SITE WALKS: Pre-proposal site walks will be held on 1 September 2016. RRMC security requirements will be provided to responsible offerors when site walk is scheduled.

vii. JOINT VENTURE (JV) OFFERORS: If the offeror is a joint venture, the joint venture shall be registered as a joint venture in the Central Contractor Register (CCR) to be considered for award. To be eligible for evaluation and award, the joint venture shall have a current/active DoD Industrial Facility Security Clearance at the SECRET level when its proposal is submitted, at time of award and throughout performance. The joint venture offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the joint venture agreement. The agreement shall include information which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the joint venture.

viii. TEAMING/PARTNERING (TP) OFFERORS: If the offer is based on a teaming/partnering relationship, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. To be eligible for award, each entity in the teaming/partnering offeror shall have a current/active DoD Industrial Facility Security Clearance at the SECRET level when proposal is submitted. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the teaming/Partnering relationship. Prime contractors may not rely on a subcontractor’s clearance to satisfy the above clearance requirements required by this solicitation.

ix. SUBCONTRACTING INFORMATION: For information regarding the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Mentor-Protégé Program see http://www.sba.gov. For information regarding the Department of Defense (DoD) Funded Mentor Protégé Program see http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sb/programs/mpp/ .

x. As a result of this Request for Proposal (RFP), the Government intends to award a firm fixed price contract without discussions. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, exchanges or clarifications if determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject proposals if such action is determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the public interest; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received. A complete proposal shall consist of the following and be divided and labeled to be easily identified:

1. Volume I – Pass/Fail

2. Volume II – Technical

3. Volume III – Past Performance

4. Volume IV – Price

xi. The Offeror shall hand deliver proposals on 3 October 2016 to the following address:

Attention: Wanza Jonjo

450 Harbaugh Valley Road Fairfield, PA 17320

Personnel Delivering Proposals shall have a courier card or authorization letter from the company Facility Clearance Officer (FSO): To schedule a meeting time please contact Wanza Jonjo, Contract Specialist: 717- 878-2124 or BB 703-309-8112- to meet you at the gate.

xii.Neither telegraphic nor facsimile offers will be considered; however, offerors may notify the Contracting

Officer of changes by email at:

wanza.b.jonjo.civ@mail.mil lawrence.j.yates.civ@mail.mil

Notification and delivery shall be received by the time specified for receipt of offers.

***On-site delivery of proposals, excluding Past Performance Questionnaires, is between 9am and 1:00 pm on 3 October 2016. Documents will not be accepted after the due date and time listed in block 10. ***

L-2 Submission Requirements

a. Number of Copies/ Page Limitations

Volume Factors/ Title Hard

Copies Page Limits I Secret Facility Clearance 1 No page limit Bonding 1 No page limit

II Factor 1 Technical Sub-factor A – Concept design Sub-factor B – Management Approach Sub-factor C –Schedule

25 total page limit for entire Factor. Key personnel resumes are not included in the page limit.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sb/programs/mpp/ mailto:wanza.b.jonjo.civ@mail.mil mailto:lawrence.j.yates.civ@mail.mil

Volume Factors/ Title Hard

Copies Page Limits Factor 2 Recent/Relevant Experience

6 24 page limit

III Factor 3 – Past Performance 4 12 page limit IV Factor 4 - Small Business Requirements 6 14 page limit (separate 10-page limit for

Small Business Subcontracting Plan required only from large business offerors)

V Factor 5 – Price 3 No page limit

b. Text - Text shall be at least one-and-one-half-spaced, on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper (except as specifically noted), with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. A page printed on both sides shall be counted as two pages. Submission as double-sided printing/copying on recycled paper is encouraged.

No foldout pages shall be used. Pages submitted including pages in incorporated or referenced documents are counted toward the page limit. Pages in excess of the page limitations will not be evaluated.

c. Font Size - Print shall be of a minimum 10-point font size or a maximum 10 characters per inch (10-pitch, pica) spacing. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis.

Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text that is easily readable.

d. Binding and Labeling- Originals should be submitted unbound. Each volume shall be submitted separately in economical three-ring binders in the number of copies shown in the table above. A cover sheet shall be inserted in each binder, clearly marked as to the document classification, volume title, copy number, RFP identification, date of submittal, the offeror's name, and point of contact information to include a telephone number and e-mail address. The cover sheet shall not count against any page limitation.

L-3 Electronic Submission

In addition to the paper copies identified above, the offeror shall submit all proposal information in electronic format on the proposal due date. Electronic and hard copies of the proposal must be identical and submitted in their entirety to be considered for award. Text and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 2010, MS Word 2010, or Adobe Acrobat 7.0. Data submitted in spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel 2010. In case of conflict between the paper copy and the electronic copy of the proposals submitted, the paper copy shall take precedence. The electronic submissions shall be provided on a two (2) CD/DVD along with the paper copy submissions. Electronic proposal must be identical to the paper copy proposal.

L-4. Final Proposal Revisions

If discussions are held, offeror’s must resubmit proposals with changes to the WHS Acquisition Directorate for their final evaluation.

L-5. Evaluation Approach

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Government in accordance with the criteria established in Section M of this solicitation.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

Section M: Evaluation Factors

1.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION - GENERAL

In addition to the Technical Evaluation Teams, a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) composed of Government representatives from contracting, engineering, project management, and construction representatives may assist in evaluating proposals and make recommendations to the SSA. The SSEB may utilize technical advisors in the evaluation process, as necessary. The SSEB will evaluate proposals, using the factors and sub factors described in this part.

1.1 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCI)—DISCLOSURE

(a) Purpose. This clause applies to the Contractor and its affiliates, consultants and subcontractors of any tier (collectively referred to as “Contractor”). This clause must be included in all subcontracts and other agreements executed by the prime contractor in connection with submitting the prime contractor’s proposal or performing the work. Attention also is directed to FAR Subpart 9.5 and the provisions which follow.

(b) Government Contractor Participation in Solicitation/Statement of Work, Award or Administration. The following Government contractors participated in the preparation of the Statement of Work/Solicitation or are expected to assist in the award and administration of the contract and may have access to proprietary information contained in proposals:

Integrated Finance & Accounting Solutions, LLC. (IFAS)* 4500 Pond Way; Suite 270, Woodbridge, VA 22192

AECOM/Parsons, a Joint Venture 3101 Wilson Blvd Arlington, VA 22201-4443

(c) Scope-Actual or Potential Conflicts of Interest. This clause is intended to ensure that the Contractor (1) does not obtain or appear to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over other parties by virtue of actual or potential unauthorized use or disclosure of proprietary or procurement-related information, (2) does not obtain or appear to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over other parties by virtue of any relationship (social, familial, financial etc.) between the Contractor or Contractor’s employees and any Government employee, Government contractor or Government contractor employee involved in the procurement process or the administration of the contract whether or not specifically identified in this solicitation, (3) is not biased or potentially biased or its ability to render impartial advice to the Government impaired or potentially impaired due to Contractor’s current or planned interests (financial, contractual, organizational or otherwise) that relate to the services performed or products to be delivered under this solicitation, or (4) any other potential conflict of interest identified or within the scope of FAR 9.5. Parts (1), (2) and (3) above are examples of potential conflicts of interest governed by this clause.

(d) Contractor Representation. In its proposal, the Contractor shall certify that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, Contractor has no actual or potential conflict of interest or, pursuant to paragraph (e), has disclosed to the Contracting Officer in writing all relevant information regarding any actual or potential conflict of interest.

(e) Contractor Disclosure of Actual or Potential Conflicts of Interest Before and After Award. If, before or after award, an actual or potential conflict of interest is identified by the Government or discovered by the Contractor, the Contractor shall immediately make a full disclosure in writing to the Contracting Officer. The Contractor further recognizes that during the term of this contract, conditions may change which may give rise to a newly recognized actual or potential conflict of interest. In the event that the Government identifies or the Contractor discovers an actual or potential conflict of interest before or after award, the Contractor shall, at a minimum, immediately provide the following information:

(1) a description of the actual or potential conflict of interest and identify the parties involved;

(2) a description of the work affected by the actual or potential conflict of interest; and

(3) a mitigation plan as described in section (f).

(f) Mitigation Plan. To the extent that the Contractor or the Government has at any time before or after award identified an actual or potential conflict of interest, the Contractor shall propose a mitigation plan which concisely describes all relevant facts concerning any potential conflict of interest including any past, present, or currently planned interest (financial, contractual, organizational, or otherwise) relating to the services performed or product to be delivered under this solicitation. The mitigation plan shall describe the actions or planned actions the Contractor has taken or proposes to take, to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the conflict of interest. If accepted by the Contracting Officer, the mitigation plan will become part of the contract.

(g) Final Authority. The Contracting Officer is the final authority in determining whether a conflict of interest exists and whether the conflict of interest has been adequately mitigated, neutralized or avoided.

(h) Remedies. The presence of an actual or potential conflict of interest that, in the Contracting Officer’s discretion, cannot be avoided, mitigated or neutralized, may preclude the Contractor from competing for the award or, if the conflict is discovered after award and cannot, in the Contracting Officer’s discretion, be neutralized, mitigated or avoided, may result in termination of the contract. If the conflict of interest results from conflicting financial or other interests involving Contractor personnel performing under this agreement, the Contracting Officer may require the Contractor to remove such personnel from performance of work under the contract as a means to avoid, neutralize or mitigate the conflict of interest. If the Contractor was or, with reasonable diligence, should have been aware of a potential conflict of interest before award, or discovers or with reasonable diligence should have discovered an actual or potential conflict after award and does not disclose or misrepresents relevant information to the Contracting Officer, it will be deemed a material breach of the agreement/solicitation. In that event, the Government may elect to terminate the contract for default. Nothing herein shall prevent the Government from electing any other appropriate remedies afforded by other provisions of this agreement, or statute or regulation.

(i) The Contractor may not compete for any requirement that incorporates, involves or relates to any work performed by contractor under this solicitation unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer.

1.2 DESIGN FREEDOM

Requirements stated in this solicitation are minimum requirements. Innovative, creative, or cost-saving proposals which meet or exceed these requirements are encouraged and will receive consideration accordingly. Alternatives to the space and adjacency requirements are discouraged unless the change results in a significant improvement to the facility. Alternatives from any requirements should be clearly noted and justified in the proposal. All alternatives must still adhere to the technical performance requirements and proposal page limits. Informative drawing notes are encouraged.

1.3 GOVERNMENT'S RIGHTS AND GOALS

The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award; to negotiate with any or all offerors; to award a contract to other than the offeror submitting the lowest price proposal; and to award a contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to be most advantageous to the Government.

Proposals containing qualifications, exceptions or exclusions to the RFP requirement or that are contingent on terms shall be rejected and not considered for award.

1.4 Methodology

To arrive at the best value decision, the Technical Evaluation Team(s) (TET) will evaluate the technical factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the submitted proposals in accordance with the evaluation factors and sub-factors established within the solicitation.

The SSA may select the offeror that is evaluated to have a superior technical and management approach, and a demonstrated past performance record over a lower priced offeror.

Evaluation of all timely received proposals will be based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub factors listed below. Award selection will be made in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 (c) and Section M of the

RFP. A proposal rated unacceptable under any factor or sub-factor or “No Confidence” under the Past Performance factor will not be considered for award.

Only offerors that satisfy the pass/fail criteria for possessing an active and valid Secret Facility Clearance (Pass/Fail) and Bonding (Pass/Fail) will be further evaluated using the following trade-off factors: Technical, Recent/Relevant Experience, Past Performance, Small Business Requirements, and Price. The Government evaluation teams intend but are not required to evaluate the Technical, Relevant Experience, Past Performance, and Price factors simultaneously to facilitate an expeditious contract award. (See the next section for a detailed description of the Evaluation Factors.) After the trade-off factors have been evaluated for each proposal, the Source Selection Authority will perform a comparative assessment between all evaluated proposals and will then determine the best offeror and make a best value award decision.

In selecting the best overall offer, the following factors will be considered: Secret Facility Clearance (Pass/Fail) Bonding (Pass/Fail), Factor 1: Technical, Factor 2: Recent/Relevant Experience, Factor 3: Past Performance, Factor 4: Small Business Requirements, and Factor 5: Price. Factor 1: Technical, Factor 2: Recent/Relevant Experience, Factor 3: Past Performance are equal and each is more important than Factor 4 Small Business Requirements. All non-price factors (Factors 1-4) combined are significantly more important than price. As the non-price factors (Factors 1-4) become equal, price will become more significant in the evaluation and award decision.

2.0 Evaluation Criteria

M-1 Evaluation Approach All proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria established in this section. The award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered.

M-2 Pass/Fail Evaluation Factors

Secret Facility Clearance (FCL): Pass/Fail

Pass/Fail: Secret Facility Clearance (FCL)

Facility Clearance Pass/Fail

No Sub factors

On the proposal due date, offerors and their lead design firms shall provide their Registered Company Name, Cage Code and Active Secret Facility Clearance Status and Level, as well as the date of their Clearance.

If the offeror fails to pass this criteria, their proposal will not be evaluated further.

Each offeror and its lead design firm must both possess an Active Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) on the proposal due date to be eligible for award. This is a pass/fail requirement. If the offeror and its lead design firm do not each have an Active Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) on the proposal due date then the offeror is not eligible for award and its proposal will not be evaluated further. There are no exceptions to this factor.

Bonding (Pass/Fail)

Bonding No Sub factors

Offerors shall provide their Bonding capability at or above the bid amount.

If the offeror fails to pass this criteria, their proposal will not be evaluated further.

Each offeror will be evaluated on whether they have submitted the required bonds for the full amount on a Pass or Fail rating on the proposal due date. If an offeror fails this requirement, their proposal will not be evaluated further.

There are no exceptions to this factor.

M-3 Factor 1: Technical (Combined Technical/Risk Rating)

Sub-factor A – Concept Design

Sub-factor B – Management Approach Sub-factor C – Schedule

Sub-factor A – Concept Design The design/technical requirements consist of conceptual design and technical narratives as outlined in the RFP. All information provided shall clearly define the offeror’s proposed design and technical information to such a degree that the Government has enough detail to determine that the proposal meets or exceeds the RFP requirements.

The offeror shall provide details on the IT / telecommunications (see next paragraph), SCIF accreditation and maintenance (in accordance with the ICD/ICS 705), and architectural design components. Drawings, details, equipment schedules and/or specifications may be included in order to exhibit sufficient detail to convey confidence that the scope and complexity of the scope of work is fully understood.

IT / Telecommunications Details: Provide a separate technical narrative detailing the proposed approach to execute the full range of IT requirements, as described in the RFP. Demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of the project-specific and industry standards, infrastructure/system testing, identifying/documenting existing cable runs, maintaining security and operations for classified telecommunications pathways, and cut over plans.

Sub-factor B – Management Approach This sub-factor shall comprise the offeror’s proposed approach to meet the overall requirements set forth within the RFP and demonstrate that the offeror understands those requirements:

Plan of Execution: Develop a well-thought-out plan of execution for each of the project’s technical requirements in accordance with the RFP and its attachments. This plan shall include, but is not limited to, project sequencing plans and sample diagrams. This plan should coincide with Sub-factor C - Schedule.

Design/Build Approach: Explain your design/build approach and how your design/build approach will be used to its greatest advantage to best benefit the Government. Pay specific attention to the collaboration between the design team, prime construction contractor, and major subcontractor(s).

Key Personnel: Present your proposed design/build organization chart, including major subcontractors, clearly demonstrating lines of authority. Define the roles, responsibilities, and qualifications for all Key Personnel in accordance with the Key Personnel Section (RFP Part B). Provide resumes and related certifications for each Key Personnel and any other personnel that the offeror feels is critical for the project’s success. Describe the proposed management and communication channels between key personnel, relationships amongst organizations, and functions to be performed by each unit. Discuss how the proposed team will interface with the Government.

Project Risks: Identify the top five (5) most significant, project-specific risks you anticipate for this project and provide a description of how each risk will be mitigated. Project-specific risks may include, but are not limited to design, construction, quality, safety, contract administration, schedule and cost. Separately, include a mitigation plan that describes the management of subcontractors and how issues with subcontractors will be handled.

Sub-factor C – Schedule The existing facility and systems surrounding the secured facility to be demolished and constructed in this RFP are must maintain operations during this renovation. The offeror shall provide a critical path method (CPM) network diagram of the design, construction, outage notifications, accreditation and close-out using Primavera P6, including near critical task items and their relationship to one another and the major project milestones. Demonstrate a solid understanding of project sequencing and phased turnover of spaces within the performance period of this project (NTP – Project Completion).

Provide a narrative explaining how schedule slippage or delay will be mitigated to ensure that the contract completion date is met.

Provide a list of schedule efficiencies and explain how the proposed schedule efficiencies actually will result in efficiencies.

Evaluation Ratings for Factor 1 For Factor 1, the TET will provide a Combined Technical/Risk Rating that considers all sub-factors, identified above, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies determined from the proposal. The following table provides a description for each rating:

Factor 1 Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description OUTSTANDING Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

GOOD Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

MARGINAL Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Proposal is unawardable.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

M-4 Factor 2 – Recent/Relevant Experience The offeror shall identify the proposed prime contractor, design firm, and to the extent utilized by the offeror, the IT/telecommunications subcontractor, the SCIF subcontractor and any other subcontractor who will be responsible for meeting the significant requirements of this RFP. For each of these entities, or if the offeror intends to self perform the work, the offeror shall demonstrate recent relevant experience on projects similar to the scope of this RFP. Offeror is only required to provide information as outlined in “Required Information for Factor 2 – Relevant Experience” paragraph, below.

Prime Contractor: The prime contractor shall be a company who is regularly and professionally engaged in the business of managing design-build projects in the role of a prime contractor. Emphasize recent/relevant experience with design-build projects concentrating on telecommunications and SCIF construction. The prime contractor shall include, within the relevant project summary, whether each recent/relevant experience was a renovation, new construction or performed in a secured facility.

Design Firm: The offeror shall clearly identify a design firm who will be responsible for meeting the design requirements of this solicitation. The design firm shall be a company who is regularly and professionally engaged in the business of commercial renovations and SCIF design. Emphasize any recent/relevant design experience performed with other members of the design-build team being proposed for this project. Prior projects performed with the design-build team may be considered more relevant and given greater weight in the overall evaluation.

Telecommunications Subcontractor: The telecommunications subcontractor shall be a company who is regularly and professionally engaged in the business of installing and testing telecommunications systems and equipment within a secured facility, as defined and in accordance with the standards outlined in the RFP. The telecommunications subcontractor shall demonstrate recent and relevant experience in providing successful telecommunications systems projects. The telecommunications subcontractor must employ BICSI certified technicians.

SCIF Subcontractor: The SCIF subcontractor shall be a firm who is regularly and professionally engaged in the business of SCIF construction and accreditation in accordance with all sensitive compartmented information facility guidelines, including but not limited to, the ICD/ICS 705. The SCIF subcontractor shall include, within the relevant project summary, whether each recent/relevant project was a renovation, new construction or accreditation.

The following definitions apply to Factor 2 only:

Where the word “project” appears, it is understood to mean a contract, task order, or any other contract document provided for by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR 2.101). Examples of projects submitted may be performed for a Government Agency, institutional organization, or a commercial or private sector customer.

Where the word “recent” appears, it is understood to mean design type projects that have been 100% completed (final construction documents completed) within five (5) years of the issuance date of this solicitation.

Where the word “relevant” appears, it is understood to delineate projects with comparable levels of requirements and complexity to the scope of work described in the RFP. Relevant projects shall meet at least two (2) of the following requirements (listed in descending order of importance):

• The minimum contract value is at least $10,000,000.

• If the referenced contract has expired (final construction documents are completed), the end date of the contract performance must have occurred within the last five (5) years from the date of the proposal submission deadline.

• If the referenced contract is an active contract at the time of proposal submission, the start date of the contract performance must have occurred no less than five (5) years from the date of the proposal submission deadline.

Project Summaries Checklist for Factor 2 – Recent/Relevant Experience Each of the project summaries provided shall include a checklist which includes all of the factors listed below. This checklist will be used to identify how many of the relevance factors are addressed for each project. The narrative description provided for each relevant project summary must support the information provided in the checklist.

For the prime contractor, design firm, IT/telecommunications subcontractor and the SCIF subcontractor, submit summaries with the following information (length of summary shall not exceed two (2) pages; provide no more than three (3) projects for each entity):

� Name and location of the project � Contract type � Contract number for government contracts � Security clearance requirements � Explain how relevant requirements met (defined above) � Name and telephone number of the owner’s representative most knowledgeable of the project � Describe the project delivery method, e.g. design/build, ID/IQ, firm fixed price, best value source selection, low bid.

If any entity has insufficient recent and/or relevant projects performed, then submit as many relevant projects as it has.

Evaluation Ratings for Factor 2 For Factor 2, the Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate the recent and relevancy of each project summary submitted with the offeror’s proposal. The following table provides a description for each rating:

Factor 2: Ratings

Rating Definition

M-5 Factor 3 – Past Performance (Confidence Rating)

The offeror may submit no more than three (3) projects for evaluation under Factor 3 for a total twelve (12) pages.

The evaluation of Factor 3 will result in assigning an overall confidence rating to the extent of the offeror’s past performance (completed within the last five (5) years from the date this solicitation was issued) in carrying out similar work. This factor considers the relevance and quality of the offeror's past performance as it relates to timeliness and technical success. The offeror may submit the projects referenced under Factor 2 for consideration under Factor 3. If the project was performed by the design firm or other major subcontractor the offeror must describe in detail the design firm’s/subcontractor’s role in the submitted project and the design firm’s/subcontractor’s planned role in the solicited project. The offeror’s performance as a prime contractor may be considered more significant in the past performance evaluation under Factor 3.

The offeror shall provide no more than three (3) examples of their recent and relevant design-build projects to demonstrate efforts similar to this solicitation. Project examples submitted must be 100% complete by the solicitation issue date. Partial, schematic or concept designs are not considered 100% complete designs. If the offeror is proposing to self-perform the design in-house, then the Offeror must show that its past performance is recent and relevant in the context of this solicitation.

For each project example submitted, provide an Exhibit “A” Past Performance Project Data Sheet (Appendix “F”).

Submit Exhibit “B” Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Appendix “F”) for customer input whether Federal, State, Local, or Commercial. Exhibit “B” should be emailed from the customer or client directly to Wanza Jonjo at wanza.b.jonjo.civ@mail.mil. The Contracting Officer must be in receipt of the PPQs prior to the submission of the proposals. Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) reports may be submitted. A design firm may submit a past performance questionnaire of a prime construction contractor when the design firm acted as the subcontract designer on a design-build. In this situation, the owner’s survey must include evaluation remarks regarding the quality of the design firm’s effort during the project. Other types of survey forms signed by a commercial customer or signed by a representative from another Federal or State Agency may be submitted as long as the information submitted is the same or similar to the information required by Exhibit “B”, documenting the quality of the design firms’ performance for the projects submitted. Letters of recommendation are considered supplemental information demonstrating customer satisfaction, and are not considered equal to a past performance survey or PPQ.

Standard for Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated ability to consistently provide service on time and in accordance with all contract requirements for the contracts provided in the offeror’s proposal for past performance. The Government may use the information provided by the offeror to contact past customers to determine if satisfactory or better performance was obtained on contracts performed by the offeror. The Government will first evaluate whether the submitted project is recent (completed within the last five (5) years from the date this solicitation was issued) and relevant as defined in the below table:

Very Relevant (VR) Project involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Relevant (R) Project involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Somewhat Relevant

(SR)

Project involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Not Relevant (NR) Project involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Factor 3: Exhibit A Ratings mailto:wanza.b.jonjo.civ@mail.mil

The Government will then evaluate the offeror’s quality of performance on its recent / relevant** projects by using one or a combination of the following methods:

• Submitted past performance questionnaires or surveys

• Awardee search in FAPIIS and EPLS- In accordance with Subpart 9.104-6 and FAR 9.405(d)(4)

• Contacting references as provided in Section M: Past Performance

• Review of information available from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems

(CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and other commercial sources

• Interviews with other Government or commercial personnel contacts not provided by the offeror

Evaluation Ratings for Factor 3 The Past Performance Evaluation Panel will assign a single overall confidence rating based on the offeror’s past performance information.

CONFIDENCE RATING: The past performance evaluation is to determine how confident the Government is based on the offeror’s past performance evaluation. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Using the method as described in this section, the Government will assign a single overall confidence rating based on the recent, relevant and quality of performance that indicates its level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the proposed contract requirements based on its performance on similar contracts in the past.

Factor 3: Exhibit B Ratings Rating Definition Substantial Confidence (SC)

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

Satisfactory Confidence (SAC)

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

Limited Confidence

(LC)

Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence (NC) Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No past performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence Assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M-6 Factor 4: Small Business Requirements

Rating Definition

Very Relevant (VR) Project involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Relevant (R) Project involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Somewhat Relevant

(SR)

Project involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Not Relevant (NR) Project involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this…