R210033 Amendment 0002 25MAY2021.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

N40080-21-R-0033, REPAIR MACDONOUGH HALL BUILDING 102, U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY, ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND

SEE SF30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-May-2021

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N4008021R0033

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-May-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, 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

25-May-2021

CODE

NAVAL FACILITIES ENG COMMAND WASHINGTON

1314 HARWOOD ST

WASHINGTON DC 20374

N40080 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008021R0033

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 0002

AMENDMENT 0002

The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the solicitation submission deadline and provide corrections to the solicitation evaluation criteria.

1. The solicitation submission deadline is hereby extended by one (1) week from May 28, 2021 to June 2, 2021. Proposals shall be submitted no later than 2:00PM EST.

2. Corrected Factor 1b Evaluation Factor

Factor 1b – Construction Team

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

OLD: The Offeror’s Management Team and Approach Plan will be used as a means to evaluate organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror.

Individuals will be evaluated as Highly Qualified, Qualified, or Not Qualified based on the information provided. Offerors that utilize small businesses with signed Joint Venture, Mentor-Protégé, Partnering, and/or Teaming arrangements may be rated more favorably. Note: Teams are not allowed to be changed if the contract is awarded. Best value will be determined when this rating is compared to other Offerors’ rating for this factor/subfactor.

NEW: The Offeror’s Management Team and Approach Plan will be used as a means to evaluate organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror.

Individuals will be evaluated as Highly Qualified, Qualified, or Not Qualified based on the information provided.

3. Corrected Factor 4a Evaluation Factor

Factor 4a – Historical Small Business Utilization

ADDED: (ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the realism and likelihood of success in achieving the small business objectives of this acquisition, based on historical smal business use.

4. Corrected Factor 4b Evaluation Factor

Factor 4a – Planned Small Business Utilization

OLD: (ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the realism and likelihood of success in achieving the small business objectives of this acquisition. The extent to which the Offeror has demonstrated an achievable commitment to use small businesses (including HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB) in the performance of this contract in the SBPCD. The SBPCD will be evaluated to determine the extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified by name and socioeconomic category in the document and the quantitative degree to which small business concerns (including HUBZone, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) will participate relative to the total contract value. The complexity and variety of the work small business concerns will perform and the degree of commitment to use named sources through formal teaming agreements, letters of intent/commitment will be evaluated to assess achievability of the commitment. This minimum small business participation rate, through work performed by the small business prime and/or subcontracting with small businesses, shall exceed 20% of the total contract value, unless the Offeror provides a reasonable and well-documented explanation for why 20% small business participation rate cannot be achieved. Commitment documents that include specific vendor names may be evaluated more favorably. Plans that include Mentor-Protégé, Partnering, Teaming and Joint Venture Agreements with named small businesses in the small business commitment document; may be evaluated more favorably. Offerors that secure all required small business categories with a JV, a Mentor-Protégé, Partnership and/or Teaming Agreement may be rated more favorably. Best value will be determined by comparing the rating for this subfactor against other Offers’ rating for this subfactor.

NEW: (ii) Basis of Evaluation: The offeror must demonstrate an achievable commitment to use small businesses (including HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB) in the performance of this contract in the SBPCD. The SBPCD will be evaluated to determine the extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified by name and socioeconomic category in the document and the quantitative degree to which small business concerns (including HUBZone, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) will participate relative to the total contract value. The complexity and variety of the work small business concerns will perform and the degree of commitment to use named sources through formal teaming agreements, letters of intent/commitment will be evaluated to assess achievability of the commitment. This minimum small business participation rate, through work performed by the small business prime and/or subcontracting with small businesses, shall exceed 20% of the total contract value, unless the Offeror provides a reasonable and well-documented explanation for why 20% small business participation rate cannot be achieved. Commitment documents that include specific vendor names may be evaluated more favorably. Plans that include Mentor- Protégé, Partnering, Teaming and Joint Venture Agreements with named small businesses in the small business commitment document; may be evaluated more favorably. Offerors that secure all required small business categories with a JV, a Mentor-Protégé, Partnership and/or Teaming Agreement may be rated more favorably.

Best value will be determined by comparing the rating for this subfactor against other Offers’ rating for this subfactor.

END OF CHANGES

The following have been modified:

AMENDMENT 0001

AMENDMENT 0001

The purpose of this Amendment is to provide corrections to the solicitation and responses to the Requests for Information.

5. Remove FAR Clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services (NOV 1999).

6. Revise Page 18, E. Past Performance Evaluation, Section 2 as follows:

OLD: COMPLEXITY: Work performed on facilities that required coordinaton of a Historic Preservation agency and/or projects completed within designated strict schedules.

NEW: COMPLEXITY: Work performed on facilities that required coordinaton of a Historic Preservation agency.

7. Revise Page 25, Factor 3 – Safety, Section 2, TCR Rate as folllows:

OLD: [CY2019, CY2018, CY2017, CY2016, and CY2015] NEW: [CY2021, CY2020, CY2019, CY2018, and CY2017]

8. Responses to Request For Information (RFIs) 1-12

RFI 1: I was able to download the solicitation notice for this project but noted the following:

Is there additional information that I am not able to access at this time? (When I selected the Request Role option, I was directed to my current profile indicating my current role but no way to request more.)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 1: No. The solicitation is the only documentation provided during the Prequalification Phase of this source selection process.

RFI 2: We request more time to prepare and submit a complete RFQ response to this solicitation. Can the 5/28 due date be extended by two weeks to allow ample time to get past performance questionnaires completed and returned following responses to the below RFIs (which will impact which projects we select)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 2: Unfortunately, this project is on a very tight schedule, and there is no capacity to extent any part of his Source Selection process. Page 23 of the solicitation states “If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment C), which will provide contact and client information for the respective project(s).”

RFI 3: There seems to be a conflict in the RFQ with respect to the Complexity requirements for a relevant project. Page 22 indicates that Complexity needs to show “Work performed on facilities that required coordination of a Historic Preservation agency” however, page 18 states “COMPLEXITY: Work performed on facilities that required coordination of a Historic Preservation agency and/or projects completed within designated strict schedules.” Emphasis added.

Since there are generally few projects within the industry that fit within the timeframe and size constraints of this RFQ that are both historic AND contain athletic facilities we assume that page 18 is correct and acceptable complexity can be achieved by a project that is historic OR has a strict schedule. Obviously if it has both that is even better but a not a requirement. Please confirm.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 3: Revised page 18 of the solicitation for the correct definition of Complexity, which is work performed on facilities that required coordination of a Historic Preservation agency. This will be made consistent in the solicitation.

RFI 4: The project duration is stated as 1,097 calendar days. Does that duration include punch list and close out activities or is that the duration to Substantial Completion (beneficial occupancy)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 4: The Contractor shall be required to (a) commence work under this contract within 15 calendar days after the date the Contractor receives the notice to proceed, (b) prosecute the work diligently, and (c) complete the entire work ready for use not later than 1,097 calendar days. The time stated for completion shall include final cleanup of the premises per FAR 52.211-10 COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION, AND COMPLETION OF WORK (APR 1984).

RFI 5: The liquidated damages amount is left blank in 52.211-12. Please advise what the expected amount (or approximate range) for this might be as it may impact a contractor’s determination of whether or not to respond to the RFQ.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 5: This response will be provided in a forthcoming Amendment.

RFI 6: Please clarify the intent of 52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES and how that might be implemented for the project. Does this mean that the 1,097 day duration could be extended and additional 6 months and if so would those general conditions and other related costs need to be within our base bid (submitted in step two) or would that be through a modification to the base bid contract amount?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 6: No. FAR 52.217-8 was included in the solicitation erroneously. This clause is hereby removed.

RFI 7: For the five projects provided to meet regency and relevancy criteria. Do all five projects need to meet or exceed all three requirements for relevancy (size, scope, and complexity) to meet the Acceptable rating? If the projects only meet two of these requirements versus all three, however the combination of projects show strong experience for size, scope and complexity, would this meet the criteria for Acceptable?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 7: Each of the five projects do not need to meet or exceed all three requirements. However, the combination of all five projects must demonstrate the breadth of performance experience across all requirements. Further, individual projects that include all requirements may be considered more favorably, and omissions of one or more requirements across the five projects may be considered less favorably.

RFI 8: Please confirm that the org chart provided for the prequalification phase is only to identify the structure of the team and involvement of any other outside firms or partners on the team and that it is not required to submit specific names or key personnel during this prequalification phase.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 8: Correct. Contractors should provide a simple, one page organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities. Do not submit personnel information that is subject to Factor 5(a) in the Pre-Qualification Phase.

RFI 9: While we are not required to submit Key Personnel until the Final Phase, it would be helpful to understand the qualification requirements for these positions now. Could the qualification requirements for these positions be provided (Factor 5a)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 9: No. Final Phase information will only be submitted to those Offerors considered by the Government to be the most highly qualified under Prequalification Phase. Final Phase submissions shall include responses to Factors 4b, 5 and Price.

RFI 10: Will the Government consider reducing the size requirement for projects to 30,000 SF?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 10: No. The primary building of this project is 128,000 SF.

Offerors should have experience working on large projects of at least 40,000 SF to minimize successful performance risk.

RFI 11: Will the Government accept new construction projects in addition to the renovation projects, as long as they meet the other relevancies described in the RFP?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 11: Yes, consistent with the response to RFIs 3, 7, and 10.

RFI 12: Is there a target date that RFI responses will be provided?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 12: The Government will respond to RFIs as soon as possible and provide responses on beta SAM via an amendment to the solicitation.

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS

The Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Washington has a DESIGN-BID-BUILD, firm fixed-price construction requirement for the repair of MacDonough Hall, Building 102 at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Due to the critical schedule and high-visibility nature of this project, the procurement will utilize a Prequalification Phase and a Final Phase. The intent is to solicit the most highly qualified contractor that offers the lowest risk for quality performance, lowest risk for meeting the project’s tight schedule, optimal commitment and actual use of small businesses and strong management oversight.

1. TITLE: REPAIR MACDONOUGH HALL, BUILDING 102, U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY, ANNAPOLIS,

MARYLAND

2. PROJECT DISCRIPTION: MacDonough Hall is a 128,000 square feet, 6-story (2 full and 4 partial), granite and steel structure on the Historic Registry. Originally constructed in 1903 and last renovated in 1982, the building needs extensive renovations and repairs. MacDonough Hall is the home of the Physical Education Department at the U.S. Naval Academy. The facility is used to prepare midshipmen physically to become professional Navy and Marine Corps Officers. The MacDonough Hall facility provides the platform for course instruction in swimming, personal defense, recreational sports and wellness; as well as the administration of Physical Readiness Testing which will be on-going in the swing space.

The project will replace the 157,000 gallon training pool and treatment system, provide upgrades to the HVAC system and controls, replace the Mercury-impregnated floor coating, abate asbestos and lead paint, upgrade the electrical system, upgrade the fire suppression system, make structural modifications and improvements, upgrade the plumbing and drainage system, and make exterior architectural and envelope repairs. The project also includes the disassembly of temporary operational spaces and the renovation and repairs, and has a construction/renovation period of 1,030 calendar days (2.8 years). Historically, long-term construction projects in older facilities have multiple unscheduled delays, therefore 60 additional calendar days are added to the construction schedule; bringing the estimated construction period to 1,090 days or 2.98 years.

Market Research has determined that this requirement should be advertised as FULL AND OPEN, and WILL NOT use Commercial Contracting (FAR Part 12) processes. The NAICS Code for this project is 236220, with a size standard of $39.5M. The Product/Service Code is Z2CZ.

3. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS: The source selection process will consist of Best Value Source Selection

(BVSS) with Tradeoffs methodology, in accordance with FAR Part 15. This selection method will also use DFARS 236.272 Prequalification of Sources. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to first prequalify the highest technically rated Offerors for consideration, then use the tradeoff process to award to the

Offeror that presents the best overall value to the Government. The relative order of importance for all evaluation factors will be clearly stated in the solicitation.

The technical ratings in the Prequalification Phase will demonstrate the most qualified Offerors based on the adjectival ratings for each of three factors (Corporate Experience, Safety, Small Business and Past Performance) and then provide an overall proposal rating, ranking and down-select of the five (5) most qualified Offers which will move to the Final Phase in the process. Final Phase participants will receive the 100% plans and specification via Solicitation Amendment to continue the Source Selection process. The final most qualified Offerors will be evaluated for all Factors, to determine the Best Value Offeror.

4. CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: Work under this contract shall commence within 15 days of contract award, and shall be completed within 1,097 calendar days after contract award (this includes 10 calendar days for bond approval).

5. PRICING: Pricing should be valid for 90 days from the receipt of proposals.

6. PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACT: The primary point of contact for this procurement is Tonja D. Jenkins, Contracting Officer, at tonja.jenkins@navy.mil. All questions must be in writing. The Alternate Point of Contact is Eric Walker at eric.t.walker@navy.mil .

7. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI): Contractors are required to review the ENTIRE solicitation package before submitting questions. All inquiries for the Prequalification Phase must be submitted no later than May 17, 2020 by 4:00 PM EST. All inquiries must be submitted in writing and emailed to Eric Walker at eric.t.walker@navy.mil and copied to Tonja Jenkins at tonja.jenkins@navy.mil.

8. SITE VISIT: The Prequalification Phase involves Offeror past performance documents, and does not require a Site Visit. The project Statement of Work and design specifications will be released during the Final Phase of the solicitation process. A pre-proposal Site Visit will be scheduled and announced for the Final Phase participants via Solicitation Amendment.

9. PROPOSAL DELIVERY: Proposals for this solicitation will be accepted at two times.

PREQUALIFICATION PHASE PROPOSALS ARE DUE BY 2:00 PM (EST) ON JUNE 2, 2021. The Final Phase proposal submission date will be issued by Solicitation Amendment, and will only involve those firms selected to participate after the Pre-Qualification Phase.

10. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: Proposals shall be submitted ELECTRONICALLY to the office listed below:

Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, Washington Solicitation # N4008020R0033 Attn: Tonja D. Jenkins at tonja.jenkins@navy.mil

Offerors are to use the DoD Secure Access File Exchange Services (SAFE) Secure Access process to send files using the Drop-off feature (https://safe.apps.mil). Only DoD SAFE is authorized for the submission of proposal in response to this solicitation. Instructions for use of DoD SAFE are provided below.

Approximately 3 days prior to when proposals are due, Offerors must send an email to Contract Specialist Eric Walker at eric.t.walker@navy.mil and copy Contracting Officer, Tonja D. Jenkins at tonja.jenkins@navy.mil to request a Drop-Off code.

11. DOD SAFE DROP-OFF INSTRUCTIONS: Upon determining that you will submit a proposal in response to this solicitation, the Offeror shall submit their point of contact (POC) name and email address to the assigned Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist via email to tonja.jenkins@navy.mil and eric.t.walker@navy.mil, respectively. It is important that the POC information remains valid throughout the lifetime of the solicitation. Upon receipt of this information, the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist will “Request a Drop-Off” procedure in DoD SAFE, obtain a “Request Code” and provide the Request Code to the Offeror’s POC email address. Only the identified POC will be able to drop-off proposals or proposal revisions in DoD SAFE. Failure to provide accurate POC information will preclude the Offeror from using DoD SAFE.

To submit the proposal, the Offeror will log into DoD SAFE at https://safe.apps.mil, click Drop-off and enter the Request Code that was provided by the Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer. The system will allow for inclusion of a short note to the Recipient and then the Offeror will click to add files or drag and drop them.

Click “Drop-Off Files” to send the files to the recipient. The file(s) are uploaded and an email will be sent to the recipient notifying them of the “drop-off”. [Additional details can be viewed in the DoD SAFE User Guide available at https://safe.apps.mil]. Note that the submission of any proposal must be completed no later than the time indicated above. The DoD SAFE system will record the date and time of package submittal. The date and time of package submittal recorded in DoD SAFE shall govern the timeliness of any proposal submission.

Offerors shall allow adequate time to upload files which may be slower for non-DoD users and to avoid other technical difficulties that may be encountered. Offerors are also responsible for submitting files in the format specified consistent with requirements stated elsewhere in this solicitation. Files that cannot be opened, or are otherwise missing the required content are the responsibility of Offerors.

It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to obtain the RFP files, along with any amendments, from the Beta.SAM Opportunities Site (www.beta.sam.gov). Unprotected editable electronic file copies of the RFP documents, including Word, Excel, and/or Adobe files will not be provided. Please plan accordingly.

12. PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT:

a. The proposal submitted in response to this solicitation shall be clear, concise, and shall contain sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposals should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather should demonstrate convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the RFP. Nonconformance with the solicitation requirements, specified organization and content may result in elimination or misevaluation of the proposal. All claimed technical capabilities to meet the requirements shall be realistic and are subject to verification by the Government.

Offerors should assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s business and that the Government will base its evaluation on the information contained in the Offeror’s proposals.

b. Prequalification Phase Proposal Organization

• Text pages 8 ½ x 11 format, minimum 10 point font

• A cover page with Contract Number, Contract Title, Prime Contractor’s Name, Address, Phone Number, DUNS, Cage Code, Point of Contact, phone and email address

• Firm’s type of business and business size, including information on the categories or small business for which the firm qualifies (i.e. Large Business, SB SDB, HUBZone, SB, WOSB/EDWOSB, VOSB, and/or SDVOSB)

• The proposal shall be sectioned appropriately by evaluation factors

The proposal shall be written to the greatest extent possible on a stand-alone basis so that its content may be evaluated with a minimum of cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. Hyperlinking of cross-references is permissible. Information required for proposal evaluation, but not provided in its designated volume or cross-referenced, is assumed omitted from the proposal.

BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal most advantageous to the Government, cost/price and other factors considered.

2. As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

3. The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror.

4. All technical factors when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating; and all technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined are approximately equal to price.

5. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions.

Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.

6. OFFERORS ARE ADVISED THAT AN AWARD MAY BE MADE WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS. Therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms. Offerors should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to qualify, discuss or revise their proposals prior to award.

7. Information received under Prequalification Phase of the procurement will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror possesses the experience and capability required to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

8. Following the evaluation of Prequalification Phase submissions, the Contracting Officer may determine the number of offers that might otherwise be included in the competition exceeds the number by which an efficient competition can be conducted. Potential Offerors are hereby notified that the maximum number of Offerors invited to participate in the Final Phase is five (5). However, the Government reserves the right to change this number if the Contracting Officer determines it to be in the best interest of the Government. It is the Government’s intent that the potential Offerors who are invited to participate in the Final Phase, shall be invited by the Government solely on the evaluation of their responses to the Prequalification Phase factors WITHOUT discussions.

9. Final Phase information will only be submitted by those Offerors considered by the Government to be the most highly qualified under Prequalification Phase. Final Phase submissions shall include responses to Factors 4b, 5 and Price.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Prequalification Phase of the procurement process is a narrowing phase selecting the five (5) most qualified Offerors based on technical factors that include: Corporate Experience, Past Performance, Safety and Historical Small Business Utilization for submitted projects valued in the anticipated workload range. The Prequalification Phase technical factors relate to contract requirements for similar type projects. Only those Offerors selected in the Prequalification Phase will be allowed to proceed into the Final Phase.

2. In the Final Phase, the selected Prequalification Phase Offerors must submit additional technical and price proposals for the project. Offerors who fail to submit their Final Phase technical and price proposals will not be considered for award. Final Phase technical factors include: Planned Small Business Utilization and Management Approach. Price proposals will be evaluated based on total price. The Offeror with the proposal deemed the Best Value to the Government, considering price and all non-price/cost evaluation factors, will be awarded the contract.

3. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior award of the contract; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal most advantageous to the Government, with price and other factors considered.

4. As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

5. The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. Best Value will be determined by rating Offerors against the ratings of other Offerors for the same ratings.

6. As stated in the solicitation, all technical factors when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating; and all technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating; when combined are more important than price.

7. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. Based on the number of proposals received, the Government reserves the right to remove proposals with deficiencies from consideration without discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.

B. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

1. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

a. A combined technical/risk evaluation considering risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings shall be used. The technical risk evaluation shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the following table. Adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign an overall rating to each technical proposal and to assign a rating for each technical factor. Upper case letter ratings will be used for major technical factors as well as the overall rating. The addition of plus (+) or minus (-) to an adjective rating is not allowed.

Table 1. Corporate Experience (Factor 1 only)

Adjectival Rating Description

Highly Qualified (HQ)

Proposal exceeds the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Qualified (Q) Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unqualified (U)

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

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Outstanding (O)

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good (G)

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable (A)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal (M)

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (U)

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

2. Definitions: The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation of each non-cost/price factor.

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

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

c. Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

d. Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

C. SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION EVALUATION

1. Per NFAS 15.304(b), for unrestricted acquisitions, an evaluation factor for Small Business Utilization shall be included and shall be weighted at least equal to the highest ranking technical factor.

2. Small business participation will be evaluated utilizing the ratings outlined in Table 3.

Table 3. Small Business Rating Method

Outstanding (O) Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good (G) Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable (A) Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Marginal (M) Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

D. SAFETY EVALUATION

1. Per NFAS 15.304(d), solicitations utilizing source selection procedures for procurements within the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas shall contain a standard “Safety” technical evaluation factor. This factor shall be included as a stand-alone evaluation factor and not as a sub-factor or an element of the Past Performance evaluation factor. This action will result in the selection of contractors that have consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and the ability to properly manage and implement safety procedures for themselves and all tiers of subcontractors under their purview.

2. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

o Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate for the specified five (5) calendar years (CY) o Total Case Rate (TCR) Rate for the specified five (5) calendar years (CY) o Offeror Technical Approach for Safety o Other Sources of Information available to the Government

3. The evaluators should collectively consider all elements of safety when assigning an overall adjectival rating for this factor. Safety will be evaluated utilizing the ratings outlined in Table 4.

Table 4. Safety Rating Method Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding (O) Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good (G) Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable (A) Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal (M) Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is un-awardable.

E. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

1. 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. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

2. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The third is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following:

similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontract/teaming. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts;

rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.

The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. Recency is projects completed within the past ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Relevancy is as follows:

SIZE: Projects on facilities/buildings 40,000 square feet or larger and/or final construction cost of

$30,000,000 or greater.

SCOPE: Renovation of physical training, gymnasium, swimming pool, or other facilities with at least 30% of the project being these functions.

COMPLEXITY: Work performed on facilities that required coordination of a Historic Preservation agency.

3. Past Performance relevancy will be rated as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”.

Table 5. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Definition

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable 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.

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 for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonable 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.”

4. The SSEB will review all past performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required;

rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy and quality of performance.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the SSEB may not rate an Offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated selection criteria.

5. Performance Confidence Assessment. This source selection requires a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, therefore, the SSEB shall use all confidence ratings identified in Table 8 below.

Table 8. Performance Confidence Assessments

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

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will receive a NEUTRAL Confidence rating, but may not meet the RFP requirements to demonstrate adequate Corporate Experience.

F. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-cost/price factors and subfactors:

PREQUALIFICATION PHASE

Factor 1– Corporate Experience Factor 1a – Recent & Relevant Experience Factor 1b – Construction Team Factor 2 – Safety Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4a – Historical Small Business Utilization

FINAL PHASE

Factor 4b – Planned Small Business Utilization Factor 5 – Management Approach Factor 5a – Key Personnel Factor 5b – Project Delivery Approach Factor 6 – Price

2. This is a Prequalification procurement. Factors 1 – 4a will be evaluated in the Prequalification Phase and Factors 4b-6 will be evaluated in Final Phase. Factor 1 will only be rated Highly Qualified, Qualified, or Not Qualified based on the information provided. If an Offeror is rated Not Qualified for Factor 1, they will not be considered for Final Phase. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is the Technical Factors 1, 2, 4 and 5 are of equal importance to each other, respectively and, when combined are equal importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor (Factor 3). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-cost/price evaluation factors) are more important than price.

The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-cost/price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-cost/price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the Best Value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

3. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The price proposals shall be submitted along with the technical proposals. The Offeror shall submit all Offer packages electronically. Each Offer shall contains six (6) separate files for a complete proposal. Offers include the following:

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE PAGE LIMIT

Volume I BOTH PHASES - Administrative No page limit Vol I, Part A Business Introduction

Vol I, Part B Table of Contents

Vol I, Part C Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Vol I, Part D Signed Standard Form (SF) 1442

Vol I, Part E Online Representation and Certifications and proof of registration in System for

Award Management (SAM)

Vol I, Part F Other Information (VETS-4212 and/or VETS-4212A Report Submission

Confirmation , Company Information Specific to the resultant contract)

Volume II PREQUALIFICATION PHASE

Technical Proposal 70 page limit

Technical-(Evaluation Factor 1)

Vol II, Part A Subfactor 1a- Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A)

5 – 10 pages

Vol II, Part B Subfactor 1b- Construction Team 1-2 pages

Vol II, Part C Organizational Chart 1 page

Vol II, Part D Signed Joint venture/partnership/teaming/ mentor-protégé agreement, if applicable

No page limit

Safety-(Evaluation Factor 2)

Vol II, Part E Safety Data Form (Attachment B) 1-2 pages

Past Performance -(Evaluation Factor 3) No page limit

Vol II, Part F Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment C)

Vol II, Part G CPARS records, if applicable

Volume III PREQUALIFICATION PHASE

Historical Small Business Utilization- (Evaluation Factor 4a)

No…