Phase One of a Two Phase Design-Build Selection Procedure.pdf

SECTION IV

PHASE ONE OF A TWO-PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURE

A. OVERVIEW

B. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

C. PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

D. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

TAB A - FACTOR 1 – RELEVANT SPECIALIZED PAST EXPERIENCE

TAB B - FACTOR 2 – RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE

TAB C - STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

E. PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

EVALUATION

DEFINITIONS

EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM

F. PHASE ONE – ATTACHMENTS

FORM A1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

FORM A2 – PAST EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OF PRIME CONTRACTOR

FORM A3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

A. OVERVIEW

This is the first phase of a Two-Phase design-build solicitation, in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.3 for all work described in this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and, after completion of Phase Two, award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible firm whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation, is considered fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government.

In Phase-One of the Two-Phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) will submit specified performance capability proposals demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the design-build construction contract resulting from this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the Phase One proposals IAW the criteria described herein and will short-list no more than five (5) of the Phase-One Offerors to submit a Phase-Two proposal and compete for the design-build contract. This work is being procured IAW FAR Subpart 36.3 Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures. FAR Part 15 does NOT apply to Phase-One of this competition. The Government intends, and reserve the right, during Phase One, to talk with, and/or obtain revised submissions from, none, one, or more of the Phase One Offerors to determine which should be included in the second phase of the competition.” FAR Part 15 will apply to Phase Two IAW FAR Subpart 36.3.

In Phase Two, the short-listed Offerors will submit proposals in accordance with Section

‘PHASE TWO OF A TWO-PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURE’

B. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. Who May Submit.

Competition will be unrestricted, full and open.

2. Inquiries about this solicitation:

Prospective Offerors should submit inquiries related to this solicitation only by e-mail to:

Adrian Stafford-Browne - Adrian.j.Stafford-Browne@usace.army.mil Nicholas Emanuel - Nicholas.P.Emanuel@usace.army.mil Include the solicitation number and project title with any questions/clarifications. Written questions must be received by this office not later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of offers.

TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Oral explanations or instructions are not binding. Any information given to an

CUI Port Monmouth Phase II Contract 1 Mitigation Middletown, NJ

Offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.

As this is a competitive negotiated acquisition, there is no public proposal opening and no information will be given out as to the number of Offerors or the results of the competition until an award is made.

3. Page Limit and Size of Printed Materials - PHASE ONE

Volume Tab Title Maximum Pages I A Relevant Specialized Experience 30

I B Past Performance No Page Limit

I C Standard Form 1442 and Pro Forma Data Sheet No Page Limit

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer/PCO must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below. Pages containing text shall be submitted electronically on standard 8-1/2 x 11-inch size paper. Use of 'TAB' pages are encouraged to identify each section of the proposal and shall not count against proposal's total page count. Each page of text shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one-inch margins all around. A page printed on two sides will be counted as two pages. Any sheet with printed material (text or graphics) shall be considered a page, excluding dividers, cover sheets, letters of commitment, team agreements, and/or Joint Venture Agreements. Each page of Volume I shall be numbered sequentially.

Note – Phase I (Factors 1 and 2) proposal does not need to be resubmitted in Phase II. These pages do not count against the page limit for Phase II, but will be included in the evaluation.

4. Joint Ventures

When an Offeror is submitting a proposal as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture must sign the SF 1442 and any financial surety instrument that is required, unless a written agreement by all members of the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the legal authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. Signatures on the written agreement designating one member of the joint venture as having legal authority to bind all other members of the joint venture must be executed by the duly authorized representatives of the respective joint venture members. All joint venture members will remain jointly and severally liable for all actions, representations, and other activities by the joint venture and by other joint venture members in connection with this solicitation and subsequent contract. A copy of the joint venture agreement and agreement providing evidence of the authority to legally bind all other members of the joint venture must be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience, past performance, and other information about each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture. The experience and past performance of each joint venture partner will be considered the experience and past performance of the joint venture entity. Joint ventures must also submit the following additional documentation:

1) A copy of the Joint Venture Agreement.

2) A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate:

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

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

Identification of key personnel having the authority to bind the joint venture to any and all agreements, including any subcontracts, executed by the joint venture.

Identification of party or parties maintaining the joint venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposit of all receipts, keeping the books and records of the joint venture, and paying applicable taxes for the joint venture.

Identification of party or parties having overall control of the joint venture.

3) Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual joint venture entities and identify the entity, or whether they are hired directly as employees of the joint venture. A complete and legally binding document with all information required under this section titled “Joint Ventures” shall be included in Volume I of the proposal.

5. Proposal Submission Requirements and Instructions

1) Proposal Requirements and Submission Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms. Do not assume that Offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to revise their proposals.

Do not submit any material not required by this solicitation (such as company or system brochures). Offerors must meet all technical portions (design-build construction criteria) of the RFP.

The fact that the technical specifications and the drawings are not evaluated factors during solicitation does not relieve the Offerors from meeting all technical, or other requirements, of the RFP.

The Government will not make assumptions concerning the intent, capabilities, or experiences of the Offerors. Clear identification of proposal details shall rest as sole responsibility of the Offeror. Therefore, the proposal shall meet the following basic requirements:

Proposals shall be typed and easy to read. Margins (1-inch) shall be clean and clear.

Proposals shall be organized, concise, and submitted in the volumes and in the order indicated herein. Volumes shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

Proposals shall contain a Table of Contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the volume and page number.

Offerors shall submit Form A1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEET and verify that the information for the Point-of- Contacts is current, correct, and complete, including email address, telephone number, and fax number if available.

Offerors shall submit a signed Offer (Standard Form 1442) for this solicitation including verification of all amendments received.

Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, and the like are not necessary. However, proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation.

Failing to submit attachments or failing to properly complete the proposal, may result in rejection of the Offer without further evaluation. Therefore, Offerors are urged to follow instructions and contact the Contract Specialist if instructions are not understood.

2) Where to Submit

Offers are to be sent via email to Adrian.j.Stafford- Browne@usace.army.mil AND nicholas.p.emanuel@usace.army.mil Proposals may be withdrawn in writing via email to Adrian.j.Stafford-Browne@usace.army.mil AND nicholas.p.emanuel@usace.army.mil

3) Submission Deadline The USACE Contracting Specialist and Contracting Officer must receive proposals not later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the Standard Form 1442.

It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that its proposal arrives by the designated date and time.

4) Incurring Costs The Government is not liable for any costs incurred by the Offerors submitting an offer in response to this solicitation.

5) Format Requirements In the event that there is a discrepancy between the original or copies, the original will control. All proposals shall contain the volume number and the name, address and telephone number of the Prime and Key Subcontractors, Joint Venture, or other entity identified on the cover. Note that a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment from the Subcontractor is required in order for the Subcontractor experience and/or past performance to be considered in the evaluation. The original proposal must be clearly marked as “ORIGINAL” and the original signatures must be in blue or black ink. Copies of the proposals must also be clearly marked as “COPY x of y (i.e., COPY 1 of 5).” Proposal clarity and material organization in each volume are mandatory.

No material shall be incorporated by reference. Each volume will be submitted separately bound. The proposal shall address and contain the information listed below.

The information will be used by the Source Selection Board to evaluate each proposal. Offerors are advised that conciseness and relevance of the proposal is important and unrelated information will not be evaluated. Proposals that provide only superficial coverage of the information required below may not receive additional consideration and may be excluded from the competition. Additionally, should the proposal include any terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the proposal may be determined to be "Unacceptable" and thus ineligible for award.

C. PHASE ONE: PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS VOLUME I

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Phase One, Vol. I, TAB A

FACTOR 1 Relevant Specialized Experience

The most important Factor

Phase One, Vol. I, TAB B

FACTOR 2 Past Performance Equally as important as Factor 4; Slightly less than Factor 3

Phase One, Vol. I, TAB C

Pro Forma Information

N/A

D. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

TAB A – FACTOR 1: RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

The Offeror will be evaluated on the relevancy of their specialized experience demonstrated in the submitted FORM A2 – RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE. The offeror should list their Design-Build construction experience of similar project scope, complexity, and magnitude. Additionally, the Offeror shall list their designer’s experience in designing projects of similar scope and complexity.

Design Bid Build projects may be considered.

For the construction contractor experience - submit a minimum of two (2) projects but no more than five (5) projects. A minimum of one (1) project shall be completed and turned over to the customer and the second project shall be at least 75% physical work complete. At least one (1) project must be a tidal mitigation/restoration project and at least one (1) project must be a freshwater forested mitigation/restoration project. All the submitted projects shall be recent construction experience which means that construction completion shall be no more than fifteen (15) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

For the design firm on the team – submit a minimum of two (2) projects, but no more than three (3) previously designed projects. A minimum of one (1) project shall be construction complete and turned over to the customer, any further projects shall be at least 100% design complete, and construction shall be at least 30% physical work complete. At least one (1) project must be a tidal mitigation/restoration project and at least one (1) project must be a freshwater forested mitigation/restoration project All submitted projects shall be recent design experience which means that design completion shall be no more than fifteen (15) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

If any firm has multiple divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division submitting the offer.

Firm, unequivocal, letters of commitment (Signed by both the Subcontractor and Offeror) are required in order for the Government to consider Subcontractor experience in the proposal evaluation. Other divisions within the Offeror’s company may be considered as subcontractors for the submitting division.

The projects submitted should include the following criteria. Projects do not have to include all of the criteria; however, projects that meet many or all of the criteria may be given a higher degree of relevancy. Projects should demonstrate a similar scope, complexity, and magnitude.

• Similar scope is defined as the Design and Construction of tidal wetland, riparian zone and forested wetland mitigation projects of similar acreages. Refer to specification section 01 10 10 Tables 1 and 2 for restoration area habitats and the acreages. Demonstrate successful projects by showing:

At least 85% survivability of plantings based on monitoring and documentation five years after project completion.

Achievement of site hydrology as designed

• Similar complexity is projects demonstrating:

Creation or restoration of multiple habitat types on one site

• Similar magnitude is defined as projects with a construction cost of $7,000,000 and above. Offerors shall provide construction costs for each project submitted, for both the design and construction projects submitted for consideration.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will consider the experience demonstrated by the projects in its evaluation. Proposals may be highly rated when the Offeror demonstrates extensive experience in all or nearly all of the aspects defining relevance and listed above. Where this experience includes the following, the proposal may be given additional consideration (the following list does not encompass all possible items for which additional consideration may be given):

• The number of projects that demonstrate successful restoration/mitigation of freshwater forested areas.

• The number of projects that demonstrate freshwater forested areas that are at or are trending to 85% aerial coverage of plantings 3-5 years post construction without major intervention.

• The Offeror has Design-Build experience.

• The Offeror has worked with Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP)

• The Offeror acted as a prime contractor in the majority of the example experiences.

• The majority of the example experiences are projects performed for the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers or New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).

• The majority of the experiences are projects performed within the last fifteen (15) years.

• The experiences demonstrate previous teaming experience between current proposal team members.

• The Offeror has experience in monitoring mitigation projects

• Experience demonstrates project phasing.

Where this experience includes the following, the proposal may be given a weakness (the following list does not encompass all possible weaknesses):

• Few or no projects are provided where the Offeror acted as Prime contractor.

• Example experiences where the Offeror or their proposed subcontractor were subcontractors and their role was minor in comparison to the whole project.

• Example projects were performed by a Division of the company other than the Division submitting the offer.

• Example experiences are from proposed subcontractors in lieu of the

Offeror.

• The example experiences do not demonstrate previous teaming experience between current proposal team members.

• Example experiences do not demonstrate large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts.

• Example experiences do not demonstrate project phasing.

RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 1

Technical Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

The government will not award a contract to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating in this factor.

TAB B – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Offeror will provide Past Performance information on the projects submitted under Factor 1 using the Past Performance Questionnaires (Form A3) included in the solicitation. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) shall be submitted for projects, when available.

Your client should receive Form A3 with items 1 through 4 completed and the “Note” that appears on its reverse side as well as the “Adjective Rating and Definitions” that are used for the ratings in the form. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ form, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s points of contact, the Contract Specialist and the Contracting Officer, prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last ten (10) years such as award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

The Government reserves the right to verify the past performance by reviewing the Construction Contractor (or Architect-Engineer) Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other DoD or Government appraisal systems or to interview commercial owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. The past performance of key personnel proposed for this project will not be evaluated or considered under this factor.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

The source selection evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance competence assessment as described in the guidelines below.

Less than satisfactory performance information may include, but is not limited to, the issuance of overall less than satisfactory final performance ratings and/or less than a satisfactory performance rating in one or more of the CPARS (or other rating) elements, the issuance of cure notices, terminations for default, or the requirement for excessive oversight in order to achieve satisfactory completion. A single example of less than satisfactory performance, if significant enough, may lead to a less than satisfactory rating for this factor. Likewise, multiple examples of less significant less than satisfactory performance may lead to a less than satisfactory rating for this factor.

In conducting the performance competence assessment, the Government will consider the relevancy of the past performance information available.

In addition, the Offeror is required to provide any information on past projects (within the past ten (10) years) that were terminated (for any reason) or in which they have been issued a CURE NOTICE and provide accompanying information as to the details for such action(s) with an explanation of why they were terminated or issued a cure notice.

Offerors must address any projects for which the Offeror (including teaming partner/s, if applicable), was issued a Cure Notice, Show Cause, or Termination for Default within the 10 years of the date of issuance of this Solicitation. Offerors must also provide a “yes” or "no" answer to any of the following questions which have occurred in the last 3 years.

- Ever received a cure notice?

- Had LDs assessed?

- Received show cause notice?

- Had a non-responsibility determination?

- If so, please provide the name of the project, the client, and date of action.

Explanations shall not exceed four (4) pages

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR FACTOR 2

The SSEB will evaluate the risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts (Table 1). A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned to each past performance (Table 2).

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 is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral confidence”) past performance.

Table 1

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

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

Past Performance (Confidence Assessment Rating System)

Past Performance Risk Ratings assess the risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts.

Performance Confidence Assessment (Overall) Rating System:

Table 2

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Rating Definition

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 successfully perform the required effort.

TAB C – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PRO FORMA DATA SHEET

Must contain a Proposal Cover Sheet, to include the Offeror’s e-mail address, cell phone number, Name, Address, Unique Entity ID (UEI), and CAGE code. The proposal cover sheet is required by Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors— Competitive Acquisition.”

Must contain the signed, dated Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award.

Any and all amendments must be acknowledged by the Offeror in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation

E. PHASE ONE EVALUATION PROCEDURES

SOURCE SELECTION TEAM (SST)

The SST will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g., past performance information. The SST will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

EVALUATION

The SST will evaluate each proposal and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase One submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase One.

The Government will evaluate the Phase One proposals IAW the criteria described herein and will short-list no more than five (5) of the Phase One Offerors to submit a Phase Two proposal and compete for the design-build contract in Phase Two. This work is being procured IAW FAR Subpart 36.3 Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures. FAR Part 15 does NOT apply to Phase One of this competition. The Government intends, and reserves the right, during Phase One, to talk with, and/or obtain revised submissions from, none, one, or more of the Phase One offerors to determine which should be included in the second phase of the competition.”

FAR Part 15 will apply to Phase Two IAW FAR 36.3.

In Phase Two, the short-listed Offerors will submit proposals in accordance with Section

“PHASE TWO OF A TWO-PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURE”.

Phase One successful and unsuccessful Offerors will be notified upon completion of evaluations and down-select of Offerors to compete in Phase Two.

DEFINITIONS

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. A proposal containing a “deficiency” is un-awardable.

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

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Denoted with an (S).

Strength: Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

Denoted with an (S).

Deviation: Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The Offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government's attention. A deviation is a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor response or proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the response or proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of the proposal for each evaluation factor. The SST will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Source Selection Authority will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other and make a determination of the up to five (5) Most Highly Qualified firms to compete in Phase Two.

Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative discussing strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and uncertainties.

F. ATTACHMENTS

FORM A1 PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

1. Name of Solicitation:

2. Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

UEI # (used for accessing the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or

A-E Contractor Administration Support System (ACASS) Database)

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the ACASS or

CCASS databases. If a separate Unique Entity ID (UEI) has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted. Provide a UEI number for each company identified in any proposed

Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide EUI for each. If the Offeror has never done work with the Government, provide the Tax ID number (TIN).

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

3. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

[List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.] Name of Person

Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address: Negotiator's Telephone: Negotiator’s E-mail:

A. FORM A2 – RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

PRIME CONTRACTOR OR KEY SUBCONTRACTOR

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last ten years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.

Type of Facility Represented

Your Firm's Name:

Name of Project

Location of Project

Owner

General Scope of Construction Project

Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self-Performed:

Construction Cost

Percent of Work Self Performed Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out

Dates Construction: Began Completed

Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known

Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages?

(If either is "Yes", attach an Explanation)

Owner's Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company)

Current Telephone Number of Reference

Source Selection Plan CUI Port Monmouth Phase II Contract 1 Mitigation W912DS26RA0017 Middletown, NJ

FORM A3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: UEI Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer? E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force? E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program) E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section. Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below. Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users' rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Source Selection Authority in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

FORM A4 - SAMPLE LETTER OF COMMITMENT

Sample firm, unequivocal, letter of commitment between prime contractor and subcontractor.

Use Prime Contractor Letterhead

Date, 2026

TO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Adrian Stafford-Browne, Contract Specialist

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Contract associated with Solicitation

W912DS26RA0017, PORT MONMOUTH PHASE II CONTRACT 1 MITIGATION,

MIDDLETOWN, NY

Dear Mr. Stafford-Browne:

Company B hereby makes the firm commitment that, in the event that Company A Construction Services, LLC (Offeror) is awarded the subject contract, we will perform the duties of XXX as required by this contract.

Sincerely, Signed by Company A

Signed by Company B