W5168W24R0019 Solicitation Amendment 005.pdf

andrew.s.graham6 Typewritten Text 6-Sep-2024

W5168W24R0019

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 12-Sep-2024 02:00 PM to 19-Sep-2024 02:00

PM.

SECTION 00 21 13 - INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment Number

Attachment Name

1 Ft. Irwin Job Order Contract (JOC) Statement of Work (SOW)_5SEP24

2 Consent Letter-Irwin JOC W5168W23R0014_26JUN24

3 Specific Relevant Contracts-Irwin JOC W5168W24R0019_26JUN24

4 Past Performance Questionnaire-Irwin JOC W5168W24R0019_26JUN

5 Coefficient Normal- Irwin JOC W5168W23R0014_30JUL24

6 Coefficient Other Than Normal -Irwin JOC W5168W24R0019_30JUL24

7 Coefficient Non-PrePriced Items -Irwin JOC W5168W24R0019_30JUL24

8 PIEE Solicitation Vendor Posting Offer Training_26JUN26

SOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Submission Instructions to Offerors (Section L)

1. Offerors shall submit proposal via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module to Andrew Graham (Contracting Officer) and Caley Neel (Contract Specialist) by the date and time listed in block 13 of the solicitation. The link to access PIEE is https://piee.eb.mil/. The Offerors will be required to have WAWF Vendor access in PIEE, therefore should ensure that access is granted prior to the closing date and time of the solicitation.

Attachment 1- PIEE Solicitation Vendor Posting Offer Training, contains training information on creating a message and attaching documents in PIEE Solicitation. The Offerors submission through PIEE Solicitation must be made no later than (NLT) the closing date and time specified in the solicitation. You will need the following information:

Contracting Officer: Andrew Graham, Email: andrew.s.graham6.civ@army.mil

Contract Specialist: Caley Neel, Email: caley.n.neel.civ@army.mil

Contracting Office Location Code: W5168W

Contract or Solicitation Number Type: Solicitation – DoD Contract or Solicitation Number:

W5168W24R0019

In accordance with FAR 36.204 and DFARS 236.204 the anticipated magnitude of this project is approximately between $75,000,000 and $100,000,000.

2. All questions or clarifications regarding the solicitation or the in-person site visit conducted at Ft.

Irwin are due no later than (NLT) 25 July 2024 by 3:00 p.m. CDT. Offerors shall submit questions in writing to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist via email at andrew.s.graham6.civ@army.mil and caley.n.neel.civ@army.mil. The Government will answer all

9 DBA Wage Rate Ft. Irwin_24MAY24

4Clicks Commercial Pricelist.pdf Fort Irwin_26JUN24

Fort Irwin Map for the 17 July 2024 In-Person Site Visit_10JUL24

In-Person Site Visit PowerPoint Presentation_17JUL24

Government Responses to Industry Questions_Updated 26 August 2024

SAIDIQ Ordering Guide_20240827 mailto:andrew.s.graham6.civ@army.mil written questions received by the 25 July 2024 due date in a Solicitation Amendment. The Solicitation Amendment will be released at a later date. Questions received after this date may not be answered.

3. Discrepancies: If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, an ambiguity, omission, or are otherwise deemed unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale.

4. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this contract based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

B. General Instructions

Offers will be evaluated using the criteria under ‘Evaluation Factors for Award, A. Basis for Contract Award (Section M).’ Noncompliance with these Instructions may hamper the Government's ability to properly evaluate the proposal, and could result in the proposal being eliminated from further consideration for contract award.

1. The submission of a signed proposal as specified in this solicitation shall constitute the Offeror's understanding and acceptance of all terms and conditions of the solicitation. Accepted proposals shall remain in effect and valid for a period of 120 calendar days from the date set for closing.

2. These instructions prescribe the format for the proposal and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. These instructions are designed to ensure consistency in the submission of necessary information to provide for the comprehensive evaluation of proposals.

3. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, an ambiguity, omission, or are otherwise deemed unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify Contracting Officer, Andrew Graham, at andrew.s.graham6.civ@army.mil and the Contract Specialist, Caley Neel, at caley.n.neel.civ@army.mil in writing with supporting rationale. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

4. The Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Proposals received in response to the original solicitation will be considered current and will be retained through contract award.

5. All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the SAM.gov Opportunities website. Potential Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information is posted to the website for this solicitation.

mailto:caley.n.neel.civ@army.mil

6. Debriefings. The Contracting Officer (KO) will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance (IAW) debriefing shall make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

C. Proposal Preparation Instructions

IMPORTANT: Failure to follow the below proposal preparation instructions may cause a proposal to be deemed unacceptable by the Government and thus eliminated from the competition without further consideration.

1. Offeror’s proposal shall consist of four (4) separate volumes: General, Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price.

2. Proposal Format

a. Exceptions. Offerors are required to comply with all solicitation requirements, instructions and deliverables, representations and certifications, technical requirements, as well as those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to satisfy a stated requirement may result in an offer being determined non-responsive and ineligible for award. If the Offeror takes exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, the Offeror shall clearly describe the exception in the format supplied below. Exceptions shall provide a complete explanation of why the exception was taken, what benefit accrues to the Government (if any), and its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. Strict adherence to the format below is required for an exception to be actionable. Failure on the Offeror’s part to comply with this condition does not constitute a failure on the part of the Government to evaluate and respond to an exception. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Offerors are cautioned that taking an exception may render the offer ineligible for award. It is recommended that the Offeror contact the KO Andrew Graham at andrew.s.graham6.civ@army.mil or the Contract Specialist, Caley Neel at caley.n.neel.civ@army.mil immediately/prior to solicitation closing upon identifying an area that may result in an exception. This information shall be provided in the format below.

Table 1 – Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document Page/Paragraph Requirement/Portion Rationale & Impact

Section 001000, SOW, Solicitation Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe the rationale and impact of the exception

Specifications, Evaluation Factors for Award, A. Basis for Contract Award (Section M)

The proposals shall be organized into four (4) volumes (separately titled attachments correlating to the volume titles above). With the exception of company logos on stationary, graphics, photographs, and color coding of spreadsheets and calculations for emphasis, proposals shall be printable as blank ink on white paper, in a 12-point font. Digital files shall be provided in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, and/or Excel. A PDF file format is allowable for Volumes I, II, and III only. File names shall be provided in the format of “Volume #, Company Name – Initial” for the first submission. File name of later submissions (if necessary) shall follow the same naming convention with the exception of the extension of “Revision X” indicating the number of the revision. Page limitations are as follows:

Table 2-Page Limits

Volume Title Page Limits

I General None

II Technical Acceptability 75

III Past Performance 10 per reference

IV Price (Excel Spreadsheet) None

b. Proposal Limitation. If the page limits listed above are exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit shall be removed and unread. The Government will not accept any changes to proposals after the closing date of the solicitation. If discussions become necessary, page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be established at the appropriate time.

c. Page limits include all appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc., submitted as part of the proposal.

d. Page limits do not include cover sheets for proposal volumes, tables of content, glossary of terms, abbreviations and acronyms, indices title pages, cross reference indices, and section dividers and tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Pages will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.

e. Proposals shall be submitted on 8 ½ X 11” size paper. Larger illustrations and tables supporting proposal information can be 8-1/2 x 14” if it is necessary to enlarge text for legibility. Margins on all documents, regardless of type, shall be at least 1” on the top and bottom and ¾” on each side. All pages within each volume of the proposal shall be consecutively numbered. In the event a proposal contains an ambiguity in the numbering of pages, the Government may exercise its own discretion in counting pages.

f. Indexing. Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume.

g. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all terms, abbreviations and acronyms used, with a definition for each.

3. Proposal Content

a. Volume I – General

i. Offerors are required to submit a completed SF 1442 (including acknowledgment of Amendments). Failure to follow the below Contract Proposal preparation instructions may cause your proposal to be deemed unacceptable by the Government.

ii. Submission Requirements. The General Volume shall be organized as follows and contain the identified information.

(1) Exceptions/Assumptions (if required): Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, any assumptions used in the proposal preparation shall be identified and fully explained.

(2) SF 1442: The SF 1442 shall be submitted fully completed. The Offeror shall acknowledge any amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the SF 1442 and FAR 52.215- 1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition. The Offeror shall provide the name, title and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding the decisions made with respect to their proposal and who can contractually obligate in a separate paragraph. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

(3) Other Documents: Bid Guarantee - The offeror shall furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment, e.g., bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier's check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States. The bid guarantee is to protect the Government from loss and must be at least 20 percent of the bid price, but not more than $3M (See FAR Clause 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee).

b. Volume II – Technical Acceptability

i. The Technical Acceptability Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims in the Offeror’s proposal.

Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Proposals will be evaluated against the Technical Acceptability subfactors defined in Evaluation Factors for Award. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the SOW or General Requirements, (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); statements paraphrasing the SOW or General Requirements or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and expertise and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

ii. The Technical Acceptability Volume shall, at a minimum, be prepared in a form consistent with the evaluation criteria for award set forth in Volume II of this solicitation. The Offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology that would be used for accomplishing the SOW or General Requirements tasks. The Technical Acceptability Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(1) Table of Contents: The table of contents section shall include a list of table and drawings and across reference matrix, as applicable.

(2) Subfactor (1) – Mission Capability: It is imperative that the Offerors articulate their experience and understanding of how a Job Order Contract (JOC) operates. Provide a plan that incorporates methodology, processes and resources to manage the overall effort, mobilize and set up on the installation, respond to the Contracting Officer’s notification of a Task Order requirement for emergency repairs as well as routine work requirements, the methodology you would employ to estimate, and submit Task Order proposals, and Task Order management including an explanation of how you will monitor the prosecution and management of a high volume of awarded Task Orders simultaneously. The Plan must clearly demonstrate your understanding of the utilization of a unit price book for Task Order proposals. Demonstrate how your plan will satisfy both the technical and administrative requirements of this solicitation.

(3) Subfactor (2) - Proposed Staffing: Provide a staffing plan to include an organizational flow chart and narrative that describes your company’s hierarchy and accountability, key personnel you intend to perform critical functions under the awarded contract, and how those positions act as a team in providing complete management and oversight for the performance of the contract and all Task Orders. The Government considers the following key positions to be the absolute minimum acceptable level of management staffing requirements: Program Manager, Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager and Safety Manager. Key personnel employed under the awarded contract shall meet the minimum qualifications described in the Statement of Work (SOW) dated 5 August 2024. All personnel performing in the described positions shall be direct employees of the prime contractor; none of these functions is allowed to be subcontracted below the prime contractor.

The Quality Control Plan (QCP) shall discuss the Offeror’s retention and replacement program for these key positions, to include timelines for replacement and how the Offeror will execute those functions until a new employee is hired. The QCP shall describe how the Offeror will provide additional resources during seasonal workload fluctuation.

The QCP shall include a description of work to be performed by in-house tradesmen (if used) and other team members, subcontractors, and suppliers.

Under this 8(a) set-aside, Offerors are free to propose teaming arrangements, mentor/protégée agreements, partnerships, and joint ventures so long as they are official business arrangements allowable under the Small Business Act. Any arrangements proposed shall be sanctioned by the Small Business Administration, and the Contracting Officer will validate the eligibility of those arrangements as part of this sub-factor.

Program Manager (PM): This individual shall be a full-time, dedicated employee of the prime contractor and speak fluent English. The Program Manager shall possess a minimum of 10 years of experience in the Construction field, with at least five (5) of those 10 years of experience in construction management. Engineering, Architecture, Construction Science, Business Management, or Construction Management or equivalent experience. The Program Manager shall have the maturity and business acumen to manage the entire effort, successfully plan and execute all task orders, and possess extensive understanding of and familiarity with the principles, methods, and techniques of architectural, civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering. The Program Manager shall be vested with the authority to commit the contractor and act as an official representative of the company. The Program Manager shall have documented work experience in Federal government construction contracts, and be completely familiar with all Federal regulations relative to conducting construction on a Federal installation, to include all environmental and preservation implications.

Site Superintendent: A separate and distinct superintendent shall be assigned to each awarded task order under this contract (FAR 52.236-6). The superintendent shall be present on the jobsite at any and all times work is being performed, to include delivery of materials and equipment. The superintendent shall be a dedicated employee of the prime contractor, speak fluent English, and be directly accountable to the PM. To avoid conflicts of interest, superintendents shall not perform dual functions on the same jobsite; e.g., superintendents shall not perform additional duties in a quality control management or safety officer role on a covered task order. Each superintendent shall possess a minimum of five (5) years documented journeyman level work experience in the construction field, with no less than two (2) years of that experience being in a supervisory position.

The superintendent shall remain with the task order until all construction work is completed, inspected, and accepted, and will be responsible for maintaining the approved progress schedule (schedule of values).

Quality Control Manager (QCM): This individual shall be a full-time, dedicated employee of the prime contractor, speak fluent English, and be directly accountable to the corporate level Quality Control Manager only. As the QCM, this individual shall be responsible for the overall quality of work performed under this contract, and possess knowledge of and show current license/certification in a 30-hour OSHA Safety Inspection Certification and the US Army Corps of Engineers Quality Control Training Course. The QCM and any utilized support staff shall remain autonomous to the corporate level Quality Control Manager, and not be influenced by other members of the on-site staff. The QCM shall have a minimum of five (5) years of experience in construction quality control in Department of Defense agency (i.e., Corps of Engineers, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, etc.) activities. The QCM SHALL NOT HAVE OTHER DUTIES THAN QUALITY CONTROL. Should the QCM fail to be dedicated solely to quality control functions identified herein, or be otherwise directed to perform outside these boundaries, this shall be construed as a contract violation.

The QCM shall possess adequate skills and experience to implement and enforce the Contractor's Quality Control Plan There shall be a minimum of one but no more than two, QCM’s under the contract. The Government has determined that adequate construction work experience is expertise in all four disciplines (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and civil), and show current license/certification in their respective areas of expertise (whether it be mechanical, electrical, plumbing or civil).

Safety Manager: This individual will onsite visiting project sites and will be responsible for safety compliance. This individual shall have authority to act for the Contractor in all safety matters. The Safety Manager shall have an Associates or Bachelor’s degree and five years of experience; or ten years of experience as a safety professional in the construction industry.

(4) Subfactor (3) Bonding Capacity: At a minimum, Offerors shall provide/address the following:

The Offerors shall provide a bond liability letter from a qualified Securities or Bonding Company which states they will be providing bonding for this requirement up to the Contract Maximum Value.

Offerors shall demonstrate their ability to obtain sufficient bonding of $5M per task order and aggregate of $20M for concurrent task orders under this contract with verification from the Securities or Bonding Company as well as remaining bonding capacity for concurrent contracts.

The Offeror shall submit information showing minimum available bonding capacity of $30M aggregate per year for all contracts held by the offeror with verification from the Securities or Bonding Company (to be completed by Securities or Bonding Company and submitted by Offeror).

The information shall also include how long the Securities or Bonding Company has provided bonding for the Offeror and the bonding limit for a single project, aggregate amount, and current available bonding.

NOTE: The list of certified surety companies can be found at https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html.

c. Volume III – Past Performance

i. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror’s recent Past Performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort. Past performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 25% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.

(1) The offeror shall include documentation regarding their relevant past performance as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. The offeror SHALL NOT go back more than 6-years from the date of the solicitation for the submitted data. The past performance data shall show successful history of past contract performance.

Submission Requirements. The Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following:

(1) Table of Contents

(2) Consent Letters (Attachment 2): Executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the Offeror can respond to such information.

(3) Client Authorization Letters: For each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror’s performance under a specific contract.

(4) Organization Structure Change History: Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

(5) Specific Relevant Contracts Format (Attachment 3): is limited to 10 pages per reference. The Offeror shall provide documentation outlining the Offeror’s past performance with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, which is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this solicitation. The submittal shall include specific narrative explanation and rationale supporting objectives achieved and assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. The Offerors shall also provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror or proposed subcontractor. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination. Additionally, provide a narrative describing any litigation activity (i.e. bond claims, liquidated damages, insurance actions, or claims related to project performance, etc.) that the Offeror has been, or is currently party to involving its subcontractors, customers or any Surety within the past six (6) years. The narrative should include the Parties involved, the magnitude of the Claim and the resolution.

Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 4): is for the contracts identified on each Specific Relevant Contract Reference. The Offeror shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. The points of contact shall return the questionnaires directly to Andrew Graham at andrew.s.graham6.civ@army.mil and Caley Neel at caley.n.neel.civ@army.mil no later than the closing date of the solicitation. Any questionnaires not returned directly to Andrew Graham and Caley Neel will not be reviewed and evaluated. The information contained in the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance. New entities formed for the purpose of proposing on this solicitation (joint venture, teaming partners, or mentor protégé) that have no past performance history under that business arrangement are permitted to submit past performance information for the individual entities forming the arrangement.

d. Volume IV – Price

i. General. The Government reserves the right to require the submission of Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data as is deemed necessary to arrive at a fair and reasonable price. All information relating to the proposed cost/price data must be submitted in electronic format. Electronic mailto:caley.n.neel.civ@army.mil versions of the Cost/Price proposal shall be submitted in MS Office Excel format only and shall NOT be read only or password protected. All formulas, lookup tables, and links shall be intact, and no links shall exist to files not included with the submission. Excel workbooks should not contain hidden spreadsheets. PDF or flat files will not be acceptable. Failure to comply with these formatting requirements may result in rejection of the proposal. Offeror’s submittals shall be free of viruses, Trojans, spyware, and other malicious code for which appropriate detection and removal/quarantine software exists.

ii. The basis for pricing this JOC incorporates the use of a commercial cost estimating and project management software tool (e4Clicks) which employs a price modifier known as a coefficient. A coefficient is a numerical factor that is multiplied by the estimated total project costs to derive the final fixed price Task Order price proposed to the Government. The coefficient includes various factors reflecting the contractor’s cost of doing business and operating a field office on Fort Irwin, California (e.g., direct and indirect labor, field overhead, corporate overhead, equipment leases, transportation, training and certification, permits and licenses, profit) and a factor reflecting an evaluation of the accuracy of a contract-specified cost estimating tool to the local subcontractor/supplier market. This is generally done using a Unit Price Book (UPB) such as e4Clicks and is generally referred to as the “value of the book.” All estimates shall be submitted using a commercial cost estimating software and shall contain all of the line items found in the e4Clicks bound volumes.

iii. Submission Requirements. The Offeror shall submit a Price Volume containing the following:

(1) Section 001000 (Solicitation Contract Form): Section 001000 shall be submitted fully completed and error free. It shall contain the Offeror’s coefficient rates for the established Contract Line Items (CLINs).

(2) Development of Coefficients: This solicitation requires the development of three separate coefficient factors; (1) Normal Working Hours; (2) Other Than Normal Working Hours; and (3) Non-pre-priced Items. The Government has determined the following allocation of CLIN values within the established annual ceiling / per category as shown below:

CLIN X002 Normal Working Hours (85%) CLIN X003 Other Than Normal Working Hours (5%) CLIN X004 Non-pre-priced Items (Not-To-Exceed 10%)

Note: Fort Irwin, California operates on a 5-day work week.

When developing coefficients for submission, Offerors shall utilize Attachments 5, 6, and 7 and consider the cost elements identified therein as the minimum types of costs to incorporate into their coefficients. Each cost proposed shall be accompanied by a correlating narrative explaining type, quantity, and rationale for the value proposed. This narrative shall clearly explain the methodologies, calculations, exceptions, and assumptions used in developing the coefficient to include information to validate the assumed “value of the book” plus all cost inputs for direct labor, operating costs, field overhead, bonding, equipment, corporate overhead, profit, etc.

Example: When proposing direct labor, provide a complete breakdown of labor by skill category, quantity of personnel in each skill category, a bare rate per hour, available hours, productive hours, application of fringe benefits and withholdings, and a total cost per line. The narrative accompanying this cost element must contain the rationale for the selection of the skill category, what duties and responsibilities will be performed by that/those individuals and cross reference back to the appropriate paragraph in the technical proposal discussing staffing and work execution.

Failure to provide this level of detail, as well as the methodologies, calculations, exceptions and assumptions described in the paragraph above may result in a determination to eliminate an Offeror from further consideration for award.

Note: Because the awarded contract will utilize e4Clicks as its estimating tool, no annual adjustment to the contractor’s coefficients will be made. Therefore, Offerors are cautioned to consider escalation of coefficient factors in proposing prices for all option year CLINs contained in this solicitation.

Failure to provide the price information as requested may result in a proposal being determined to be noncompliant and will be eliminated from further consideration

Evaluation Factors for Award

A. Basis for Contract Award (Section M)

The award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal. Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability (including past performance), but will not be ranked using the non-price Factors (and Subfactors). In order for an Offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive an “Acceptable” rating in every nonprice Factor. A proposal receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” in any non-price Factor will not be eligible for award. Additionally, any other than small business offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.702(a).

B. Evaluation Criteria

1. Evaluation criteria consist of factors and subfactors. The proposals will be evaluated against three (3) evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability:

Subfactor (1): Mission Capability

Subfactor (2): Proposed Staffing

Subfactor (3): Bonding Capacity Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2. All Factor 1, Technical Acceptability subfactors are of equal importance. Any subfactor that receives an unacceptable rating will result in an unacceptable rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor, and not be eligible for award. Failure of an Offeror to provide required information pertaining to a factor or subfactor will result in a rating of unacceptable. An Offeror must receive an overall rating of acceptable at the factor level to be eligible for award. A proposal must be determined technically acceptable to be evaluated for past performance and price. The price will be evaluated to determine whether it is fair and reasonable.

3. All proposals will be evaluated strictly in accordance with the evaluation criteria contained in the solicitation. The Government will rate each proposal based on the proposal contents and will not assume performance or expertise that is not specified in the Offeror's proposal. The intent of the evaluations is to determine Offerors' understanding of the solicitation requirements, and to determine capability to perform the full range of construction tasks successfully at a fair and reasonable price.

a. Factor 1 - Technical Acceptability: The Government will evaluate technical proposals to determine the Offeror's capability to satisfy the Government's requirements. Under the Technical Acceptability factor, the proposal will be evaluated for meeting the following minimum standards:

i. Subfactor (1)- Mission Capability: The evaluation will consider how well the Offeror understands how a JOC operates, how its proposed methodology, processes and resources satisfy the management of the overall contract and with regard to both the technical and administrative aspects of a JOC, how complete its plan is with respect to mobilization and Task Order proposals, the effectiveness of the process(es) employed to estimate and submit complete Task Order proposals, and overall Task Order management of a high volume of awarded Task Orders simultaneously and efficiently within established timelines and negotiated prices. The evaluation team will look to determine the effective use of key personnel in managing the day-to-day administration functions, attending periodic meetings and negotiations, and the correct utilization of the unit price book for Task Order proposals.

ii. Subfactor (2) Proposed Staffing: The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed staffing approach to determine whether it demonstrates adequate management and oversight of the contract and all awarded Task Orders. To be considered to be technically acceptable, proposals shall consider the following positions to be the absolute minimum management staffing requirements:

Program Manager, Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Safety Manager. The evaluation will determine if the Offeror's proposed staffing matrix provides a successful mix of key positions, number of personnel per position, organizational management and hierarchy of authority within the on-site staff and corporate leadership, and how the Offeror will obtain and provide administrative support for CADD, project scheduling, payroll and other related administrative support functions, and manage periodic increases in active workload. In order to be considered acceptable, the evaluation extends to the assessment of the Offeror's process for replacing key personnel as vacancies occur, and how the Offeror will provide additional staff to support fluctuating workload to satisfy the regulatory requirements for direct superintendence and quality control. Substantiated teaming arrangements, partnerships, and mentor/protegee agreements and joint ventures must be clearly explained to indicate which partner of the agreement is responsible for various functions, duties and responsibilities.

iii. Subfactor (3) Bonding Capacity: To be considered acceptable, the Offeror shall demonstrate the following:

Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to obtain a bonding capacity of no less than $5M per task order, aggregate of $5M per task order and aggregate of $20M for concurrent task orders under this contract with verification from the Securities or Bonding Company as well as remaining bonding capacity for concurrent contracts. The Offeror shall submit information showing minimum available bonding capacity of $30M aggregate per year for all contracts held by the offeror with verification from the Securities or Bonding Company with verification from the Securities or Bonding Company (to be completed by Securities or Bonding Company and submitted by Offeror).

Each Technical Acceptability subfactor will receive one of the ratings defined below, and then be collectively evaluated in an overall roll-up rating at the factor level. Any subfactor that receives an "Unacceptable" rating will result in an overall roll-up rating of "Unacceptable" for the Technical Acceptability Factor, and will result in the entire proposal being determined ineligible for award.

Technical evaluations shall utilize the ratings listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Technical Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

b. Factor 2: Past Performance

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), System for Award Management (SAM), Electronic Subcontractor Reporting System (eSRS) or other databases; and which may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with program managers, contracting officers, and/or fee determining officials. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate offeror past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested in this paragraph risk rejection or a less than acceptable performance rating by the Government. All past performance comments received will be taken into consideration and could affect the overall rating. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, any such offeror shall be determined to have Unknown (or Neutral) past performance. In the context of Acceptability/Unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered Acceptable/Unacceptable, a neutral rating shall be considered Acceptable.

The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror’s recent Past Performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort. Past performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 25% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. The Government will evaluate the past performance to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance.

Past performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to the System for Award Management (SAM), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as Defense Contract Management Agency, and interviews with program managers, contractors, or fee determining officials.

Past performance areas of evaluation include:

Quality Schedule Management Compliance with Socio-Economic Goals (applies only to other than small business organizations) Regulatory Compliance

Table 2 Past Performance Ratings

Adjectival Description

Rating

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 so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (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.

c. Factor 3 - Price:

The evaluation will assess how successfully Offerors consider the application of the "value of the book" in determining the adequacy of each coefficient, and whether Offerors included all traditional costs associated with the performance of construction tasks and functions over time.

The evaluation will verify that the proposed coefficients include adequate projected costs for general and direct contract management and oversight, as well as a broad variety of construction-specific factors, to include job safety, OSHA compliance, and consideration for differing site conditions resulting in the need for abatement and/or remediation. This verification process will depend significantly on the correlating narrative explaining type, quantity, and rationale for the value proposed to clearly convey the Offeror's methodologies, calculations, exceptions, and assumptions used in developing the coefficients. The Government shall also evaluate to ensure that all the proposed costs/price are fair, reasonable, and balanced.

1. The Government will evaluate the total price of all CLINS.

2. Price proposals should support the proposed technical approach and will be evaluated for Total Evaluated Price (TEP), completeness and reasonableness. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

3. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for sum of the services including bond performance and payment.

4. Completeness: The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the requirements.

5. Reasonableness: For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

(End of Summary of Changes)