SRM_Amend_03.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

Sustainment Restoration Modernization (SRM) PROJECT. VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN ALASKA. NAICS 236220.

THIS AMENDMENT REMOVES THE BID BOND REQUIREMENT. BID BONDS HAVE BEEN WAIVED FOR THIS PROJECT. ADDITIONALLY THE MAX NET AMOUNT HAVE BEEN ADDED. PARTS 5.1 AND 5.2 IN SECTION 00 22 11 HAVE BEEN AMENDED. PROPOSALS ARE DUE ON 27

FEBRUARY 2014.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Feb-2014

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 W911KB-14-R-0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Jan-2014

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

05-Feb-2014

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, AK

CEPOA-CT (W911KB)

PO BOX 6898

JBER AK 99506-0898

W911KB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911KB-14-R-0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 11 01 - CLIN SCHEDULE

The following have been added by full text:

BID SCHEDULE

PROPOSAL SCHEDULE

IDIQ

Various Locations, Alaska

ITEM SUPPLIES/SERVIC MAX UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX QUANTITY

$25,000,000 $ $1.00 25,000,000

IDIQ- BASE PERIOD

FFP

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Type Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (IDIQ), Various Locations, Alaska. Period of Performance: Task orders for the Base Period may be awarded up to 3-years after date of contract award.

MAX NET AMT

OPTION

$10,000,000 $ $1.00 10,000,000

IDIQ- OPTION PERIOD ONE

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Type Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (IDIQ), Various Locations, Alaska. Period of Performance: Task orders for the Option Period may be awarded up to 1-year after the date the Option Period is exercised.

FOB: Destination

OPTION

$10,000,000 $ $1.00 10,000,000

IDIQ- OPTION PERIOD TWO

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Type Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (IDIQ), Various Locations, Alaska. Period of Performance for Option Period Two:

Task Orders for the second contract option may be awarded up to one year after the option period is exercised.

FOB: Destination

SECTION 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (ONE STEP, DB)

The following have been added by full text:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMEN

SECTION

00 22 11

REV – 30

November 2010

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION CRITERIA

AND BASIS OF AWARD ONE STEP – BEST VALUE

(MULTIPLE

AWARD)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBFACTORS AND

ELEMENTS

4.1 VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY/UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS

4.2 VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO-FORMA INFORMATION

5.0 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

AM02# 5.1 TAB A – SUBFACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE #AM02

AM02# 5.2 TAB B – SUBFACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE #AM02

5.3 TAB C – SUBFACTOR 3 – KEY PERSONNEL

5.4 TAB D – SUBFACTOR 4 – ORGANIZATION/TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.0 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

6.1 GENERAL

6.2 TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL BID SCHEDULE)

6.3 TAB B – EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

AM01# 6.4 TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION #AM01

7.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.2 EVALUATION

7.3 DEFINITIONS

7.4 EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

7.5 PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM

ATTACHMENTS

1 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE- CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

2 - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

3 - KEY PERSONNEL RESUME

4 - LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY PERSONNEL

5 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. This is a “Best Value” solicitation for SRM IDIQ. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and award IDIQ contracts to the responsible offerors whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

2.1. The Contracting Officer intends to award up to three IDIQ contracts to those responsible Offerors whose proposals the Source Selection Authority has determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best value proposal. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume that offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

3.2. Submit proposals in tabbed, three-ring binders as described in paragraph 1.12 of Section 00 21 00. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, where indicated below.

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBFACTORS AND ELEMENTS

4.1. VOLUME 1 (FACTOR 1) – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY AM01# #AM01

Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 Performance Capability Most Important Factor

Sub-factor 1 Vol. 1 TAB A Specialized Experience

Most Important Sub-factor.

Sub-factor 2 Vol. 1 TAB B Past Performance 2nd Most Important Sub-factor

(Slightly less important than Sub-factor 1.)

Sub-factor 3 Vol. 1 TAB C Key Personnel

3rd Most Important Sub-factor

(Slightly less important than Sub-factor 2.

Equally important as Sub-factor 4).

Sub-factor 4 Vol. 1 TAB D Organization/Technical Approach 3rd Most Important Sub-factor

(Slightly less important than Sub-factor 2.

Equally important as Sub-factor 3).

4.2. VOLUME 2 (FACTOR 2) – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION)

Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 2 Vol. 2 TAB A Price (Standard Form 1442 and Prime Contractor Direct Cost Breakdown

Schedules)

2nd Most Important Factor

(Significantly Less important than Factor 1.)

N/A Vol. 2 TAB B Evidence of Bondability Not Rated

N/A Vol. 2 TAB C Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

5.0 VOLUME 1– FACTOR 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

5.1. TAB A – SUBFACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1.1. Submission Requirements:

5.1.1.1. The prime contractor shall demonstrate recent, relevant experience on construction projects, using attachments 1 at the end of the section. Offeror may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm should provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Submit projects that are currently well underway (at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer that five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. If projects were design-build, so identify them.

AM02# …Offerors who submit experience information of a parent, sister or other affiliated company must describe what involvement such company will have on the instant acquisition. The offeror shall provide a one page narrative that clearly and specifically indicates what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will be provided or relied upon for contract performance. The Government may discount the experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company unless the prime contractor clearly provides evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the parent, sister or other affiliated company or provides a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter including the following:

1. A statement of commitment as to the performance and utilization of the identified entity’s resources on the project.

2. Signatures of both the Offeror and Meaningful Relationship Entity. #AM02

The offeror may submit no more than ten (10) projects.

5.1.1.2. The offeror may provide a supplemental narrative (not project lists), not to exceed two pages, explaining how any firm experience that is not directly related to the specific projects above is applicable to this solicitation and how the Government will benefit.

5.1.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.1.2.1. Not Used

5.1.2.2. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime contractor AM02#, parent, sister, predecessor, subcontractor or other affiliated company, as relevant to their role on construction projects. Experience on the similar projects identified in the project lists will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non- Federal Government project experience. Experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company will not be considered if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company…#AM02

5.1.2.3. The Offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, related experience in construction, for the facility (which may include similar state or local government or private counterparts) included in this contract. Recent experience includes projects well underway (see above criteria) or those completed and turned over within five

(5) years of the proposal issue date for this RFP for construction experience. Joint Venture partners should each demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project or explain in the supplemental narrative how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

5.1.2.4. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Corps of Engineers Construction Contractor (or Architect-Engineer) Appraisal Support System (CCASS/ACASS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

5.1.2.5. To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the Offeror shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience. A firm will not receive credit under this factor for the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project. AM01# #AM01

5.1.2.6. The Government will consider extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience to this solicitation, demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. Some examples of relevancy to this solicitation may include:

(1) Quantity, size, type work, complexity, location (climates similar to Alaska), logistical requirements (Examples: Remote, Barging, limited community support).

(2) Dates (well under way or completed no more than 5 years preceding date of Solicitation)

(3) Firm's role and extent of work self-performed (brokering out all work and simply

“pouring the sidewalks” on a cited project are examples of less relevant experience)

(4) Simultaneous work (experience in performing more than one project at the same time especially at different locations)

(5) Method of construction (Design/Build and Design/Bid/Build)

5.1.2.7. The Government may consider previous recent teaming experience among the team members as value added, even if on different type construction than planned under this solicitation. The more relevant the experience, the more credit will be given.

5.2. TAB B –SUBFACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

5.2.1. Submission Requirements:

5.2.1.1. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal as required by RFP Section 00

21 00. 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 Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2 – Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 2), 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 point of contact, Olen Northern via email at Olen.r.nothern@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs, PPQ’s must be submitted in full. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

AM02#… An offeror will not receive credit for past performance of a parent, sister or other affiliated company if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company. An offeror may receive credit for relevant past performance under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example) if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the submitted project is relevant to their role on this project…#AM02

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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.

5.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.2.1. The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the recent (at least 50% construction progress completed or completed and turned over no longer that five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation), relevant experience. See explanation of “well underway” and relevancy under the Factor “Specialized Experience”. The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under the Specialized Experience Factor and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, and/or to review other recent projects rated in CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact offeror furnished references, or to review personal knowledge.

5.2.2.2. The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope mailto:Olen.r.nothern@usace.army.mil of this contract for overall application to the performance confidence assessment ratings described hereinafter. The projects will include those submitted under the Specialized Experience Factor as well as from other sources described above. This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance relevancy ratings are described below:

• 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.

5.2.2.3. The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. AM01# #AM01 Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. (see the interview form at attachment 2). The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Interview Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described below.

Performance Confidence Assessment:

Each offeror will be assigned one of the following ratings:

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral): 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.

5.2.2.4. AM02#… Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant. Past Performance of a parent, sister or other affiliated company will not be considered if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister, or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company. Past performance under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the offeror’s role on the project is not considered relevant. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

The performance confidence assessment will be considered “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”. .…#AM02

5.3. TAB C –SUBFACTOR 3 – KEY PERSONNEL

5.3.1 Submission Requirements

5.3.2 Provide a brief resume (maximum of two pages per person) using the Key Personnel Resume form (Attachment 3) at the end of this section for project manager, general superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Site Safety and Health Officer.

Submit exactly two resumes for each key position listed above. AM01# Provide a “Letter of Commitment for Key Personnel” for any key personnel not currently employed by the offeror. #AM01 See Section 0073 SCR-GE060 and Section 01 45 04.00 29 for the Quality Control Manager requirements. See Section 01 35 26 paragraph 1.6.1.1 for the requirements of the Site Safety and Health Officer.

5.3.4 Evaluation Criteria:

5.3.5 Key Personnel Capabilities and experience: The Government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar type work, to manage, control and perform the construction. Experience of key personnel proposed for this solicitation may be taken into account when it comes to the attention of the Government.

Evaluate how well the Offeror demonstrates that it has the necessary structure and experienced, qualified personnel within its organization to effectively manage, control administer and execute the integrated design and construction operations, quality control program and subcontracts. This shall be achievable with other projected on-going work. The minimum experience requirements for Project Managers are at least five (5) years construction management experience. The minimum experience requirement for the superintendent is at least five (5) years’ experience as superintendent, managing multiple trades and subcontractors. Since it is possible the offeror will be awarded simultaneous task orders in different locations both key personnel submitted for each position will be evaluated.

5.4. TAB D – SUBFACTOR 4- ORGANIZATION/TECHNICAL APPROACH

5.4.1. Submission Requirements: For the Organizational/Technical Approach the contractor shall use the following example of task orders being executed simultaneously.

a. Task Order 1: Rehabilitation of the Oil Water Separator at the Coast Guard Station in Kodiak, AK. The work is estimated at $1.5M and is being executed as a Design/Build. The system is used for treating large ship bilge water. The bilge water is run thru the separator as a batch process. The work involves replacing two 30,000 holding tanks. Because of new seismic requirements the existing foundations will be demolished and new foundations must be designed and constructed. All the pumps and many of the fittings will be replaced. A Hydrogen Sulfide monitoring system for the building will need to be designed and constructed. A venting system for the building and tanks will need to be designed and constructed. Because this is the only system available to the Coast Guard the contractor will be given only a one month continued down time for the system. For other times the contractor will have to work closely with the Coast Guard and schedule work between batch operations. The contractor will be given a minimum of two week between batch operations to conduct work.

b. Task Order 2. Security upgrades at Fort Greely, Alaska. Estimated cost is approximately $3M and is being executed as a Design-Bid-Build. All work will be performed within the limited access of the Missile Field at Fort Greely and the contractor can expect delays getting into and out of the areas. Work involves installation of a new crash gate within the entry control building (ECB) sally port. The current concrete floor will need to be removed for the crash gate foundations. New vehicle inspection lighting (fourteen lights) will be installed in the ECB sally port. At the ECB a wall will be demolished and a new wall installed in a different location. A door and turnstile will be installed in the new wall.

The new crash barrier, door and turnstile will all be equipped with security sensors and card readers. The contractor will be responsible for connecting the sensors and card readers to the existing security system and the new programming. With the new wall the existing floor, walls and ceiling will need to be repaired to match existing. The lighting and HVAC will need to be moved and rebalanced. The ECB is the only access to the secure area and the contractor will be given only a two week window to shut down the sally port along with four night time shut downs. Other work includes replacing the manual gate at a missile field with a motorized gate. The contractor will be responsible for installing card readers, running the fiber optics and programming the new gate. A new camera and tower will be installed at the missile field. The contractor will be responsible for the foundation, tower, camera installation, all fiber and programming. The contractor will install magnetic switches (34) at each silo. The contractor will be responsible for running fiber optics and programming.

5.4.1.1. This information considers the offeror’s organization and technical approach to executing the task orders. Limit the plan to fifteen (15) pages or less clearly but concisely describing the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution.

5.4.1.2. Organization. Describe what firms, their resources and how their resources will be used, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities. A copy of the teaming or joint venture agreement(s) may be appended to the plan (not included in the page limitation). Include a simple organizational chart, illustrating the organization, including the proposed quality control group(s). Present a matrix of responsibilities for each firm in executing the key work breakdown structure activities, including construction activities for each major feature (i.e., site work, utilities and each building). Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include a key personnel organization chart that clearly depicts the key positions and the names of the personnel, their firm affiliations and their job locations, their job/position title within the organization.

5.4.1.3. Technical Approach for Construction. Describe the technical approach to construction. The task orders vary will vary by location, size, and complexity. Include approach to different major areas of construction examples: Mechanical, Electrical, Civil, Design, Structural, Concrete, etc. Include approach to getting labor force and equipment to different locations. Include approach to running simultaneous task orders in different locations. Include any considerations of fast-tracking construction.

The Government is looking for ways to streamline construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and achieve an aggressive schedule.

5.4.1.4. Planning and Scheduling. Describe the time control capabilities and systems to be used for construction and how the schedule will be used to manage construction. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize time growth.

5.4.1.5. Quality Control. Describe the offeror’s quality control approach, corporate systems and capabilities to maintain quality control of the construction. Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan. There is no need to submit a quality control plan as the successful offeror will provide that with each task order. The Government is interested in demonstrable capabilities to assure and control quality and how the offeror can achieve or exceed the contract’s minimum quality control system requirements.

5.4.1.6 Site Safety. Describe the approach that the team will use to ensure that the safety of the local community and the jobsite is maintained throughout the course of the construction project. Include special considerations that will be made to ensure the safety of general public. Describe the control systems that will be used to monitor the project safety program. Complete safety plans are not requested or desired, as the successful offeror is required to submit plans for approval with each task order.

5.4.2. Evaluation Criteria

5.4.2.1. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the plan. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of the requirements of the solicitation and the capability to execute a project. Some additional specific evaluation considerations are listed below.

5.4.2.2. Organization. The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization and how well it is organized, structured and staffed to execute the entire scope of work. Joint venture participants’ contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

5.4.2.3. Technical Approach for Construction. The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule, including such things as fast-tracking. The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces on-site craft labor and susceptibility to inclement weather delays.

5.4.2.4. Planning and Scheduling. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s scheduling capabilities to manage a construction schedule.

5.4.2.5. Quality Control. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for construction. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the staffing plan to cover all required tasks and responsibilities.

5.4.2.6. Site Safety. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capability and understanding of the contractually required safety control processes for construction. The Government will evaluate the plan to ensure safety to a potential job site and the general public.

6.0 VOLUME 2 –FACTOR 2 - PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

6.1. GENERAL

Submit the Pro Forma information in a separate envelope labeled: “Volume 2 - Pro Forma Requirements.”

6.2. TAB A - FACTOR – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, and Prime Contractor Direct Cost Breakdown)

6.2.1. Submission Requirements:

6.2.1.1. Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the Prime Contractor Direct Cost Breakdown table. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors”. Submit the Proposal Data Sheet, Attachment 5.

6.2.1.2. NOT USED

6.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.2.1. Prime Contractor Direct Cost Breakdown table will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness using a price analysis.

6.2.2.2. NOT USED.

6.3. TAB B – EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

6.3.1. Submission Requirements:

The requirement for a proposal bond is waived for this project. However, offerors must submit a letter from their bonding company indicating the offerors’ ability to obtain performance and payment bonds in the amount of $5,000,000.

6.3.2. Evaluation requirements:

In addition to the other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 28.

6.5. TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

6.5.1. Submission Requirements:

6.5.1.1. Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of offeror responsibility:

(1) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

(2) A signed statement listing; (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three-month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

(3) If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above-defined certification.

AM01# (4) Representations and Certifications in accordance with Section 00 45 00, clause 52.204-8 and 525.204-7007

#AM01

6.5.1.2. One copy of the following information shall be provided:

(1) Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities).

(2) Number of years the firm has been in business.

(3) Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references.

6.5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

In addition to the other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

7.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.1.1. The SSEB 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 and any subsequent discussions required, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference.

7.2. EVALUATION

7.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor and subfactor, except that performance risk ratings are assigned to past performance (see below).

7.2.2. The Government intends to award without discussions. A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that discussions with offerors are required or considered to be in the Government’s best interests. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

7.2.3. If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with each offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions.

During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

7.2.4. Upon conclusion of discussions, those offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

7.3. DEFINITIONS

7.3.1. 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.

7.3.2. Weakness

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

7.3.3. Significant Weakness

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

7.3.4. Strength

Means an aspect of a proposal that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance or that represents a significant benefit to the Government.

7.3.5. Uncertainty

Any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear because there may be more than one way to interpret the offer or because inconsistencies in the offer indicate that there may be an error, omission, or mistake.

7.3.6. 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.

7.4. EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

7.4.1. General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor and subfactor (if any). The SSEB 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 Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other.

7.4.2. Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

7.4.3. After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor and subfactor (except the Past Performance Factor and price) which reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

(i) Outstanding: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

(ii) Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

(iii) Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

(v) Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

7.5. PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM

9.5.2 7.5.1. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings assess 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:

(i) Substantial Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the requirement.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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.

(v) Unknown Confidence (Neutral): 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.

SECTION 00 22 11 - ATTACHMENT 1

COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE- CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

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

a Type of Facility Represented b Your Firm’s Name c Name of Project (and Contract number – if example is a federal project d Location of Project e Owner f General Scope of Construction Project g Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self-Performed :

h Construction Cost i Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out j Dates Construction: Began_ Completed k Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known l Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages?

(If either is “Yes”, attach an Explanation) m Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company) n Current Telephone Number of Reference POC

o. Current email address of POC

SECTION 00 22 11 - ATTACHMENT 2

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs 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.)

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.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

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.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete following blocks) Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Describe the client’s role in the project:

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

Client’s Signature:

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST…