AM_1_W911KB-17-R-0030_EIE392.pdf

W911KB-17-R-0030

EIE392

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

W911KB-17-R-0030 EIE392 F-35 Renovate B1337 Sq Ops/CVN/AMXS The purpose of the Amendment is to correct the follow ing:

1. Correct Block 10 on SF1442

2. Revise Section 00 22 10, Paragraph 5.1, Specialized Experience, and Pargaraph 7.1.3, Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience

3. Phase 1 proposal due date changed from March 1, 2017 to March 3, 2017 2:00p.m. AST

4. Government POC for this action is Yolanda M Ikner, 907-753-2553

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Feb-2017

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-17-R-0030

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Jan-2017

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

27-Feb-2017

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SF 30 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 11 00 - STANDARD FORM (SF) 1442

The required response date/time has changed from 01-March-2017 02:00 PM to 03-March-2017 02:00

PM.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

a. The following drawings are substituted for the superseded drawings.

N/A

b. The following revised documents are substituted for the superseded documents. The identifier “AM#1” appears before and after new and/or revised material, except as noted below.

SECTION 00 22 10 Phase 1 of 2 Phase Design Build Selection Procedures Section (Reissuing entire Section, Except Attachments). Changes to:

5.0 TAB B FACTOR 1- Specialized Experience

5.1 Submission Requirements

7.0 TAB D FACTOR 3- Organization.

7.1.3 Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience

c. The following section is deleted.

NONE.

d. The following documents are added.

e. The following revisions are incorporated.

Block 10 of the SF1442 is corrected to reflect the NAICS code as 236220.

f. Other:

(End of clause)

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 11 00 - STANDARD FORM (SF) 1442

The required performance has changed from PROJECT TITLE/LOCATION: EIE392 F-35 Renovate Bldg 1337 Sq Ops CVN/AMXS, FTQW160102, Eielson AFB, AKNAICS: 237990 TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-A- SIDE $36.5M2 PHASE BEST VALUE SOURCE SELECTION IAW FAR PART 36.3DESCRIPTION OF WORK:

Renovate the existing single-story Squadron Opertions (Squad Ops) facility, Building 1337, using reinforced construction methods to accommodate the mission of the facility. The facility should be compatible with applicable DoD, Air Force, and base design standards. In addition, local materials and construction techniques shall be used when cost effective. Facilities will be designed as permanent construction in accordance with the DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-01. The project will comply with DoD antiterrorism and force protection requirements per UFC 4-101-01.AWARD WILL BE SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND

CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

CHANGED TO:

PROJECT TITLE/LOCATION: EIE392 F-35 Renovate Bldg 1337 Sq Ops CVN/AMXS, FTQW160102, Eielson AFB, AK NAICS: 236220 TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-A-SIDE $36.5M2 PHASE BEST VALUE SOURCE SELECTION IAW FAR PART 36.3DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Renovate the existing single-story Squadron Opertions (Squad Ops) facility, Building 1337, using reinforced construction methods to accommodate the mission of the facility. The facility should be compatible with applicable DoD, Air Force, and base design standards. In addition, local materials and construction techniques shall be used when cost effective. Facilities will be designed as permanent construction in accordance with the DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-01. The project will comply with DoD antiterrorism and force protection requirements per UFC 4-101-01.AWARD WILL BE

SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL..

SECTION 00 22 10 - PHASE 1 DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATONS FACTORS

4.0 TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROOSAL DATA SHEET

5.0 TAB B - FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

7.0 TAB D – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATION

8.0 TAB E – FACTOR 4 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

9.0 PHASE 1 OVERALL RATING

10.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

10.1 SOURCE SELECTIONEVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

10.2 EVALUATOIN

10.3 DEFINITIONS

10.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

10.5 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING AND PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

ASSESTMENT

PHASE ONE – SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

2 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE – CONSTRUCION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

3 – COMAPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE – DESIGN FIRM OR IN – HOUSE DESIGN CAPABILITY

4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

5 – KEY PERSONNEL RESUME

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 In Phase 1 of the 2 phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “offerors”) submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the design-build construction contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and intends to select not more than three (3) of the most highly qualified Phase 1 offerors to submit Phase 2 proposals. The intent of the solicitation, however, is to obtain the best value proposal, therefore the Government reserves the right to select additional offerors (not more than five (5)) to participate in Phase 2 if it is determined to be in its best interest.

1.2 In Phase 2, the short-listed offerors will submit proposals in accordance with Section 00 22 20. If Phase 2 submission requirements and evaluation criteria are changed, a Solicitation Amendment will be issued and may be issued only to the Phase 2 short-listed offerors.

1.3 The short-listed Offerors will be announced by special notice or synopsis to the Federal Business Opportunities website (https://www.fbo.gov).

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. To qualify for Phase 2, the Offeror or Offeror’s subcontractor has to have or will have to have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines in compliance with the requirements specified in Contract Clause, “Requirements for Registration of Designers” and All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

2.2 Submit the Phase 1 proposal in a tabbed, three-ring binder. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits indicated in the sections below. PHASE 1 DOES NOT

INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Tab A SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet N/A

Tab B Factor 1 Specialized Experience (Most Important)

Tab C Factor 2 Past Performance (Confidence Assessment)

(Slightly less important than Factors 1, 3 and 4)

Tab D Factor 3 Organization (Second Most Important)

Tab E Factor 4 Technical Approach (Equal to Factor 3)

4.0 TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

4.1 Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. Include the completed proposal data sheet (See Attachment 1, provided at the end of this Section). Also include joint venture agreement or LLC Certificate of Organization, Articles of Organization and the Operating Agreement, if applicable (see Section 00 21 00, paragraph 1.12).

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The prime contractor and designer of record design firms for AM#1…civil structural, fire suppression, …AM#1 architectural, mechanical and electrical design shall each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects, using the Company Specialized Experience – Construction or Prime Contractor form (Attachment 2), and the Company Specialized Experience – Design Firm or In-House Design Capability form (Attachment 3) at the end of this Section (no more than 2 pages per project). Attachment 3 may also be used for consultants with Secure Working Area (SWA) experience if included as part of the design build team. Offerors 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 of the joint venture shall provide information demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Submit projects that are currently well underway (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer than five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. Project examples should be limited to those projects performed by the firm submitting an offer. The Government will only evaluate the experience of the firm submitting the offer. The requirements of this factor cannot be met through the experience of the offeror’s parent, affiliate, or separate division. An offeror may receive credit for relevant experience 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. The offeror shall select the design firm(s).

Design firms may list projects of prime contractors they have worked for, or projects directly contracted with Government, private or commercial customers. If projects were design-build, so identify them. Submit no more than five (5) projects for the prime contractor for the below facility type or equivalent or similar commercial or institutional type facility. Submit no more than AM#1…six (6) ten (10) projects total for the design firms and consultants, if applicable, and no more than five (5) projects for any individual design firm/consultant…AM#1

Alter Bldg 1337 and construct Secure Working Areas (SWA)

5.1.1 Provide a one page consolidated list of submitted projects for prime contractor and design firms to include a matrix that identifies the Specialized Experience projects and the firms that worked on each (teaming).

5.1.2 Provide a supplemental narrative, not to exceed two pages, to address any of the following that are applicable.

The information shall be limited to projects that are well underway or that have been completed and turned over no longer than five years preceding the date of this solicitation.

(a) If submitting relevant experience under a previous business relationship, clearly describe the offeror’s role on the submitted project.

(b) Describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described on the project experience forms. Identify specific projects and address how the team members worked together to achieve safety, quality and schedule compliance goals.

(c) Describe team members’ experience with Sustainable Design and Development, if not included on the project experience forms.

(d) Describe design-build experience on other type projects. Identify specific projects.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA: (Definitions of adjectival ratings are set forth in Paragraph 10.4 of this Section)

5.2.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the prime contractor and design firms in design, construction or design-build, with regard to their role on this project. If the design will be accomplished in-house, rather than by subcontract, then the design element of Specialized Experience will still be evaluated, realizing that the work is being done in-house. 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. In assessing relevancy of Specialized Experience, the relevancy ratings included under the Past Performance evaluation factor will be utilized.

5.2.2 The offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, related experience in both design and construction, for the facility type (which may include similar state or local government or private counterparts) included in this contract, as described in Section 00 22 10. Recent experience includes projects well underway (at least 50% construction progress completed) or those completed and turned over within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation for design or construction experience. Partners of Joint Venture offerors shall 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.

5.2.3 The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, CPARS and any 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.

5.2.4 To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the Offeror and its proposed design firm(s) 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. Experience of a parent, affiliate or separate division will not be considered. Experience under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the offeror’s role on the project is not considered relevant.

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

(1) Size, type of work and complexity

(2) Location of work and similarity to the climate of Climate Zone 8 as defined by ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 169 climate zone map for the United States.

(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).

5.2.6 Previous design –build (D-B) experience is not necessary for an “Acceptable” rating. The Government may consider previous D-B experience a strength, even if the experience is on different type projects than this project.

Similarly, the Government may consider previous recent teaming experience among the team members as value added, even if on different type design and/or construction projects than this project. The more relevant the experience, the more credit will be given.

5.2.7 The firm(s) preparing the design must demonstrate qualifications and experience in Sustainable Design and Development based on project experience. Additional consideration will be given if both the constructor and the design firm(s) demonstrate qualifications and experience in Sustainable Design and Development.

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT)

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner's perspective. The offeror shall provide customer reference name(s), company affiliation and current contact information (phone number and email address) on the specific project experience sheets submitted for TAB B and include the performance rating by the owner on the form, if the offeror was rated. For Federal projects submitted under Specialized Experience (Tab B), the offeror may rely on finalized CCASS, ACASS or CPARS reports, otherwise the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project. Previously completed PPQ’s may be submitted, however, ensure current phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. The completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal and may be duplicated for submission on future solicitations. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first 2 pages of the PPQ (Attachment 4), 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, Yolanda M. Ikner, via email at yolanda.m.ikner@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

6.1.1 Projects cited shall be currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or construction completed and turned over within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

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.

6.1.2 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.

6.1.3 An offeror will not receive credit for relevant past performance of a parent, affiliate or separate division. A firm will not receive credit under this factor for past performance of key personnel proposed for this project. 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.

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA: (Definitions for Confidence Assessments are listed at Section 00 22 10, Paragraph 10.5)

6.2.1 The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope 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 scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

6.2.3 Each entity entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity. Past performance of a parent, affiliate or separate division will not be considered. 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).”

7.0 TAB D – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATION

7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

7.1.1 Provide a project -specific narrative that describes the offeror’s organization and the items below. Limit the information to three (3) pages or less and individually address each paragraph below. The page limit does not include resumes submitted for key personnel or the Organizational Chart.

7.1.2 Organization: Describe the prime contractor and design firms proposed to participate in this project, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, 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 on the project. Include an organizational chart (not included in the three

(3) page count above) with position title and job location for the following key personnel: project manager responsible for design and construction, onsite manager (if applicable), general superintendent, design manager responsible for managing designers of record, LEED AP, Registered Communications Distribution Designer (RCDD), Commissioning authority and the designers of record for architecture, interior design, structural, civil, geotechnical, fire protection, electrical, mechanical and landscape architect, secure Working Area Consultant with a minimum of 5 years’ experience in JAFAN 6/9 and ICID 705. Describe the proposed management structure for the design-build team, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team.

7.1.3 Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience:

(a) Provide a brief resume (not included in the three (3) page count limit above) using the Key Personnel Resume form (Attachment 5) at the end of this section for project manager responsible for design and construction, general superintendent, design manager and the designers of record for civil, architectural, structural, geotechnical, fire protection, electrical and mechanical, Secure Working Area consultant. All designers of record must be registered in accordance with contract clause 52.236-25, Requirements for Registration of Designers and AM#1…Section 01 33 16.00, Design After Award. The Designers of Records shall be licensed in the State of Alaska or shall have at least 5 years of design experience in Climate Zone 8 as defined by ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 169 climate zone map for the United States. The Geotechnical Engineer of record may be licensed Civil Engineer with a minimum of 5 years design experience in geotechnical engineering in the previously identified climate zone…AM#1

7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA: (Definitions of adjectival ratings are set forth in Paragraph 10.4 of this Section)

7.2.1 Organization: The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the offeror’s organization to evaluate the firm’s capability to execute the project. The Government will evaluate clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. Joint venture participant’s contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

7.2.2 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 (similar scope features, complexity, and magnitude), to manage, control and perform the design, and to perform construction.

Performance of key personnel proposed for this project 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 safely execute the integrated design and construction operations, quality control program and subcontracts. Evaluate the Offeror’s depth and capacity to complete this project with other projected on-going work. Additional consideration will be given to previous design-build experience. Evaluate whether designers of record are registered (a requirement), experienced and qualified. The minimum experience requirements for Project Manager are at least five (5) years construction management experience. The minimum experience requirements for the Design manager are at least five (5) years of design experience. The minimum experience requirement for the superintendent is at least five (5) years’ experience as superintendent, managing multiple trades and subcontractors. If alternates are proposed for key positions, the evaluation rating will consider the lesser qualified or experienced person, if there is a difference.

8.0 TAB E – FACTOR 4 – TECHNICAL APPROACH NARRATIVE

8.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.1.1 Provide a narrative that describes the offeror’s intended technical approach to executing this design- build contract per the detailed requirements herein. Clearly but concisely describe the technical approach to project management and execution. Limit the information to six (6) pages or less and individually address the paragraphs below.

8.1.2 Technical Approach for Design and Construction: Describe the technical approach to design and construction of these facilities. Include design and construction considerations for fast-tracking, cold climate environment and seismic conditions relevant to this project. Include design and construction considerations for the secure working area. In Phase 2, the offeror will describe its design packaging plan for fast-tracking. That level of detail is not necessary in Phase 1.

8.1.3 Collaborative Approach for Design-Build:

(a) Describe interactions within the Design-Build team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design addressing, as a minimum, management of design reviews and management of fast-tracked design packages (if applicable). Discuss how the configuration management system (reference section 01 33 16 for configuration management requirements) will track and control design evolution and changes during design for quality control and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Describe the role of the construction team members to include Commissioning Authority and SSHO during design.

(b) Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction, addressing, as a minimum, maintaining management of the design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design; requests for information; shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals;

progress meetings; site visits; contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

8.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA: (Definitions of adjectival ratings are set forth in Paragraph 10.4 of this Section)

8.2.1 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the offeror’s technical approach. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of D-B and the capability to execute the project.

Some additional specific evaluation considerations are listed below. This list is not all-inclusive.

8.2.2 Technical Approach for Design and Construction:

The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline construction and demonstrates a good understanding of cold climate and seismic design and construction considerations relevant to this project. The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces susceptibility to inclement weather delays.

8.2.3 Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms and the staff during design and construction. The constructor must be actively involved in the design process, not just leaving it up to the designer (see clause 52.236-5007, “Contractor’s Role during Design Process”). The offeror must have an effective process for coordinating all efforts during design, including facilitating coordination with the Government. The offeror must have an effective configuration management system to control and track revisions to the design. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record and the Government reviewers. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction. Additional consideration will be given to a team that includes as many subcontractors as possible (e.g., the key subs for electrical and mechanical, the fire protection subcontractor, fabricators, etc.) during design development, prior to release of the applicable design packages for construction, so that systems and trade coordination can reduce interferences, increase constructability and speed up construction operations.

9.0 PHASE 1 OVERALL RATING

9.1 In addition to individual factor ratings, the Government will assign an overall rating for the Phase 1 proposal, which will become part of the Phase 2 evaluation per Section 00 22 20.

10.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

10.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

10.1.1 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, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g., past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

10.2 EVALUATION

10.2.1 The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor and subfactor.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase 1 submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1.

10.2.2 The Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified offerors to shortlist for Phase 2.

10.2.3 The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select the most highly qualified offerors to short-list for Phase 2.

10.3 DEFINITIONS

10.3.1 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.

10.3.2 Weakness

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

10.3.3 Significant Weakness

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

10.3.4 Strength

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

10.3.5 Significant Strength

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

10.3.6 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.

10.3.7 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.

10.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

10.4.1 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 in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified under Phase 1 to short-list for participation in Phase 2.

10.4.2 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.

10.4.3 Rating System: 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), 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:

10.4.3.1 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.

10.4.3.2 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.

10.4.3.3 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.

10.4.3.4 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.

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

10.5 PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASESSMENTS RATING SYSTEM

10.5.1 Performance Confidence Assessment: Performance Confidence Assessments will assess each offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the offeror's demonstrated performance on recent contracts and the relevance to the effort required under this solicitation. SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given an “unknown” performance confidence assessment. The performance confidence assessment shall be assigned using the following criteria:

10.5.2.1 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.

10.5.2.2 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.

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

10.5.2.4 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.

10.5.2.5 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.