W911KB18R0006_AM_3.pdf

W911KB-18-R-0006

CLR039 CP#2

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

PROJECT TITLE/LOCATION:CLR039b LRDR Entry Control Facility, Clear AFS, Alaska

PROPOSAL DUE DATE is extended to 25 June 2018, 2:00 PM Alaska Time. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance w ith Section 00 21 00 Paragraph 1.10 Proposal Submittals.

This Amendment provides changes to the solicitation as indicated on page 2 of this document.

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS AMENDMENT ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE STANDARD FORM 1442.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Jun-2018

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-18-R-0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Apr-2018

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 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

15-Jun-2018

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:

CLR039b

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Amendment #3

The following revised documents are substituted for the superseded documents. The identifier “AM#03” appears before and after new and/or revised material and replacement pages are provided, except as noted:

Section 00 22 11 paragraph 6.1.2 and 7.1.2

Specification Sections:

1. Specification Section 01 33 29.02 00, paragraph 1.6.8, removed recycled content language, deleted a; changes subparagraph c, updated website reference; removed ‘S’ from section 05 40

00.02 for subsection 2.1 “Recycled Content of Steel.”

2. Specification Section 01 45 35.02 00, 1.3.4, removed MC-1 requirements from RC-IV ECF building.

3. Specification Section 05 40 00.02 00, paragraph 1.1, removed; paragraph 1.3, “SD-11 Closeout Submittals” removed; paragraph 2.1 a, removed.

4. Specification Section 08 44 23.02 00, paragraph 3.4, replaced “AAMA 501.1” with “AAMA 501.2”.

5. Specification Section 09 29 00.02 00, paragraph 1.3, revised last paragraph under SD-03 to submit documentation for indoor air quality/VOC Emissions of product. Recycling content requirements remove. Revised paragraph 1.5 to remove recycled content. Paragraph 2.1.1, revised gypsum board language to remove recycled content requirements.

6. Specification Section 22 00 00.02 00, 2.11 Added water meter statement: “Meter shall have a digital output signal for monitoring by building ECF system”.

7. Specifications Section 23 05 93.02 00, 1.5.7: TAB PTI requirements are removed per bid comment #7498266

8. Specification Section 26 21 00.02 00, 2.18, Added floor slab and door dimensions.

9. Specifications Section 28 23 23.02 10: Clarified NVR storage requirements, added frame rate and encoding format.

10. Specification Section 34 71 13.02 00, paragraph 2.5 Revised bollard color to “FSC 595B 23522”.

11. Specification Section 01 11 00.02 00 (Summary of Work) – Updated the following paragraphs

1.1, 1.2.1, 1.3.1.1, 1.3.1.2, 1.3.1.3. The majority of the edits were to clarify the work to be performed under specific Construction Packages.

12. Specification Section 01 19 30.02 29 (Special Items) - Changes to the specifications are as follows:

• Paragraph 1.3, Deleted “G” designation for TWC Staff Curve. The Contractor will not be required to submit as a submittal TWC Staff Curve.

• Paragraph 1.5.8, Updated subparagraph a.

• Paragraph 1.6.2.2 subparagraph b. – Updated date from 30 June to 01 July

• Paragraph 1.6.2.2 subparagraph d. – Updated date from 30 June to 01 July

• Paragraph 1.6.2.2 subparagraph g. – Updated date from 30 June to 01 July

• Paragraph 1.6.2.2 subparagraph h. – Updated date from 30 June to 01 July

• Paragraph 1.6.2.2 subparagraph i. – Updated paragraph to state that the CP#2 construction contractor shall contract to SENTAR to complete the LRDR RMF programing requirements.

• Paragraph 1.19.1 – Updated CP#2 Baseline TWC Allocation Table

• Paragraph 1.19.3 – Updated CP#2 Baseline TWC Allocation Table

• Paragraph 1.22 – Deleted “formal”.

• Paragraph 1.23.3 – Added Sheet Number.

• Paragraph 1.24.1 – Updated format and added subparagraphs, “Testing dates” and

“BOD/JOD Dates/Availability Dates.

• Paragraph 1.24.2 – Provided additional subparagraphs “i” and “j”.

• Paragraph 124.4 – Added additional requirements for the contractor to be the coordinator for all construction contractors into the project site through the entry control point.

• Paragraph 1.26 – Deleted the website and added additional verbiage to see Attachment g.

• Paragraph 1.27 – Provided updated Attachments for the following: Clear AFS Contractor

Orientation Package and Clear AFS Borrow Pit.

• Paragraph 1.27 – Provided a new attachment g for Migratory Birds.

13. Specification Section 01 50 00.20 00 (Temporary Construction Facilities and Controls) – Changes to the specifications are as follows:

• Corrected Formatting and Paragraph Numbering System for Part 3 – Execution to the end of the section.

• Paragraph 3.1 – Updated Paragraph

• Paragraph 3.4.1 – Added Subparagraph e.

• Paragraph 3.5.3 – Added to the paragraph “The Contractor may choose to construct…”

• Added Paragraphs 3.5.7, 3.6 and 3.7 and 3.8

• Added Attachment a. LRDR Construction Temporary Power Plan

The following drawings are substituted for the superseded drawings:

1. Revised Schedule of Drawings Sheets 1 and 2.

2. G-100003E- Revised borrow/disposal pit area and notation.

3. E-100122E – Clarify conduit and conductors to near field shelters.

4. E-100123E – Clarify heat trace connections for potable water piping.

5. E-100401E - Clarify heat trace connections for potable water piping.

6. E-100701E – Adjust light level presets to increase contrast from control office and lobbies for improved visibility.

7. E-903101E – Adjust interconnection of control room lighting occupancy sensor with building ventilation.

8. E-903111E – Adding in surge protection of ECF power service.

9. E-903601E - Adding in surge protection of ECF power service. Clarify conduit and conductors to near field shelters.

10. E-903701E – Added in surge protection on panel schedule.

11. EG100101E – Add note to confirm ground conductor size at each fence gate.

12. M-903801E – 1) Added location of occupancy sensor; 2)Updated Condensing units Points list

13. M-903802E – 1) Updated Condensing units I/O points; 2) water meter I/O points

14. TY903602E – Adding NVR to building 804. Changing fiber count and configuration between

FDBs to match site plans.

15. TY903603E – Adding NVR to building 804. Changing fiber count and configuration between

FDBs to match site plans.

16. TY100601E – Changing fiber routing between FDBs to match site plans.

17. T-100701E – Changing fiber count between FDBs.

18. TY804501E – Adding NVR to building 804.

19. TY804101E – Adding NVR to building 804.

The following documents/drawings are deleted:

NONE

The following documents are added:

NONE

Other:

Pre-Proposal Site Visit Presentation – Project Milestone Page replaced

FAR Clause 52.211-10 is deleted and replaced by FAR Clause 52.211-10 ALT 1

Proposal Due Date is Extended to Monday, 25 June 2018, 2:00 PM AK Time.

SECTION 00 22 11

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

ONE STEP - - BEST VALUE

(SINGLE AWARD)

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

4.0 VOLUME 1, TAB A – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.0 VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.0 VOLUME 1, TAB C – FACTOR 3 – PROJECT EXECUTION SCHEDULE

7.0 VOLUME 1, TAB D – FACTOR 4 – ORGANIZATION

8.0 VOLUME 1, TAB E – FACTOR 5 – PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT)

9.0 VOLUME 2, TAB B – FACTOR 6 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET, AND

CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

10.0 REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

11.1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND DEFINITIONS

SECTION 00 22 11 ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

4 – KEY PERSONNEL RESUME

1.0 OVERVIEW

This project is for the construction of a CLR039b LRDR Construction Package #2 (CP#2) consisting of an Entry Control Facility (ECF), perimeter fencing, perimeter lighting, IESS, secondary utilities extensions within the construction limits as needed, security system equipment, and all other necessary work to provide a complete and useable facility.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

This is a “Best Value” solicitation for the construction of CLR039b LRDR CP#1, located at Clear Air Force Station, Alaska.

Interested firms (hereafter referred to as Offerors) shall submit proposals demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the construction contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government utilizing the trade-off process described in FAR 15.101-1.

The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal 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 price, however the Contract Award may not exceed the funds available for this project.

The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within the cost magnitude. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offerors. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.0001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Official must determine the added value of the more expensive proposal that would justify award to that offeror.

Proposals should be submitted initially in the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume offerors will be contacted or awarded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal.

Submit 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.

3.0 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Vol 1, Tab A Factor 1 Specialized Experience Most Important Factor (Equal in Importance to Factors 2 and 3)

Vol 1, Tab B

Factor 2 Technical Approach Most Important Factor (Equal in Importance to Factors 1 and 3)

Vol 1, Tab C

Factor 3 Project Execution Schedule Most Important Factor

(Equal in Importance to Factors 1 and 2)

Vol 1, Tab D

Factor 4 Organization 2nd Most Important Factor

(Slightly Less Important Than Factors 1, 2, and 3)

Vol 1, Tab E

Factor 5 Past Performance 3rd Most Important Factor (less important than Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4)

Vol 2, Tab B

Factor 6 Price

(Standard Form 1332, Proposal Data Sheet, Contract Line Item Schedule)

5th Most Important Factor

(Less Important than Factors 1-7)

Vol 2, Tab C

N/A Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

Vol 2, Tab D

N/A Small Business Sub-Contracting Plan

4.0 VOLUME 1, TAB A – FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.1.1. The prime contractor shall demonstrate recent, relevant experience on projects with similar features, magnitudes and complexities, using Construction – Specialized Experience form – (Attachment 2), (no more than 2 pages per project). Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements for this RFP. 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 six (6) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. The Government will only evaluate the experience of the firm submitting the offer and the firm’s key subcontractors who have included a letter of intent. The requirements of this factor cannot be met through the experience of the offeror’s parent, affiliate, or separate division.

If any firm has multiple functions, divisions or previous business relationships with other firms (previous joint ventures), limit the project examples to those projects performed by the firm submitting an offer. The offeror shall select key subcontractor(s).

Submit no more than five (5) projects for the prime contractor for the below facility types similar in scope features, complexity, and magnitude.

• Similar ECF construction as described in this solicitation

• Similar IESS construction and acceptance testing as described in this solicitation

• Similar security fencing construction as described in this solicitation

• Similar in magnitude as described in this solicitation

• 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 .

• Projects related to Missile Defense Systems or Long Range Discrimination Radar

• Projects constructed in semi-remote locations

4.1.2. 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 six 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.

c. Describe team members’ experience with IESS construction and acceptance testing, if not included on the project experience forms.

4.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

4.2.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the prime contractor in construction with regard to their role on this project. 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 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.

4.2.2. The offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, related experience in 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 11. Recent experience includes projects well underway (see above criteria) or those completed and turned over within six (6) years preceding the date of this solicitation for 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.

4.2.3. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Corps of Engineers Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), 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.

4.2.4. 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. Experience under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the offeror’s role on the project is not considered relevant.

4.2.5. The Government will consider the extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience to the features of this project, demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and experience with local conditions. Some examples of relevancy to the features of this project may include, but not be limited to:

• Similar ECF construction as described in this solicitation

• Similar IESS construction and acceptance testing as described in this solicitation

• Similar security fencing construction as described in this solicitation

• Similar in magnitude as described in this solicitation

• 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 .

• Projects related to Missile Defense Systems or Long Range Discrimination Radar

• Projects constructed in semi-remote locations

5.0 VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 Provide a project-specific narrative that describes the offeror’s intended technical approach to executing this construction contract per the detailed requirements herein. Clearly but concisely describe the technical approach to project management and execution. Limit the information to ten (10) pages or less and individually address the paragraphs below.

5.1.2. Technical Approach for Construction: Describe the technical approach to construction of the requirements in this RFP.

Include construction considerations for well installation, operating in a cold climate environment, semi-remote areas, IESS installation and testing requirements, and controls relevant to this project. Relate the project scope features to the construction process considering the impact of seasonal considerations, work sequencing, work by others, resource management, working in and around secure areas, achieving interim turn-over of portions of the work for others, achieving Joint Occupancy Dates, and Commissioning.

5.1.3. Additional consideration will be given for narratives clearly depict a plan to accomplish the technical requirements while demonstrating an exception understanding of the project scope and the conditions under which the construction will occur. The plan will include project specific details regarding features of work, construction interfaces activities (i.e. interface with existing utilities) that will require coordination with the Government, and examples of joint occupancy with the work site and/or the project under construction.

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 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 construction and the capability to execute the project. Some additional specific evaluation considerations are listed below (this list is not all-inclusive).

5.2.2. Technical Approach for Construction: The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline construction and demonstrates a good understanding of the project scope features, construction in subarctic climates, construction in semi-isolated areas, working with other contractors on the same work site and/or in the same facility under construction, and other construction considerations relevant to this project. The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces risk of not achieving the required delivery date for the project. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and understanding of construction within secured areas.

6.0 VOLUME 1 - TAB C – FACTOR 3 – PROJECT EXECUTION CONCEPT/SCHEDULE

6.1. Submission Requirements:

6.1.1. Execution Concept Narrative-Proposed Contract Duration: The Offer shall propose durations for the Base work where indicated in the CLIN Schedule and in the narrative provided under this TAB. Proposed contract duration shall not exceed the maximum contract duration specified in FAR 52.211-10. Limit narrative to no more than ten (10) pages. The Execution Concept Narrative should expand the approach submitted under TAB B – Factor 2 – Technical Approach and support the Offeror’s Summary Schedule. The presented concept must correlate to the schedule logic and other technical submittals throughout this RFP. The concept should explain the chosen approach by the offeror, the rationale, and specific measures taken to mitigate schedule and cost risk. The narrative should be of a detail needed to demonstrate an understanding of the interfaces, joint occupancy features of work, and other requirements of the project scope. The narrative should specifically address the proposed contract duration.

6.1.2 Summary Schedule - Submit a summary level schedule for construction. Schedules or diagrams may be provided separately in a size that is easily read, but shall be bound and clearly labeled as Tab C. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 02. 01 10: Project Schedule. The summary schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days after Notice to Proceed (NTP), by which milestones are to be achieved.

For proposal purposes, utilize a Notice to Proceed date of AM##... May 21, 2017 10 September 2018….AM#3 This date is solely to assist in evaluation of offeror’s proposals and shall not be construed as a contractual NTP date. Offeror shall use a critical path method and the schedule shall be graphically represented (Hard Copy) with electronic file in P6. The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration.

6.1.3. An electronic version of the project schedule shall be submitted in Primavera P6 or other scheduling software capable of Critical Path Method (CPM) scheduling. The schedule shall demonstrate a reasonable and realistic sequence of activities (logic ties) which represent all the work (planning, design, construction, testing and turnover of base and options) and reflects the proposed contract duration. The schedule shall be at a reasonable level of detail and include submission and reviews, government actions, and long lead time item procurement. Also address construction related activities, including mobilization and activities to accommodate winter construction. The schedule should be easily correlated with the accompanying narrative. Cost loading of the schedule is not desired or allowed.

6.1.4. The schedule submittal should include as a minimum:

• Show the overall construction phasing for the building, structure, site work, exterior electrical, joint occupancy features of work, and winter work. Show critical interface points including the fire station communication cabling tie-ins, power plan electrical power tie-ins, mechanical/fire protection interfaces, etc.

• Show critical interface points including establishing the security perimeter.

• Show commissioning activities, i.e. power connections, communications connections, commissioning the fire protection system.

• Show turnover of the facility. Identify any proposed phased turnovers. The time to complete the requirements and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspections.

• Constraints: Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, security escorts coordination, coordination with other contractors working inside the “Construction Site”, approval for work secure areas, approval for all work next to the Radar foundation, utility outages, permits, weather, semi-remote location, etc.). Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1. Execution Concept Narrative -Proposed Contract Duration: The offeror’s proposed contract duration will become the contractually binding completion period and will replace the duration stated in FAR 52.211-10 upon contract award. The Government will evaluate the contract duration, as proposed by the Offeror under this Tab and in the Contract Line Item Schedule, not to exceed the maximum allowed duration stated in FAR 52.211-10. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the Government may take into account how well the summary schedule and other technical submittals supports the proposed duration, as well as use other information, such as but not limited to independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. Inconsistencies between documents will be considered a weakness. A proposed contract duration matching the maximum allowed contract duration is “acceptable”. Proposed contract duration shorter than the maximum allowed duration will receive additional rating consideration, provided it is realistic and deemed to be achievable. The Government will consider an unreasonably condensed contract duration, which places additional cost or schedule risk on the Government or which may create a risk of contract or performance failure, as a significant weakness. Synchronized Proposals (consistency amongst all documents) which incorporate innovative and realistic methods to mitigate schedule risk will be given additional consideration.

6.2.2. Summary Schedule: The length of the schedule must match the Offeror’s proposed contract duration. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it offers no advantage to the Government because it is non-binding, only representing a preliminary planned schedule. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g., permitting, long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction will receive additional consideration.

7.0. VOLUME 1, TAB D – FACTOR 4 - 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. Provide an organizational chart for key personal and key subcontractors including lines of authority. The page limit does not include organizational chart or resumes submitted for key personnel.

7.1.1. Organization: Describe the prime contractor 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. Include an organizational chart with position title, lines of authority, and job location for the following key personnel as a minimum: project manager, superintendent, quality control system manager, electrical/IESS quality control,AM#3… mechanical quality control, civil quality control, control specialist security specialist, and commissioning manager construction CX representative

(CCR)…AM#3

7.1.2. Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience: Provide a brief resume (not included in the two page count limit above) using the Key Personnel Resume form (Attachment 4) at the end of this section for project manager, superintendent, quality control system manager, electrical/IESS quality control, and commissioning manager. Key personnel shall at a minimum five years’ experience

AM#2… in addition to the requirements list in technical specification 01 45 04.02 29 similar to the solicitation in scope, complexity and magnitude...AM#2

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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 on similar types of construction project (similar scope, complexity and magnitude). Evaluate how well the Offeror demonstrates that it has the necessary structure, experienced, qualified personnel within its organization to effectively manage, control, administer and execute the construction operations, quality control program and subcontracts. This shall be achievable with other projected on-going work. The minimum experience requirements for the Project Manager is at least 5 years construction management experience on similar type projects as described in this solicitation. The minimum experience requirement for the Superintendent is at least 5 years’ experience as Superintendent, managing multiple trades and subcontractors for similar types of projects as described in this solicitation.

8.0. VOLUME 1, TAB E – FACTOR 5 - PAST PERFORMANCE

8.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

8.1.1 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 A and include the performance rating by the owner on the form, if the offeror was rated. For Federal projects submitted under Specialized Experience (Tab A), the offeror may submit finalized CCASS 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 3), 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, Kimberly Tripp via email at kimberly.tripp@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.

8.1.2. Projects cited shall be currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or construction substantially completed within six (6) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Also include performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

8.1.3. 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 mailto:kimberly.tripp@usace.army.mil

System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture or teaming arrangement) 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.

8.1.4. 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.

8.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

8.2.1. 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:

o Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

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

8.2.2. 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. Past performance of a parent, affiliate or separate division will not be considered relevant unless the offeror demonstrates that the resources of the parent, affiliate or separate division will affect the performance of the offeror on this project.

Past performance under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the offeror’s role on the project is not considered relevant. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such things as AS-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution of construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government 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 at the end of this section.

8.2.3. The entity will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant. 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 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)”.

9.0 VOLUME 2 – TAB B – FACTOR 6 – PRICE (STANDARED FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE)

9.1. Submission Requirements:

Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors”.

9.1.1. HUBZONE CONTRACTORS: This RFP includes Contract Clause 52.219-4 regarding a 10% price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns. HUBZone small business concerns electing to waive the evaluation preference shall submit a copy of clause 52.219-4 indicating such. HUBZone small business concerns not waiving the evaluation preference shall submit a copy of their SBA certification letter under this tab.

9.1.2. Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government will request a Phase 2 price breakdown of the Contract Line items in a sealed envelope marked “Phase 2 Price Breakdown Information”, in Excel format.

The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial Phase 2 proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

9.2. Evaluation Criteria:

9.2.1. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis.

The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

9.2.2. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

9.2.3. Award may not be made for project cost for design and construction exceeding the contract cost limitation described herein.

10. VOLUME 2 - TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

10.1. Submission Requirements:

10.1.1. Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

10.1.2. 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.

10.1.3. A certified 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. If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification

10.1.4. Completed Representations and Certifications included by full text in Section 00 45 00. List any changes to Online Representations and Certifications in 52.204-8 for FAR Clauses and 252.204-7007 for DFAR clauses. Provide any certifications where vendor indicated in the online representations and certifications that the certification would be provided with specific offer.

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

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

• Number of years the firm has been in business

• Name, address and telephone number of firm’s bonding company

• Information showing offeror’s bondability for this project. Submit a letter from the prime contractor’s bonding company indicating the offeror’s ability to obtain performance and payment bonds in the amount of their proposal price.

• Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references.

10.2. 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.

11.0. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

11.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

11.1.1. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor and subfactor, utilizing the acceptable/unacceptable ratings described below, except for past performance which has its own acceptable/unacceptable ratings. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

11.2. EVALUATION:

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

11.2.2. The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it.

11.2.3. A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that the Government decides that discussions with offerors are required or are 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.

11.2.4. If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with those offerors in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

11.2.5. 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.

11.3. EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

11.3.1. 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 offeror provides the best value to the Government.

11.3.2. 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.

11.3.3. 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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

11.4. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING AND PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

11.4.1. 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:

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…