18R0027-AM2.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

Solicitation W911KB-18-R-0027 is hereby amended as follows:

SF 1442, Block 13a is changed to “3” (vice 2). SF1442 Page 1 reissued herein.

Section 00 21 00, Page 3, Para 1.6.1.1 is changed to “Alaska Local” (vice AST). Page 3 reissued herein.

Section 00 21 00, Page 4, Para 1.6.1.2 is changed to “10” (vice 7). Page 4 reissued herein.

Section 00 22 10, Page 7, Para 7.1.1.2 has the follow ing note added: “Attachment 5 does NOT count against the Organization and Management narrative limitation of five pages.” Section 002210 is hereby reissued in its entirety, less the attachments.

POC for this Kevin Maloy, 907-753-5594

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

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 W911KB18R0027

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-May-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 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:

Proposal due date is NOT extended and remains 2:00 p.m. (Alaska Time), 02 July 2018.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged, in full force and effect.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

W911KB18R0027

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION 3. DATE ISSUED

29-May-2018

PAGE OF PAGES

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP) X

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO. 5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE W911KB 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7) CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, AK

CEPOA-CT (W911KB)

PO BOX 6898

JBER AK 99506-0898

TEL: FAX:

See Item 7

TEL: FAX:

9. FOR INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME

KEVIN J MALOY

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

907-753-5594

SOLICITATION

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS (Title, identifying no., date):

TITLE: INDEFINITE DELIVERY, INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) MULTIPLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT (MATOC) FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF UTILITIES/UTILIDOR SYSTEMS, ON EIELSON AFB, ALASKA, MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING.

TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE

NAICS: 237110 - Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction.

SIZE STANDARD: $36.5 Million DESCRIPTION: Design, construction and repair of various utilidor systems on Eielson AFB, Alaska, Military Family Housing.

Projects will include a broad range of Design, Construction and Repairs of the utilities and utilidor system on Eielson Air Force Base for the Military Family Housing in Alaska. The contracts will be a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) and will list a variety of individual construction tasks. During the contract period, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will identify the scope of construction work required to complete each specific job, negotiate a price and performance time of each job, and issue task orders to the contractor to complete the work.

The contractor will be required to furnish all materials, equipment, and personnel necessary to manage and accomplish the job.

AWARD WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

11. The Contractor shall begin performance within 10 calendar days and complete it within calendar days after receiving award, X notice to proceed. This performance period is mandatory, negotiable. (See .)

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and 3 copies to perform the work required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by 2:00 p.m., local Alaska time, 02 July 2018. If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time. Sealed envelopes containing offers shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee is, X is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) work requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than 90 calendar days f or Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

1.6.1.1 Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at

(https://www.projnet.org). ProjNet will close to Bidder Inquiry at 5:00 p.m. (AM#2…Local…AM#2), 10 calendar days prior to the proposal due date.

1.6.1.1.1 To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective vendor who submits a comment

/question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email, followed by an answer to the comment/question after it has been processed by our technical team.

1.6.1.1.2 All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through ProjNet. Approved answers to all timely questions will also be posted on the FedBizOps in the form of a report generated from ProjNet as soon as the comment/question entering period is over and all answers are all finalized. In the event of a discrepancy between bidder inquiry responses and the solicitation, the solicitation shall govern.

1.6.1.1.3 The Solicitation Number is: W911KB18R0027

1.6.1.1.4 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: YM664D-53NUZE

1.6.1.1.5 Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and

Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

1.6.1.1.6 Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret

Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

Section 00 21 00 AM#2 Eielson AFB MFH MATOC IDIQ W911KB-18-R-0027

Section 00 21 00 AM#2 Page 3 of 13

3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

1.6.1.2 The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquires AM#2…10…AM#2 calendar days prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary.

1.6.1.3 Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

1.7 SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE

NAICS CODE: 237110 SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS: $36.5 Million

1.8 PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

This Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit the Government to pay, as a direct charge, any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal.

1.9 SITE VISIT

A site visit is not presently scheduled. See Clause 52.236-27 (Site Visit – Construction) of this Section.

1.10 ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS

Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP, (including attachments). The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

1.11 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Offerors must mail or deliver proposals to be received no later than the date and time stated on the standard form (SF)

1442 or subsequent solicitation amendment. Email or other forms of electronic proposals will not be accepted. Questions concerning proposal receipt can be directed to the Contract Specialist/Contracting Officer listed in the solicitation.

Offerors are advised to plan accordingly. No arrangements will be made by the government to assist in proposal delivery. Day-pass procedures will not be used for proposal delivery purposes nor are there proposal pick-up services. No escort services will be provided. It is incumbent on the offeror to plan for unanticipated delays in delivery of proposals. Due to heightened security at Government installations, visitors to Joint Base Elmendorf-

Richardson (JBER) must use the Boniface Gate or Fort Richardson Gate (Visitor Centers). All vehicle occupants are required to wear seatbelts and hand-held cell phone usage by vehicle operators while driving on base/post is prohibited.

Violators will lose their Base/Post driving privileges for these offenses.

Section 00 21 00 AM#2 Eielson AFB MFH MATOC IDIQ W911KB-18-R-0027

Section 00 21 00 AM#2 Page 4 of 13

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. This is Phase 1 of a 2 Phase Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Multiple Award Task Order

Contract (MATOC). The Government contemplates awarding up to four (4) IDIQ multiple award task order contracts that will be eligible to propose on various utilidor projects at Eielson Air Force Base.

1.1.1 Multiple awards will be made from this solicitation. This requirement is being competed as Small Business

Set-Aside under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 237110, Water and Sewer Line

Related Structures Construction. The resultant contracts awarded from this solicitation will constitute Indefinite

Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) type contracts as defined in FAR 16.504. Task orders will be awarded against the basic ID/IQ contracts using the fair opportunity procedures discussed in FAR 16.5 in addition to the competitive source selection procedures identified in Section 803 of Public Law 107-107 implemented in DFARS 216.505-70 and Public Law 110-181, Section 843. In accordance with FAR 16.505 and DFARS 216.505-70(c), all awardees in a MATOC pool will be afforded fair opportunity to be considered for award of each order exceeding $3000 unless an exception described in FAR 16.505(b)(2) applies. Task orders will be firm-fixed price (FFP). This solicitation is for a five (5) year base period, with no options to extend further.

1.1.2 The Government contemplates awarding up to four (4) small business ID/IQ multiple award task order contracts (MATOC) for Design-Build Utilidor Construction and Repair, however reserves the right to award more, less, or none at all. The capacity for this MATOC is $48 Million. This capacity will be shared among all awardees in the MATOC pool.

1.1.3 The ordering period shall commence upon the date of contract award and may continue for a base period of five (5) years. Per FAR 52.216-19, Order Limitations, NO minimum order or maximum order amount per single

Task Order have been established for awards made under this MATOC.

1.2 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 of utilidor systems resulting from this solicitation. The

Government will evaluate performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and intends to select up to 5 (five) of the Phase 1 offerors to compete for up to 4 (four) ID/IQ MATOC contracts and the initial task order described in Section 00 22 20.

1.2.1 In Phase 2, the short-listed offerors will submit proposals in accordance with Section 00 22 20.

1.2.2 The most highly qualified offerors selected to participate in Phase 2 will be announced by special notice or synopsis to the Federal Business Opportunities website (www.fbo.gov)

Section 00 22 10 AM #2 Eielson AFB MFH MATOC IDIQ W911KB-18R-0027

Section 00 22 10 AM #2 Page 1 of 19

2.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.2 Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this ID/IQ, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals.

Associations may be as joint ventures or as key subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. To qualify for Phase 2, the Offeror’s or Offerors’ subcontractor(s) must have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical discipline and the requirements specified in the Contract Clause

52.236-25, “Requirements for Registration of Designers”, must be met. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

2.3 Submit the Phase 1 proposal in tabbed, three-ring binder. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the indicated page limits where indicated. (A “page” as used herein is defined as one side of a piece of paper. Two pages would be one piece of paper, printed on its front & back, i.e., duplex printed.)

PHASE 1 DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS,

SUBFACTORS AND ELEMENTS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Tab A SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sh

N/A

Tab B Factor 1 Specialized Experience 1st (Most Important Factor)

Tab C Factor 2 Past Performance 2nd (Slightly less important than Factor 1)

Tab D Factor 3 Organization & Management 3rd (Slightly less important than Factor 2)

4.1 STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

4.2 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 Certification of Organization, Articles of Organization and the Operating

Agreement, if applicable (see 00 21 00, Para 1.12).

5.1 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.2 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2.1. The prime contractor and designer of record design firms for civil, structural, mechanical and electrical design shall each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar construction, design-build and repair of utilidor systems using Company Specialized Experience - Construction Or Prime Contractor – (Attachment 2) and Company Specialized Experience – Design Firm Or In-House Design Capability – (Attachment 3) at the end of the section (no more than 2 pages per project). AM#1… Use of the SF330, in lieu of Attachment 3, is authorized provided otherwise stated page limitation and duplex printing stipulations are observed and all

Section 00 22 10 AM #2 Page 2 of 19 information requested in Attachment 3 is clearly presented on the SF330. …AM#1 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. 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 contracts 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 three (3) projects for the prime contractor for utilidor systems type or equivalent requirement. Submit no more than twelve (12) projects total for the design firms and no more than five (5) projects for any individual design firm.

5.1.1 Provide 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 (2) 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 (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

a. Offerors who submit experience information of a parent, sister or other affiliated company shall describe what involvement such company will have on the instant acquisition and demonstrate a firm commitment that the affiliated firm will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. The narrative shall clearly and specifically indicate 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:

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

(ii) Signatures of both the Offeror and Meaningful Relationship Entity.

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 member’s experience with environmental compliance and permitting procedures.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime contractor and

Section 00 22 10 AM #2 Page 3 of 19 subcontractors as relevant to their role on this project. The Government may place greater importance on demonstrated utilidor or utility system experience by the prime or key subcontractor depending on relevancy. For the prime contractor, 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 Relevant experience includes:

(a) Experience with design/construction of direct bury utilities, utilidors and manholes;

(b) Experience with design/construction of utility distribution infrastructure to include sewer systems, water systems, heating water supply and return systems or other similar distribution systems;

(c) Location of work and similarity to the climate Zone 8 as defined by ANSI/ASHRAE Standard

169 climate zone map for the United States;

(d) Previous design-build experience;

(e) Previous teaming experience between the prime contractor, subcontractors and primary design firm.

Experience with utilidor systems is considered most relevant. Experience examples that demonstrate design-build, utilidor projects and/or previous teaming experience with the same design firm will receive additional rating consideration. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important that non-Federal

Government project experience.

5.2.3 To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the offeror shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant 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. Experience under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the firm’s role on the submitted project is not considered relevant to their anticipated role on this project.

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1 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 B and include the performance rating by the owner on the form, if the offer was rated. For Federal projects submitted under

Specialized Experience (TAB B), the offeror may rely on finalized CPARS reports, otherwise the offeror shall utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) form included in the solicitation which 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

Section 00 22 10 AM #2 Page 4 of 19 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 page 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, Kevin Maloy via email at

Kevin.J.Maloy@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.

6.1.2 Projects cited shall be currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over within 5 years preceding the date of this solicitation. The Government may contact and interview the points of contact and reserves the right to review data from CPARS or other agency performance databases on projects determined to be recent and relevant as defined above. Team members are encouraged to briefly provide information on problems encountered on identified or other contracts and the corrective action taken.

6.1.3 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 System (CPARS), 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.

6.1.4 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

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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.

Section 00 22 10 AM #2 Page 5 of 19

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

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude

6.2.3. 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. 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 PPQ form at attachment 4). 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 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.

6.2.4. Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant. Past

Section 00 22 10 AM #2 Page 6 of 19 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)”.

7.0 TAB D – FACTOR 3 - ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

7.1.1. Provide a narrative and organizational chart that describes the offeror’s organization and the item below.

Limit the narrative to five (5) pages or less and the organizational chart to one 11” x 17” page.

7.1.2. Organization: Describe what firms 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. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its design firms(s) (see Attachment 5. AM#2…Note: Attachment 5 does NOT count against the Organization and Management narrative limitation of five pages. ...AM#2). Include a simple organizational chart, illustrating the organization, including the name, position title and job location of key personnel. Identify the design firm(s) chosen for the project, if not to be self-performed. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Resumes of individual team members are not required.

7.1.3. Self-Performed Work: Generally describe the items the offeror will self-perform to comply with the requirements in Section 00 72 00 for self-performed work (Reference clause 52.219-14, Limitations on

Subcontracting).

7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

7.2.1. Government will evaluate the responsibilities and lines of authority between the construction firm, design firm, and key subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to design coordination and review and the offeror’s approach to support during design, construction and after project turnover. The

Offeror is required to select and commit to design firms to achieve an “acceptable” rating. Joint venture participant’s contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

7.2.2. Self-Performed Work: The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s resources to determine if it has the capability to self-perform the required amount of the project, in accordance with public policy to assure adequate interest in and supervision of all work.

Section 00 22 10 AM #2 Page 7 of 19

8.1 NOT USED

9.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

9.1.1. The SSEB 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 information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

9.2 EVALUATION

9.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor and sub-factor. 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.

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

9.2.3. The Contracting Officer, taking into account the SSEB consensus ratings, will select up to 5 (five) of the most highly qualified offerors to short-list for Phase 2.

9.3 DEFINITIONS

9.3.1. 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. This also includes a proposal that implies or specifically offers a deviation below specified RFP 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.

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

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

9.3.4. 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.

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

9.3.6 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.

Section 00 22 10 AM #2 Page 8 of 19

9.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

9.4.1. 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 and will compare proposals. After all proposals are rated by the SSEB, the Contracting Officer 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.

9.4.2 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.

9.4.3 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 (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:

9.4.3.1 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.

9.4.3.2 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.

9.4.3.3 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.

9.4.3.4 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.

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

Section 00 22 10 AM #2 Page 9 of 19