AM_2_Utilidor_MATOC_3.0.pdf

Utilidor MATOC 3.0

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: INDEFINITE DELIVERY, INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) MULTIPLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT (MATOC) FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND REPAIR OF UTILIDOR/UTILITY SYSTEMS, EIELSON AFB, OTHER MILITARY INSTALLATIONS, AND OTHER

VARIOUS LOCATIONS, ALASKA.

The purpose of this Amendment is to make corrections to Sections 00 22 10 Phase 1 Proposal Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria; 00 22 20 Phase 2 Design-Build Selection Procedures and Basis of Aw ard; 00 72 00 (TOC); 00 73 00.00 29 Special Contract Requirements; and Task Order Checklist, as outlined in the attached pages. Acknow ledgement of this Amendment is due NLT 15 November 2018 by 2:00PM Alaska Time.

All other terms and conditions outlined in the Solicitation remain the same.

POC for this Amendment is Ron Jackson, 907 753-5596.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 41

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Nov-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 W911KB18R0038

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Sep-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 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

14-Nov-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:

W911KB18R0038

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 11 00 - STANDARD FORM (SF) 1442

The required response date/time has changed from 23-Oct-2018 02:00 PM to 15-Nov-2018 02:00 PM.

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 MODIFICATION CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

SECTION 00 22 10

Section 00 22 10 - PHASE 1 DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

PHASE 1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 PROPOSAL INFORMATION, RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, AND

ELEMENTS TABLE

4.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL INFORMATION, RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, AND ELEMENTS

5.0 PHASE 1, VOLUME 1 TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

6.0 PHASE 1, VOLUME 1 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

7.0 PHASE 1, VOLUME 1 TAB C – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

8.0 PHASE 1, VOLUME 1 TAB D – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

9.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

1.1. This is Phase 1 of a two Phase construction solicitation issued in accordance with FAR Part 36. Multiple awards will be made from this solicitation. It is anticipated there will be up to four (4) IDIQ MATOC awards;

however, the Government reserves the right to award more, less, or none at all. Awardees will be eligible to propose on various utilidor/utilities systems design-build or fully designed construction and/or repair projects at various military installations, and other various locations, Alaska.

1.1.1 This requirement is being competed as 100% 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 IDIQ type contracts as defined in FAR 16.504. Task orders will be awarded against the IDIQ MATOC awards using the fair opportunity procedures discussed in FAR 16.5 in addition to the competitive source selection procedures implemented in DFARS 216.505-70. 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 $3,000.00 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 ordering period.

1.1.2 The Government contemplates awarding up to four (4) small business ID/IQ multiple award task order contracts (MATOC) for Utilidors and Related Systems Construction and Repair

1.1.3 The ordering period shall commence upon the date of contract award and may continue for a base ordering period of five (5) years. Refer to FAR 52.216-19, Order Limitations, for the minimum and maximum order limitations. The total maximum capacity for the MATOC is $200 Million. This MATOC capacity will be shared among all Utilidor MATOC awardees.

1.2 In Phase 1 of this 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 design-build construction of utilidors and related 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) IDIQ MATOC contracts and the initial task order as 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. 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).

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this IDIQ, 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 or Offeror’s 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.

2.2 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. PHASE 1 DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICING

SUBMISSION.

3.0 PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS TABLE

PHASE 1 SIGNIFICANTLY

MORE IMPORTANT

APPROXIMATELY

EQUAL TO

AM#2…SLIGHTLY

SIGNIFICANTLY LESS

IMPORTANT…AM#2

Volume 1, Tab A – SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet

N/A N/A N/A

Volume 1, Tab B – FACTOR 1

SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

Factor 2 Factor 3

Volume 1, Tab C – FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor 3 Factor 1

Volume 1, Tab D – FACTOR 3

ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT

Factor 1 Factor 2

Evaluation of Phase 1 Factors In Accordance with Section 00 22 10 will result in selection of up to five (5) most highly qualified offerors for participation in Phase 2 per FAR Part 36.303-1(b). The maximum number of offerors that will be selected for participation in Phase 2 will be five (5).

PHASE 2 SIGNIFICANTLY

MORE IMPORTANT

AM#2…SLIGHTLY

SIGNIFICANTLY LESS

IMPORTANT…AM#2

WHEN COMBINED,

SIGNIFICANTLY LESS

IMPORTANT

Vol. 1, Tab A – FACTOR 1

SEED TASK ORDER DESIGN-

CONSTRUCTION NARRATIVE

AND DRAWINGS

Vol. 1, Tab B – FACTOR 2

AM#1…SPECIALIZED

EXPERIENCE SUMMARY

SCHEDULE…AM#1

Factor 3 Factor 1

Vol. 2, Tab A – FACTOR 3 PRICE

(STANDARD FORM 1442 &

PROPOSAL SCHEDULE)

Factor 1 Factor 2

Vol. 2, TAB B – REQUIRED PRE-

AWARD INFORMATION

N/A N/A N/A

Evaluation of Phase 2 Factors In Accordance with Section 00 22 11 will result in selection of up to four (4) multiple award contracts per FAR Part 15. In addition to evaluating for base multiple awards, in accordance with Section 00 22 11, the seed task order project will be evaluated and awarded under the Phase 2 factors.

4.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL INFORMATION, RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, AND ELEMENTS

PHASE 1 SIGNIFICANTLY

MORE IMPORTANT

APPROXIMATELY

EQUAL TO

AM#2…SLIGHTLY

SIGNIFICANTLY LESS

IMPORTANT…AM#2

Volume 1, Tab A – SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet

N/A N/A N/A

Volume 1, Tab B – FACTOR 1

SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

Volume 1, Tab C – FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor 3 Factor 1

Volume 1, Tab D – FACTOR 3

ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT

Factor 1 Factor 2

5.0 PHASE 1, VOLUME 1 TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

5.1 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 Certification of Organization, Articles of Organization and the Operating Agreement, if applicable (see 00 21 00, Para 1.12).

6.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIRMENTS

6.1.1. The prime contractor and designer of record firm(s) for civil, structural, mechanical and electrical design shall each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar construction, design-build and repair of utilidors and related systems (which includes utilities systems) using the Section 00 22 10 Attachment 2, titled, “Company Specialized Experience - Construction Or Prime Contractor;” and, Section 00 22 10 Attachment 3, titled, “Company Specialized Experience – Design Firm Or In-House Design Capability” (included at the end of the section and with 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. 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 ten (10) 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 five (5) projects for the prime contractor for utilidors and related systems type or equivalent requirement. In addition to five (5) prime offeror projects, submit no more than five (5) projects total for the design firms.

6.1.2 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).

6.1.3 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 currently well underway (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer than ten (10) 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.

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime contractor and subcontractors as relevant to their role on this project. The Government may place greater importance on demonstrated utilidors or related systems 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. In assessing relevancy of Specialized Experience, the definitions for relevancy ratings included under the Past Performance evaluation factor will be utilized.

6.2.2 Relevant experience includes:

(a) Experience with design/construction of utilidors and manholes;

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

(c) Experience with direct bury utilities;

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

(e) Previous design-build experience;

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

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 than non-Federal Government project experience.

6.2.3 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.

7.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

7.1.1 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 – FACTOR 1 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 – FACTOR 1), the offeror may rely on finalized CPARS reports, otherwise the offeror shall utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) form (Section 00 22 10 Attachment 4) 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 PPQs 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 page of the PPQ 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, Ron Jackson via email at ronald.k.jackson@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.

7.1.2 Projects cited shall be currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over within ten (10) 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.

7.1.3 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) for Interim Reports on Projects at least 50% complete, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 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.

7.1.4 If submitting past performance of a parent, sister or other affiliated company for your firm on this solicitation, 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, no credit will be given. Additionally, 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 solicitation.

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

7.2.1. 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. As stated in submission requirements for this factor, 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. The relevancy rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance relevancy ratings are described below:

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

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

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

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

7.2.3. 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. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality of design or construction, 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, management of the work, subcontractor management (including timely payment to subcontractors or suppliers), relations between owner and designer or contractor, correcting design or construction errors, and safety. Owners/references may be asked to comment on these items. The Government places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and 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 types of contract requirements anticipated under this solicitation. 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.

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

8.0 TAB D – FACTOR 3 - ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

8.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

8.1.1. 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.

8.1.2. 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). 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.

8.1.3. 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 FAR Clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting).

8.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

8.2.1. 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.

8.2.2. 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.

9.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

9.1.1. The SSEB evaluation will consider 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. 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 Evaluation of Phase 1 Factors will be conducted in accordance with the Phase 1 criteria stated herein, Section 00 22 10. The Contracting Officer, taking into account the SSEB consensus ratings, will select up to 5 (five) most highly qualified offerors to short-list for participation in Phase 2 per FAR Part 36.303-1(b). The maximum number of offerors that will be selected for participation in Phase 2 will be five (5).

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.

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 IAW FAR Part 36.303-1 under Phase 1 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 20

Section 00 22 20 - PHASE 2 DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD

PHASE 2 DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 PHASE 2 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

4.0 VOLUME 1, TAB A, FACTOR 1– SEED TASK ORDER DESIGN-CONSTRUCTION NARRATIVE

AND DRAWINGS

5.0 VOLUME 1, TAB B, FACTOR 2– SEED TASK ORDER PROPOSED SUMMARY SCHEDULE

6.0 VOLUME 2, TAB A, FACTOR 3 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 & PROPOSAL SCHEDULE)

7.0 VOLUME 2, TAB B, REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

8.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

1. 1 Those Offerors short-listed in Phase 1 will be invited via Solicitation Amendment to submit a Phase 2 proposal, as indicated below. The Government contemplates awarding up to (4) IDIQ multiple award task order contracts (MATOC) for Construction and Repairs of utilidors and related systems (which includes utilities); however, reserves the right to award more, less, or none at all. Under the resultant contracts, the Government will issue firm-fixed price (FFP) task orders. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will utilize the FAR 15.101-1 tradeoff process to determine the proposals which represent the best value to the Government.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

The Contracting Officer contemplates awarding up to (4) IDIQ contracts to those responsible Phase 2 Offerors whose proposal the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, and represents the best value to the Government. All Phase 2 evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price. There is no obligation to approach or match the cost limitation in the offer for the seed task order project. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine the best value proposal. Proposals will not be ranked. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Source Selection Authority must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal (within the cost limitation) would justify award to that Offeror. As Phase 1 is conducted in accordance with FAR 36.303-1 and evaluation ratings determine the most highly qualified offerors for Phase 2. The Phase 1 ratings do not transfer to the Phase 2 evaluation but stand on their own for Phase 1 only. The Phase 2 evaluation is conducted in accordance with FAR 15 and will be the process used to determine the best value proposals for award under Phase 2. Phase 2 submittal requirements and evaluation ratings are stated in this Section 00 22 11. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase 2 submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine the best proposal. 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 2.

3.0 PHASE 2 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

PHASE 2 SIGNIFICANTLY

MORE IMPORTANT

AM#2…SLIGHTLY

SIGNIFICANTLY

LESS

IMPORTANT…AM#2

WHEN COMBINED,

SIGNIFICANTLY

LESS IMPORTANT

Vol. 1, Tab A – FACTOR 1

SEED TASK ORDER DESIGN-

CONSTRUCTION NARRATIVE AND

DRAWINGS

Vol. 1, Tab B – FACTOR 2

AM#1…SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

SUMMARY SCHEDULE…AM#1

Factor 3 Factor 1

Vol. 2, Tab A – FACTOR 3 PRICE

(STANDARD FORM 1442 & PROPOSAL

SCHEDULE)

Factor 1 Factor 2

Vol. 2, TAB B – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD

INFORMATION

N/A N/A N/A

4.0 VOLUME 1, TAB A - FACTOR 1– SEED TASK ORDER DESIGN-CONSTRUCTION NARRATIVE

AND DRAWINGS

4.1 Each Offer must submit a Technical Proposal for the Seed Task Order as described below. The Government will evaluate the Proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

4.1.1 SEED TASK ORDER: EIE407 Arctic Utilidor Phase C, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.

4.1.2 SCOPE OF EIE407: Repair by replacement up to approximately 114 LM (372 LF) of arctic utilidor piping and appurtenances. Work includes but is not limited to: replace and upgrade steam main, condensate return, water and sewer lines. Replace and upgrade all pipe supports. Associated repair work includes manhole repairs with new pumps in sumps, manhole lighting, power outlets, finishing of exposed manholes with new split face CMU, and installing lockable AT/FP approved lids; replacement of any damaged or destroyed utilidor lids; seal to prevent groundwater infiltration and surface water inflow; landscape and return disturbed ground surfaces and paving to original conditions. Abate asbestos as necessary. Handle and dispose of contaminated soil. Completed repairs will result in a complete and usable concrete encased utility line system. Project does not include any minor construction.

Phase C will include repair from Manhole 551-1 to Manhole 746. There are no laterals to be repaired.

4.1.3 SEED TASK ORDER CEILING LIMITATION FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COST

The design and construction costs will be subject to the funds available for this project. The task order cost limitation for this task order is approximately $12,000,000.00. Offerors are notified that they are under no obligation to approach this ceiling however the Government may not be able to make an award if the dollar amount set for this project is exceeded.

4.1.4 BASIS OF SEED TASK ORDER AWARD: After selecting the offerors who provided the best value proposals for award of a base IDIQ contract in accordance with Section 00 22 20, Paragraph 2.0, the source selection authority will continue to use the FAR Part 15 tradeoff process to determine which offeror will receive award of the seed task order.

5.0 VOLUME 1, TAB A – FACTOR 1 – SEED TASK ORDER DESIGN-CONSTRUCTION NARRATIVE

AND DRAWINGS

5.1. DESIGN NARRATIVE: Provide the following:

5.1.1. Narrative: Present a narrative of your design approach and your technical design solution for all items on the proposal schedule. The Offeror will certify that their design complies with the most recent regulations, standards and codes. The narrative shall be no longer than ten (10) pages and shall include the following:

5.1.2. Water and Heating Systems: Provide a description of your general design approach to each of the utility systems. Your description shall include basis of design, pipe support systems construction materials, optimum racking of pipes in the utilidor, and connection to the existing utilities in the mechanical rooms/building and manholes. Describe the salient features of equipment to be used. Provide a description addressing maintenance considerations for installed piping and equipment.

5.1.3 Mechanical Rooms/Bldg Upgrades: Provide a description of your general design approach for replacing the equipment in the mechanical rooms and building. Describe the salient features of equipment to be used. Provide a description addressing maintenance considerations for installed equipment.

5.1.4. Structural: Provide a general description of the utilidor construction, including any manhole expansion and upgrades to the fire hydrant and utilidor manholes.

5.1.5. Hazmat Abatement /Demolition: Describe your procedures for handling hazardous material (including asbestos, lead, and contaminated soil) abatement and demolition for this project. Explain how areas not affected by construction will be protected from demolition. Describe how existing sewer, electrical, and communications lines will be protected.

5.1.6. Temporary Utilities: Describe your plan for phasing and laying out temporary utilities on this project.

Describe any disruption of utilities that may occur, and measures that will be taken to minimize utility outages.

5.2 DESIGN DRAWINGS: Include only those drawings required to show the following information. Prints of drawings shall be 11”x17” bound separately or incorporated into the tabbed binder for ease of review and handling.

Provide an index sheet with these drawings.

Civil: Site plan showing alignment of repaired/renovated utilidor, building services and location of manholes.

Provide a cross section of the utilidor showing piping arrangement.

Mechanical: Schematic drawings showing all equipment to be replaced in mechanical building and rooms.

5.3. EVALUTION CRITERIA:

5.3.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach. Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which the narrative identifies specific opportunities, challenges and/or other constraints associated with design and construction of this project and the Offeror’s demonstration that they can be expected to produce a well-conceived design and construction solution. Technical merit will be based on the degree to which the proposed design satisfies functional and operational requirements and meets acceptable quality including durability, maintainability, and reliability specified in RFP.

6.0 VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 2 –SEED TASK ORDER PROPOSED SUMMARY SCHEDULE

6.1 Provide a preliminary schedule for design and construction of EIE407 Arctic Utilidor Phase C Task Order Requirements. This schedule shall clearly demonstrate completion of the work by the required completion date(s) stated in FAR Clause 52.211-10, Alt 1 “COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION, AND COMPLETION OF WORK, ALTERNATE 1” (included in the Task Order Checklist). Assume an NTP date of 7 March 2019 as stated on the EIE407 Task Order Checklist. The summary schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offerors may use the method of choice; however, the summary schedule shall be graphically represented. The proposed schedule shall be used by the successful offeror as the basis for development of the initial NAS after contract award. Give special attention to the following features:

6.1.1. a. Show the design phase, including events associated with coordinating the design submittals and the proper handling of the review comments.

6.1.1. b. Show preconstruction submittals including, Safety Plan, QC Plan, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Dewatering Plan, Environmental Protection Plan, and Sampling and Analysis Plan.

6.1.1. c. Show construction phase of the work.

6.1.1. d. Show O&M manual submission and required operator training.

6.1.1.e. Show turnover of the completed work. Identify any proposed phased turnovers: The time to complete the utility work and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspections.

6.1.1. f. Show as-built submissions.

6.1.1. g. Constraints: Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion date. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, weather, interfaces with base utilities, etc.); indicate the critical path on the schedule.

6.1.1. h. Permitting Milestones including ADEC permit to construct, interim permit to operate and final permit to operate.

6.1.2. Provide a one (1) page narrative describing how construction will be phased to minimize inconvenience to local buildings. Narrative shall include a proposed plan of how/where temporary parking will be provided, and a description of what means will be provided to allow access for occupants/employees between their buildings and parking area.

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1. 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 strength of understanding of events associated with coordinating design submittals, reviews and incorporating review comments, the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the required contract completion period and the realism of the schedule. During the construction phase, proposed plans and measures which minimize inconvenience and disruption of occupants/employees will receive favorable consideration in proportion to the level of accommodations provided.

7.0 VOLUME 2, TAB A – FACTOR 3 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE)

7.1. GENERAL

Submit the Price and Pro Forma information in a separate binder labeled: “Phase 2, Volume 2 – Price and Pro Forma Requirements.”

7.1.1 Submission Requirements: Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442 and proposed labor rates for key positions identified. Key personnel labor rates will become contractually binding. For the seed task order, provide a completed Task Order Proposal Schedule containing proposed line item and total pricing. Utilize the proposed key personnel labor rates in preparing the seed project price proposal.

7.1.2 Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals through request of additional information, the Government will request a Phase 2 price breakdown of the Contract Line items for the seed project 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 (3) working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial Phase 2 proposals and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

7.2. Evaluation Criteria:

7.2.1. 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.

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

7.2.3. Award may not be able to be made for project cost for design-build construction exceeding the contract cost limitation described herein.

7.3. VOLUME 2, TAB B – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

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

(a) 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.

(b) A certified statement listing; (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three (3) 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 (3) year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

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

(d) Completed Representations and Certifications included in Section 00 45 00. List any changes to the System for Award Management (SAM) in FAR Provision 52.204-8 and DFARS Clause 252.204-7007 Alt A.

7.3.2 One copy of the following information shall be provided:

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

(b) Number of years the firm has been in business

(c) Name, address and telephone number of firm’s bonding company

(d) Information showing offeror’s bondability for the seed 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.

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

7.3.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

In addition to the other Phase 1 and Phase 2 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.

8.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1. GENERAL:

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will…