FTW422-Amendment_1.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

PROJECT TITLE/LOCATION: FTW422, DESIGN AND REPAIR BAILEY BRIDGE, FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA

a. This amendment provides changes to the solicitation as indicated on the continuation pages of this document

b. PROPOSAL DUE DATE HAS NOT BEEN EXTENDED. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance w ith Section 00 21 00, Para 1.9, Proposal Submittals.

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

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Apr-2019

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 W911KB19R0015

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Mar-2019

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, X 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

08-Apr-2019

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, AK

CEPOA-CT (W911KB)

PO BOX 6898

JBER AK 99506-0898

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

a. The following drawings are substituted for the superseded documents/sections:

NONE

b. The following revised documents/sections are substituted for the superseded documents/sections: The identifier “AM#01” appears before and after new and/or revised materials, except as noted below.

Section 00 22 10 - PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES --Revised paragraphs, 5.1, 5.1.2(a), 5.2.1, 5.2.4, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.2.3 (Reissuing entire section)

NOTE: Revisions within the following documents do not contain the above referenced identifiers:

c. The following sections are deleted:

NONE

d. The following documents are added:

Phase I Bid Inquiry Contractor Report

e. The following revisions are incorporated:

NONE

f. Other:

NONE

(End of Summary of Changes)

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHALL REMAIN THE SAME.

SECTION 00 22 10 W911KB19R0015

FTW422

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 1

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

4.0 TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

7.0 TAB D – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT

8.0 TAB E – FACTOR 4 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

9.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

9.2 EVALUATION

9.3 DEFINITIONS

9.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

9.5 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING AND PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENT

PHASE ONE – SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

3 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN CAPABILITY

4 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

5 – KEY PERSONNEL RESUME

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 2

OVERVIEW

1.1. In Phase 1 of the 2 phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “offerors”) submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the design-build construction contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and intends to select three (3) of the Phase 1 offerors to compete for the design-build contract in Phase 2. The intent of the solicitation, however, is to obtain the best value proposal therefore the Government reserves the right to select additional offerors to participate in Phase 2 if it is determined to be in its best interest.

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

1.3. 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 project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals.

Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. To qualify for phase 2, the Offeror or Offeror’s subcontractor has to have or will have to have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines in compliance with the requirements specified in Contract Clause, ”Requirements for Registration of Designers” and Section 01 33 16.00

29. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

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

SUBMISSION.

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Tab A SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet N/A

Tab B Factor 1 Specialized Experience Most Important Factor (slightly more important than Factor 2)

Tab C Factor 2 Past Performance (Confidence Assessment)

2nd Most Important Factor (slightly less important than factor 1, slightly more important than factor 3) http://www.fbo.gov/

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 3

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Tab D Factor 3 Organization & Management 3rd Most Important Factor (slightly less important than Factors 1 and 2 and more important than Factor 4)

Tab E Factor 4 Technical Approach 4th Most Important Factor (less important than Factor 3)

4.0 TAB A - STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

4.1. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. Include the completed proposal data sheet (See attachment 1, provided at the end of this Section). Also include joint venture agreement or LLC Certificate of Organization, Articles of Organization and the Operating Agreement, if applicable (see Section 00 21 00, paragraph 1.11).

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The prime contractor and designer of record design firms for civil, geotechnical, structural-bridge engineering, hydraulics and hydrology, electrical and telecommunications design shall each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects, using Construction – Specialized Experience form – (Attachment 2), and Designer – Specialized Experience Form – (Attachment 3) at the end of the section (no more than 2 pages per project).

Attachment 3 may also be used for consultants with bridge experience if included as part of the design build team.

Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If the offeror is a newly formed joint venture without any previous experience as 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. Offerors who submit experience information of a parent, sister or other affiliated company must describe what involvement such company will have on the instant acquisition. The offeror shall provide a one page narrative that clearly and specifically indicates what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will be provided or relied upon for contract performance.

The Government may discount the experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company unless the prime contractor clearly provides evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the parent, sister or other affiliated company or provides a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter including the following:

AM#01

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 4

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

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

The offeror shall select the design firm(s). Design firms may list projects of prime contractors they have worked for or projects directly contracted with government, private or commercial customers. If projects were design-build, so identify them. Submit no more than five (5) projects for the prime contractor (whether single entity or joint venture). Submit no more than five (5) projects total for the design firms and consultant, if applicable, and no more than three (3) projects for any individual design firm/consultant; one (1) of which shall be from a structural designer. Submit relevant projects for the below type of project.

Repair and construction of a bridge and access roadway to include paving, curbs and gutters, erosion control/storm drainage, site grading/contouring, and additional site improvements. Project also includes in the demolition and salvage of existing bridge. Experience building over navigable waterways and obtaining associated permits is required, work in subarctic conditions, and on frozen ground in Climate Zone 8 as defined by ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 169 climate zone map for the United States is preferred.

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). If needed, the Specialized Experience matrix may be submitted on one 11” x 17” sheet.

5.1.2 Provide a supplemental narrative, not to exceed two pages, to address any of the following that are applicable. The information shall be limited to projects that are well underway or that have been completed and turned over no longer than 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. 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 how the resources of the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will be provided or relied upon for contract performance. The Government may discount experience of a parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company unless the prime contractor clearly provides, in its proposal, evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company. If there is no contractual arrangement between the prime contractor and the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company, provide a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter including the following:

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

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

AM#01

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 5

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

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

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

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the prime contractor and design firms in design, construction or design-build, with regard to their role on this project. Experience on the similar projects identified on the project experience sheets (Attachment 2) will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. If the design will be accomplished in-house, rather than by subcontract, then the design element of specialized experience will still be evaluated, realizing that the work is being done in-house. The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience. In assessing relevancy of Specialized Experience, the relevancy ratings included under the Past Performance evaluation factor will be utilized.

5.2.2. The offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, related experience in both design and construction, for the facility type (which may include similar state or local government or private counterparts) included in this contract, as described in Section 00 22 10. Recent experience includes projects well underway (see above criteria) or those completed and turned over within six (6) years preceding the date of this solicitation for design or construction experience. Partners of Joint Venture offerors shall each demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project or explain in the supplemental narrative how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

5.2.3. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

5.2.4. To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the offeror and its proposed design firm(s) shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience. Experience of a parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company will not be considered if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister, predecessor 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, predecessor or other affiliated company. A firm will not receive credit under this factor for the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project.

AM#01

AM#01

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 6

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

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

(1) Size, loading, and complexity.

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

(3) Firm's role and extent of work self-performed (brokering out all work and simply “pouring the sidewalks” on a cited project are examples of less relevant experience).

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

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

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 offeror was rated. For Federal projects submitted under Specialized Experience (Tab B), the offeror may submit finalized CCASS, ACASS or CPARS reports, otherwise the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project. Previously completed PPQ’s may be submitted however ensure current phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. The completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal and may be duplicated for submission on future solicitations.

If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first 2 pages of the PPQ (Attachment 4), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Theresa Afrank via email at Theresa.m.afrank@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.

mailto:Theresa.m.afrank@usace.army.mil

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 7

6.1.2. 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.

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), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture or teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 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. 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. 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.

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.

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 8

6.2.2 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 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. 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 at the end of this section.

6.2.3 Each entity (firm) 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 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 & MANAGEMENT

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 two (2) pages or less and individually address each paragraph below. The page limit does not include resumes submitted for key personnel

7.1.2. Organization: Describe the prime contractor and design firms proposed to participate in this project, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 9 description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities on the project. Include an organizational chart with position title and job location for the following key personnel: project manager responsible for design and construction, onsite manager (if applicable), general superintendent, design manager responsible for managing designers of record, the designers of record for, structural, civil, geotechnical, hydraulics/hydrology and electrical/telecommunications.

Describe the proposed management structure for the design-build team, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team.

7.1.3. Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience:

Provide a brief resume (not included in the two page count limit above) using the Key Personnel Resume form (Attachment 5) at the end of this section for project manager responsible for design and construction, general superintendent, design manager and the designers of record for civil, structural, geotechnical, electrical/telecommunications and hydraulics/hydrology . All designers of record must be registered in accordance with contract clause 52.236-25, Requirements for Registration of Designers and Section 01 33 16.00 29, Design After Award.

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 in similar type work, to manage, control and perform the design, and to perform construction. Performance of key personnel proposed for this project may be taken into account when it comes to the attention of the Government. Government will evaluate how well the Offeror demonstrates that it has the necessary structure and experienced, qualified personnel within its organization to effectively manage, control, administer and execute the integrated design and construction operations, quality control program and subcontracts. This shall be achievable with other projected on-going work. Additional consideration will be given to previous design-build experience. Government will evaluate whether designers of record are registered (a requirement), experienced and qualified per requirements of the RFP. The Contractor shall engage a licensed Structural Engineer to design the facilities and oversee the design and construction work. The Structural Designer of Record and the Geotechnical Designer of Record shall be licensed in the State of Alaska or shall have at least 5 years of design experience in regions of high seismic activity and Climate Zone 8 as defined by ANSI/ASHRAE Standard169 climate zone map for the United States. The Geotechnical Engineer of Record may be a licensed Civil Engineer with a minimum of 5 years design experience in geotechnical engineering in the previously identified climate zone.

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 10

7.2.3. The minimum experience requirements for Project Manager are at least five (5) years construction and construction management experience. The minimum experience requirements for the Design manager are at least five (5) years of design experience. The minimum experience requirement for the superintendent is at least five (5) years’ experience as superintendent, managing multiple trades and subcontractors. If alternates are proposed for key positions, the evaluation rating will consider the lesser qualified or experienced person, if there is a difference.

8.0 TAB E – FACTOR 4 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

8.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

8.1.1. Provide a project-specific narrative that describes the offeror’s intended technical approach to executing this design-build contract per the detailed requirements herein. Clearly but concisely describe the technical approach to project management and execution. Limit the information to two (2) pages or less and individually address the paragraphs below.

8.1.2. Technical Approach for Design and Construction: Describe the technical approach to design and construction of this project. Include design and construction considerations for fast-tracking, permitting, construction over fish habitats, cold climate environment, experience with equipment to be used for installing foundations in the river, and additional conditions relevant to this project. In Phase 2, the offeror will describe its design packaging plan for fast-tracking. That level of detail is not necessary in Phase 1.

8.1.3. Collaborative Approach for Design-Build:

(a) Describe interactions within the Design-Build team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design addressing management of design reviews and management of fast-tracked design packages (if applicable).

Discuss how the configuration management system will track and control design evolution and changes during design for quality control and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Describe the role of the construction team members during design.

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

site visits, if any; contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

8.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

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

8.2.2. Technical Approach for Design and Construction:

(a) The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline construction and demonstrates a good understanding of cold climate and bridge design and construction

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 11 considerations relevant to this project. The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces susceptibility to inclement weather delays.

(b) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and understanding of designing and constructing bridges over waterways.

(c) The Government will evaluate impacts from the construction to the golf course.

8.2.3. Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms and the staff during design and construction. The constructor must be actively involved in the design process, not just leaving it up to the designer (see Clause 5152.236-9007 “Contractor’s Role during Design Process”). The offeror must have an effective process for coordinating all efforts during design including facilitating coordination with the Government. The offeror must have an effective configuration management system to control and track revisions to the design. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record and the Government reviewers. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction.

9.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

9.1.1. The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

9.2. EVALUATION

9.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor and subfactor. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase 1 submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1.

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, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select the most highly qualified offerors and request that only those offerors submit phase-two proposals.

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 12

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.

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.

9.3.7. Deviation

Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

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. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified under Phase 1 to short-list for participation in Phase 2.

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.

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 13

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 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:

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.

9.5. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING AND PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENT

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

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

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

10.5.1.3 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.

SECTION 00 22 10 Page 14

10.5.1.4 No Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

10.5.1.5 Unknown Confidence (Neutral): No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

UNCLASSIFIED\\FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Bid Inquiry Contractor Report All Inquiries

Project: FTW422 Repair Vehicle Bridge Review: FTW422 Bidder Inquiry (00001) (sorted by CommentID ) Displaying 4 inquiries.

Id Discipline Sheet Detail Spec

7899879 General Page 3 00 22 10

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

If a subcontractor teaming agreement is put in place with the prime offeror for this solicitation, will the subcontractors relevant experience be acceptable within evaluation of Specialized experience?

On: Mar 19 2019.

Government Response. . Per Section 00 22 10, Para. 5.1, "The prime contractor and designer of record design firms for civil, geotechnical, structural-bridge engineering, hydraulics and hydrology, electrical and telecommunications design shall each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects..." Only prime contractor and designers of record are permitted to submit experience. On: Mar 27 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7901728 Project

Management 1 1 1

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

TAB D FACTOR 3 ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT

This requirement has a 2 page limit, but requires a detailed org chart along with multiple required responses. Is it possible to add one page dedicated to the org chart for 3 pages total?

On: Mar 20 2019.

Government Response. . The project-specific narrative page limit does not apply to the organization chart. On: Mar 27 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7906335 Contracting N/A N/A 00 22 10 Para 2.0 & Para

5.0

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Under paragraph 2.0 of section 00 22 10, the contract appears to all allow any offeror to include "Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. To qualify for phase 2, the Offeror or Offeror's subcontractor has to have or will have to have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines in compliance with the requirements specified in Contract Clause, "Requirements for Registration of Designers" and Section 01 33 16.00". This paragraph appears to allow an 8a contractor to team up with "key team subcontractors" to provide the government a highly qualified team with skills specifically tailored to this project. However, paragraph 5.0 of section 00 22 10 appears to only allow the use of experience of the prime contractor and the designer of record design firm. It does not appear to allow experience of the key team subcontractors allowed under paragraph 2.0. These two paragraphs appear to be in conflict. It would seem logical that the experience of the Offeror and the key team subcontractors would be allowed under factor 1 and factor 2 paragraph 5.0. Limiting the experience to that of the 8(a) contractors only will severely limit ability of the government to get the best team for the project.

Request the specifications be amended to allow the Offeror to designate the key team subcontractors and all the experience of all the team members to be used in factor 1 and factor 2.

On: Mar 22 2019.

Government Response. . Key team subcontractor and key subcontractor refers to the designer of record required as part of the submittal. On: Mar 27 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

Page 1 of 2ProjNet: Logged In User

4/8/2019https://www.projnet.org/projnet/binKornHome/index.cfm?strKornCob=BicPublicReportAll...

7928593 Contracting TAB B – FACTOR 1 -

SPECIALIZED

EXPERIENCE

TAB B – FACTOR 1 -

SPECIALIZED

EXPERIENCE

TAB B – FACTOR 1 -

SPECIALIZED

EXPERIENCE

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Please confirm that it is acceptable to utilize projects from a parent, affiliate or separate division for TAB B – FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE if the offeror demonstrates that the resources of the parent, affiliate or separate division will affect the performance of the offeror on this project. TAB C – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE states 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. The GAO has issued a number of protest decisions supporting the use of sister or affiliate companies' past experience as well as decisions which holds that the exercise of discretion by a procuring agency must be reasonably related to legitimate agency concerns and cannot by unreasonable restrictive of competition.

On: Apr 06 2019.

Government Response. . It is acceptable to utilize projects from a parent, affiliate or separate division for TAB B – FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE if the offeror demonstrates what resources of the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon. Section 00 22 10 will be revised via amendment to correct this language. On: Apr 08 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

Report Complete

UNCLASSIFIED\\FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Patent 11/892,984 ProjNet property of ERDC since 2004.

Page 2 of 2ProjNet: Logged In User

4/8/2019https://www.projnet.org/projnet/binKornHome/index.cfm?strKornCob=BicPublicReportAll...