W911KB20R0008-AM0001_POH004.pdf

POH004

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: Rotary Wing Parking Apron, Wheeler Army Airfield, Haw aii (POH004)

The purpose of this Amendment is to provide changes to the RFP as outlined in the attached Summary of Changes page. Section 00 22 11 is attached in it's entirety. Also attached is the Site Visit sign in roster for reference.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

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

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 23

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W911KB20R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Feb-2020

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 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

17-Mar-2020

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:

Amendment 0001 (AM#01)

17 March 2020 Summary of Changes

a. The following drawings are substituted for the superseded documents/sections:

Clarification of drawings changed in AM#01:

None

Drawings changed in AM#01:

None

b. The following drawings are added:

None

c. 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 11– PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS

OF AWARD

- Paragraph 5.1.3(c) was changed to require paving experience.

- Paragraph 5.2.1 was updated to state the importance of concrete paving projects are to the evaluation.

- Paragraph 6.1.2 was changed so that the narrative required a discussion of the use of a temporary concrete batch plant.

- Paragraph 6.1.3 was changed to the reference the correct section number, 01 32 00.

- Paragraph 6.1.3(2)(b) was changed by removing the reference to critical dates from

Drawing G-101

- Paragraph 6.2.2 the term critical dates was changed to duration.

d. The following sections are deleted:

None

e. Other:

Site Visit sign in sheet is attached.

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHALL REMAIN THE SAME

(End of Summary of Changes)

Section 00 22 11 Page 1

SECTION 00 22 11

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

ONE STEP - - BEST VALUE

(SINGLE AWARD)

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

5.0 VOLUME 1, TAB A – FACTOR 1: SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

6.0 VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 2: PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION, NARRATIVE, AND

SUMMARY SCHEDULE

7.0 VOLUME 1, TAB C – FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT)

8.0 VOLUME 1, TAB D – FACTOR 4: KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

9.0 VOLUME 2, TAB C – FACTOR 5: EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES

10.0 VOLUME 2, TAB A – FACTOR 6: STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET, AND

CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE (PRICE)

11.0 VOLUME 2, TAB B – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

12.0 VOLUME 2, TAB D – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

13.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

13.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

13.2 EVALUATION

13.3 DEFINITIONS

13.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

13.5 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING AND PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Section 00 22 11 Page 2

ATTACHMENTS

1 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

2 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

3 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE KEY SUBCONTRACTOR (OR PRIME IF WORK NOT TO BE

SUBCONTRACTED)

4 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE

5 - LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY SUBCONTRACTOR

6 - SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

7 - EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES FORMAT

Section 00 22 11 Page 3

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 Interested firms (here after referred to as Offerors) shall submit proposal demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the construction contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

1.2 This is a “Best Value” solicitation for the construction of a rotary wing parking apron located on Wheeler

Army Airfield, Hawaii. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff

Process, and the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

2.1 The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority has determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price, however the contract award may not exceed the funds available for this project. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within this cost magnitude. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the

Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. Proposals will not be ranked. To be eligible for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factors 1, 2, 4, and 5, and a rating other than “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” must be achieved for Factor 3. 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 magnitude) would justify award to that offeror.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint.

Do not assume that offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

3.2 Firms formally recognized as small business firms formally organized as 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 subcontractors.

3.3 Submit proposals in tabbed, three-ring binders. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, where indicated below. A total of 75 pages are limited for Volumes 1 and 2 combined.

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Section 00 22 11 Page 4

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Volume 1, Tab A Factor 1 Specialized Experience Most Important Factor

Volume 1, Tab B Factor 2

Proposed Contract Duration, Narrative, and

Summary Schedule

Most Important Factor (equally important to Factor 1)

Volume 1, Tab C Factor 3

Past Performance

(Confidence Assessment)

2nd Most Important Factor (slightly less important than

Factor’s 1 & 2, equally important to Factor 4)

Volume 1, Tab D Factor 4 Key Subcontractors

2nd Most Important Factor (slightly less important than

Factor’s 1 & 2, equally important to Factor 3)

Volume 2, Tab C Factor 5 Extent of Participation of Small Businesses

3rd Most Important Factor (less important than Factor’s 3 & 4)

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Volume 2, Tab A Factor 6

Price

(Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data

Sheet Contract Line Item Schedule)

Significantly less important than Factors 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 combined

Volume 2

Tab B N/A Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

5.0 VOLUME 1- TAB A - FACTOR 1: SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1. Submission Requirements:

Section 00 22 11 Page 5

5.1.1. The prime contractor shall demonstrate experience on recent, relevant projects. Utilize the

CONSTRUCTION – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE FORM (Attachment 2) at the end of the section. 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 the joint venture, each joint venture partner shall provide information demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Submit projects that are currently well underway (at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer than six (6) 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 project submitted for Specialized Experience is relevant to their anticipated role on this project. The prime contractor shall submit no more than five (5) projects for Specialized Experience.

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:

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.

5.1.2. Provide a one-page consolidated list of the Specialized Experience projects submitted for the prime contractor and key subcontractors (the subcontractors required to be submitted for Factor 4) for electrical, and civil, to include a matrix that identifies the projects and the firms that worked on each one (teaming).

5.1.3 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 well underway or that have been completed and turned over no longer than six (6) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

(a) If submitting projects performed under a prior business arrangement (joint venture for example) for

Specialized Experience, address why that experience is relevant to the experience of the firm submitting the offer. Clearly identify the role and responsibilities of each joint venture partner.

(b) Describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described on the specialized experience forms. Identify specific projects.

(c) Describe any experience constructing AM#01… utilities in an arctic, large pavement projects on an active airfield, …AM#01 or similar environment.

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

Section 00 22 11 Page 6

5.2.1. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime contractor as relevant to their role on this project. Experience on the similar projects identified in the project experience sheets will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. AM#01… The Government will place greater importance on large Portland Cement

Concrete pavement projects, specifically projects on active airfields. …AM#01 Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience.

5.2.2. The Offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, related experience for construction of the facility type (which may include similar state or local government or private counterparts) included in this contract. Recent experience includes projects well underway (at least 50% construction progress completed) or those completed and turned over within six (6) years of the proposal issue date for this RFP for construction experience. Joint Venture partners 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 Corps of Engineers Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other DoD or

Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

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

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

(a) Size, type and complexity of the work;

(b) Location of work and similarity to the climate of Climate Zone 1a, as defined by ANSI/ASHRAE

Standard 169 climate zone map for the United States;

(c) 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. The Government may consider previous recent teaming experience among the team members as value added, even if on different types of construction projects than this project. The more relevant the experience, the more credit will be given.

Section 00 22 11 Page 7

6.0. VOLUME 1 - TAB B - FACTOR 2 - PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION, NARRATIVE, AND

SUMMARY SCHEDULE

6.1. Submission Requirements:

6.1.1. Proposed Contract Duration: The offeror shall propose a contract duration on the Proposal Contract Line

Item Number (CLIN) Schedule and under this Tab C, not to exceed the maximum contract duration specified in the

RFP.

6.1.2. Narrative: Provide a narrative that will describe the offerors technical approach to accomplishing the contract schedule. Include all of the AM#01… critical dates durations …AM#01 listed on Drawing AM#01… G-101 in the

“Critical Dates” box G-102 …AM#01 and how the offeror proposes to complete them. Clearly describe use of

AM#01… “precast” or “cast in place” and construction through wetlands, and rail/road crossings a temporary on-site concrete batch plant, or supplying the concrete from an existing ready-mix, or central mix concrete batch plant …AM#01 in the description. AM#01… Describe how offeror intends to overcome constraints due to winter weather/arctic conditions. If applicable, describe how offeror intends to overcome environmental and permitting constraints due to establishing a temporary concrete batch plant on site. Also describe how offeror intends to overcome constraints due to working within an active airfield …AM#01 Limit narrative to no more than three (3) pages.

6.1.3. Summary Schedule: Submit a summary-level schedule for construction. Schedules or diagrams may be provided separately in a size that is easily read, but shall be bound and clearly labeled as Tab C. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section AM#01… 01 32

01.00 10 01 32 00 …AM#01: Project Schedule. The summary schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. For schedule proposal purposes only, utilize a Notice to Proceed date of 7 June 2020. This date is solely to assist in evaluation of offeror’s proposals and shall not be construed as a contractual NTP date. Schedules shall be graphically represented. The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration. Provide the following:

(1) Proposed contract duration:

(2) Summary Schedule:

(a) Show the overall construction phase for the facility, for the site work, and for the utilities.

(b) Show all dates, to include completion date AM#01… , listed in the “Critical Dates” box from

Drawing G-101 …AM#01.

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

(d) Constraints: Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the

Section 00 22 11 Page 8 schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.). Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

6.2. Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1. Proposed Contract Duration: This duration will become the contractually binding completion period and will replace the duration stated in FAR 52.211-10 upon contract award. The Government will evaluate the contract duration, as proposed by the Offeror in the Proposal CLIN Schedule, not to exceed the maximum allowed duration stated in FAR 52.211-10. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the Government may take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports the proposed duration, as well as use other information, such as but not limited to independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. The Government will rate a proposed contract duration matching the maximum allowed contract duration as “Acceptable.” A proposed contract duration shorter than the maximum allowed duration will receive additional rating consideration, provided it is realistic and deemed to be achievable. The Government will consider an unreasonably condensed contract duration, which places additional cost or schedule risk on the Government or which may create a risk of contract or performance failure, as a significant weakness or a deficiency, depending upon the evaluators' judgment. Contract durations of at least 30 calendar days less than the maximum allowed duration stated in FAR Clause 52.211-10 will be considered an advantage. No advantage will be considered between proposals for differences less than 30 calendar days.

6.2.2. Narrative: The Government will evaluate that the offerors narrative is both realistic and matches the contract duration and the summary schedule, to include all AM#01… “Critical Dates” durations …AM#01 are addressed.

6.2.3. Summary Schedule: The Government will evaluate the summary schedule for construction of the project.

The length of the schedule must match the proposed contract duration. If it is shorter than the Offeror’s proposed contract duration, it offers no advantage to the Government because it is non-binding, only representing a preliminary planned schedule. A schedule shorter than the proposed contract duration may indicate the Offeror is placing additional risk on the Government for any delays between the scheduled completion date and the required contract completion period. Therefore, the Government believes that there is no valid need to shorten the schedule less than the full proposed contract duration. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule, e.g., permitting, long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate the offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction, will receive additional consideration.

7.0 VOLUME 1, TAB C - FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT)

7.1. Submission Requirements:

7.1.1. Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner's perspective. Past performance evaluations or questionnaires shall be provided for all projects submitted under Tab A. For Federal

Section 00 22 11 Page 9 projects submitted under Specialized Experience (Tab A), the offeror may rely on finalized 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 a current phone number and email address is provided for the client point of contact. 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, Ron Jackson via email at

Ronald.K.Jackson@usace.army.mil prior to the 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.

Projects cited shall be currently well underway (at least 50% construction progress completed) or that have been completed and turned over 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.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may be include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting Systems (CPARS), inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

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.

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. 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:

Section 00 22 11 Page 10

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

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

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

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

7.2.2 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. An offeror will not receive credit for past performance of a parent, sister or other affiliated company if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company. An offeror may receive credit for relevant past performance under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example); if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the project submitted is relevant to their role on this project. 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 construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government places a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to CPARS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also 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.

7.2.3. Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance. 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 VOLUME 1 – TAB D - FACTOR 4: KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

Section 00 22 11 Page 11

8.1 Submission Requirements:

8.1.1 Identify the key subcontractors for electrical, and civil, chosen for the project. Submit no more than six (6)

Specialized Experience forms (Attachment 3) for each Electrical, and Civil Subcontractor and include past performance ratings. The ratings may be from either the owner or the prime contractor if the firms were subcontractors on the cited projects. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its key subcontractors. Use the Letter of Commitment (Attachment 5) at the end of this section.

8.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

8.1.2.1 This factor is comprised of two equal elements (not separately rated); Specialized Experience and Past

Performance.

8.1.2.2 The Government will evaluate the specialized experience and past performance of the key subcontractors proposed for the project, in accordance with the evaluation criteria under Tab A and C, respectively and as applicable to their role on this project. No substitution will be allowed without adequate reason and possible consideration to the Government.

9.0 VOLUME 2 – TAB C - FACTOR 5 – EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES

9.1 Submission Requirements:

9.1.1 All offerors shall identify the extent to which Small Businesses (SBs), Veteran-Owned Small Businesses

(VOSBs), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), HUBZone Small Businesses, Small

Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), Woman-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) and Historically Black

Colleges/Universities or Minority Institutions (HBCU/MIs) would be utilized in the performance of this proposed contract. For small businesses, as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code applicable to this solicitation, the offeror shall identify their own participation as a SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZONE SB, SDB, WOSB, or HBCU/MI, and it will be considered in evaluating the proposed extent of participation of small businesses (use Attachment 7 – Small Business Participation Proposal).

9.1.2 Offerors must propose goals for Small Business Participation. Small business participation goals are to be an estimated percentage of total contract dollars (total proposed amount including options). Provide an overall goal to be accomplished through collective small business participation from any type of small business, to include all small business programs, and propose individual goals for each small business program. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will be included the offeror’s Small Business Participation goal.

9.1.3 This factor includes a minimum Total Small Business Participation goal (for all types of small business combined) of 20% of total contract dollars including all options for this acquisition.

9.1.4 Separate and distinct from the Extent of Participation of Small Business, large business offerors must also submit a Subcontracting Plan, as required by FAR 52.219-9, under Volume 2, Tab D. Large businesses will not be eligible for award if they fail to submit an acceptable Subcontracting Plan. The Subcontracting Plan will be based on subcontracted dollars rather than total contract dollars but shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments to

Section 00 22 11 Page 12 small business firms outlined in the Extent of Participation of Small Business (i.e., dollars shown for each type of small business in each of the plans should match).

9.2 Evaluation Criteria:

9.2.1 All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of

U.S. small businesses in the performance of the acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein.

9.2.2 A small business offeror also receives credit for their small business participation as a Prime Contractor and can apply their dollar value for this prime performance when calculating percentages in all the applicable small business categories.

9.2.3 Higher goals will be considered more favorable during evaluation for this factor.

9.2.4 The government will evaluate:

(a) The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

(b) The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

(c) The identified complexity and variety of the work small business firms are to perform;

(d) The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition;

(e) The past performance of offerors in complying with the requirements of FAR clause 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (applicable to both small and large businesses), and FAR

52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (applicable to large businesses only), and;

(f) The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals based on the total contract value. Goals for this procurement are:

Small Business (all types of small business combined) Minimum of: 20%

Small Disadvantaged Business Minimum of: 5%

Woman Owned Small Business: 3%

HUBZone Small Business: Best Effort

Veteran Owned Small Business: 2%

Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB: 1%

(Note: A proposed Extent of Participation of Small Businesses that reflects a percentage of the contract value for

WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards

VOSB).

Section 00 22 11 Page 13

9.2.5 Adjectival Rating System Specific to this Factor: After listing this Factor’s proposal strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies, the Government will assign an adjectival rating of “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,”

“Marginal,” or “Unacceptable” for this Factor, which reflects the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s approach and understanding of the small business objectives of this acquisition as demonstrated in its proposal for this Factor. The adjectival ratings criteria for this Factor are defined as follows:

Outstanding: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good: Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable: Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Marginal: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

10.0 VOLUME 2 – TAB A – FACTOR 6: STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET, AND

CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE (PRICE)

10.1. GENERAL

Submit the Pro Forma information in a separate binder labeled: “Volume 2 - Pro Forma Requirements.”

10.2. Submission Requirements:

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

Offerors.” Submit the Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 1).

10.2.2. Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government will request a price breakdown of the Contract Line items in a sealed envelope marked “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 proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

10.3 Evaluation Criteria:

10.3.1 Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc., and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

Section 00 22 11 Page 14

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

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

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

11.1. Submission Requirements:

11.1.1. Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility:

(a) Joint Venture agreement or Limited Liability Company Certificate of Organization, Articles of

Organization and Operating Agreement, if applicable.

(b) 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.

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

(d) Competed Representations and Certifications included by full text in Section 00 45 00. List any changes to beta.sam.gov in 52.204-8 for FAR Clauses and 252.204-7007 for DFAR clauses. Provide for any certification where vendor indicated in beta.sam.gov that certification would be provided with specific offer.

(e) One copy of the following information shall be provided:

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

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

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

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

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

Section 00 22 11 Page 15

11.1.2. Evaluation Criteria:

In addition to the other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

12.0 VOLUME 2, TAB D – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

12.1 Submission Requirements: Subcontracting plans are due at the time of proposal submission, no later than the proposal due date in Block 13.A. of the SF1442. (NOTE: This requirement applies to Large Businesses only.)

12.1.2 If the Offeror proposing on this solicitation is a large business concern, in accordance with the definition as identified in FAR Clause 52.219-1, “SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REPRESENTATION”, the firm must submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9, SMALL BUSINESS

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN and DFARS 252.219-7003, “SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN”

(see Section 00 72 00 of this solicitation for the full Clauses). The subcontracting goals established for small business, small disadvantaged business, woman-owned business, HUBZone business, veteran-owned small business and service disabled veteran-owned small business are described in Section 00 21 00, Instructions to Offerors.

12.1.3 The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be thorough, complete, and in accordance with FAR Clause

52.219-9, as it will be incorporated into the contract upon award of the contract to the Offeror, if acceptable and upon final approval of the Contracting Officer. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan format at Attachment 6 shall be utilized.

12.1.4 The Plan shall include a description of the types of services the firm proposes to subcontract with small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB) (to include historically black colleges and universities/minority institutions (HBCU/MI)), woman-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), along with the proposed percentages of their participation, to demonstrate a plan to meet the subcontracting goals that will apply to these contracts. The Offeror shall provide specific information on proposed subcontracted effort for this project.

12.2 Assessment Criteria:

The Government will assess the Plan in accordance with the DoD checklist for reviewing subcontracting plans

(http://business.defense.gov/Portals/57/Documents/Checklist%20for%20Reviewing%20Subk%20Plans.pdf?ver=20

19-12-02-110744-540) and with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9. Offerors are encouraged to review the

DoD checklist for how the subcontracting plan will be assessed.

(a) Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Extent of

Participation of Small Businesses. In accordance with DFARS 215.304 (c), when an evaluation assesses the extent that small businesses and HBCUs are specifically identified in proposals, the small businesses and HBCUs considered in the evaluation shall be listed in any subcontracting plan submitted.

(b) As part of the subcontracting plan evaluation, the Government will also review information submitted or obtained for Volume 2, Tab C, Extent of Participation of Small Businesses, to evaluate the Offeror’s past

Section 00 22 11 Page 16 performance in establishing realistic yet challenging goals, and in achieving them.

13.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

13.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

13.1.1 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 and any subsequent discussions required, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

13.2 EVALUATION

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

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

13.2.3 A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that the Government decides that discussions with offerors are required or are considered to be in the Government’s best interests. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

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

13.2.5 Upon conclusion of discussions, those offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

13.3 DEFINITIONS

13.3.1 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.

13.3.2 Weakness

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

13.3.3 Significant Weakness

Section 00 22 11 Page 17

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

13.3.4 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.

13.3.5 Significant Strength

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

13.3.6 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.

13.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

13.4.1 General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. 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 strengths and weaknesses of proposals against each other in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified.

13.4.2 Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

13.4.3 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 (except the

Past Performance Factor, addressed in 11.5, below), 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:

13.4.3.1 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.

13.4.3.2 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.

13.4.3.3 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.

Section 00 22 11 Page 18

13.4.3.4 Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and…