22R0005 EAR063-Amend 2.pdf

EAR063

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: EAR063, REPAIR FUEL PIER-LONG TERM, EARECKSON AIR STATION, SHEMYA ISLAND, 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

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-Nov-2021

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 W911KB22R0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Nov-2021

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

24-Nov-2021

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#02” appears before and after new and/or revised materials, except as noted below.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TABLE OF CONTENTS

− Revised Attachment 4 to read “Corrosion Protection Drawings

(Reissuing Table of Contents)

SECTION 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

− Revised paragraph 1.9 to reflect Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer − Revised paragraph 1.10 to reflect Autodesk Civil 3D 2021

(Reissuing page 4 of section)

SECTION 00 22 10 PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD PROCEDURES

− Revised paragraph 5.1 to include “coastal engineering” − Revised paragraph 5.1.3 to reflect page limitation and previously completed PPQ’s may be submitted − Revised paragraph 5.2.1.2 to correct spelling − Revised paragraph 6.1.1 to reflect page limit does not apply to organizational chart and one

11” x 17” sheet may be used for organizational chart − Revised paragraphs 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 to reflect “quality control system manager” − Revised paragraph 6.2.4 to remove verbiage between asterisks, revise experience requirements and remove last sentence regarding Military Family Housing Projects − Revised paragraph 6.2.6 to reflect “Officer’s”

(Reissuing entire section)

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

AWARD

− Revised paragraph 5.2.1.2(a) to move narrative discussion, reflect “bull rails or cubs with scuppers”, clarify what is to be described, and include UXO discussion − Revised paragraph 5.3.1 Preferable items − Revised paragraph 5.3.2.2(d) to remove “handrails” and 5.3.2.2(f) to clarify mooring − Revised paragraph 5.3.2.3(a) to clarify mooring devices, fenders and remove wearing surface − Revised paragraph 5.4.1.2 to reflect Section 01 33 16.00 29 − Revised paragraph 5.4.1.2.(1)(c) to include additional discussion − Revised paragraph 5.4.1.2(2)(a) to correct paragraph numbering − Revised paragraph 6.1.1.2 to include missing language − Revised paragraph 6.3.1.1(d) to reflect “Completed” − Revised paragraph 6.4.1.1 to correct paragraph numbering

(Reissuing entire section)

SECTION 00 72 00 CONTRACT CLAUSES

− Added 52.204-4 Printed or Copied Double-Sided on Postconsumer Fiber Content Paper

SECTION 00 73 00.00 29 SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

− Revised table of contents, and paragraphs 1.2.2, 1.2.5, 1.3.5, 1.3.6, 1.3.6.B − (Reissuing entire section)

SECTION 01 10 00 SYNOPSIS OF WORK

− Revised paragraph 1.2 to reflect electrical conduit shall be removed and replaced

(Reissuing entire section)

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

NONE

c. The following sections are deleted:

d. The following documents are added:

e. The following revisions are incorporated:

f. Other:

23 November 2021 Pre-Proposal Conference Slides 23 November 2021 Pre-Proposal Conference Attendee List 23 November 2021 Pre-Proposal Conference Questions and Answers

Interested Vendors List from SAM.gov as of 24 November 2021

23 November 2021 Pre-Proposal Conference YouTube Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWsgWvb4Czo

(End of Summary of Changes)

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHALL REMAIN THE SAME.

blockedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWsgWvb4Czo

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 – CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SF 1442

00 11 01 PROPOSAL SCHEDULE

00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

00 22 10 PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

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

AWARD

00 45 00 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

00 72 00 CONTRACT CLAUSES

00 73 00.00 29 SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

00 73 46 WAGE RATES

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND TECHNICAL PROVISIONS

DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 10 00 SYNOPSIS OF WORK

ATTACHMENT/S

ATTACHMENT 1 – BASE SUPPORT LETTER

ATTACHMENT 2 – MEC PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT

ATTACHMENT 3 – DRAFT 15% CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS DATED 30 SEPT 2021

ATTACHMENT 4 – AS-BUILTS DATED MARCH 10, 2016 CORROSION PROTECTION

DRAWINGS

ATTACHMENT 5 – AS BUILTS IDENTIFIED 11/17

ATTACHMENT 6 – AS BUILTS DATED 11/28/2017

ATTACHMENT 7 – LAND USE CONTROL MANAGEMENT PLAN

AM#02

AM#02

AM#01 AM#01

Section 00 21 00 W911KB22R0005

Section 00 21 00 Page 4

QUESTIONS CONCERNING PROPOSAL RECEIPT CAN BE DIRECTED TO THE CONTRACT SPECIALIST

THERESA AFRANK AT Theresa.m.afrank@usace.army.mil AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MICHELLE

MANDEL AT michelle.r.mandel@usace.army.mil LISTED IN THE SOLICITATION. FOLLOW THE

PROPOSAL FORMAT OUTLINED IN PARAGRAPH 1.10.

1.10. PROPOSAL FORMAT

(a) Written materials: 8 ½” x 11” format, using 10 point or larger font size. Each volume will contain a Title Sheet on the cover for ready identification of the proposal and a full table of contents, separated by Tabs, as prescribed herein. Within each Tab, it is recommended that the proposal information be presented in the same relative format as the submission requirements are listed.

(i) The prime, consortium, or joint venture’s name, address, a signature of the official that can bind the firm and a telephone number and email address shall appear in the lower left corner of the title page of any document/volume to be evaluated.

(ii) Volume number, section, page number and date submitted shall appear in the bottom right corner of each page (along with the revision number for the amended page, if necessary). Page numbering shall re-start with each Tab. One (1) page is defined as the front of one (1) sheet; the front and back of one (1) sheet will be counted as two (2) pages. The Government will not evaluate any material exceeding the page limitations stated in the RFP.

(b) Drawing sheets: Use 11” x 17” for half size drawings.

(c) Electronic Format: Provide proposal in searchable, read-only format, preferably using .pdf files. All price breakdown information to aide in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Excel format.

(d) Number of copies: For Phase 1, submit one electronic copy via PIEE Solicitation Module as described in paragraph 1.9. For Phase 2, submit one electronic copy of proposal via PIEE Solicitation Module to be received no later than the date and time stated on the Standard Form (SF) 1442 or subsequent solicitation amendment. Phase 2 Proposal may be broken down into separate files as required due to size and format.

The successful contractor shall provide one (1) searchable, read only electronic (*.pdf) copy of the entire Volumes 1 and 2 and one (1) copy of all CADD files using AutoCAD Autodesk Civil 3D 2021.

1.11. JOINT VENTURE AND LLC PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

When proposing as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture shall sign the SF 1442 unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. In addition, a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

If this is an 8(a) or HUBZone joint venture, the offeror shall ensure that it complies with the applicable requirements of 13 CFR Part 124 and 13 CFR Part 126, respectively.

AM#02

AM#02

AM#02 AM#02

mailto:Theresa.m.afrank@usace.army.mil mailto:michelle.r.mandel@usace.army.mil

Section 00 22 10 W911KB22R0005

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 –PAST PERFORMANCE

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT

7.0 TAB D – FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

8.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

8.2 SOURCE SELECTION ADVISORY COUNSEL (SSAC)

8.3 EVALUATION

8.4 DEFINITIONS

8.5 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

8.6 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING AND PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENT

PHASE ONE – SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – OFFEROR CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN CAPABILITY

EXPERIENCE FORM

3 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

4 – 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 most highly qualified 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 (but not more than five (5) total) 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 PIEE Solicitation Module website at: https://piee.eb.mil/sol/xhtml/unauth/index.xhtml.

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, ”52.236-25 Requirements for Registration of Designers”. 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 electronic format. 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 Past Performance (Confidence Assessment)

Most Important Factor (slightly more important than Factor 2)

Tab C Factor 2 Organization & Management 2nd Most Important Factor (slightly less important than factor 1, slightly more important than factor 3)

Section 00 22 10 Page 3

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Tab D Factor 3 Technical Approach 3rd Most Important Factor (slightly less important than Factors 1 and 2)

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 - PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT)

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The prime contractor and designer of record design firms for civil, geotechnical, marine structural engineering, hydraulics and hydrology, electrical, utilities, mechanical (fuel distribution), coastal engineering and cathodic protection design shall each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects.

Design Past Performance Requirements

Submit no more than five (5) projects* total for the design firms and consultant, if applicable. Of those five (5)

– no more than three (3) projects for any individual design firm/consultant, and, one (1) design project must be from a marine structural designer. Design firms may list projects of prime contractors they have worked for or projects directly contracted with government, private or commercial customers. Projects submitted must be substantially complete**.

Construction Past Performance Requirements

Submit no more than five (5) projects* for the prime contractor (whether single entity or joint venture) that are substantially complete**. The offeror shall select the design firm(s). If projects were design-build, so identify them.

5.1.1 The offeror shall submit information for Design and Construction past performance that best demonstrates the offeror’s experience on projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement, as described in this solicitation. Note: To be considered, the project must have been completed by the offeror, i.e., not the offeror’s subcontractor. To be evaluated, each project must have been completed or must be substantially complete** by the offeror within ten (10) years of the date that proposals are due.

Section 00 22 10 Page 4

*A maximum of ten (10) projects (5 for Design and 5 for Construction) will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than the stated number of projects, only the first five (5) projects will be evaluated in each category. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess the projects against the evaluation criteria described in this solicitation.

**Substantially complete is defined as being 50% complete by the date that proposals are due (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed or completed and turned over within ten (10) years of date proposals are due). If an offeror submits a project that it represents as “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 50% complete. If an offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 50% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project.

5.1.2 Provide one (1) page consolidated list of submitted projects for prime contractor and design firms to include a matrix that identifies the Past Performance relevant experience and the firms that worked on each

(teaming). If needed, the consolidated list of submitted projects matrix may be submitted on one (1) 11” x 17” sheet.

5.1.3 For each project submitted, the offeror shall provide

A project description using “Offeror Experience Form” (Attachment 2). The offeror must address all items included on Attachment 2 (no more than 2 pages per project). The “Offeror Experience

Form” may also be used for consultants with waterfront development 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 requirements of this solicitation.

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, submit it with the proposal (No page limitation).

If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

(Attachment 3) for the project (No page limitation). Previously completed PPQ’s may be submitted however offerors are advised to ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the

Client point of contact. (Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is available).

o If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with proposal the first page of the PPQ, Offerors should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If

Section 00 22 10 Page 5 the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Theresa Afrank in email at Theresa.M.Afrank@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

Offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

o PPQs are source selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an email confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is the offeror’s responsibility to follow up to ensure the Government has received the information.

o Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other procurements. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

o Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

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 CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, 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), Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, 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.

5.1.4 Provide a supplemental narrative, not to exceed two (2) pages, to address the following that are applicable.

Describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described on the project experience forms.

Address how the team members worked together to achieve safety, quality and schedule compliance goals.

Identify specific projects.

Section 00 22 10 Page 6

5.1.5 A firm will not receive credit under this factor for past performance of key personnel proposed for this project. An offeror may receive credit for relevant experience under a previous business arrangement (ex. joint venture) if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the submitted project is relevant to their proposed role on this project. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm of the joint venture shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this requirement. 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.

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying design, construction, and/or design-build services that meet the contract’s requirements.

The evaluation method that the Government will use with respect to Factor 1 – Past Performance is detailed below.

5.2.1 There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

5.2.1.1 The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. For this solicitation, recent projects are those completed or substantially completed** (as defined above) within ten (10) years of the date that proposals are due.

5.2.1.2 The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the work required by this solicitation. The projects will include those submitted as well as from other sources described above. This relevancy rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more

Section 00 22 10 Page 7 influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description

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 Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude Relevant 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.

In determining the relevancy of each submitted project, the Government will consider the following:

• Design and/or Construction of non-cellular vertical-walled piers, wharves, seawalls, breakwaters and other marine structures to include utilities, cathodic protection, concrete paving, bull rails, shoreline protection, and demolition of damaged sheetpile sections.

• Experience in design and/or construction of marine structures in regions which are logistically challenging, remote, and subject to severe inclement weather climate of the type experienced in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. Location of work and similarity to the ASHRAE Zone 7 climate and remoteness of Shemya in the Aleutian Island chain. Similar climate includes coastal cold regions with frequesnt frequent storms, high winds and high seas.

• Extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience to this project, demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and experience with local conditions.

• Size, type and complexity.

• Firm's role and extent of work self-performed (brokering out all work and simply “pouring the sidewalks” on a cited project is an example of less relevant experience)

• Previous design-build experience would have more relevance

• Previous recent teaming experience among the team members may have more relevance

5.2.1.3 The third aspect of the past performance evaluation, quality, is to determine how well the offeror performed on its past performance projects. 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. The entity will be rated on its own performance. 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.

Section 00 22 10 Page 8

5.2.2 A final Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be given for this factor based on the assessment of recent and relevant past performance information and the assessment of the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts. The Government will review the past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one (1) of the ratings using the Table below.

Performance Confidence Assessments

RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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

Neutral Confidence

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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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

5.2.3 In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror may receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable; it is considered neutral (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). The SSAC (if applicable) may recommend and the

SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

5.2.4 For Past Performance related to Small Business, the Government will evaluate past performance of the offerors in complying with requirement of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns

(applicable to both small and large businesses), and FAR 52.219-9 (applicable to large businesses only), Small

Business Subcontracting Plan. The Government will evaluate how well the offeror has performed on achieving its small business subcontracting goals (applicable to large businesses only) in their compliance of FAR 52.219-9, utilizing electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) information. The Government may review other sources of information for the evaluation of past performance related to Small Business for all offerors (both small and large businesses), including PPQs submitted in response to this Request for Proposals, CPARS, and Federal

Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS).

Section 00 22 10 Page 9

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 - ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1. 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 or the organizational chart. One (1) 11” x 17” size sheet may be used for the organizational chart described in para 6.1.2. below.

6.1.2. 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 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, quality control systems manager, site safety health officer, design manager responsible for managing designers of record, the designers of record for civil, geotechnical, marine structural, coastal engineering / hydraulics/hydrology, electrical, mechanical (fuel distribution), and cathodic protection. 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.

6.1.3. 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 4) at the end of this section for project manager, general superintendent, quality control systems manager, site safety health officer, design quality control manager and the designers of record for civil, marine structural, geotechnical, electrical, mechanical (fuel distribution), cathodic protection and coastal engineering / hydraulics/hydrology . All designers of record must be registered in accordance with contract clause 52.236-25, Requirements for Registration of Designers.

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1. 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.

6.2.2. 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

Section 00 22 10 Page 10 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 United States and shall have at least 10 years of coastal structures design experience in regions of high seismic activity and climate similar to that experienced by Shemya, or similar island along the Aleutian Island chain or other areas with similar climate. The Geotechnical Engineer of Record may be a licensed Civil Engineer with a minimum of 10 years design experience in geotechnical engineering in the previously identified climate zone.

6.2.3. The minimum experience requirements for Project Manager are at least ten (10) years construction and construction management experience. The minimum experience requirements for the Design Quality Control manager are at least ten (10) years of design experience and be an engineer or architect licensed in the United States.

The Design Quality Control Manager can be the same person as the Project Manager.

6.2.4. The Quality Control System Managers is required to be a graduate engineer, graduate architect, or a graduate with a BS degree in construction management and have a minimum of (5) five years *can be greater than 5 years but not less* construction experience on construction similar to this Contract. In lieu of the education and experience requirements for the CQC System Manager, a candidate may qualify provided they have a minimum of 7 years *can be greater than 7 years but not less* of experience in construction quality control and are International

Code Council (ICC) certified as a Commercial Building Inspector on construction similar to this project. For

Military Family Housing projects, ICC Residential Building Inspector certification is required in lieu of the

Commercial Building Inspector certification.

6.2.5. The minimum experience requirement for the superintendent is at least ten (10) 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.

6.2.6. The Site Safety Health Officer’s minimum experience shall have all the qualifications listed in EM 385-1-

1 Section 1 and shall have a minimum of 5 years industry construction safety experience. The SSHO may not serve as the Quality Control System Manager or Superintendent.

7.0 TAB D – FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

7.1.1. 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.

7.1.2. 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, logistical

AM#02

AM#02

Section 00 22 10 Page 11 structural fill and dolosse that will be required, marine mammal observations, experience with equipment to be used for installing and socketing vertical steel pier members, and additional considerations relevant to this project.

Include a list of equipment needed at the project site required to complete the work. In Phase 2, the offeror will describe its design packaging plan for fast-tracking. That level of detail is not necessary in Phase 1.

7.1.3. 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.

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

7.2.1. 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.

7.2.2. Technical Approach for Design and Construction:

(a) Considerations for the design of a 50-year waterfront structure (vertical walled pier) in a high-energy wave climate.

(b) Methods for construction of a 50-year waterfront structure (vertical walled pier) in a high-energy wave climate, accounting for inclement weather delays, remote location, and logistical challenges.

7.2.3. 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 SECTION 00 73 00.00 29 paragraph 1.4.12 SCR-

DB120 “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.

8.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Section 00 22 10 Page 12

8.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

8.1.1. 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.

8.2. SOURCE SELECTION ADVISORY COUNSEL (SSAC)

8.2.1. SSAC will review the evaluation results of the SSEB and perform a comparative analysis of the proposals and make a recommendation for use by the Source Selection Advisor (SSA).

8.3. EVALUATION

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

Phase 1.

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

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

8.4. DEFINITIONS

8.4.1. 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.

8.4.2. Weakness

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

8.4.3. Significant Weakness

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

8.4.4. 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.

Section 00 22 10 Page 13

8.4.5. Significant Strength

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

8.4.6. 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.

8.4.7. 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.

8.5. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

8.5.1. 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.

8.5.2. 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.

8.5.3. 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 (if any) (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:

8.5.3.1. 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.

8.5.3.2. 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.

8.5.3.3. 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 10 Page 14

8.5.3.4. 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.

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

Section 00 22 20 W911KB22R0005

Section 00 22 20 Page 1

SECTION 00 22 20

PHASE 2 DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 STIPEND FOR UNSUCCESSFUL PHASE 2 OFFERORS

4.0 PHASE 2 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS AND ELEMENTS

5.0 VOLUME 1 – DESIGN TECHNICAL

5.1. GENERAL

5.2. VOLUME 1-TAB A –FACTOR 1 – PIER AND WESTERN SHORE REPAIR FUNCTIONAL

5.3. VOLUME 1-TAB B –FACTOR 2 – QUALITY OF PIER SYSTEMS AND MATERIALS

5.4. VOLUME 1-TAB C – FACTOR 3 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY

SCHEDULE

6.0 VOLUME 2 – EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES, PRICE AND PRO FORMA

INFORMATION

6.1 TAB A – FACTOR 4 – EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES

6.2 TAB B – FACTOR 5 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE)

6.3 TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

6.4 TAB D – SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

7.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1. GENERAL

7.2. DISCUSSIONS (IF NECESSARY)

PHASE TWO – SECTION 00 22 20 ATTACHMENTS

5 – EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES FORMAT

6 – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN FORMAT

Section 00 22 20 Page 2

1.0 OVERVIEW

The most highly qualified offerors selected in Phase 1 are invited to submit a Phase 2 proposal, as indicated below.

The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria described herein, using the evaluation rating systems outlined in the Phase 1 Design-Build selection procedures. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and for material unbalancing, as described herein. The Phase 2 evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and will utilize the Tradeoff Process described in FAR 15.101-1.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract to the responsible Phase 2 Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the non-price factors described herein, and price. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price, however, the Contract award may not exceed the cost limitation described in Section 00 21 00 for this project. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within the cost limitation. There is no obligation to approach or match the cost limitation in the offer. 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. 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 Contracting

Officer/Source Selection (SSA) Official must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal (within the cost limitation) would justify award to that Offeror.

2.1. As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate betterments in proposals relative to the minimum standards in the RFP to determine if they offer additional value to the Government.