W911QY-25-R-0003RFP amendment 0003 04 June 2025.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to update the contracting off icer, and capture the extension of the proposal due date in all fields from amendment 0002. This amendment updates the Proposal Submission Instructions to change the Contracting Officer and adds the Contracting Specialist for proposal submission. FAR Clause 52.232-2 has been updated to reflect the current Contracting Officer.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Jun-2025

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 W911QY25R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-May-2025

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

04-Jun-2025

CODE

W6QK ACC-APG NATICK

CONTRACTING DIVISION

BLDG 1 GENERAL GREENE AVENUE

NATICK MA 01760-5011

W911QY 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911QY25R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

Instructions, Conditions & Notices to Offerors

GENERAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS:

These instructions prescribe the format of proposals and describe the approach for the development and presentation of the proposal data. They are designed to ensure the submission of all information necessary for the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of proposals. Carefully review this section prior to commencing proposal preparation. In order for proposals to receive full consideration for award, Offerors shall ensure that the information furnished in support of the proposal is factual, accurate, and complete.

Offerors are cautioned to strictly comply with all instructions within this solicitation to ensure submission of a complete proposal. Failure to furnish a complete proposal at the time of proposal submission may result in the proposal being unacceptable to the Government and elimination from consideration for award. All solicitation amendments must be acknowledged in accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1 and Instructions to Offerors.

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Each volume shall be submitted electronically via email. Proposals will be due by 05:00 PM ET on 20 June 2025, via email to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Brandon Rivett, at brandon.j.rivett.civ@army.mil and the Contracting Specialist (CS), Alexandra Biro alexandra.m.biro2.civ@army.mil. Government Enterprise Email can accept email sized up to 15 MB. Any portion of the proposal that is changed (because of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated, dated, and submitted in accordance with the Government’s instructions for resubmission.

b. Each paragraph should be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Times New Roman font is required. Tables and Illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than Times New Roman 10 point. Each page shall be identified with the appropriate page number at the bottom of the page. Page size shall be 8 ½ inches x 11 inches. If drawings, charts or other graphics are submitted, sheets no larger than 11 inches x 17 inches can be used. All 11 x 17 sheets will be counted as two 8 ½ x 11 pages.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Title Digital

Copies Page Limit Filename

I Technical 1 20 TECHNICAL

II Past Performance 1 No page limit PASTPERF

III Cost – Seed Project 1 No page limit COST

IV Administrative 1 No page limit ADMIN

Volumes I, II, and IV will be DEVOID of any proposal cost information. Each volume will be a stand-alone document and will clearly and completely describe the effort that the offeror is proposing to accomplish under the contract. The offeror will clearly state how it intends to meet the requirements. Mere acknowledgment or restatement ("parroting") of a requirement or task is not acceptable. The information contained in each proposal will be presented in a clear, coherent and concise manner. Vague statements such as “will comply”, “noted” and understood”, etc. are not acceptable. The proposal will be limited to the information that is necessary to convey a point and will not be overly elaborate.

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

2. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer.

A Table of Contents will be included and PDF files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file using WinZip version 6.2 or later. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files that are searchable. All price breakdown information to aide in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007 or later. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

The naming convention for each volume file will state the company name, followed by the proposal volume.

Example, "Company ABC: Volume I – Technical.pdf"

c. Content Requirement.

All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, a Glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each, a Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Table of Contents and

Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. A project schedule for the Seed Project may be included as a separate attachment to Volume I and will not count against the page limit for that Volume.

The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

(i) VOLUME I – Technical, Factor 1.

The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Sub- Factor 1 – Management Approach.

Project Management:

The Offeror shall describe its company structure and its experience managing requirements similar to those described in the PWS. Offeror shall detail its systems to assess cost/schedule/performance; for developing responses to Task Order Requests; and for ensuring on-going projects maintain cost/schedule/performance milestones.

Offerors are cautioned that resulting task orders require a minimum of 15% of the work to be self-performed in accordance with LIMITATIONS OF SUBCONTRACTING 52.219-14. Firms must be capable of performing at least the minimum. While FAR Clause 52.219-14 permits performance by the offeror or a subcontractor that is a similarly situated entity, the contracts that result from this solicitation are not intended for construction management firms.

At a minimum, the Offeror shall describe in detail:

the type of work its firm can perform its plan for managing subcontract performance, acquisition of materials, contract execution and administration.

its plan for performing a minimum of 15% of the work itself in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-14, Limitations of Subcontracting.

its available resources in personnel, construction plant and equipment to self-perform work under individual task orders.

its available resources and capabilities to manage multiple projects through adequate and qualified on-site staffing to support at least three (3) task orders concurrently with other on-going or new work.

Quality Control:

Offeror shall discuss how quality issues will be addressed on various types of construction projects. Include, as a minimum, plans for meetings, inspections, submittal reviews, correction of non-compliant work, systems to ensure quality problems are reported to Government officials, and methods to ensure quality problems do not recur.

Describe how the quality of subcontractors will be monitored. Discuss your procedures for contract closeout (punch list, as-builts, etc.).

Seed Project Management – Key Personnel:

Offerors shall identify the principal program personnel with their areas of responsibility and relationship with the management structure and recent experience in similar projects. Principal program personnel are defined as, but not limited to, Program Manager, Project Manager, Site Superintendent, and Quality Control System Manager. Offeror shall provide key personnel resume information that includes as a minimum, the following:

Name and Title Specific assignment on this project Name of Firm (If different from Offeror) Number of years with this firm/with other firms Education degree(s)/year/specialization Active registration (if applicable): number/state/year Specific experience, including dates, and qualifications relevant/similar to this project.

Offerors are encouraged to provide descriptive analysis of why their proposed personnel meet the criteria for principal program personnel experience.

(2) Section 2 – Subfactor 2 – Technical Capability.

Relevant Corporate Experience:

Offeror shall provide a narrative overview of their company’s prior contractual experience performing tasks in the following fields as described within the Performance Work Statement (PWS): architectural, environmental, structural engineering, civil engineering, communications systems, security, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire protection, instrumentation, acoustics, and HVAC.

Seed Project Technical Proposal:

Offeror shall provide a separate narrative that describes how it proposes to accomplish the Seed Project described at RFP Attachment 3. The estimated price range of the Seed Project is between $1,000,000.00 and $5,000,000.00.

Offeror shall include a construction project schedule that demonstrates its capability to perform the contractual requirements of the seed project within the 270-day period of performance. At a minimum, offeror shall detail manpower and work hours during the 270-day period of performance, milestone actions to be performed to meet schedule, and all lead times and sequencing of major disciplines/operations. The project schedule may be submitted in Microsoft Project. The project schedule shall describe the Critical Path to project completion.

Offerors shall provide evidence of the following MA State Licenses/Certificates that are required to perform the seed project: Sheet Metal Installer’s Certification, Electrician, Plumber’s & Gas Fitter, and Confined Space Certification. Failure to possess all certifications will result in an “unacceptable” technical factor rating and elimination from the award competition.

Offeror shall identify those portions of the project that will be performed by the offeror and those to be performed by a subcontractor(s) and shall indicate whether the subcontractor is a similarly situated entity as defined by FAR clause 52.219-14, LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING. Without disclosing its price in this Volume, offerors shall identify the percentage of its proposed price, excluding the cost of materials, that will be self-performed;

performed by subcontractors that are similarly situated entities; performed by subcontractors that do not qualify as similarly situated entities.

(ii) VOLUME II – Past Performance Factor 2.

This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts as described below.

Offerors shall submit past performance information regarding relevant construction projects completed (maximum of 3 projects) in the last five (5) years, to include current projects that are 70% or more complete. Relevant projects are those that are similar in cost/magnitude, scope, contract type and complexity to the project requirements being solicited under this Request for Proposal. All contracts terminated for cause in whole or in part during the past five

(5) years, to include those currently in the process of termination are considered relevant; therefore, the offer will provide past performance information for those contracts.

The Offeror will submit with its proposal the applicable subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner letter(s) of consent allowing the Government to disclose the past performance to the Offeror during negotiations.

This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

(a) Offeror’s role as a Contractor/Subcontractor, place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of

Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

(b) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and

Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers. For non-government contracts where this information is not applicable, similar information must be provided to clearly identify submission.

(2) Section 2 – Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contracts listed in Section 1. At a minimum, the narrative shall describe:

(a) Contract Description: describe the objectives achieved and detail how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP.

(b) The actual completion dates of the construction projects and the required completion dates under the terms of the applicable contract. For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, the Offeror shall provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcoming and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence including management of subcontractors. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

(c) Any work-related injuries and illnesses reportable on either OSHA Form 300 or 300A.

(3) Section 3 – Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract (POCs). The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and to e-mail the entire questionnaire no later than the proposal due date to the Contracting Officer,. The offeror shall e-mail to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number;

POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail was sent to the POC. The Offeror or subcontractor shall not review the completed Past Performance Questionnaire prior to submission. The completed questionnaire shall be submitted by the POC directly to the Contracting Officer.

(iii) VOLUME III – Cost Proposal – Seed Project Factor 3.

The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Seed Project Cost Proposal. Offeror shall fill out and submit the Cost Proposal for the Seed Project included at RFP Attachment 2, which will be the only cost information provided. Offerors shall provide a complete cost breakout to include all disciplines required to complete the intended seed project. The breakout shall be by division and shall include labor, labor hours, material breakout. All indirect rates, profit and any additional expenses (bonds, etc.) also shall be included. Note: the pricing associated with SF1442 block number 17 and each of the item numbers on the SF1442 (i.e. 0001-0005) do NOT need to be filled out as these will remain unpriced.

(2) Compliance. Failure to provide cost information will render the proposal unacceptable and the

Offeror will be ineligible for an IDIQ contract award. Offerors shall ensure that the information presented in this volume is consistent and correlates with the information contained in the other proposal volumes.

(3) General Instructions. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.402 and 15.403-

1, certified cost or pricing data are not required because adequate price competition is expected for this procurement.

If after receipt of proposals the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions at FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to submit cost or pricing data. In the event that adequate competition is not obtained, the Contracting Officer may incorporate FAR 52.215-20 entitled, “Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data,” into the solicitation and request a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data.

(a) BONDS. In accordance with FAR 28.102-1 and FAR Clause 52.228-15, Contractors are reminded that task orders awarded in an amount greater than $150,000 require both Payment and Performance Bonds. All bonds are due no later than 10 days after award. Offerors shall provide a letter from their surety company, stating the Offeror's annual bonding capacity. To be eligible for award the Offeror must demonstrate a minimum annual bonding capacity of $5M. Bonding may be obtained from a surety listed in the Department of the Treasury Circular 570 list of certified surety companies (http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html) or other security permitted by FAR Subpart 28.2, unless prohibited by law or regulation. In the case of joint ventures, the bonding capacity shall be for the joint venture entity and not for the individual partners.

(b) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. FAR Clause 52.211-12, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES does not apply to the resulting Seed Project task order.

(c) CONSTRUCTION. FAR Clause 52.246-21, WARRANTY OF CONSTRUCTION, does apply to the resulting Seed Project task order.

(d) WAGE DETERMINATION. Currently, General Decision Number MA20250001 dated

04/04/2025 applies to this project and its resulting task order. Attachment 5. (https://sam.gov/wage-determination/MA20250001/5)

(e) SUBCONTRACTING. The Offeror shall illustrate its calculation of the percentage of its proposed price, excluding the cost of materials that will be self-performed; performed by subcontractors that are similarly situated entities, as defined by FAR clause 52.219-14, LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING; and performed by subcontractors that do not qualify as similarly situated entities.

(iv) VOLUME IV – ADMINISTRATIVE.

This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Executive Summary. This section shall include:

(a) Master Index: A master index that identifies the location of all major topics provided in each volume.

(b) Statement of Compliance: Each offer will include a statement indicating complete compliance with the solicitation in the administrative volume, or detailed analysis of any objections, exceptions, contingencies, or additions.

(c) Authorized Negotiators: Offerors will provide a list of authorized negotiators with their position title and phone/email contact information.

(d) Company Points of Contact (POCs). The Offeror will provide company POCs, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) POCs, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, Unique Entity Identification (UEI) number and TIN for prime and subcontractors.

(2) Section 2 – Solicitation Documents.

Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1442 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Blocks 14-20 – Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442), Solicitation, Offer and Award

Contract Administration Data Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME IV – ADMINISTRATIVE.

(3) Section 3 – Signed Teaming Agreements.

If applicable, the offeror will provide a copy of all pages of signed teaming agreements with subcontractors or other partners. The agreement should outline the type of work, complexity and approximate percentage level of work assigned to the subcontractor. Also, it must identify the subcontractor’s POC with the address, phone, email and CAGE for verification.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost. The relative importance of these factors are as follows: the Technical and Past Performance factors are considered equivalent in importance to each other. The Cost factor is less important than Technical factor and the Past Performance factors, individually. When combined, the Technical and Past Performance factors are significantly more important than cost. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the technical factor (to include all subfactors) and a rating of “Neutral Confidence” must be achieved for the performance confidence assessment. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost proposals.

C. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the cost/price associated with the Seed Project factor in the event that the Technical and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

1. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL. The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 - Management Approach

b. Subfactor 2 - Technical Capability

Both Subfactors are of equivalent importance.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical subfactor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph D of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

2. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE. Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy, and quality to assign a performance confidence assessment.

3. FACTOR 3: COST PROPOSAL – SEED PROJECT. While the Seed project is a separate contractual action from issuance of the individual MATOC awards, it is being evaluated in conjunction with the other evaluation criteria outlined in this Section to help determine the overall capabilities of prospective offerors.

The resulting task order award will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and will be issued to the offer that represents the overall best value to the Government, with price being the deciding factor between otherwise equivalent proposals.

Reasonableness of the offer will be evaluated.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will provide a detailed evaluation and assign a combined technical/risk rating for Factor I, Technical Capability. Factor II, the Past Performance factor, will receive only a performance confidence assessment. The Cost Proposal, Factor III, will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer for fair and reasonableness. The cost proposal will not be given an adjectival or risk rating. The SSEB will rate each factor by consensus for each proposal submitted and will prepare initial and final reports. If consensus is not obtainable, a minority report prepared and signed by the dissenting evaluators will be presented to the Contracting Officer for consideration.

The Government will document the evaluation by providing a narrative discussion of the evaluation of each proposal in terms of the evaluation criteria and proposed strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies. This narrative discussion will be incorporated into a report, which will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA)/Contracting Officer to assist in the competitive range determination/award decision. If a competitive range is established, and to the extent deemed necessary at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer, written Evaluation Notices (EN) will be issued to remaining offerors to further investigate any weaknesses, deficiencies, or other subjects identified by the technical panel as germane to the evaluation process. These ENs are considered exchanges/discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). The Contracting Officer also may issue ENs relating to any matter that requires written revisions to a proposal for which a binding agreement is required/desired. The technical panel will be responsible for briefing the Contracting Officer at all steps of the evaluation process. The technical panel will provide its report to the SSA/Contracting Officer for a final briefing, if necessary.

1. FACTOR I: TECHNICAL.

The evaluation of each Technical Proposal will assess the ability of the Offeror to effectively manage and perform multi-discipline construction projects, as described in the Offeror's proposal. The Government will determine, based on the information provided, if the Offeror has demonstrated the ability to perform complete project management and execution of the work for construction projects contemplated by the RFP. The overarching evaluation approach for the technical factor and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

c. Sub-Factor 1 – Management Approach.

This subfactor will receive a combined Technical/Risk rating as defined in Table 1 and Table 2, below. Each Key Point will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies.

(i) Project Management

The Government will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the Offeror’s organization, systems and plans for responding to task order requirements, estimating, submitting and negotiating proposals, for completing construction (new construction, alterations, or repairs), for managing subcontractors, capability and commitment to self-perform the required percentage of work, and the capacity to successfully accomplish the task orders along with other ongoing work, and multiple task orders, all in a timely manner.

(ii) Quality Control

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to address and resolve quality control issues, its procedures for contract closeout (punch list, as-builts, etc.), its ability to monitor subcontractor's quality, and its ability to ensure non-recurrence and reporting of quality problems to Government officials.

(iii) Seed Project Management – Key Personnel

The Government will review the key personnel provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate the recent experience of the key personnel in similar projects. Resumes will be evaluated for qualifications and relevant technical experience to this project. The key personnel example projects should closely resemble the Seed Project identified in this solicitation.

d. Subfactor 2 – Technical Capability.

This subfactor will receive a combined Technical/Risk rating as defined in Table 1 and Table 2, below. Each Key Point will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies.

(i) Relevant Corporate Experience

The Government will review the projects provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate recent, relevant, and specialized experience of the Offeror in the fields described within the Performance Work Statement (PWS):

architectural, environmental, structural engineering, civil engineering, communications systems, security, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire protection, instrumentation, acoustics, and HVAC. The evaluators will consider the Offeror’s relevant experience and determine the level of risk this presents to the Government.

(ii) Seed Project Proposal

The adequacy of the Offeror’s response and feasibility of its technical approach to accomplishing the Seed Project will be evaluated to ensure the offeror can meet all the requirements of the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to successfully manage the project to completion within the 270-day period of performance. The following elements will be assessed for strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies:

the Offeror’s construction project the manpower and work hours proposed;

milestone actions to be performed to meet schedule, and lead times and sequencing of major disciplines/operations.

The Government will evaluate the evidence the Offeror provided to demonstrate its compliance with the following MA State Licenses/Certificates: Sheet Metal Installer’s Certification, Electrician, Plumber & Gas Fitter, and Confined Space Certification. Failure to possess all certifications will result in an “unacceptable” technical factor rating. The certification requirement may be satisfied by the offeror, subcontractor or teaming partner that performs the specific work that requires a license.

The Government will evaluate the percentage of the project that will be self-performed by the offeror;

subcontractor(s) that are similarly situated entities as defined by FAR clause 52.219-14, LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING; and subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Offerors who propose paying more than 85 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities are not eligible for award. A higher percentage of self-performance by an offeror or by subcontractors that are similarly situated entities may result in a strength during evaluation.

d. Methodology.

In accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Section 3.1, the methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Adjectival ratings will be assigned based on overall Combined Technical/Risk Rating as follows:

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is not awardable.

TABLE 2 – RISK DESCRIPTIONS

Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Significant Strength: is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength: is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of contract performance. See FAR 15.001 Definitions.

Significant Weakness: is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: is 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. See FAR 15.001 Definitions.

Uncertainty: is any aspect of a non-price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

2. FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS and the Seed Project.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation and Seed Project requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. For the purposes of this evaluation, major subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners are those proposed to perform 30% or more of the Seed Project based on the total proposed price of that project. In addition, offerors may elect to include such information if the subcontractor or partner is expected to perform aspects of the Seed Project that the Offeror considers critical to overall successful performance.

c. The past performance evaluation will consider each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in performing construction services that meet the contract requirements. The Government will evaluate three aspects: recency, relevancy, and quality.

(i) RECENCY: The Government will evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance.

Recency is the 5-year period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The Government will evaluate how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 3) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value/magnitude, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The Government will assess the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: The Government will assign an appropriate confidence level for each Offeror in accordance with the Performance Confidence Assessment criteria in Table 4, below. The Government will document the rationale for its conclusions within its evaluation.

TABLE 4 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Definition

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 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.

3. FACTOR III – Cost: Seed Project.

The Government will evaluate price in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1), and by using one or more price analysis techniques identified in FAR Subpart 15.404-1 to ensure that prices are fair and reasonable. Adequate price competition alone may establish reasonableness. The total evaluated prices for seed project will be the price used in the Government’s “best value” trade-off to select the awardee for this IDIQ. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

The Government will evaluate the Offerors ability to satisfy a minimum bonding capacity of $5M from a surety listed in the Department of the Treasury Circular 570 list of certified surety companies (http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html) or other security permitted by FAR Subpart 28.2.

The Contracting Officer may request information to determine the reasonableness of proposed prices of competing Offerors. This additional information may include, but is not limited to, indirect rates, material, labor and any other information that can substantiate the reasonableness of a proposed price. If applicable, a Certificate of Current Cost and Price will be requested at time of award.

The proposals will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the technical and management approaches can be accomplished at the cost/price proposed.

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract(s) without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR Subpart 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.306(a)(2), if award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors shall be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals, e.g., the relevance of an Offeror's Past Performance information and adverse Past Performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, or to resolve minor clerical errors.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING.

If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least two (2) business days prior to their discussion session. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place via Microsoft Teams and will be scheduled jointly by the Government and offeror.

SECTION 00 45 00 - REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEP 2006)

(a) Protests, as defined in section 33.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from

Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground Natick Contracting Division Attn: Brandon Rivett 10 General Greene Avenue Natick, MA 01760

(b) The copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one day of filing a protest with the GAO.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)