AR_OSUT_2_SOW_Oscar_5_,_wdr,_18Jun19.pdf

No footer

82nd Airborne Road

SCOPE OF WORK

MORRIS RANGE – OSCAR 05

FORT BENNING, GEORGIA

15 FEBRUARY 2019

Project Number:

Building Number:

Period of Performance: 300 Days Job Walk:

Proposals Due:

Bid Process: Requirements Contract

DESCRIPTION OF WORK:

Furnish all labor, equipment, incidentals; supervision and transportation for work necessary to upgrade the firing line and provide other improvements to the range.

. The project consists of the following:

1. Provide soil erosion plan and NOI as required by Ga DNR and install all required BMP’s.

2. Strip topsoil from areas to be regraded and stockpile for spreading on finished grade before grassing.

3. Excavate cuts and place compacted fill in the areas shown on the plans. New grades should be within 0.10 feet of the new contours shown.

4. Provide exact location and alignment of firing positions.

5. Place a 6-inch thick concrete pad 12-ft x 15-ft at the 15 firing points constructed in accordance with the details shown.

6. Place a 6-inch thick concrete pad 29.53 x 3.28-ft (9 Meter x 1 Meter) at the

15 lanes.

7. Place 2500 SY (approximate) of compacted GAB 6-inches thick as shown on the access land behind the firing line. Grade access lane and associated ditches to drain.

8. Contours are from the 2014 LIDAR. Contractor shall survey to verify accuracy of existing contours to assure that the new grading plan is adequate.

9. Install earth filled barriers between each lane as shown on the site plan.

Earth filled barrier basis of design is HESCO Barriers. Two MIL 10 Barriers on bottom and One MIL 10 Barrier on top.

10. Target locations are to be surveyed and field located in accordance with Huntsville Corps of Engineers PQC-C range design.

11. Site plan is based off of Huntsville COE PQC-C range design in the Huntsville range design guide.

1. GENERAL:

a. Unless otherwise specified, follow GDOT Standard Specifications Construction of Transportation Systems (Current Edition).

b. Construction to be per Ft. Benning Environmental Protection Requirements, Section 01560.

c. Follow all requirements in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices

(MUTCD).

d. Construction to be per Ft. Benning Material Requirements, Construction Products.

e. Construction to be per DOD criteria, Army criteria, Ft. Benning criteria, Uniform Building Code, NFPA, Life Safety Code, and local requirements, codes, and restrictions.

f. Access to the site shall be coordinated with the DPW Engineering office.

2. CIVIL WORK:

a. (SEE DESCRIPTION OF WORK ABOVE)

3. DESIGN AND ENGINEERING:

This SOW with identified sketches represents the design documents for bidding/proposal.

a. All work shall be in accordance with all applicable codes and standards including but not limited to:

i. International Building Code 2006 edition.

ii. National Electrical Code.

iii. National Fire Protection Agency requirements.

iv. Installation Design Guide.

v. Physical Security Regulation ZR190-17.

vi. TM 111 Guidance provided in Fort Benning Environmental Considerations as listed on the projects FB-144R.

vii. United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Force Protection Program (FPP); United Facilities Criteria (UFC) for buildings.

viii. ASHRAE Standards.

ix. NFPA 780 – Lightning Protection Guidelines.

b. Upon completion, the Contractor shall submit a complete set of as-build drawings (both electronically and hard copy).

4. PREPARATION:

Contractor shall be responsible for field/site visit to obtain and verify measurements, site conditions, and to determine correct site conditions, dimensions, and structural support requirements IAW accepted local, state, and federal building practices. All drawings provided to the Contractor are for reference/information only and may or may not be current or to scale. The Contractor shall provide any/all deviations to accepted local, state, and federal building practices/codes to the attention of the Construction Inspector and Contracting Officers Representative for review/consideration by the government.

The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining utility spotting/location and permits that may be required by Environmental Considerations FB-144R.

5. DISPOSAL OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE:

The Contractor shall be responsible for removing and disposal of all debris created by this project IAW local, state, and federal guidelines and laws. The Contractor shall dispose of all debris created by this project in Georgia/Alabama approved Landfill at the Contractor’s expense. The Contractor shall maintain and provide upon request by the CO or the designated representative that construction debris from this contract has been disposed of IAW local, state, and federal guidelines and laws.

6. SAFETY:

The Contractor shall comply with all governing codes and standards. The Contractor shall comply with Fort Benning Safety and Environmental laws and regulations. The Contractor shall perform all work IAW government procedures for entering and working at Fort Benning. The government reserves the right to stop work at any time for safety, security reasons, and for national defense at no cost to the government.

7. ACCESSIBILITY TO WORK SITE:

Monday-Friday, 0800 to 1730, excluding Federal Holidays or as approved by CO.

8. DAILY HOUSEKEEPING:

The Contractor shall keep work area clean and remove all unneeded construction debris daily and/or as directed by the Construction Inspector.

9. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS:

a. Schedule

b. Compaction Test Reports

c. Concrete Testing Reports

d. Soil erosion plan

SOLICITATION/PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

Section L - Evaluation Factors for Award

L.1. Introduction and Administration.

L.1.1. Offerors shall demonstrate their capability, understanding, and willingness to satisfactorily perform all requirements as described in the Basic MAIDIQ SOW located in Attachment 1 of this solicitation. Capabilities may be established within either the Offeror’s corporate structure or through contractor teaming arrangements. The proposal shall be valid for one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days from date of initial proposal submission.

L.1.2. The offeror’s written proposal shall be organized as stated in paragraph

L.3.below.

L.1.3. Complete proposals dates are TBD by MICC. The date and time specified reflects the closing of the solicitation. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the entire proposal is submitted prior to the proposal due date and time. Failure of an Offeror to submit its proposal by the date and time deadline or in the manner specified in the solicitation may result in a determination that an Offeror is ineligible to be considered for award. Proposals will be handled IAW FAR 15.207. All late proposals will be handled IAW FAR 15.208.

L.1.4. Proposals shall be submitted in hard copy and on CD ROMs, in the formats and quantities noted below, to the address listed below. Email and/or Facsimile submissions will not be accepted.

MICC-Fort Benning Attn: Mr. Jackie Peacock Solicitation No.: W911SF-18-R-0022, Meloy Drive, Building 6, Suite 250 Fort Benning, Georgia 31905

L.1.5 The point of contact (POC) responsible for supplying additional information and answering all inquiries is the Contracting Officer via the Contract Specialist. Address all questions or concerns the offeror may have to the Contract Specialist, Jackie Peacock (jackie.d.peacock.civ@mail.mil) and Contracting Officer, Angela Triplett (angela.m.triplett.civ@mail.mil). All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing via email. The email shall contain the solicitation number in the subject line. Date for questions/inquiries TBD by MICC. All questions received before the question due date will be responded to online via the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) as an amendment to the solicitation. Answers shall be posted without Offeror identification. Questions received after the deadline may not be answered. The Government will not provide responses to questions that would reveal a potential Offeror’s confidential business strategy, technical solution, or any information that is considered unique to a particular Offeror.

L.1.6. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements. Proposals shall clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the entire requirement and associated risks, have the resources necessary to meet the requirement, and a valid and practical solution for the requirement. Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with the requirements, and statements paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information/narrative are considered inadequate and unsatisfactory. Mere reiteration of the requirement or standard reference material is discouraged and is considered inadequate and unsatisfactory. The Offeror shall include any data necessary to illustrate the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems.

L.1.7. If the offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, the offeror shall clearly identify the applicable Volume and exceptions with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken, what benefit accrues to the Government (if any), and its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Offerors are cautioned that taking an exception may render the offer ineligible for award. This information shall be provided in the format below.

L.1.8. If the Offeror’s proposal indicates that: it cannot or will not meet any of the

SOW requirements; provides an approach that clearly does not meet any of the SOW requirements; or, includes data which prompts the Government to question the Offeror's compliance with any of the SOW requirements. Then the Government may determine the proposal is non-responsive, and therefore ineligible for award.

L.1.9. Any data previously submitted in response to another solicitation, request for information, or sources sought notice, should be considered as unavailable during this proposal evaluation and source selection process.

L.1.10. Information beyond what is sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are neither necessary nor desired.

L.1.11. The Offer. The submission of the documentation specified below will constitute the offeror's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the RFP, concurrence with the Performance Work Statement, and contract type.

Solicitation Document

Page/Paragraph Requirement/Portion Rationale & Impact

Section B, SOW, Section L&M, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe the rationale and impact of the exception

L.1.12. It is the Government’s intention to award without discussions. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. In accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 15.306, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and offerors notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR Part 15.306 (c)(2).

L.1.13. Debriefings. If a competitive range is established, the Contracting Officer will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon the offeror may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR

15.505. The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful offerors who were included in the competitive range, but not selected for award in accordance with FAR 15.503(b).

Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing.

Offerors desiring debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

L.1.14. Proposals shall not contain classified information.

L.1.15. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, an ambiguity, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing at the email address identified above and shall provide supporting rationale for its assessment.

L.1.16 All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the FedBizOpps web site at http://www.fedbizopps.gov.

L.1.17. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the

Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

L.2. Site Visit. The Government will hold a site visit at the Mission and Installation Contracting Office (MICC) at Fort Benning, GA at Bldg 6, 2nd Floor suite 250, 6650 Meloy Drive, Fort Benning, GA 31905-1339. Date TBD by MICC. All interested firms may attend with a limit of two (2) attendees per firm. Please submit, in writing, the names of attendees to the point of contact shown on the Standard Form 1442 via the e-mail address shown on Page 3 & 82 no later than May 3 2019. When e-mailing about this solicitation, include W911SF-18-R-0022 – Fort Benning Construction MAIDIQ (in this format) in the subject line. There will be a Pre-Proposal Conference held at the beginning of the site visit; technical questions will be addressed during the course of the site visit. If the Government responses to technical questions affect the Statement of Work or any other portion of the solicitation, then an amendment of solicitation will be issued. The Government requests all questions to be submitted in writing.

L.3. Proposal Preparation Instructions.

L.3.1. The offeror’s proposal shall consist of four (4) separate volumes:

L.3.2. Proposal Format.

(a) Offerors shall submit an original of its proposal in the formats and quantities identified herein.

(b) Digital copies on CD-ROM Disk shall be provided in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and/or Excel and shall adhere to all proposal preparation instructions with the exception of the requirement for three ring binders.

(c) Hard Copies of each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring loose leaf binder which shall permit the volume to lie flat when open.

(d) Each volume shall have a cover sheet clearly marked as to volume number, title, solicitation identification and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All text shall be single spaced. Printing shall be easily readable (12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing). File names should be “Company Name – Initial” for the first submission. File name of later submissions (if

VOLUME TITLE PAGE

LIMITS

(CD

ROM)

HARD

COPY

I Technical Acceptability (Factor 1)

Tab A, Construction Experience (Subfactor 1) Tab B, Design/Build Experience (Subfactor 2) Tab C, Management Approach (Subfactor 3) Tab D, Seed Project Response (Subfactor 4) Tab E, Bonding Capacity (Subfactor 5)

1 1

II Past Performance (Factor 2) 15 1 1 III Price (Factor 3)

N/A 1 1

IV General

Tab A-Exceptions/Assumptions Tab B-Standard Form (SF1442) Tab C-Section K (Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors) Tab D-Organizational and Consultant Conflict of Interest Tab E-Offeror Points of Contact and Other Information

N/A 1 1 necessary), shall be “Company Name – Revision X’ with X indicating the number of the revision.

(e) Indexing. Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. This Index is for informational purposes only and will not be evaluated.

(f) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with a definition for each. This glossary is for informational purposes only and will not be evaluated.

(g) Cross-Reference Matrix. Each volume shall contain a cross-reference matrix to assure that all requirements are addressed and easily accessible to the evaluators. The cross reference matrix shall provide a single integrated index for the entire proposal.

This matrix format shall cross-reference the proposal volumes and proposal paragraphs to the applicable Factor/Subfactors and SOW paragraph/RFP requirements. The format of the cross-reference matrix shall be identical for all volumes. This matrix is for informational purposes only and will not be evaluated.

(h) The proposal shall not exceed the page limits stated above. If the page limits are exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit will be not be read nor evaluated. If discussions become necessary, page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors.

(i) Page limitations includes all appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc.

(j) Page Limits do not include covers for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, cross reference indices, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Pages will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.

(k) A page shall be an 8 ½ X 11” sheet of paper. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Letter size and spacing requirements for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the offeror but must be easily readable. The documents will be formatted in a standard business font (Arial, Times New Roman, Courier New) with a 12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing font and single spaced. The offeror will not utilize compressed spacing. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾ inch side margins. The contractor shall number each page in the standard (1 of 2) format order to eliminate any confusion. In the event contractor creates an ambiguity in their numbering of pages, the Government shall exercise its own discretion relating to the page count.

L.4. VOLUME 1: FACTOR 1 - Technical Acceptability. Construction Experience (Subfactor 1), Design/Build Experience (Subfactor 2), Management Approach (Subfactor 3), Seed Project Response Subfactor 4), and Bonding Capacity (Subfactor 5).

This volume provides Offerors with an opportunity to demonstrate their construction experience, design/build experience, management approach, seed project response, and bonding capacity to meeting the solicitation requirements. It shall be prepared in a format consistent with the SOW and the evaluation criteria in Section M of the solicitation. The offeror’s Technical Approach shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology it will use. It shall demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the requirement and ability to successfully perform future task orders. It shall be of sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the Offeror’s Technical Acceptability. The proposal shall cover the entire five year ordering period. This volume shall be organized as follows:

L.4.1. TAB A: SUBFACTOR 1 – Construction Experience.

The offerors shall describe experience strategies and solutions to meet the capabilities require for this acquisition for the following general project categories:

Construction, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, architectural, repair and alternation of various facilities, and minor construction and real property maintenance, remodel, and repair which includes but is not limited to the following: (a) Foundation and Site Work, (b) Concrete Construction, (c) Masonry Construction,

(d) Metals, (e) Carpentry, (f) Thermal/Moisture Protection, (g) Earthwork, (h) Curtain Walls, Doors, Windows, Glass, (i) Finished Materials, (j). Fencing Communications, (k) Elevators/Conveying Systems, (l) Mechanical/Electrical,

(m) Demolition and Removal, and (n) Roads/Paving.

L.4.2. TAB B: SUBFACTOR 2 – Design/Build Experience.

The offerors shall describe their design-build capabilities by providing written evidence of the job qualifications and experience of their architectural/engineering design personnel proposed for this contract. The offeror shall also describe the proposed internal design quality control processes, and the ability to manage multiple design-build projects simultaneously. Demonstration of capabilities will includes but is not limited to the following: (a) Foundation and Site Work, (b) Concrete Construction, (c) Masonry Construction, (d) Metals, (e) Carpentry, (f) Thermal/Moisture Protection, (g) Earthwork, (h) Curtain Walls, Doors, Windows, Glass, (i) Finished Materials, (j). Fencing Communications, (k) Elevators/Conveying Systems, (l) Mechanical/Electrical, (m) Demolition and Removal, and (n) Roads/Paving.

L.4.3. TAB C: SUBFACTOR 3 - Management Approach.

The offeror shall provide their proposed Management Approach to monitor and manage a workforce capable of accomplishing all requirements set forth in the MAIDIQ SOW efficiently and effectively to ensure timely quality work. The offeror shall also provide a Staffing, Recruitment, and Retention Plan demonstrating the offeror’s ability to provide services for all five (5) Task Areas identified in the MAIDIQ SOW. In addition, the offeror shall propose a sound Quality Control Plan (QCP) that addresses quality control and demonstrates a systematic methodology to how the offeror will manage contract performance and ensure quality services are provided; including services provided by teaming partners, joint venture or subcontractors. The Management Approach shall include:

An organizational structure, narrative, and summary chart delineating lines of management authority, where decision making authority lies within the organization, supervision, span of control, and accountability for the management and oversight of the MAIDIQ. The structure shall include subcontractors and/or teaming partners, if applicable.

Explanation of relationships between corporate and on-site management/administration; between/across technical disciplines; and between the prime and its subcontractors. Describe the management of subcontractors and/or teaming partners, and their integration into the overall structure.

An approach to managing multiple task orders requirements covering a wide variety of tasking areas, utilizing multiple skill sets, in multiple locations simultaneously. A process to hire, train, and retain a sufficient number of personnel with a wide diversity of experience, education, and qualifications with proven expertise in their field to successfully meet mission requirements. This process shall include a timeline for hiring, training, and replacement of personnel during performance of the base contract and all task orders (within 30 days of task order award or 5 business days of vacancy). Address methods to reduce personnel turn-over and turbulence.

Resumes for the Key Personnel, the rationale for that designation, and the qualifications that will be required of these key positions (i.e., degree, certifications, licenses, relevant experience); The contractor shall provide a Program Manager (PM), and an Alternate PM to act when the PM is unavailable, who shall be responsible for the performance of the work and shall have full authority to act for the contractor on all contract matters relating to daily operation of the contract.

The QCP, as a minimum, shall address continuous process improvement;

procedures for scheduling, conducting and documentation of inspection;

discrepancy identification and correction; corrective action procedures to include procedures for addressing Government discovered non-conformances;

procedures for root cause analysis to identify the root cause and root cause corrective action to prevent re-occurrence of discrepancies; procedures for trend analysis; procedures for collecting and addressing customer feedback/complaints, and a process to monitor personnel compliance with security, training, and qualification requirements.

L.4.4. – TAB D - SUBFACTOR 4 – Seed Project Response

The offerors shall provide a technical approach to thoroughly demonstrate an overall understanding of the technical requirements and objectives to successfully execute the Seed Project in accordance with the Seed Statement of Work (Attachment 2) to include: Description of the scheduling technique and project planning methodology using completing the seed project to include approximate number of days. A narrative demonstrating how the project will be accomplished utilizing the proposed project schedule and rationale for selecting the proposed schedule. Identification of the automated scheduling systems used a description of events that must be considered in the schedule associated with, but not limited to, submittals, inspections and closeout and procedures, processes and methods for managing the progress of project and interacting with the Government from beginning to end.

L.4.5. – TAB E - SUBFACTOR 5 – Bonding Capacity

The offerors shall demonstrate their ability to obtain sufficient bonding of $5 million minimum per task order. The offeror shall submit information showing minimum available bonding capacity of $10 million aggregate with verification from the Securities or Bonding Company (to be completed by Surety Company and submitted by Offeror). The information shall include how long the Surety Company has provided bonding for the Contractor and the bonding limit for a single project, aggregate amount, and current available bonding.

L.5. VOLUME 2: FACTOR 2 – Past Performance.

L.5.1. The Offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror’s past performance with contracts, as a prime or subcontractor, which is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this solicitation. The submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation.

L.5.2. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant Past Performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort as it relates to the services being procured under this solicitation.

L.5.3. Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed. The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter, executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

L.5.4. The offeror shall include documentation regarding their relevant past performance as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. The offeror SHALL NOT go back any farther than the last three (3) years from issuance of the solicitation for the submitted data. The past performance data shall document a successful history of past contract performance.

L.5.5. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARs), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials. The past performance evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. See FAR 15.101- 2(b)(1) for treatment of past performance relative to small business Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate offeror past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested by this paragraph risk rejection or a less than acceptable performance rating by the Government. All past performance comments received will be taken into account and could affect the overall rating. The overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

L.5.6. Submission Requirements. The offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following:

•Table of Contents

• Summary Page describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and /or joint venture partner that the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets for the past performance experience in accordance with Attachment 4.

• Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information

• Client Authorization Letters for each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.

• Organization Structure Change History— Organizational Structure Change History.

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

• Specific Relevant Contracts Format - Sheets in accordance with Technical Exhibit 4 (in the SOW) and are limited to 3 page per reference. The offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror’s past performance with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, which is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this Solicitation. The submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate.

L.6. VOLUME 3: FACTOR 3 – Price.

L.6.1. This volume shall contain all required pricing information described below. The Offeror shall not include pricing information in any Volumes 1, 2, or 4 of its proposal.

L.6.2. It is expected that all contracts awarded will be based upon adequate price competition; therefore, the Offeror is not required to provide certified cost/pricing data with its proposal. If, after receipt of the proposals, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist in accordance with FAR 15.403-1, the Offeror shall provide certified cost/pricing data as requested by the Contracting Officer.

Similarly, if the contracting officer determines a fair and reasonable price cannot be established with price analysis alone, the offeror may be asked, and shall then provide, other than certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and/or FAR 15-404-1(a).

L.6.3 Contractor Pricing for MAIDIQ. The Offeror’s proposal shall be for a five year ordering period. The Offeror is required to complete Attachment 3 – Price Proposal

Breakdown Worksheet. The offeror shall submit their approach for accomplishing the Seed Project from commencement to completion. The approach shall describe the Offeror’s understanding of the work required utilized the SOW, specifications, and drawings.

L.6.3.1. When completing the Price Proposal Breakdown Worksheet the offeror shall provide their fully burdened hourly rate, inclusive of profit, for each labor category listed.

Offerors are reminded that it is the responsibility of the offeror to submit complete and accurate proposal amounts.

L.6.3.2. The Price Proposal Breakdown Worksheet calculates an aggregate total which will be the Evaluated Price.

L.6.3.3. The labor categories listed in the Price Proposal Breakdown Worksheet are not all inclusive and offerors may propose other labor categories on future task orders.

L.6.3.4. The Offeror shall identify on the Price Proposal Breakdown Worksheet if each labor category is subject to the Davis-Bacon Act.

L.6.3.5. The fully burdened labor rates proposed for each year cannot be adjusted except for instances where the labor categories are subject to the Davis-Bacon Act and a revision is permitted under the provisions of FAR Clause 52.222-43. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to include inflation where warranted.

L.6.3.6. Should a contract be issued to the offeror, the proposed rates provided will become the maximum rate allowable (ceiling rate) for that labor category when pricing task orders and task order modifications.

L.6.3.7. The estimate provided in the Price Proposal Breakdown Worksheet is for evaluation purposes only.

L.7. VOLUME 4: – General and Administrative

This volume shall be organized as follows:

L.7.1. TAB A, Exceptions/Assumptions.

Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, any assumptions used in the proposal preparation must be identified.

L.7.2. TAB B, Standard Form (SF) 1442.

The offeror shall include a completed and signed SF 1442. Any amendments to the solicitation shall be acknowledged in Block 14, Acknowledgement of Amendment and/or signed and submitted with the offeror’s proposal.

L.7.3. TAB C, Section K (Representation, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors).

The offeror shall ensure that Section K is submitted thoroughly completed with all blocks in each certification/representation completed truthfully and completely. If utilizing Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA), offerors are reminded to complete all certifications annotated in ORCA for completion based on individual acquisitions prior to proposal submission. Provide a complete copy of all certifications from ORCA, System for Award Management (SAM), and all additional certifications found within the solicitation. All Representations and Certifications within Section K of this RFP shall be addressed, completed, and provided under this section. Negative responses are required.

L.7.4. TAB D, Organizational and Consultant Conflict of Interest (OCI) – FAR 9.5.

The offeror shall present an Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan which shall detail how it will ensure compliance with FAR 9.5. The OCI Mitigation Plan should clearly identify a credible and concrete mechanism for identifying, avoiding, neutralizing, or mitigating actual or potential conflicts. The OCI Mitigation Plan should clearly present the firm’s review process for evaluating an actual conflict if identified. The offeror shall address the conflict pursuant to this OCI provision. Additionally, the offeror warrants that, to the best of the offeror’s knowledge and belief, there are no relevant facts or circumstances which could give rise to an Organizational and Consultant Conflict of Interest (OCI) as defined in FAR 9.5 and that the contractor has disclosed all such relevant information.

L.7.5. TAB E – Offeror Points of Contact & Other Information.

Provide the name, title, phone number, and e-mail address of the offeror’s principal point(s) of contact for the proposal. Also identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government and contractually bind the offeror. The Offeror shall provide their Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), and contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) code.

(Offerors who are awarded an IDIQ contract, but not the seed project will receive task orders for the minimum guaranteed amount.)

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. Basis for Contract Award.

M.1.1. The Government intends to solicit and award on a small business set aside competition basis resulting in the award of five (5) awards.

M.1.1.1. Unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals, may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. The Government will not evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness for proposals that were evaluated and rated “Unacceptable in Factor 1 (Technically Acceptability).”

M.1.2. The government intends to make multiple awards as a result of this solicitation.

As set forth in FAR 52.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors, but reserves the right to seek clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. 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.

M.2. Evaluation Criteria

M.2.1. Evaluation criteria consist of price and non-price factors. The proposals will be evaluated based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability Subfactor 1: Construction Experience Subfactor 2: Design/Build Experience Subfactor 3: Management Approach Subfactor 4: Seed Project Response Subfactor 5: Bonding Capacity

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

M.2.2. Non-price factor 1 will be evaluated using the adjectival ratings in Table 1 (Technical Acceptability acceptable/unacceptable rating). Proposals are evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor.

Table 1 Technical Acceptability Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.2.3. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel.

Support contractors will not participate as members of or advisors to the source selection team.

M.3. Factor 1: Technical Acceptability.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Technical Acceptability approach to meeting the solicitation requirements to ensure the offeror has a clear understanding of the nature and scope of the work set forth over the entire five (5) year ordering period whether the offeror, along with their teaming partner/subcontractors, has the specialized experience identified in the MAIDIQ SOW. For the purpose of evaluation, any reference to Task Areas in the solicitation include the subtaskings. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of the work set forth in the SOW and likelihood of success based on the offeror’s demonstrated experience. The overall evaluation rating assigned to this factor will be based on the lowest rated subfactors listed below.

M.3.1. Factor 1/ Subfactor 1: Construction Experience.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s construction experience approach and actual methodology it will use to perform all construction activities identified in the SOW. The approach shall demonstrate as efficiently and effectively as possible a clear understanding of the nature and scope of all construction activities in the SOW. The Government will evaluate whether the offeror has a clear understanding of the SOW requirements and has demonstrated an ability to successfully perform all construction activities singularly, or with teaming arrangements, joint ventures, or subcontracting within limitations. If there are risks in the Offeror’s proposed technical approach, the offeror shall identify the risks and provide their plan to mitigate the identified risks.

Failure to demonstrate an ability to perform all construction activities identified in the SOW will result in an unacceptable rating for this factor.

M.3.2. Factor 1 / Subfactor 2: Design/Build Experience.

The Government will evaluate whether the offeror demonstrates the ability to describe their design-build capabilities by providing the following:

a) Provide written evidence of the job qualifications and experience of their architectural/engineering design personnel proposed for this contract.

b) Describing the proposed internal design quality control processes, and the ability to manage multiple design-build projects simultaneously.

c) Demonstrate the capabilities that includes but are not limited to the following:

1) Foundation and Site Work

2) Concrete Construction

3) Masonry Construction

4) Metals

5) Carpentry

6) Thermal/Moisture Protection

7) Earthwork

8) Curtain Walls, Doors, Windows, Glass

9) Finished Materials

10) Fencing Communications

11) Elevators/Conveying Systems

12) Mechanical/Electrical

13) Demolition and Removal

14) Roads/Paving.

M.3.3. Factor 1 / Subfactor 3: Management Approach.

M.3.3.1. The Government will evaluate whether the offeror has proposed a sound management approach to monitor and manage a workforce capable of accomplishing all requirements set forth in the MAIDIQ SOW efficiently and effectively to ensure timely quality work. Failure to demonstrate an ability to perform in all five (5) Task Areas will result in an unacceptable rating for this subfactor. The Government will evaluate the following:

Whether the proposed organizational structure delineates lines of management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability between/across technical specifications; and between the prime and its subcontractors;

Whether the offeror has identified where individual authorities and decision making authority lies within the Offeror’s organization;

Whether the offeror has identified the relationship between corporate and on-site management/administration; between/across technical disciplines; and between the prime and its subcontractors; the management and integration of subcontractors and/or teaming partners, into the prime contractor’s overall structure;

Whether the offeror has identified a sound approach to managing multiple task orders, covering multiple tasking/subtasking areas, with multiple skill sets, in multiple locations simultaneously;

M.3.4. Factor 1 / Subfactor 4: Seed Project Response.

The Government will evaluate whether the offeror demonstrated an overall understanding of the technical requirements and objectives to successfully execute the

Seed Project in accordance with the Seed Statement of Work (Attachment 2). The Government will evaluate whether the approach includes:

a) Scheduling technique and project planning methodology used in completing the seed project to include approximate number of days.

b) Narrative demonstrating how the project will be accomplished utilizing the proposed project schedule and the rationale for selecting the proposed project schedule.

c) Description of the automated scheduling systems used and description of events that must be considered in the schedule associated with, but not limited to, submittals, inspections and closeout.

d) Procedures, processes and methods for managing the progress of project and interacting with the Government from beginning to end

M.3.5. Factor 1 / Subfactor 5: Bonding Capability.

The Government will evaluate whether offeror demonstrates their ability to obtain sufficient bonding of $5 million minimum per task order. The offeror provided evidence showing minimum available bonding capacity of $10 million aggregate with verification from the Securities or Bonding Company (to be completed by Surety Company and submitted by Offeror). The information included how long the Surety Company has provided bonding for the Contractor and the bonding limit for a single project, aggregate amount, and current available bonding.

M.4. Factor 2: Past Performance.

M.4.1. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance to determine how well the contractor performed on the referenced contracts and to assess the offeror’s probability of performing the solicitation’s requirements. Past performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials and/or State Department Watch Lists.

The team will use information determined to be recent and relevant to determine how well the contractor performed on the referenced contracts. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

Business Relations Quality of Service Schedule Customer Satisfaction Compliance with Socio-Economic Goals

M.4.2. Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Contract requirements. The Government will first conduct a recency and relevancy assessment of the submitted past performance efforts. Only submissions assessed as recent and relevant, per the definitions below, will be evaluated for a past performance confidence assessment:

Recency: To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevance: To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

M.4.3. Past Performance will be evaluated using the adjectival ratings in Table 2 (Past Performance Evaluation Ratings) below:

Table 2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort OR the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (*See Note below)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

*Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

M.5. Factor 3: Price.

M.5.1. The contractor shall submit the following documents as part of the Price Proposal. Price-Section B shall be submitted fully complete. Pricing for the Seed Project will be used for evaluation purposes, Offerors shall prepare pricing information for the Seed Project, provided at Attachment…