20-R-2005 Amend 2.pdf

W9123620R2005

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 complete the follow ing:

1) Revise the Small Business Participation Plan Evaluation Criteria (5.4.2);

2) Extend the proposal due date from 10 July 2020, 5:00pm (EDT) to 21 July 2020, 3:00pm (EDT); NOTE: THIS CLOSING DATE IS FIRM AND

WILL NOT BE EXTENDED

3) Provide additional information on dates and the technical amendments derived from ProjNet inquiries and responses.

(See Continuation Pages)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Jul-2020

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 W9123620R2005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-May-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X 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

30-Jun-2020

CODE

USACE, NORFOLK DISTRICT OFFICE

CONTRACTING OFFICE

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

W91236 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002

The purpose of this amendment is to complete the following:

1) Revise the Small Business Participation Plan Evaluation Criteria (5.4.2);

2) Extend the proposal due date from 10 July 2020, 5:00pm (EDT) to 21 July 2020, 3:00pm (EDT);

3) Provide additional information on dates and the technical amendments derived from ProjNet inquiries and responses.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 10-Jul-2020 05:00 PM to 21-Jul-2020 03:00 PM.

The Issued By organization has changed from

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, NORFOLK

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

to

USACE, NORFOLK DISTRICT OFFICE

CONTRACTING OFFICE

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

The number of offeror copies required has increased by 1 from 0 to 1.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERRORS

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The DLA Aviation Operations Center Phase II project requirements will construct a multi-story office building of 281,075 SF to accommodate 1,622 employees in an administrative operations center. The Operations Center includes: open and individual administrative office and support areas (mail distribution, packing, shipping, reception space, reproduction area, unclassified conference and Video Tele-Conference (VTC) space, law library, kitchenette/break, restrooms, storage, equipment and supply rooms, passenger and service elevators, lightning protection, fire suppression, fire alarm, mass notification systems, Intrusion Detection System (IDS) and energy management control system (EMCS), and building information systems.

The project will utilize conventional design and construction methods to accommodate the mission of the facility.

The facility will be compatible with the Department of Defense (DoD), DLA, and Defense Supply Center, Richmond design standards. Local material and construction techniques will be used where cost effective. The facility will be designed as a permanent construction in accordance with DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1- 200-01, General Building Requirements and UFC 1-200-02, High Performance and Sustainable Building

Requirements. The project will comply with DoD minimum Antiterrorism Standards for buildings per UFC 4-010- 01.

A. OVERVIEW OF THIS SOURCE SELECTION

1. SPECIAL ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS DUE TO COVID-19

The Norfolk District anticipates the possibility that its building will be closed during the time for proposal submission due to the evolving requirements arising in response to COVID-19. Accordingly, the Norfolk District will NOT accept proposals by mail, hand-carry, or commercial courier (that is, no physical proposals will be accepted in response to this solicitation). All proposals must be submitted by electronic commerce only (that is, by submission through DoD SAFE, as discussed below, only).

The acquisition approach is to solicit for a competitive Single Award stand-alone construction contract using full and open competition. The basis of award will use the Best Value Trade-off process, as authorized by FAR 15.101-

1. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value and has been determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. The Government has the right to accept other than the lowest offer or other than the highest technically rated offer.

Electronic Proposal Submission in DoD SAFE

In accordance with FAR 15.203(c), Electronic commerce may be used to issue RFPs and to receive proposals, modifications, and revisions when contracting by negotiation. Proposals will be submitted through DoD Secure Access File Exchange (DoD SAFE) (https://safe.apps.mil/). All proposals must be uploaded into DoD SAFE infrastructure not earlier than July 8, 2020, and not later than (NLT) July 21, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. July 10, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Day Time (EDT). Offerors will require a unique “request code” to upload proposals into DoD SAFE, which shall be obtained only by email to POC: Tarik A. Booze at tarik.a.booze@usace.army.mil, and cc:

PPMDContracts@usace.army.mil. The email request for the “request code” must be emailed to the POC NLT July 20, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. EDT. Offerors should note that the unique request code will allow only a one-time access and upload. If the Offeror requires re-access to DoD SAFE, a secondary request for another request code must be made.

The OFFEROR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for ensuring that the entire proposal has been received into DoD SAFE with a timestamp NLT 3:00 p.m. EDT on July 21, 2020. 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 10, 2020, utilizing email address tarik.a.booze@usace.army.mil as the POC email address within the DoDSAFE upload.

Dates & Technical Amendment Publications Additionally, Offerors are tentatively informed that Amendment 0003, is projected to be published on July 8, 2020. Amendment 0003 will contain the technical amendments (drawings/specifications) derived as a result of the ProjNet inquires and responses. ProjNet will close on July 13, 2020, at 12:00 p.m. (EDT). Amendment 0004 consolidate all ProjNet inquiries and responses, and it is projected to be published NLT July 15, 2020.

The proposal due date of July 21, 2020, is final and will not be revised.

Electronic Proposal Organization and Format

The Offeror shall organize the proposal as set forth in details of the solicitation. The titles and contents of the volumes, as well as the page limitations and number of required copies must be submitted as specified in the solicitation. In the event that solicitation conflicts with the detailed instructions in the paragraphs that follow, the detailed instructions shall take precedence.

The Offeror shall address the factors, sub factors, and their related elements as provided in the solicitation. Be clear, concise, and include detailed explanations for substantiating the validity of stated assertions. Extraneous, repetitious, or wordy submissions are not desired and could result in lower ratings. Elaborate brochures or documentation, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. No models, mockups, or videos will be accepted.

Electronic Proposal Uploading Offerors are responsible for ensuring electronic copies are virus-free and shall run an anti-virus scan before upload into DoD SAFE. Electronic copies of each volume shall be compatible with the following software products: Adobe Acrobat Reader 11 and Microsoft Office Suite (Excel and Project) 2010. The electronic copy shall be in Adobe Acrobat (except for Microsoft Excel documents) portable document file (pdf) searchable text format. Electronic files shall be clearly identified for each volume, section, and item. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to obtain written confirmation of receipt of all electronic files of the full proposal submitted into DoD SAFE.

The Offeror's proposal which consist of two volumes, (i.e., Volume I – Factors 1, 2, and 3, and Volume II – Factor 4), shall be submitted simultaneously. There is no bifurcation of the Volumes or their factors for submission purposes. The Government will not conduct any comparative source selection decision-making until proposals have been received for all four Evaluation Factors. Any questions regarding electronic proposal submission should be directed to Mr. Tarik Booze in ProjNet.

This solicitation hereby incorporates Deviation 2020-O0016 to FAR 28.106-1. For any bid bond, performance bond, or payment bond that may be required under this procurement, a seal is not required. In the event of conflict in another provision in the solicitation, this Deviation will control.

Statutory Cost Limitations This acquisition will result in a firm fixed price contract for design-bid-build construction services. In accordance with FAR 36.205 the statutory cost limitation for the DLA Aviation Operations Center Phase II project is $89,013,000 for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0006, 0007, 0008, and 0009.

B. OFFEROR’S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

NOTE: All questions and/or comments should reach the above referenced Contracting Office via ProjNet no later than 10 days prior to proposal submission, in order that they may be given consideration or actions taken prior to receipt of offers.

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS: Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.projnet.org/projnet. To submit and review inquiry items, offerors will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system. To self-register go to web page, click BID tab select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter Key for this solicitation listed below, and your e-mail address, click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that information on next screen is correct and click <continue>. From this page you may view all inquiries or add inquiry. Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

The Solicitation Number is: W91236-20-R-2005 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 7IVBCN-DP9SEU

The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries 10 days prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry. The call center operates weekdays from 8am to 5pm U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 The purpose of these instructions is to establish a uniform procedure for evaluating proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and making a Best Value decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Best Value Tradeoff Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1). In as much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the resulting contract, the proposal shall be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract.

1.2 The Government will conduct a Best Value Tradeoff of four evaluation factors. The factors are as follows:

Non – Price Factors

Factor 1 – Past performance Factor 2 – Project Approach Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Plan

Factor 4 - Price

Non-price Factors 1 and 2 will be weighted equally. Non-price Factor 3 is less important than Factors 1 or 2. The non-price factors, when combined, are considered approximately equal to Factor 4 - Price.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Any legally organized Offeror who agrees to follow the conditions of the RFP may submit a proposal.

2.2 Do not submit any materials not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures, etc.).

2.3 The Government is not liable for any costs incurred by the Offerors submitting an offer in response to this solicitation.

2.4 Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of their proposal. Failure to provide sufficient detail may result in an unacceptable rating. Proposals received will be considered proprietary information and shall be clearly marked as such by the Offeror.

2.5 Electronic Proposal Submission Requirements:

2.5.1 The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted as electronic files as set forth in section B, and below. The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes, i.e., Volume I – Performance Capability and Volume II – Price and Pro Forma Information. The proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

2.5.2.1 Offers received by telegraph, fascimille, or unauthorized email, and the modifications thereto, or cancellations of offers will not be accepted.

2.5.2.2 Facsimile offers, modifications thereto, or cancellations of offers will not be accepted.

2.5.3 The proposal shall be submitted in an 8-½ inch x 11 inch format (except that tables and graphic representations may be submitted on Z-folded 11 inch x 17 inch pages). Pages may be double-sided where practical and shall be numbered. Text shall have a minimum eleven (11) point Arial or Times New Roman font. No proposal information may be included by reference. Proposals shall adhere to the allowable number of pages specified under each evaluation factor. If a proposal submission exceeds the page number limits reflected throughout the Solicitation, the Government will not consider the matters submitted within the pages that exceed the limits. Text printed on two sides of a page will be counted as two (2) pages.

2.5.4 Any information that is changed as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions shall be of a different color and clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated.

2.5.5 All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete project name, installation name, solicitation number, and the Offeror’s name in the header and/or footer. Each volume shall have a Table of Contents and 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”

NOTE: 11 inch X 17 inch Z-folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations and will be counted as one page.

The following additional restrictions apply:

a. File Packaging. PDF Files shall be submitted in read-only (non-editable) format. All price breakdown information shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel 2013 Excel Workbook (*.xlsx) format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2013 to aide in the cost/price evaluation, as read-only (non-editable/locked).

b. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner and to permit a complete and accurate evaluation.

2.5.6 All constituent members of the Offeror, if applicable, MUST sign the SF1442 and the bid bond unless a written agreement executed by all team members is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other members. Failure to comply with this requirement WILL eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

2.5.7 Any deviation and/or exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

3.0 BASIS OF AWARD

It is intended that this RFP will result in a Firm-Fixed-Price contract. The Contracting Officer will award this contract to that responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the best overall value to the Government. The relative order of importance of factors is such that the Non-price Factors 1 and 2 will be weighted equally. Non-price Factor 3 is less important than Factors 1 or 2. When the proposal is evaluated as the whole, the non-price factors, when combined, are considered approximately equal to price. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced or the highest rated technical offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001 unless corrected through discussions, should the Government decide to conduct discussions.

The Government’s intent is to make the award without conducting discussions, but the Government reserves the right to set a competitive range and discuss aspects of proposals with offerors if the Government determines it to be necessary to do so. Offerors should be aware that the Government may make award without discussions, clarifications, or any contact concerning the proposals received; therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

This RFP does not commit the Government to reimburse any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation. Note specifically that the offeror will not be participating in a sealed bid procurement process under this acquisition method. Issuance of this RFP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

4.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT and EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS

4.1 VOLUME I - PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

Factor Location Description

TAB A

- SF 1442 and all amendments, signed

- Proposal Data Sheet (Included at Attachment 1, Section 00 22 11)

- Contractor Team Arrangements, e.g., JV Agreement/LLC, Letter of

Commitment (if applicable)

Factor 1 TAB B Past Performance

Factor 2 TAB C Project Approach

Factor 3 TAB D Small Business Participation Plan

4.2 VOLUME II –PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor Location Description

Factor 4 TAB A Price (Contract Line Item Schedule and supporting detailed pricing data)

TAB B Bid Guarantee

TAB C Required Pre-Award Information

4.3 EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS

4.3.1 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will ensure that the evaluation of all Factors has been conducted in accordance with the Solicitation and all applicable acquisition laws and regulations.

4.3.2 Factor 1 evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Factor 1 will be adjectivally evaluated in accordance with paragraph 4.3.8 by the SSEB.

4.3.3 Factor 2 will be adjectivally evaluated in accordance with paragraph 4.3.9 by the Technical Evaluation Team

(TET).

4.3.4. Factor 3 will be adjectivally evaluated in accordance with paragraph 4.3.10 by the Small Business Specialist, member of the SSEB.

4.3.5 Factor 4 will be evaluated by the Price Evaluation Team (PET) in accordance with paragraph 6.1. Proposals will be evaluated using price analysis techniques and will be evaluated for price fairness and reasonableness. Price will not be rated or scored.

4.3.6 The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. 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 requirements of the solicitation.

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 practices/processes 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.

4.3.7 The Government will evaluate the proposals and rate the quality of each non-price evaluation factor.

4.3.8 Rating Definitions for Factor 1 – Past Performance:

4.3.8.1 Recency. The Government will first evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance as defined in paragraph 5.2.2 below.

4.3.8.2 Relevance. The Government will next rate the relevancy of recent projects submitted in accordance with the definitions of "Very Relevant," "Relevant," "Somewhat Relevant," and "Not Relevant" as presented below. The relevancy rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating. The past performance relevancy rating is as follows:

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 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 and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.3.8.3 The Government will next consider how well the Offeror performed on the submitted projects. The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance.

4.3.8.4 Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work subcontractor management, including timely payment to subcontractors or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. (See the Telephone Interview Questionnaire at the end of this Section, Attachment 4). The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this solicitation including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Telephone Interview Questionnaire Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System (CPARS) or other agency performance databases, Offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully.

4.3.8.5 The rating for Factor 1 – Past Performance will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is as follows:

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 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.

4.3.9 Rating Definition for Factor 2 – Project Approach:

4.3.9.1 The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The combined Technical/Risk definitions are as follows:

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

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

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

Marginal (M): proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (U): 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 un-awardable.

4.3.9.2 The definitions for a strength, weakness, significant weakness, and deficiency are as follows:

Strength – Is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness – Is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness – Is a flaw in the proposal 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.

4.3.10 Rating Definitions for Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Plan

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

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

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

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

Unacceptable (U): Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

5.0 VOLUME I – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1 TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Submit the SF 1442, and all amendments completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. Include the completed Proposal Data Sheet provided at the end of this Section, Attachment 1.

5.1.1 TAB A – Contractor Team Arrangements, if applicable – If an Offeror forms a contractor teaming arrangement, include a copy of the Agreement in Volume I, TAB A of its proposal. Team Agreements must be signed by all partners and clearly indicate the percentages of the teaming partners, in particular the percent of the controlling party, and a clear delineation of responsibilities and authorities between the partners. If the Offeror is a Limited Liability Company, include a copy of the Articles of Organization in Volume I, TAB A.

5.1.2 TAB A – Letter of Commitment if applicable shall be provided using the format provided as Attachment 5, and shall be signed by all parties.

5.2 TAB B - FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.2.1 Submission Requirements

The Past Performance factor addresses how well the Offeror performed recent, relevant projects from the owner's/client’s perspective. The Offeror may submit no greater than five (5) example projects that best demonstrate the Offeror’s past performance on recent and relevant projects, as these terms are defined in the Evaluation Criteria.

So that the Government may evaluate the recency and relevancy of the submitted example projects, Offerors should demonstrate recent and relevant construction experience on the submitted projects by providing the information requested on the Relevant Experience form, Attachment 2. Offerors may provide this information in the format shown on this form or in another format so long as the information is clearly presented.

So that the Government may evaluate how the Offeror performed on the submitted example projects, the Offeror should provide past performance evaluations for the submitted projects. If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each example project included. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation then submit Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for each project included. The PPQ, along with the instructions for completing the questionnaire, is provided as Attachment 3. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the solicitation closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). For all submitted projects, the offeror shall provide a completed Relevant Experience Form included as Attachment 2. The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Tarik Booze, via email at tarik.a.booze@usace.army.mil.

If the Offeror is comprised of more than one member via a teaming agreement, joint venture (JV) agreement, or other appropriate instrument, relevant project performance should be submitted for projects completed by the Offeror as the proposed collective. If the JV does not have shared performance, projects may be submitted for the constituent members. In this event, the Offeror should indicate what role(s) the member actually performed on the submitted project and what role is proposed for that member for this project if it is awarded the contract.

If an Offeror is comprised of more than one member, see paragraph 5.1.1 TAB A – Contractor Team Arrangements, for additional submittal requirements.

The Government will evaluate only the first five example projects submitted, inclusive of any projects submitted demonstrating experience of an Offeror member or proposed subcontractor. Any projects submitted beyond this limit will not be considered.

A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract.

For task order and/or indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contracts, the contract as a whole should not be submitted as a project and will NOT be considered by the Government; rather, Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

Offerors may submit projects that involve contracts with private concerns, local or state governments, or the Federal Government.

For each example construction project submitted, Offerors should provide a project narrative to assist the Government in identifying project relevancy as defined in the evaluation criteria in this Factor.

The narrative should clearly describe the scope of work performed by the Offeror, team member, or proposed subcontractor, as applicable, and the relevancy to the proposed role for this project.

Attachment 2, Project Data Sheet: Offerors must limit the example project submission to two pages (two single sided or one double sided page). Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider any pages in excess of this limitation; only the first two pages will be evaluated. This page limitation does not apply to PPQ or CPAR records submitted.

If the Offeror (including teaming partner/s, if applicable) is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may, but is under no obligation to the Offeror to do so, make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the following email addresses:

tarik.a.booze@usace.army.mil and PPMDContracts@usace.army.mil with a copy furnished to Dianne.k.grimes@usace.army.mil.

If past performance information is submitted directly by a client/reference, the Offeror must instruct the submitter to include the words “Past Performance Information” and the solicitation number in the subject line of the email. The Government will not be responsible for evaluating email submissions that fail to comply with these requirements.

Offerors are encouraged to require their clients/references to maintain proof of delivery of email submissions, but the Offeror shall be solely responsibility for ensuring timely delivery of the past performance submissions in accordance with proposal submission requirements defined on the Standard Form 1442.

Offerors are strongly encouraged to provide any information on problems encountered and corrective actions taken on projects submitted. Similarly, Offerors are also strongly encouraged to address any adverse past performance issues, and must address any projects in the overall performance record for which the Offeror, or member a member, or proposed subcontractor was issued a Cure Notice, Show Cause, or Termination for Default. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total. The Government reserves the right to review in detail any past performance record for which an adverse rating is noted

In addition to the information outlined above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluation past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS number of team members (Partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Page Limits: The total page limit for this factor is defined by page limit requirements identified above.

5.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submitted example projects to assess the extent to which the Offeror’s experience demonstrates recent and relevant Past Performance and/or a benefit to the Government. Each Offeror shall provide a completed Relevant Experience (via Attachment 2) and Past Performance Records (via Attachment 3, PPQ, or by providing a corresponding CPAR report) on each example project submitted, as specified below:

Recent. For a submitted project to be considered “Recent” it shall be completed and turned over no longer than five

(5) years preceding the issuance of this Solicitation.

Relevant. The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Past Performance to assess the extent to which it clearly demonstrates experience similar in type, scope, and complexity to the project in this RFP as follows:

Those Offerors that demonstrate the highest degree of similarity to the requirements of this RFP will be evaluated most favorably.

To be evaluated as similar, a submitted project must reflect the following two key aspects or features at minimum:

Vertical new construction of a fully enclosed building with more than 250,000 square feet of space.

Renovations will not be considered relevant, and

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the construction value of a submitted project approximates a range from $75M to $150M.

An Offeror may receive additional consideration to the extent that its Past Performance demonstrates the following conditions or features:

Multi-story construction of four floors or greater.

Projects constructed within a congested space on a military installation.

An Offeror may receive additional consideration to extent that its relevant Past Performance demonstrates overcoming performance challenges or difficulties.

Offerors are advised that the Government will not be able to infer any of the details from pictures, schematics or graphics unless they are presented within the page limits described in Section 5.2.1. Provide sufficient details to describe how submitted projects demonstrate elements requested by this factor.

The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the team’s recent, relevant experience.

Federal government project past performance will not be rated inherently more important than non-federal government project past performance. The Government will assess the Offeror’s past performance on projects submitted, and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews, using Attachment 4, Telephone Interview Questionnaire Form, with points of contact identified in the proposal, and/or to review other recent projects rated in Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System (CPARS) or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact Offeror furnished references, or to review personal knowledge. Any rating an Offeror has in CPARS, PPIRS, and FAPIIS related to the projects submitted will count toward this requirement.

The Offeror will not be permitted to substantiate its experience and performance record based on a proposed subcontractor.

The Government will evaluate the nature and extent of previous teaming performance demonstrated among the proposed members of the Offeror team at the prime contract level. Previous teaming experience performed on relevant construction example projects may receive greater consideration by the Government. Failure to provide evidence of the teaming agreement, joint venture agreement, or other appropriate instrument may result in a deficiency.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity. If the JV does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the JV members. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all JV members may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects.

If an offeror is utilizing past performance experience of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate the manner in which the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract.

For all other matters in the Offeror’s past performance record (e.g., CPARS reports), the Government will review the overall trends in performance. relevancy will be assessed based on the following criteria:

Whether the project involved new vertical construction The extent to which the construction value of a submit project approximates a range from $75M to

$150M.

5.3 TAB C - FACTOR 2 – PROJECT APPROACH

5.3.1 Submission Requirements

The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Project Approach in accordance with Paragraph 5.3.2.

The Offeror shall submit a narrative describing its overall project approach to constructing and delivering this project. The narrative shall address the following areas as part of the overall project approach:

A. Construction Approach. Based on your understanding of the RFP requirements, describe the construction approach you will take to address the unique complexities, challenges, opportunities, and constraints inherent to this contract. Include in your narrative how you plan to keep the Building 32 accessible by occupants, delivery trucks, and emergency vehicles during construction.

Provide a detailed project narrative of the construction sequence, processes, methods and major equipment anticipated for construction. Address what measures you will take to ensure the prioritization of the completed elements of construction that are needed for subsequent elements of construction along the critical path of the project.

B. Risk Management. The Offeror shall submit a narrative describing risks specifically associated with the delivery of this project. The narrative shall identify the degree of risk, the possible impact of the risk on the project (quality, schedule and/or cost), whether the risk is within or outside the Offeror’s control, and a plan to mitigate the risk(s).

Page Limit: The submission for this factor may not exceed four single sided or two double sided pages.

5.3.2 Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies in the project approach. The following two areas will not be individually rated, but will be evaluated as a part of the overall project approach.

A. Construction Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s construction approach to determine the extent that it is tailored to and responsive to the unique challenges of this RFP and thereby demonstrates its understanding of the requirements.

The Government places a higher value on an offer that explains how the specific proposed methods will benefit the project, for example, by streamlining construction, ensuring quality, and managing project risks.

Additional consideration may be given to the extent the Offeror describes how it will leverage its specialized corporate experience for the benefit of the project.

B. Risk management. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the extent to which it demonstrates the ability to: (1) Identify and manage risk(s); (2) Establish a degree of risk that may impact quality, schedule, and/or cost; and (3) Identify whether risk(s) is/are within the Offeror’s control and describe the Offeror’s plan to mitigate such risk(s).

Additional consideration may be given to the extent that the proposal includes solutions to project risks, which exhibit a superior understanding of the requirements of the RFP and will provide the Government a significant advantage in the delivery of this project.

Where applicable, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror describes past construction projects that involved similar risks and the Offeror’s approach to addressing those risks on the prior project.

5.4. TAB D – FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

This factor assesses both the historical achievements in utilizing the small business concerns and proposed small business participation plan and commitment strategy.

5.4.1 Submission Requirements

ALL OFFERORS (Both Large and Small Businesses) ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PROPOSAL.

The Small Business Participation Proposal shall be based on the Offeror’s best efforts and will address the following areas individually:

a. The extent in which the small business programs listed in FAR 19 (small business, small disadvantaged business, woman owned small business, HUBZONE, service disabled veteran owned business, etc.) are specifically identified in the Small Business Proposal Plan;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (e.g., enforceable commitments, teaming agreements that are signed by all parties, are considered more heavily than non- enforceable ones.

c. The complexity and variety of work that the small firms are to perform on this acquisition

All Offerors shall submit information substantiating their past performance in complying with FAR Clause 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business,” maximizing opportunities for U.S. small business subcontractors.

Offerors with no prior contracts containing FAR Clause 52.219-8 should so state. Compliance with FAR 52.219-9 will only be evaluated for large businesses. Offerors with no prior contracts containing FAR Clause 52.219-9 should so state. Offerors who never held a federal contract as a large business should so state.

5.4.1.1 Achievements.

All Offerors shall provide a narrative (limited to two (2) single sided pages or one (1) double-sided page) to describe their achievements in supporting the Government’s policy to provide maximum practicable opportunities for small business (SB), veteran-owned small business (VOSB), service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business, small disadvantaged business (SDB), and women-owned small business (WOSB) concerns to participate as subcontractors consistent with efficient contract performance. In support of and in addition to narrative submissions, offerors shall provide the following:

5.4.1.1.1. ISRs or Similar reports:

Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISR) – Offerors that are other than small businesses shall provide copies of the most current ISRs associated with each project cited under Factor 1, Past Performance, in which a subcontracting plan was required by the contract.

If such projects were completed under specific task orders, provide ISRs for the overall contract. For cited projects with state and local government agencies, provide similar subcontracting performance reports if required by the contracts.