Amendment_0002_W91236-17-R-0002_Training_Support_Facility.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

W91236-17-R-0002, Training Support Facility, Fort Lee, Virginia

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the proposal submission date from Monday, 28 November 2016 to Monday, 05 December 2016 by 02:00 p.m. (EST), update the Bid schedule, Section 00 21 00, Section 00 22 11 Paragraph 6.2.2.2.1.b., and provide Geo-Technical Report, Revised Draw ings, LEED-NC Checklist and Site Visit Participants information.

See continuation page.

Contracting POC: Jaime Scott How ard, Jaime.C.Scott@usace.army.mil, 757-201-7158

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W91236-17-R-0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Oct-2016

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

16-Nov-2016

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, NORFOLK

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1096

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

SECTION 00 11 00 - SOLICITATION, OFFER & AWARD

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 11 00 - SOLICITATION, OFFER & AWARD

The required response date/time has changed from 28-Nov-2016 02:00 PM to 05-Dec-2016 02:00 PM.

CLIN 0001

The CLIN extended description has changed from Construct Ft Lee Training Support Facility, Project Number 80851, complete as shown on the drawings and specified, exclusive of item 0002 thru 0007. to Construct Ft Lee Training Support Facility, Project Number 80851, complete as shown on the drawings and specified, exclusive of item 0002 thru 0006.

CLIN 0002

The CLIN extended description has changed from Sitework associated with Ft Lee Training Support Facility, complete as shown on the drawings and specified, exclusive of items 0001 and 0003 thru 0007. to Sitework associated with Ft Lee Training Support Facility, complete as shown on the drawings and specified, exclusive of items 0001 and 0003 thru 0006.

CLIN 0003

The CLIN extended description has changed from All cost associated with wetland mitigation credit, complete as shown on the drawings and specified, exclusive of items 0001 thru 0002 and 0004 thru 0007.

Options for Separately Priced Line Items may be exercised at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Period of Performance: 180 days from contract award, if option is exercised. to All cost associated with wetland mitigation credit, complete as shown on the drawings and specified, exclusive of items 0001 thru 0002 and 0004 thru 0006.

Options for Separately Priced Line Items may be exercised at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, and can be exercised up to 180 days after the original contract award date. Period of Performance for the CLIN identified work:

540 days from the original contract award date, if option is exercised.

CLIN 0004

The CLIN extended description has changed from All cost associated with providing the Mobile Storage Shelving – Recessed Rails, complete as shown on the drawings and specified, exclusive of items 0001 thru 0003 and 0005 thru 0007. Options for Separately Priced Line Items may be exercised at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Period of Performance: 180 days from contract award, if option is exercised. to All cost associated with providing the Mobile Storage Shelving – Recessed Rails, complete as shown on the drawings and specified, exclusive of items 0001 thru 0003 and 0005 thru 0006. Options for Separately Priced Line Items may be exercised at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, and can be exercised up to 180 days after the original contract award date.

Period of Performance for the CLIN identified work: 540 days from the original contract award date, if option is exercised.

CLIN 0005

The CLIN extended description has changed from All cost associated with providing the Mobile Storage Shelving - Carriages, complete as shown on the drawings and specified, exclusive of items 0001 thru 0004 and 0006 thru 0007. Options for Separately Priced Line Items may be exercised at the discretion of the Contracting

Officer. Period of Performance: 180 days from contract award, if option is exercised. to All cost associated with providing the Mobile Storage Shelving - Carriages, complete as shown on the drawings and specified, exclusive of items 0001 thru 0004 and 0006. Options for Separately Priced Line Items may be exercised at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, and can be exercised up to 180 days after the original contract award date. Period of Performance for the CLIN identified work: 540 days from the original contract award date, if option is exercised.

CLIN 0006

The CLIN extended description has changed from All cost associated with providing the building security, complete as shown on the drawings and specified, exclusive of items 0001 thru 0005 and 0007.Options for Separately Priced Line Items may be exercised at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Period of Performance:

180 days from contract award, if option is exercised. to All cost associated with providing the building security, complete as shown on the drawings and specified, exclusive of items 0001 thru 0005. Options for Separately Priced Line Items may be exercised at the discretion ofthe Contracting Officer, and can be exercised up to 180 days after the original contract award date. Period of Performance for the CLIN identified work: 540 days from the original contract award date, if option is exercised.

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Installation Access

Form_FL FORM 190-2

1 01-JUN-2015

Attachment 2 Ft. Lee Specs Vol 1 844 01-SEP-2016 Attachment 3 Ft. Lee Specs Vol 2 762 01-SEP-2016 Attachment 4 Ft. Lee Specs Vol 3 623 01-SEP-2016 Attachment 5 Lee_TSF_Final RTA

Submittal_Vol 1

Attachment 6 Lee_TSF_Final RTA Submittal_Vol 2 to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Installation Access

Form_FL FORM 190-2

1 01-JUN-2015

Attachment 10 Revised drawings 25 Attachment 2 Ft. Lee Specs Vol 1 844 01-SEP-2016 Attachment 3 Ft. Lee Specs Vol 2 762 01-SEP-2016 Attachment 4 Ft. Lee Specs Vol 3 623 01-SEP-2016 Attachment 5 Lee_TSF_Final RTA

Submittal_Vol 1

Attachment 6 Lee_TSF_Final RTA Submittal_Vol 2

Attachment 7 FtLee_TSF_Geotech_Rep ort

315 01-APR-2016

Attachment 8 Site Visit Participants 2 09-NOV-2016 Attachment 9 LEED-NC 2009

(V3)_Scorecard_TSF 20161110

1 10-NOV-2016

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES TO OFFERORS

The following have been added by full text:

SPECIFICATIONS:

Specificiation as identified may be found in attached file: LEED-NC 2009 (v3)_Scorecard_TSF 20161110.

Section 01 33 29 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING: See attached LEED Checklist which is provided For Information Only.

DRAWINGS:

All drawings as identified may be found in attached file: Revised drawings.

Sheet AE601: Delete as originally issued and substitute therefor the attached like numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheets AE201, AE202, AE203, AE206, AE207, AE209, AE210, and AE211: Delete Note 6 and substitute therefor

“6. FOR SIGNAGE SEE AE609”

Sheet AE205: Delete as original issued and substitute therefor the attached like numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet AE603: Delete as original issued and substitute therefor the attached like numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet AE208: Delete as original issued and substitute therefor the attached like numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet AE607: Delete as original issued and substitute therefor the attached like numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet AE204: Delete as original issued and substitute therefor the attached like numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet AE208: Delete as original issued and substitute therefor the attached like numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet A-004: Delete as original issued and substitute therefor the attached like numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet AE103: Delete as original issued and substitute therefor the attached like numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet AF601: Delete as originally issued and substitute therefor the attached like numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet SB101: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet SB102: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet SB103: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet SB104: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet SB105: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet SB106: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet SB107: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet SB108: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet SB109: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet SB110: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet SB111: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

Sheet SB112: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/9/2016.

All sheets: All references in the drawings to “LOADING DOCK SCISSOR LIFT,” “FIXED SCISSOR LIFT,” and “LOADING DOCK LEVELERS” refers to “Loading Dock Scissor Lift” as described in Section 11 13 20.13

LOADING DOCK SCISSOR LIFT.

Sheet CS101: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/15/2016.

Sheet CS510: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/15/2016.

Sheet LP101: Delete this sheet in its entirety as originally issued and substitute the attached revised like-numbered sheet dated 11/15/2016.

SECTION 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS

OF AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION II - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

Section 00 22 11

1. OVERVIEW

This is a Best Value Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) solicitation for the construction of the Training Support Facility at Fort Lee, Virginia.

2. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Contracting Officer/Source Section Authority will award a firm fixed-price contract based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be technically acceptable to the Government in accordance with LPTA evaluation procedures and has the lowest evaluated price. To be considered technically acceptable and receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factor 1 - Specialized Experience and Factor 2 - Past Performance. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. Factor 3 – Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through use of a price analysis.

3. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

3.1 Proposal Evaluation: The proposal will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” / “Unacceptable” basis using the following factors:

3.1.1 Factor 1: Specialized Experience: Each Offeror’s documented specialized experience will be reviewed to determine if the Offeror’s team demonstrates recent and relevant specialized experience meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements and criteria set out in the solicitation.

3.1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine if the contractor’s performance record supports a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

3.1.3 Factor 3: Price: The resulting award will be a firm fixed-price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

3.2 Price Proposal Evaluation: The LPTA procedure is applied to known firm requirements, usually readily available in the commercial marketplace, where a fair and reasonable price determination is based on adequate competition. Therefore, price analysis will normally be used to determine the total evaluated price to support the selection of the lowest price, technically acceptable offeror. Although in exceptional cases when the determination of a fair and reasonable price requires additional information, the Contracting Officer may conduct a cost analysis to support the determination of whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

W91236-17-R-0002

3.3 Source Selection Decision: The award will be made to the lowest price Offeror who submits a proposal that is otherwise “acceptable” when reviewed against all of the evaluation factors outlined in the RFP.

4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

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

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

4.3 Offerors shall submit their proposal packages to US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District at the address shown in Block 7 of the Standard Form 1442. Proposals must be received in the Norfolk District not later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

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

4.5 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 each 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.

4.6 Proposal Submission Requirements:

4.6.1 The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes. They are 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.

4.6.2 Each volume shall be submitted in a separate three-ring binder with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers in accordance with paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2. The cover of each volume shall be labeled with the project name, installation name, solicitation number, volume number, and the Offeror’s name. Submit one (1) original plus three (3) copies of Volume 1 and submit one (1) original and one (1) copy of Volume 2. The original hardcopy of each volume shall be clearly marked “Original” and the original signatures shall be in blue ink. Copies of each volume shall be clearly marked as “COPY XX of XX”. In addition to the hard copy proposals, submit one (1) electronic, non-editable, copy of each volume on a separate CD ROM labeled to match its respective hard copy volume.

4.6.3 The proposal shall be submitted in an 8-½ inch x 11 inch format (except that tables and graphic representations may be submitted on folded 11 inch x 17 inch pages). Pages may be single-sided or double-sided and shall be numbered. Text shall have a minimum twelve (12) point Arial or Times New Roman font.

No proposal information may be included by reference. The page count is at the discretion of the Offeror.

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

4.6.5 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. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1”

Gutter – 0”

From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5”

Page Size, Width – 8.5”

Page Size, Height – 11”

NOTE: 11 inch X17 inch folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations.

The following additional restrictions apply:

a. File Packaging. PDF Files shall be submitted in read-only format. All price breakdown information shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007 to aide in the cost/price evaluation. Each Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the hardcopy is consistent with the electronic copy of the proposal. In the event of any conflict between the electronic and hard copy submissions, the hard copy submission will govern and will be the material upon which the Government will base its evaluation and ultimately, its decision.

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.

5.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

5.1 VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

Factor Location Description

TAB A

SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet (Included at Attachment 1, Section 00 22 11)

Factor 1 TAB B Specialized Experience

Factor 2 TAB C Past Performance

5.2 VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor Location Description

FACTOR 3

TAB A

Price (Standard Form 1442 and Contract Line Item Schedule)

N/A TAB B Bid Guarantee

N/A TAB C Required Pre-Award Information

N/A TAB D Subcontracting Plan (if required)

6.0 EVALUATION APPROACH – VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

All proposals will be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

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

6.1.1 Adequacy of Response. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine if, based on the Offeror’s record of specialized experience and past performance, it has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

6.2 TAB B - FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

6.2.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.2.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate recent, relevant experience as a prime contractor or joint venture partner on similar projects, using the form provided in Attachment 2, entitled “Company Specialized Experience - Offeror.”

6.2.1.2 If the Offeror is a joint venture, the proposal shall describe the role that each firm in the joint venture will play in executing the project. The demonstrated experience may come from any of the entities involved in the venture so long as they served as a prime contractor on the example project.

6.2.1.3 When proposing as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture shall sign the SF 1442 and the bid bond unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. In addition, a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal.

6.2.1.4 If any firm included in the proposal, either as a prime contractor or joint venture partner has multiple divisions, units, or functions, then the Government will consider only project examples performed by the division, unit, or function submitting the offer.

6.2.1.5 The Offeror shall submit no more than three (3) project examples to demonstrate the type/scope key features of work and complexity attributes identified in in the Evaluation Criteria.

6.2.1.6 Government will consider submitted projects involving contracts with private concerns, local and state governments, or the federal government.

6.2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The Government will evaluate the example projects submitted by the Offeror to determine if they demonstrate recent, relevant Specialized Experience of the Offeror as specified below:

6.2.2.1 Recent. For a submitted project to be considered “Recent” it shall be well underway; i.e., at least 50% construction progress complete, or completed within the five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. A project that does not meet the definition of “recent” will not be considered by the Government.

6.2.2.2 Relevant. The Offeror’s submitted projects will be considered “Relevant” if taken together they clearly demonstrate the requirements for “similar in type/scope” and “similar in complexity” defined below.

6.2.2.2.1 Type/Scope. To be considered “similar in type/scope” each submitted project must demonstrate all of the following elements or attributes:

a. New construction of a climate controlled retail, warehouse, storage or other similar type facility equal to or greater than 80,000 square feet;

b. Constructed with structural steel framing, masonry exterior walls, and masonry and gypsum interior walls; AND

c. Meets LEED Silver Certification or ASHRAE 189.1 or 90.7 requirements.

Each offeror must submit three (3) example projects that are similar in type/scope as defined above. Failure to submit three (3) similar in type/scope projects will result in a deficiency rendering the proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

6.2.2.2.2 Complexity. Submitted projects must demonstrate “similar in complexity” attributes in accordance with the following criteria:

a. Construction within a constrained site. A constrained site is defined as a site with limited and controlled physical access and restricted and/or limited laydown space. A constrained site requires the prime contractor to exercise sufficient control of construction operations to facilitate progress while maintaining the normal construction requirements for access, workers and materials, and laydown areas.

b. Construction adjacent to an active client operation. This requirement is described as work completed within an active military or government installation or commercial site directly adjacent to or surrounded by activities or normal operations which cannot be stopped or eliminated during construction.

Each of the attributes for being “similar in complexity” as defined above must be demonstrated by at least one

(1) of the three (3) submitted projects. An example project may, but need not, meet both items “a” and “b” above. Failure to demonstrate the “similar in complexity” attributes as defined above will result in a deficiency rendering the proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

6.2.2.2.3 If proposing as a joint venture, failure to submit a copy of the joint venture agreement will result in a deficiency rendering the proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

6.2.2.2.4 Offerors are reminded 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 in the description of a submitted project to demonstrate the key feature of work or attribute pertinent to the evaluation criteria for which the project is submitted. For example, for a project submitted to demonstrate construction adjacent to an active client operation, the project description must describe in what particulars or respects the submitted project was responsive to that evaluation criteria. Failure to provide sufficient detail will result in a “Deficiency” rendering the proposal “Unacceptable” for Factor 1 and ineligible for award.

6.2.3 FACTOR 1 RATING:

6.2.3.1 Acceptable - Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. An Offeror will be rated “Acceptable” if the Offeror demonstrates specialized experience in accordance with the requirements for recent and relevant projects as described above.

6.2.3.2 Unacceptable – Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

An Offeror will be rated "Unacceptable" if the proposal does not meet each of the criteria of an “Acceptable” proposal defined above.

A proposal receiving an “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for Factor 1 – Specialized Experience will be ineligible for award,

6.3 TAB C - FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

6.3.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.3.1.1 The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance delivering construction requirements consistent with the solicitation.

6.3.1.2 The Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire for each example project submitted under Factor 1 - Specialized Experience in order for the Government to obtain those clients' observations on the Offeror’s past performance. The questionnaire, along with the instructions for completing the questionnaire, is provided in Attachment 3. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project, they shall at a minimum complete blocks 1-6 of the PPQ and submit it with the proposal.

6.3.1.3 The Government will assess the past performance of the projects submitted for consideration under Factor 1 - Specialized Experience. As discussed above, Offerors are required to submit questionnaires for all projects submitted under Factor 1 - Specialized Experience in order for the Government to obtain those clients’ observations on the Offeror’s past performance. Accordingly, the past performance evaluation will be based upon an evaluation of the projects submitted for consideration under Factor 1 - Specialized Experience.

6.3.1.4 In addition to the information outlined above, Offerors must also provide information with respect to all projects performed within the last ten (10) years in which they were issued a final performance appraisal of Marginal, Poor, Unacceptable, or Unsatisfactory, along with an explanation of such rating, or in which it was issued a Cure Notice or Show Cause. If no such ratings have been received or the Offeror has not been issued a Cure Notice or Show Cause within the last ten (10) years, the Offeror must include a statement in their proposal so stating.

6.3.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.3.2.1 There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate whether or not the Offeror’s past performance is “recent” and “relevant.” As discussed under Factor 1 - Specialized Experience, "recent" projects shall include only projects that are well underway, i.e. (at least 50% construction completed) or completed within the five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. The Government will assess “relevance” by applying the evaluation criteria defined under Factor 1 - Specialized Experience.

6.3.2.2 The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the submitted projects. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s or key subcontractor(s)’ past performance on past contracts. Rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror and key subcontractor(s) performed those past contracts.

Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc.

6.3.2.3 The Government reserves the right to verify past performance by reviewing the Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System (CPARS) or other DOD or Government appraisal systems. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. The Government reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, and/or to review other recent projects rated in CPARS, review and/or contact Offeror furnished references, or to review personal knowledge. The Government reserves the right to verify past performance by contacting and interviewing the points of contact. If the listed reference is not available, the Government reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed reference.

6.3.2.4 Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer.

6.3.2.5 The Government will not release the past performance information from telephone interviews, if conducted, to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments.

6.3.2.6 If the CPARS or other DOD or Government appraisal systems do not contain overall or interim ratings for some or all of the projects submitted under Factor 1 - Specialized Experience, satisfactory/acceptable or better past performance may be demonstrated for each unrated similar project by a satisfactory/acceptable or better evaluation in the past performance evaluation telephone interviews.

6.3.2.7 If the Offeror received a final performance rating of Marginal, Poor, Unacceptable, or Unsatisfactory within the last ten (10) years, the Offeror may be rated “Unacceptable” for Factor 2 which would render the proposal ineligible for award.

6.3.3 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE RATING:

6.3.3.1 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 Notes 1 and 2 below:

6.3.3.2 Unacceptable - Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note 1. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or not sufficient to conduct a meaningful past performance rating, 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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

Note 2. Acceptable past performance is demonstrated by: (1) An overall rating of at least Satisfactory or better on the Past Performance Questionnaires, Attachment 3, (2) An overall rating of at least Satisfactory or better in the CPARS or other DOD or Government appraisal systems, or (3) Past Performance Evaluations from telephone interviews of Satisfactory/Acceptable or better.

A proposal receiving an “Unacceptable” rating for this factor shall be ineligible for award.

7.1 EVALUATION APPROACH – VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA

INFORMATION

This volume shall consist of all information required to support proposed costs and prices as well as other required information necessary to complete the evaluation and selection processes. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required, however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award.

The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and the requirements/instructions set forth below. The Pro Forma information shall be enclosed in a separate binder labeled: “Volume 2 - Pro Forma Requirements.”

7.2 TAB A - FACTOR 3 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE)

7.1.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

7.1.1.1 The Offeror shall submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors.” The Offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF 1442 and continuation sheets.

7.1.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.1.2.1 The contract will be a firm fixed-price contract. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items.

7.1.2.2 In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(a) Comparison of total proposal price(s) received in response to the solicitation;

(b) Comparison of the proposed price received in response to the solicitation and the Independent Government Estimate;

(c) Comparison of the proposed price received in response to the solicitation with available historical information;

(d) Analysis of congruence between technical and price proposals to determine the reasonableness of the proposed prices as well as potential performance risk.

7.1.2.3 The RFP requires firm-fixed-price contract line items. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable.

7.1.2.4 In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, the Government will evaluate options for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

7.1.2.5 Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of “buy – in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

7.1.2.6 Failure to submit a Pricing Schedule and complete all contract line items may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration.

7.1.2.7 The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

7.1.2.8 The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis as necessary.

7.2 TAB B – BID GUARANTEE

The Offeror shall submit the Bid Bond in accordance with FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee. Although this item is not rated, the Government will review the Bid Bond for legal sufficiency. The Bond must be legally sufficient.

7.3 TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1, the Contracting Officer will perform an affirmative responsibility determination to ensure that the Offeror has (a) adequate financial resources to perform; (b) ability to comply with the contract duration; (c) a satisfactory performance record; (d) a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics; (e) the necessary equipment and facilities to perform or the ability to obtain them; and (f) be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive award.

7.3.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

7.3.1.1 The Offeror shall submit the following information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

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

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

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

(d) Information showing Offeror’s bondability for this project. Include the bond rate.

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

(f) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

(g) A certified statement listing; (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

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

7.3.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

7.4 TAB D – SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

7.4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

(NOTE: This Requirement is only REQUIRED OF LARGE BUSINESSES OR SMALL BUSINESSES THAT

QUALIFY AS LARGE BUSINESS UNDER NAICS CODE 237990 ($36.5 M)

7.4.1.1 If the Offeror proposing on this solicitation is a large business concern, in accordance with the definition as identified in FAR Clause 52.219-1, “SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REPRESENTATION”, the Offeror shall submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.704(a) and AFARS Appendix DD.

Offerors are permitted to submit a master subcontracting plan so long as it is created in accordance with FAR

19.701 and FAR 19.704(b). The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall address all elements identified in FAR 19.704(a)(1) through FAR 19.704(a)(11) and minimum goals).

7.4.1.2 The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall provide targets, expressed as percentages and dollars of total level of effort for Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Women-Owned Small Businesses, Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, and HUBZone small businesses. The target goals may provide for participation by a prime contractor, joint venture partner, teaming arrangement member, or subcontractor. Target goals will be incorporated and become part of any resultant contract. Small Business Subcontracting Plans percentages should be based off of the total planned subcontracted dollars and should attempt to meet the following goals (to the maximum extent practicable)

40% for Small Businesses

20% for Small Disadvantaged Businesses

8% for Women-Owned Small Businesses

14% for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses

4% for Veteran- Owned Small Businesses

6% for HUBZone Small Businesses.

Per FAR 19.702(a)(1), the Contracting Officer will review the apparent successful Offeror’s Subcontracting Plan.

The apparent successful Offeror shall negotiate an acceptable Subcontracting Plan with the Contracting Officer prior to award. Failure to negotiate an acceptable Subcontracting Plan may make the Offeror ineligible for award.

7.4.1.3 The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be thorough, complete, and in accordance with AFARS Appendix DD and FAR Clause 52.219-9, as it will be incorporated into the contract upon award of the contract to the Offeror, if acceptable and upon final approval of the Contracting Officer.

7.4.1.4 Submit the firm’s subcontracting compliance on previous projects completed or underway within the past three years of the date of this solicitation. This requirement may be supported by using copies of the Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR).

8.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

8.1.1 A SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions, as required, as well as information obtained from other sources; e.g., past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

8.1.2 The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor using the following process. The SSEB will evaluate only those proposals passing the preliminary compliance review in accordance with the following procedures. The Government intends to conduct a tiered evaluation approach: at the outset of its technical evaluation, the SSEB will be provided only Volume 1 containing the non-price factors for the three (3) low-priced submitted proposals, provided that a minimum of three (3) Offerors respond to the solicitation. The SSEB will be provided no information concerning the order of the proposals in terms of price.

The SSEB will conduct the technical evaluation of those three (3) proposals in accordance with the solicitation provisions. In the event that none of the initial three proposals are evaluated as technically acceptable, the SSEB will be provided additional proposals in order of next low-price in groupings to perform its technical evaluation;

like the initial group, the SSEB will be provided no information concerning the order of the proposals. The SSEB will review all proposals in each grouping until a technically acceptable proposal is identified.

Once one or more proposals are deemed technically acceptable, the SSEB may proceed to prepare an SSEB report for the proposals evaluated. In lieu of the tiered evaluation approach above, if the SSA determines that discussions are required to attain a best value award, the SSEB will review all of the proposals and prepare an SSEB report for all proposals. The contracting officer will establish a competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c) prior to conducting discussions. Offerors are reminded that the Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to do so.

The SSEB will not be provided any matters or information relating to the price factor for any evaluated proposals.

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

8.1.4 A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that the Government decides that discussions with Offerors are required or are considered to be in the Government’s best interests. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. Note: in lieu of the tiered evaluation approach identified above, the Government will review all of the proposals in the event that discussions and/or price negotiations are determined to be necessary by the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority. In other words, all proposals received in response to the solicitation shall be evaluated in the event it is necessary to establish a competitive range.

8.1.5 If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with those Offerors in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

8.1.6 Upon conclusion of discussions, Offerors will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

9.1 DEFINITIONS

9.2 Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement. A deficiency will result in an unacceptable rating and render a proposal ineligible for award.

9.3 Deviation: Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

10.0 EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

10.1 General: The Government will review the proposals and rate each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time.

10.2 Review Write-up: The Government will support each “Unacceptable” rating with a narrative, separately listing all deficiencies and/or deviations.

10.3 Rating System: Each factor will be rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. Proposals which receive a rating of “Unacceptable” in one or more factors will not be considered eligible for award.

SECTION 00 22 11 ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1

TAB A PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Name of Solicitation:

Name of Offeror:

Address: Phone:

Fax:

E-mail: Tax ID #:

DUNS # (used for accessing the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS)

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the CCASS databases. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J- V) it must also be submitted. Provide a DUNS number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide DUNS for each.

Firm 1:

Nature of Association: Firm 2:

Nature of Association: Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

[List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.] Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address: Negotiator's Telephone: Negotiator’s E-mail:

Name of Joint Venture Partner, if applicable:

Address: Phone:

Fax:

E-mail: Tax ID #:

DUNS # (used for accessing the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS)

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the CCASS databases. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J- V) it must also be submitted. Provide a DUNS number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide DUNS for each.

Firm 1:

Nature of Association: Firm 2:

Nature of Association: Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

ATTACHMENT 2

COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE – OFFEROR

Provide the following information to show example projects, that are well underway (i.e., at least 50% construction completed) or completed within the past five (5) years of the date of this Solicitation, that are similar in “Type/Scope” and “Complexity” as defined in paragraph 6.2.2. Use one form per project. The page count is at the discretion of the Offeror. Note that in accordance with paragraph 4.5, “Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.