A.07.24_Sol_Amend_07.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1) Revise the definition of "Project" as defined in parapraph 2 , 5.1.1 Submission Requirements

2) Delete bullet paragraph 5.1.1, subparagraph Attachment 2: Specialized Experience for Non-JOC Projects "Projects listed on this attachment must have a value betw een $2500 and $5,000,000.

3) Added the follow ing language to paragraph 5.1.2.1 (d): Projects w ith a total aw ard value of $4,000,000 to $25,000,000 w ill be evaluated more favorably.

POC: Kevin Comegys, 757-201-7310, kevin.e.comegys@usace.army.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-Jun-2018

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 W91236-18-R-0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Apr-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

12-Jun-2018

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:

W91236-18-R-0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 11 00 - SF 1442 AND CLIN SCHEDULE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

AWARD ONE-STEP-BEST VALUE, DESIGN-BUILD (SINGLE AWARD)

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION RQMNTS

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 The purpose of these instructions is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Tradeoff Process. 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 three evaluation factors. The factors are as follows:

Factor 1 – Specialized Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price (Coefficient)

All evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price (coefficient).

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

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

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

2.3 Offerors shall submit their proposal packages electronically via the AMRDEC Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) website at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe. Proposals must be uploaded to the AMRDEC website with a date/time stamped not later than the time and date specified in Block 10 of Standard Form 1442.

2.4 The Government is not liable for any costs Offerors incur in the preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation.

2.5 Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the requirements with a statement of intent to perform or the use of phrases such as, “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used” 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.

2.6 Proposal Submission Requirements

2.6.1 The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically and shall consist of three volumes, Volume I – Technical, Volume II – Past Performance, and Volume III – Price (Coefficient) and Pro Forma Information. The proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

2.6.2 Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as a separate electronic volume and shall be clearly identified as such when uploaded to the AMRDEC website. The uploaded documents shall be in Microsoft Office 2013 (.docx) or Portable Document Format (PDF) using Adobe Acrobat 9.0. Offerors shall not submit any documents in PDF that cannot be electronically searched. Offerors may use JPEG images for charts or screen shots. Price (coefficient) shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel 2013 (.xlsx) format to aide in the evaluation of the coefficient.

Offerors shall name documents using standard naming conventions (e.g. Offeror Name-Volume Name.docx). Each volume shall be in a single searchable file with copy/paste capability, and stored in a folder that corresponds to the proposal volume it represents. Offerors shall insert the file name in the header of each document.

2.6.3 The proposal type size for text shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word Times New Roman 12 point font. The text shall be single column, normal proportional spacing and one inch (1”) margins (top, bottom, left, and right). The text for charts, tables, graphs, and figures shall be no smaller than Microsoft Word, Times New Roman or Arial Narrow, 8 point font. Text lines and table lines of text shall be single-spaced. Page color for each page of the proposal shall be white. Information submitted shall not exceed the page limits for each volume. Proposals shall be prepared using 8-½ inch x 11 inch paper format. Fold-outs shall not exceed 11 inch x 17 inch and shall count as one (1) page. Fold-outs shall be kept to a minimum and shall be used only where a table or other graphic cannot be accommodated by a single 8-½ inch x 11 inch page. All material shall be contained within the page limit identified for each volume. All appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc., are included in the page count.

The Government will not include the following in the page limitation: Cover page for volumes, tables of contents, indices, section dividers/tables, title pages, cross reference matrix, organizational chart, technical definition page(s), and acronym list will not be included in the page count. They will be counted if they contain any other information e.g., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” and without any additional information will not be counted.

Information submitted shall not exceed the page limits stated below for each volume and tab.

Evaluators will only read up to the maximum number of pages specified. If the page limit is exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit will be removed from the applicable volume or tab and will not be considered as part of the evaluation. Data submitted prior to the proposal submission due date will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation; therefore such data shall not be relied upon or incorporated in the proposal by reference.

Page limitations are as provided in the table below:

Volume Title Printed Copies Electronic Copies Maximum Pages

I Technical None 1

Specialized Experience None 1 40

II Past Performance None 1 30

III Price (Coefficient) None 1 No Limit

2.6.4 Any information that is changed as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions shall be clearly marked as a revision and dated.

2.6.5 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.

3. 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 with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and the proposal is determined to represent the best overall value to the Government, considering non-price factors described herein, and the coefficient. All evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price (coefficient). After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001.

4. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS

4.1 Evaluation Factors Table

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

Volume I Technical

1 Specialized Experience Most Important Factor 2 Volume II Past Performance 2ndMost Important Factor 3 Volume III Price (Coefficient) and Pro Forma Information 3rd Most Important Factor

Tab A Signed Solicitation & Amendments Not Rated Tab B Bid Guarantee Not Rated Tab C Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

Tab D Contractor Team Arrangements (e.g., JV Agreement/LLC) Not Rated

4.2 Evaluation Rating Definitions

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

4.2.2 Technical Factor 1 will be adjectivally evaluated using the combined technical/risk rating in the below table.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

Proposal is unawardable.

4.2.3 Risk ratings for Technical Factor 1 will use the descriptions in the following table.

Technical Risk Rating Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule and degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule and degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

4.2.5 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.

4.2.6 The Government will evaluate the proposals and rate the quality of each technical evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the solicitation requirements. Proposals will not be compared at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government’s Source Selection Authority will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against one another in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified.

4.2.7 Rating Definition for Volume II - Past Performance.

4.2.7.1 Recency. The Government will first evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance.

4.2.7.2 Relevance. The Government will next rate the relevancy of recent projects submitted under Factor 1, Specialized Experience in accordance with the definitions in the below table.

The relevancy rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

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

4.2.7.3 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.

4.2.7.4 The Government will target areas covered in the requirement of this solicitation including quality, schedule, cost control, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work and safety. The Government will place a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, information found in the Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System (CPARS) or other agency performance databases, 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.

4.2.7.5 The rating for Volume II - 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 provided in the below table.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will 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 Volume III – Price (Coefficient) will be evaluated by the Cost/Price Evaluation Team.

Proposals will be evaluated using price analysis techniques and will be evaluated for price fair and reasonableness. Price will not be rated or scored.

5. VOLUME I - TECHNICAL

5.1 TAB A – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall demonstrate recent and relevant JOC experience on the applicable combination of attachment(s) to document their Specialized Experience. Offerors must use the formats in the below attachments when submitting Specialized Experience.

Attachment 1: Specialized Experience for JOC Contracts Attachment 1a: Detail Sheet-Specialized Experience for JOC Projects Attachment 2: Specialized Experience for Non-JOC Contracts Attachment 2a: Detail Sheet-Specialized Experience for Non-JOC Projects

A project is defined as a single, standalone construction project, a JOC, or a multiple or single award task order contract. A JOC and/or multiple or single award task order contract will count as one (1) project. Projects submitted for specialized experience shall demonstrate experience in managing multiple projects performed simultaneously. Previous experience may include, but is not limited to JOC experience; however, additional consideration will be given to offerors with previous JOC experience.

Offerors may provide a supplemental narrative (exclusive of the submitted projects/contracts) for additional consideration. The supplemental narrative shall not exceed two (2) pages and should explain how the offeror’s experience, not directly related to managing multiple projects simultaneously, is applicable to this project and how the Government will benefit.

Attachment 1: Specialized Experience for JOC Contracts

• Offerors shall complete the Attachment 1 Spreadsheet – the format must be followed for an

Offeror’s submission to be evaluated.

• Offerors may list up to five (5) JOC contracts that best represent the Offeror’s work experience required on this solicitation; if more than five contracts are submitted, only the first five contracts on the list will be evaluated. (NOTE: Only a total of five (5) examples of specialized experience in total on Attachment 1 and 2 will be considered; i.e., for example, an Offeror may present two (2) JOC contracts plus three (3) Non-JOC projects for a total of five (5) items of specialized experience; or an Offeror may present five (5) JOC contracts plus 0 (zero) NON-JOC projects for a total of five (5) items of specialized experience.)

• Each contract listed must have been performed within the last six (6) years from the date of this solicitation; if a project is submitted that was performed more than six (6) years ago, it will not be evaluated.

• If the contract listed is currently being performed, it must be at least 50% complete, as of the date of this solicitation.

Attachment 1a: Detail Sheet – Specialized Experience for JOC Contracts

• Offerors shall complete a Detail Sheet for each JOC Contract listed on Attachment 1 – this format must be followed for an Offeror’s submission to be evaluated.

• Each item on the Detail Sheet shall be addressed by the Offeror (ie, name and location of the contract; day, month and year contract was completed; final cost of this contract; is the contract more than 50% complete; provide detailed information for construction work per discipline listed on the Attachment 1a form; provide documentation for and explain any Prime, Key Subcontractor, Joint Venture or Mentor-Protégé arrangement).

Attachment 2: Specialized Experience for Non-JOC Projects

• Offerors shall complete the Attachment 2 Spreadsheet – this format must be followed for an

Offeror’s submission to be evaluated.

• Offerors may list up to five (5) Non-JOC projects that best represent the Offeror’s work experience required on this solicitation; if more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects on the list will be evaluated. (NOTE: Only a total of five (5) examples of specialized experience in total on Attachment 1 and 2 will be considered; i.e., for example, an Offeror may present two (2) JOC contracts plus three (3) Non-JOC projects for a total of 5 items of specialized experience; or an Offeror may present five (5) JOC contracts plus 0 (zero) NON-JOC projects for a total of five (5) items of specialized experience.)

• Each project listed must have been performed within the last six (6) years from the date of this solicitation; if a project is submitted that was performed more than six (6) years ago, it will not be evaluated.

• If the contract listed is currently being performed, it must be at least 50% complete, as of the date of this solicitation.

Attachment 2a: Detail Sheet — Specialized Experience for Non-JOC Projects

• Offerors shall complete a Detail Sheet for each Non-JOC Contract listed on Attachment 2 – this format must be followed for an Offeror’s submission to be evaluated.

• Each item on the Detail Sheet shall be addressed by the Offeror (i.e., name and location of the contract; day, month and year contract was completed; final cost of this contract; is the contract more than 50% complete; provide detailed information for construction work per discipline listed on the Attachment 2a form; provide documentation for and explain any Prime, Key Subcontractor, Joint Venture or Mentor-Protégé arrangement).

5.1.1.1 Additional Submission Requirements

Five (5) Projects or Contract Examples Offerors may present a maximum total of five (5) examples of specialized experience on Attachments 1 and 2; i.e., for example, an Offeror may present two (2) JOC contracts plus three

(3) Non-JOC projects for a total of five (5) items of specialized experience; or an Offeror may present one (1) JOC contract plus four (4) Non-JOC projects for a total of five (5) examples of specialized experience.

Specialized Experience Presented as Prime, Joint Venture or Mentor-Protégé The offeror may submit up to 5 projects. The government may rate the offeror higher if the offeror has performed as the prime contractor on at least 3 of the 5 projects submitted for specialized experience. In case of a Joint Venture (JV)/Mentor-Protégé (MP), the work as the prime must have been performed by at least one of the JV/MP partners.

Experience in Managing Multiple Projects Simultaneously Projects or contracts submitted for specialized experience should demonstrate experience in managing multiple projects performed simultaneously. Previous experience may include, but is not limited to JOC experience. However, extra consideration will be given to Offerors with previous JOC experience.

Difficult Challenges and Resulting Solutions For any project or contract submitted as specialized experience, describe, in narrative form on the appropriate detail sheet, any difficult challenges encountered and the resulting solution.

Elaborate on instances where a large number of task orders or projects were simultaneously managed and delivered successfully and on time. Explain how your management process will facilitate a successful, on-time delivery.

Presenting the Experience of Another Company Other Than the Offeror If an offeror presents experience of another company, the submission should include a description of the company(s) and what roles they perform in the project, do the companies comprise a Joint Venture, Mentor-Protégé or Prime-Key Subcontractor role? If a Key Subcontractor’s experience is submitted for evaluation purposes, clearly address the experience of the Prime with those particular Key Subcontractors. If a Joint Venture, the offeror shall clearly address the experience of each of the Joint Venture Partners and the relationship of the JV partners on any ongoing or previous projects. If in a Mentor-Protégé relationship, explain the relationship and the experience of each partner. A proposal may receive a higher rating if the proposal contains evidence of any of these relationships working successfully together on relevant previous projects. In the case where a Key Subcontractor is presenting relevant specialized experience and teaming with the Offeror, the Offeror must submit a Letter of Commitment (LOC) from that Key Subcontractor on Key Subcontractor letterhead, signed by the Key Subcontractor; Key Subcontractors may not be substituted later on without approval of the CO who will determine if the qualifications are equal to or greater than the previously proposed Key Subcontractor.

Submit Specialized Experience in Multiple Disciplines Offerors are encouraged to submit a combination of projects or contracts demonstrating experience with as many relevant characteristics as possible; projects or contracts shall demonstrate specialized experience in:

• Building renovations that include floors, doors, walls, windows, external facades, repairs to roofs;

• Repair/replacement of major building systems such as electrical, mechanical, HVAC;

• Civil work, that includes concrete/asphalt roads and pavements, earthwork, and drainage structures; sanitary sewer repair, potable water repair and replacement; and/or

• Environmental work, such as asbestos abatement and/or lead material and disposal.

5.1.2 Evaluation Criteria

5.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the depth and the relevancy of the specialized experience as submitted in the offeror’s proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

a. Projects that demonstrate experience working within the state of Virginia will be given more consideration than experience working outside the state of Virginia.

b. Experience that demonstrates managing multiple projects performed simultaneously will be evaluated more favorably.

c. Project examples that demonstrate experience working with proposed Key Subcontractors and/or the proposed JV Partners working together are considered more favorable.

d. Projects with a total award value of $4,000,000 to $25,000,000 will be evaluated more favorably. Offerors may submit higher valued projects if there is a scope of work with a measurable performance period and measureable monetary value within a larger project that is relevant to this procurement. An example could be a single contract that includes separate facilities, or buildings, or phased construction that shows relevant experience.

Offerors shall clearly describe this project and how it related to the overall contract.

Projects outside the relevant range may be considered less relevant. Smaller projects bundled into a larger project in order to meet this cost element are not considered relevant.

5.1.2.2 Projects shall be completed within the last six (6) years from the date of the solicitation or at least 50% complete by the date of this solicitation and may include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Building renovations that include: floors, doors, walls, windows, external facades, roof repair;

b. Repair/replacement of major building systems such as electrical, mechanical, HVAC;

c. Civil work, that includes concrete/asphalt roads and pavements, earthwork, and drainage structures; and/or

d. Environmental work, such as asbestos and/or lead containing material abatement and disposal.

5.1.2.3 Offerors demonstrating experience with multiple projects in multiple trades are considered more favorably.

6. VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 Submission Requirements

The Past Performance evaluation provides an assessment of each Offeror’s recent and relevant present and past performance to determine whether there is a reasonable expectation that the offeror can successfully perform as proposed. The Offeror shall submit a Self-Assessment – Past Performance Worksheet, Attachment 3, that provides recent contract performance (minimum of 6 months) during the six (6) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation.

The Self-Assessment—Past Performance Worksheet, Attachment 3, included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to complete for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Specialized Experience. Ensure the owner’s full name, correct phone number and email address are provided for each project/contract. The completed Self- Assessment should be submitted with your proposal.

Offerors may also provide a completed DD Form 2626, Performance Evaluation (Construction) or a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR).

Offerors may also include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, commercial evaluations and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror using the CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, JV, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s).

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 and the government is under no obligation to check other sources.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant project work is, as described in Factor 1- Specialized Experience, for recent projects. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s performance to determine the acceptability or unacceptability of the Offeror’s performance.

Past Performance will be evaluated for projects completed in the last 6 years from the date of this solicitation or currently ongoing projects/contracts (at least 50% complete).

The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance of projects/contracts submitted under Factor 1 - Specialized Experience, to include the past performance of any Key Subcontractors or JV/MP partners whose projects the Offeror may have submitted. Proposals will be evaluated based on the information provided and any other Past Performance information obtained by the Government.

The Government will consider past performance information in evaluating overall risk associated with a particular Offeror. When evaluating these criteria, the following will be taken into consideration for evaluation purposes:

a. the relevance of the past performance;

b. how recently the project submitted was performed;

c. trends in the Offeror’s performance;

d. evaluations, letters of appreciation, and commendations from customers; and

e. positive and/or negative comments that impact evaluation of Offeror’s past performance.

Attachment 3: Self-Assessment – Past Performance Worksheet

• Offerors shall complete the Self-Assessment – Past Performance Worksheet in the format provided.

• Each item on the Self-Assessment shall be addressed by the Offeror (i.e., provide the project and location; owner and owner’s POC and telephone; awarded cost; final cost; explain any cost growth; list date of award; original completion date; revised completion date; explain any time growth; general scope of work; explain offeror’s role; list work your company self-performed; list extent and type of work you subcontracted out; explain relevancy by checking all applicable boxes; explain each box checked using a narrative form; provide your performance evaluation as you know it).

7. VOLUME III – PRICE (COEFFICIENT)

7.1 Submission Requirements

Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price. The Contracting Officer anticipates adequate price competition; therefore, the preferred price analysis techniques are FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) and (ii); however, other analytical techniques and procedures, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, may be used singularly or in combination with others to ensure that the final prices are fair and reasonable. An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer/coefficient may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

In addition to determining whether a proposed price is fair and reasonable, the Government may determine that a proposed price is not awardable if prices are significantly unbalanced per FAR 15.404-1(g).

Coefficients are location-specific multiplier(s), developed and proposed by the offeror, to be applied against the published unit price book (UPB) cost line items for the purpose of providing consideration to the offeror for indirect costs, including: general and administrative and other overhead costs, insurance costs, bonding, protective clothing, equipment rental, and contractor’s profit. The proposed coefficient must include, but is not limited to the following:

• Contractor's overhead and profit (bare cost will be used in UPB)

• Subcontractors' overhead and profit

• Cost of annual software subscription for RSMeans Online

• Insurance

• All costs associated with bonding (specifically including bond premiums)

• Employee payroll taxes, insurance and fringe benefits

• Business taxes, contributions, memberships, corporate

• Headquarters support (legal, financial, etc.)

• All waste and excess material

• Sales tax on material and equipment costs

• Clean up

• Mobilization and close out for the total contract and each task order

• Compliance with environmental laws (overhead {indirect} costs associated with performing work in compliance with EPA/OSHA regulations, including obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, reporting requirements, etc.)

• Compliance with protection and safety laws (i.e., safety rails, face and clothing protection, etc.)

• Traffic and work site signs and barriers

• Project management and supervision

• Protection of and/or moving of government property

• Quality control

• Office management and equipment

• Depreciation of mobile office(s)

• Interest associated with funding of equipment and payroll

• Submittal preparation

• As built drawings

• Permits, licenses and fees

• Other risks of doing business (i.e., risk of a lower than expected contract dollar value;

risk of a high inflation cost if factors are bid for option years; risk of poor subcontractor performance and possible rework on various projects)

• UPB costs confidence (to include issues regarding how the cost data are captured and the size/types of projects they reflect)

• Contingencies

• Travel

• Depreciation of equipment or facilities

• Variances in subcontractor or worker availability

• Other local market conditions for each site not addressed by RS MEANS Location

Factors

• Other risks of doing business; acceptance testing; work-site security; etc.

The total evaluated coefficient will be composed of three separate coefficients proposed by the offeror and provided on Attachment 5 – Bid Schedule-Coefficient spreadsheet. The three separate coefficients are:

1 - Normal Business Hours Coefficient 2 – Other Than Normal Hours Coefficient 3 – Non Pre-priced Items Coefficient

The Government has provided a weighted percentage for each coefficient. Once the offeror inserts the proposed coefficient in Attachment 5, the three coefficients will be combined into a single coefficient value not to exceed three decimal places. The steps and formulas utilized to calculate the total coefficient are as follows:

a. Contractor shall complete Attachment 5, Bid Schedule-Coefficient; all values shall not exceed three decimal places

b. Attachment 5 will automatically calculate the total coefficient utilizing the following formula:

Weighted Average = (.85)(Normal business hours Coefficient) + (.05)(Other than normal business hours Coefficient) + (.10)(non-prepriced items Coefficient)

Offerors shall submit Attachment 5, Coefficient, with the Offeror’s proposed coefficient. If Attachment 5 is completed properly, one coefficient will be calculated that is the weighted combination of the following three items: (1) normal working hours, (2) other than normal working hours, and (3) non pre-priced items. All elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal shall be included in the total price for the project. This coefficient will be used for the entire performance period of the contract without being changed. RSMeans Online will automatically be updated to accommodate market adjustments.

Offerors are also required to submit the following information under Volume III: Signed solicitation and amendments, bid guarantee, required pre-award information and contractor team arrangements (e.g., JV Agreement/LLC/Mentor-Protégé Agreement).

8.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this Solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal revisions (if applicable), and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

The SSEB does not compare proposals against each other. The fundamental responsibility of the SSEB is to provide the Source Selection Authority with information to make an informed and reasoned selection. The SSEB will therefore prepare a summary report containing the evaluation of each factor to include supporting rationale for the factor rating; brief the SSA; and prepare any necessary items for discussions.

8.2 Ratings on individual factors, to include all supporting documentation, will be provided to the SSA. The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine the offerors that proposed the best offer to the Government.

8.3 Discussions (if necessary). The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient detail in their proposals, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation. Offerors should not assume they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything after the submission of the initial proposals. The Government may evaluate proposals as submitted, without further exchanges. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with offerors if determined to be necessary and in the best interest of the Government. If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with each offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d).

The Government will provide the offeror an advance agenda for discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it. Upon conclusion of discussions, those offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

8.4 Miscellaneous. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award, to negotiate with offerors in a competitive range, if one is established, and to award a contract to the offeror with the most advantageous proposal to the Government.

8.5 Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this solicitation may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award. 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.

9.0 SOLICITATION ATTACHMENTS

Offerors shall use the following attachments when responding to this RFP:

Attachment 1: Specialized Experience for JOC Contracts Attachment 1a: Detail Sheet – Specialized Experience for JOC Contracts Attachment 2: Revised-Specialized Experience for Non-JOC Contracts, per Sol Amnd 0004 Attachment 2a: Revised-Detail Sheet – Specialized Experience for Non-JOC Contracts,per Sol Amnd 0004 Attachment 3: Self-Assessment – Past Performance Worksheet Attachment 4: Bid Schedule – Coefficient Spreadsheet Attachment 5: Revised-Division 01 – General Requirements, per Sol Amnd 0004 Attachment 6: SOW – DLA/DSCR JOC Deleted per Sol Amnd 0004 Attachment 7: Site Visit Map

(End of Summary of Changes)