W9123620R0001 Amendment 6.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 complete the follow ing:

1. Revise the proposal due time in the Instructions to Offerors to reflect 2:00 PM EDT, as published in Amendment 4.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

(see Continuation Page)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Apr-2020

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W9123620R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Mar-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

28-Apr-2020

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, NORFOLK

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9123620R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 6

The purpose of this amendment is to complete the following:

1. Revise the proposal due time in the Instructions to Offerors to reflect 2:00 PM EDT, as published in Amendment 4.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The Issued By organization has changed from

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, NORFOLK

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510

to

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, NORFOLK

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Operations Building is a 125,000 sf multi-story, secure facility that will house operational and administrative spaces including a Controlled Access Area (CAA); armory, private and open offices; multi-purpose team room;

conference; training; storage; personnel support spaces (kitchen/serving, medical aid station, physical therapy, locker rooms, laundry, restrooms); and uninterruptible power supply. The Hangar is approximately 193,000 sf multi-story, and secure facility. It will house fixed wing and rotary-wing aircraft bays; tool room; repair, Aircraft Life Saving Equipment, rotor balance, and wash shops; operational and administrative spaces including training areas; troop area; storage and support areas; and uninterruptible power supply.

B. OVERVIEW OF THIS SOURCE SELECTION

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

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

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

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

Electronic Proposal Submission in DoD SAFE

In accordance with FAR 15.203(c), Electronic commerce may be used to issue RFPs and to receive proposals, modifications, and revisions when contracting by negotiation. Proposals will be submitted through DoD Secure Access File Exchange (DoD SAFE) (https://safe.apps.mil/). All proposals must be uploaded into DoD SAFE infrastructure not earlier than April 28, 2020, and not later than (NLT) April 30, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Day Time (EDT). Offerors will require a unique “request code” to upload proposals into DoD SAFE, which shall be obtained only by email to POC: Tarik A. Booze at tarik.a.booze@usace.army.mil, and cc:

PPMDContracts@usace.army.mil. The email request for the “request code” must be emailed to the POC NLT April 28, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. EDT.

The OFFEROR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for ensuring that the entire proposal has been received into DoD SAFE with a timestamp NLT 2:00 p.m. EDT on April 30, 2020.

Electronic Proposal Organization and Format

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

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

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

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

Statutory Cost Limitations This acquisition will result in a firm fixed price contract for design-bid-build construction services in accordance with FAR 36.205 as follows:

Phase 2: CLINS - 0002, 0004, 0007, 0008, 0011, 0012, and 0020, are subject to a Phase 2 Statutory Cost limitation of $44,350,000.00.

Phase 3: CLINS - 0001, 0003, 0005, 0006, 0009, 0010, 0013, 0014, 0015, 0016, 0017, 0018 and 0019) are subject to a Phase 3 Statutory Cost Limitation of $74,056,000.00.

C. OFFEROR’S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

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

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

The Solicitation Number is: W91236-20-R-0001 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: WYNSEX-SNAREB

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

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 The purpose of these instructions is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the proposals by the Source Selection Team (SST) and making a Best Value decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Best Value Trade-off Process as authorized by FAR 15.101.1.

In as much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the resulting contract, the proposal shall be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract.

1.2 The Government will conduct a Best Value Trade-off of four evaluation factors. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The factors are as follows:

Factor 1 – Specialized Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Plan Factor 4 – Price.

Factors 1 is the most important non-price factor. Factor 2 is less important than Factor 1. Factor 3 is less important than Factor 2. When combined, all non-price evaluation factors will be approximately equal to price.

In event the Government determines that Discussions are necessary to select the best value proposal, the establishment of a competitive range and discussions will not occur until after the Government has completed its evaluations of all Factors.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation criteria and basis of award stated in the solicitation. If award is not made on initial offers, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range, with the approval of the SSA, and documents the decision through approval of the Competitive Range Decision Document (CRDD).

Upon completion of the evaluation of final proposal revisions submitted by the Offerors in the competitive range, or if award is made on initial offers, the SSA will select the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government. This decision will be documented to include the rationale for any business judgments and trade-offs made or relied on and the benefits associated with additional costs in the Source Selection Decision Document

(SSDD).

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

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

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

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

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

2.5 Proposal Submission Requirements:

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

2.5.3 Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted in a separate electronic file with a table of contents and labeled section. The title page of each volume shall be labeled with the project name, solicitation number, volume number, and the Offeror’s name. Submit one (1) electronic file of Volume I and one (1) electronic file of Volume II. The electronic file of each volume shall be clearly marked and all associated Factors, to include original signatures, which shall be in blue ink or digitally signed with certificates. Ensure the electronic files are submitted as non-editable, files (e.g., pdf, excel) for volume submitted. See paragraph 2.5.4 and 2.5.6 below for additional information regarding submittal formats.

2.5.3.1 Offers received by telegraph, modifications thereto, or cancellations of offers will not be accepted.

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

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

2.5.5 Any information that is changed as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions should be of a different color and clearly marked. The revised pages shall be dated.

2.5.6 All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete project name, installation name, solicitation number, and the Offeror’s name in the header and/or footer. Each volume shall have a Table of Contents and use the following page setup parameters:

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

Gutter – 0”

From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5”

Page Size, Width – 8.5”

Page Size, Height – 11”

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

The following additional restrictions apply:

a. File Packaging. All .pdf and .xlsx files shall be submitted in read-only format (non-editable/locked).

All price breakdown information shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel 2013 Excel Workbook (*.xlsx) format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2013 to aide in the price evaluation.

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

2.5.7 All constituent members of the Offeror, if applicable, MUST sign the SF1442 (in blue ink or digitally with certificates) and the bid bond unless a written agreement executed by all team members is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other members. Failure to comply with this requirement WILL eliminate the proposal from further consideration. The proposal must comply with any additional instructions in FAR clause 52.215-1 incorporated into this solicitation.

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

3.0 BASIS OF AWARD

It is intended that this RFP will result in a Firm Fixed-Price contract. The Contracting Officer will award this contract to that responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the best overall value to the Government.

The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contracts; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror submitting the proposal that is determined to represent the best value – the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

The relative order of importance of factors is as follows: Factor 1 – Specialized Experience is the most important non-price factor, Factor 2 – Past Performance is less important than Factor 1. Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Plan is less important than Factor 2. When combined, all non-price evaluation factors will be approximately equal to Factor 4 – Price. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Source Selection Authority Council will conduct a comparative analysis of the proposals, and the Source Selection Authority will determine which proposal represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced or the highest rated technical offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001, unless corrected through discussions, should the Government decide to conduct discussions.

The Government’s intent is to make the award without conducting discussions, but the Government reserves the right to set a competitive range and discuss aspects of proposals with Offerors if the Government determines it to be necessary to do so. Offerors should be aware that the Government may make award without discussions, clarifications, or any contact concerning the proposal received; therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

This RFP does not commit the Government to reimburse any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation. Issuance of this RFP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

4.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT and EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS

4.1 VOLUME I - PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

TAB A

SF 1442 and all amendments, signed, and Proposal Data Sheet (Included at Attachment 1, Section 00 22 20)

Contractor Team Arrangements, e.g., JV Agreement/LLC, Letter of Commitment (if applicable)

N/A

Factor 1 TAB B Specialized Experience Factor 1 is the most important non-price factor

Factor 2 TAB C Past Performance Factor 2 is less important than Factor 1

Factor 3 TAB D Small Business Participation Plan Factor 3 is less important than Factor 2

4.2 VOLUME II – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

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

Factor 4 is approximately equal in importance to Factors 1, 2 and 3 Combined

TAB B Bid Guarantee Not Rated

TAB C Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.3 EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS

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

4.3.2 Factor 1 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 4.3.7 by the Technical Evaluation Team (TET).

4.3.3 Factor 2 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 4.3.8 by the TET. The results of Factor 2 evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

4.3.4 Factor 3 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 4.3.9 by the Small Business Specialist, member of the

SST.

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

4.3. 6 The Government will evaluate and rate the proposals against the specified evaluation criteria in the solicitation requirements for each non-price evaluation factor. Proposals will not be compared at this time. After all proposals are evaluated and rated, the Government 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.

4.3. 7 Rating Definitions for Factor 1 – Specialized Experience:

4.3. 7.1 The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The combined Technical/Risk definitions are as follows:

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

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

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

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

Unacceptable (U): Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is un-awardable.

4.3.7.2 The definitions of risk as referred to in paragraph 4.3.7.1 above are as follows:

Low: Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or 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, increased cost or 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, increased cost or 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.

4.3.7.3 The definitions for a strength, weakness, significant weakness, and deficiency as used in paragraph 4.3.7.1 above are as follows:

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

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

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

Deficiency – Is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

4.3.8 Rating Definitions for Factor 2 – Past Performance:

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

4.3.8.2 Relevance. The Government will next rate the relevancy of recent projects submitted under Factor 1 – Specialized Experience in accordance with the definitions of "Very Relevant," "Relevant," "Somewhat Relevant," and "Not Relevant" as presented below. The relevancy rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating. The past performance relevancy rating is as follows:

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

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

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

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

4.3.8.3 Rating Definitions for Factor 2 – Past Performance will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is as follows:

Substantial Confidence: Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

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

4.3.9 Rating Definitions for Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Plan

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

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

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

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

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

5.0 VOLUME I – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1 TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

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

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

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

5.2 TAB B - FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.2.1 Submission Requirements:

The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Specialized Experience in accordance with Paragraph 5.2.2.

Offerors should demonstrate recent and relevant construction experience on submitted projects by providing the information requested on the Company Specialized Experience form, Attachment 2, at the end of this Section.

Offerors may provide this information in the format shown on this form or in another format so long as the information is clearly presented.

If the Offeror is comprised of more than one member via a teaming agreement, joint venture (JV) agreement, or other appropriate instrument, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Offeror as the proposed collective. In addition, the Offeror should describe the roles that will be performed by its constituent team members if it is awarded the contract.

If an Offeror comprised of more than one member does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted performed by the constituent members. In this event, the Offeror should describe the role(s) the member actually performed on the submitted project. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all JV members may be rated lower.

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

Offerors may submit no greater than six (6) example projects, consisting of no more than three (3) projects submitted to demonstrate experience relevant to the Operations Building and no more than three (3) projects submitted to demonstrate experience relevant to the Hangar Facility. The submitted projects should best demonstrate the Offeror’s experience relative to the evaluation criteria. The Offeror shall clearly indicate which projects are submitted to demonstrate Operations Building construction experience and which projects are submitted to demonstrate Hangar construction experience. A single project that includes both an Operations Building and Hangar may be used to demonstrate experience in both building types. The Offeror shall note that the Government will not evaluate more than three projects submitted for each of the two building types.

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

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

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

For each example construction project submitted, Offerors should provide a project narrative that is written with sufficient detail to specifically describe the Offeror’s experience on the sample project in relation to the project relevancy considerations defined in the evaluation criteria in Section 5.2.2 for Factor 1.

The narrative should clearly describe the scope of work performed by the Offeror or members in the teaming agreement, as applicable, and the relevancy to the proposed role for this project.

The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the information included on the Company Specialized Experience form clearly describes this experience.

Offerors must limit the example project submission to two pages, inclusive of the Specialized Experience Form if used. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider any pages in excess of this limitation; only the first two pages will be evaluated.

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

The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System (CPARS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all sources to verify supplied information.

Page Limit: As specified in factor submission requirements above.

5.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the example projects in accordance with the evaluation criteria to assess the extent to which the Offeror’s experience demonstrates recent and relevant Specialized Experience and/or a benefit to the Government. Additional consideration may be given where an Offeror demonstrates multiple instances of relevant experience.

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

(10) years preceding the date of this Solicitation.

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

The Government will evaluate the degree of similarity based on the extent to which a submitted project reflects the following key aspects or features to the extent they are specified or depicted in the RFP at minimum. Those Offerors that demonstrate the highest degree of similarity to the requirements of this RFP will be evaluated most favorably:

Operations Building:

Construction of an administrative/office type building of two stories or more A project magnitude greater than $ 20,000,000

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

Projects performed for the Department of Defense Controlled Access Area (CAA) Building-wide uninterruptible power supply (UPS)

Hangar Facility:

Construction of a long span high bay structure with minimum clear span of 60 feet A project magnitude greater than $20,000,000

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

Aircraft hangar Projects performed for the Department of Defense High expansion foam fire protection system meeting requirements indicated in NFPA 409 or UFC 4-211-

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror clearly describes the roles and/or responsibilities of its constituent members, such as members of a joint venture or proposed key subcontractors, will perform, as applicable, if it is awarded the contract.

The Government also will evaluate the extent of similarity between the previous demonstrated experience and the role proposed for this project, as applicable.

The Government will evaluate the nature and extent of previous teaming experience demonstrated among the proposed members of the Offeror’s team. Extensive previous teaming experience and/or previous teaming experience performed on relevant construction example projects may receive greater consideration by the Government.

An Offeror may receive additional consideration to the extent that its relevant Specialized Experience demonstrates overcoming performance challenges or difficulties.

If the Offeror is comprised of team, such as a joint venture, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by that team. If the proposed team does not have prior shared experience, projects may be submitted for the individual teaming members. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all teaming members, either as a team or individually, may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to no more than six example projects, no more than three (3) projects per building type.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror clearly demonstrates the manner in which the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract. Offerors who fail to describe the experience of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm relative to proposed role for this contract may be rated lower.

Failure to provide sufficient detail to enable the Government to conduct the evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria may result in an unacceptable rating.

The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001, unless corrected through discussions, should the Government decide to conduct discussions.

5.3 TAB C - FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.3.1 Submission Requirements:

The Offeror should provide documentation of performance evaluations for the example projects submitted under Factor 1 – Specialized Experience. The Past Performance factor addresses the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance or how well the Offeror performed recent, relevant projects from the owner's/client’s perspective. If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 1 – Specialized Experience. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation then submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for each of the example projects submitted under Factor 1 – Specialized Experience in order for the Government to obtain those owner’s/client’s observations on the Offeror’s past performance.

The PPQ, along with the instructions for completing the questionnaire, is provided as Attachment 3. If the Offeror (including teaming partner/s, if applicable) is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may, but is under no obligation to the Offeror to do so, make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

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

tarik.a.booze@usace.army.mil@usace.army.mil with a copy furnished to dianne.k.grimes@usace.army.mil

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

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

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

Offerors (including teaming partner(s), if applicable) are strongly encouraged to address any adverse past performance issues. For purposes of this Factor “adverse past performance” is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation pertaining to a submitted project or other project for which a record of a past performance that may be retrieved as described above. Offerors are cautioned to review their past performance record for any instances of adverse past performance.

Offerors must address any projects for which the Offeror (including teaming partner/s, if applicable), was issued a Cure Notice, Show Cause, or Termination for Default. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

Page Limits: There are no page limits associated with this factor, except as noted above.

5.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance.

Federal Government project past performance will not be weighted more important than non-federal government project past performance.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance record, including the projects submitted under Factor 1, Specialized Experience, and other projects for performance information that is available to the Government.

Recency will be assessed based on whether the performance record documentation clearly demonstrates that the project was completed and turned over no longer than ten (10) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. For purposes of the Past Performance factor, relevancy for projects submitted in Factor 1 will be based on the criteria shown in paragraph 5.2.2. For all other projects, relevancy will be assessed based on the following criteria:

o Whether the project involved new construction o Whether the project involved multi-story construction o The degree to which the construction price approximated a range from $20 million to $250 million.

The Government also will consider how well the Offeror performed as documented in its record of past performance. The Government will consider the 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. In addition, the Government will collect and review any record of performance generated by and in the possession of the Government for the projects submitted under Factor 1.

The Government reserves the right to review other recent projects rated in Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System (CPARS) or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact Offeror furnished references, or to review personal knowledge. Should the evaluation team collect this type of performance information, it will review the overall quality of the performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the overall rating.

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

FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

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

5.4.1 Submission Requirements:

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

PARTICIPATION PROPOSAL.

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

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

b. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition in percentages for the base item and for each individual option items;

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

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

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

Offerors with no prior contracts containing FAR Clause 52.219-8 should so state.

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

5.4.1.1 Achievements. All Offerors shall provide a narrative (limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page) to describe their achievements in supporting the Government’s policy to provide maximum practicable opportunities for small business (SB), veteran-owned small business (VOSB), service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small…