W9123621R2023 LOCRF Amend 5.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

Amendment 0005 is issued to provide the follow ing:

1. To update the defination of recency. See highlighted 5.2.1 Submission Requirements section.

2. To add DFARS clause 252.223-7999 Class Deviation 2021-O0009 - Ensuring Adequate COVID-19 Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors.

Contracting POC: Allen Scott Brainerd (757) 201-7668 Email: allen.s.brainerd@usace.army.mil CC'd dianne.k.grimes@usace.army.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Oct-2021

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 W9123621R2023

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Dec-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

08-Oct-2021

CODE

USACE NORFOLK DISTRICT OFFICE

CONTRACTING OFFICE

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9123621R2023

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 The purpose of these instructions is to establish a uniform procedure for evaluating proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and making a Best Value decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Best Value Tradeoff Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1).

The evaluation process will be bifurcated as discussed more fully below. This process is used in cases where waiting for a Ready To Advertise (RTA) design will unreasonably delay award. This solicitation will be issued with a 100% pre-final design for F-22 Low Observable Component Repair Facility (LOCRF). Offerors are cautioned that the design and construction requirements may continue to evolve, particularly in this case until all RTA complete construction documents are released by amendment.

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 Process (BVTO) of five(5) evaluation factors. The factors are as follows:

Non-Price Factors:

Factor 1 – Specialized Experience

Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Schedule Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Plan Factor 5 – Price

1.4 The relative order of importance of the evaluation factors: Factors1, 2 and 3 are of equal importance to one another. Factor 4 is less important than either 1, 2, or 3. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the non-price factors (1 through 4), when combined, are considered approximately equal to price (Factor 5).

1.5 The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

1.6 The solicitation and evaluation will be via a bifurcated approach. This approach is used in cases where waiting for a Ready to Advertise (RTA) design will unreasonably delay an award. This solicitation will include a 100% pre-final design and only non-price proposals in response to Factors 1, Specialized Experience, and 2, Past Performance, will be requested. The remaining evaluation factors (Factors 3, Schedule, Factor 4, Small Business Participation Plan, and Factor 5, Price) will be included in the solicitation; however, no proposal will be requested for these factors with the initial proposal submission. When RTA design package becomes available (22 December 2022), the solicitation will be amended to include the completed design documents and the remaining factors will be requested of the offerors. The Government will not undertake to compare or conduct a selection decision until after all factors have been evaluated. Offerors are cautioned that the design and construction requirements may continue to evolve, particularly in this case until all RTA complete construction documents are released by amendment.

1.7 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 will document the decision through approval of the Competitive Range Decision Document (CRDD).

1.8 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 Proposals shall be submitted electronically as specified herein. Mailed in or hand carried proposals will not be considered.

Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, all proposals shall be submitted electronically through the DoD SAFE website. Offerors are limited to five (5) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 2GB). If an offeror attempts to transmit a large number of files, recommend that combining or ZIP files before uploading to the DoD SAFE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission. It is Offerors’ responsibility to check with DoD SAFE to ensure successful submission. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

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 Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient of proposals. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

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 November 1, 2021, and not later than (NLT) November 10, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.

Eastern Standard Time (EST).

Request for Upload Code

Offerors will require a unique “request code” to upload proposals into DoD SAFE, which shall be obtained only by email to POC: Allen Scott Brainerd at allen.s.brainerd@usace.army.mil and cc: Dianne Grimes at dianne.k.grimes@usace.army.mil and PPMDContracts@usace.army.mil. The email request for the “request code” must be emailed to the POC NLT November 09 2021, at 4:00 p.m. EST.

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. EST on November 10, 2021.

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. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to obtain written confirmation of receipt of all electronic files of the full proposal submitted into DoD SAFE. Please forward a copy of this confirmation of receipt to POC:

Allen Scott Brainerd at allen.s.brainerd@usace.army.mil, and cc: Dianne Grimes at dianne.k.grimes@usace.army.mil and PPMDContracts@usace.army.mil.

Electronic files shall be clearly identified for each volume, section, and item. Title the file(s) in the following format:

W9123621R2023_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME IA (Factor 1 and 2) W9123621R2023_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME IB (Factor 3 and 4) W9123621R2023_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II (Factor 5)

All Contractors may submit proposals in accordance with the bifurcated approach explained above, Contractors who previously submitted proposals, may review and resubmit their proposals, in full replacement of previously submitted proposals as necessary, and in accordance with the bifurcated approach.

Any questions regarding electronic proposal submission should be directed to the contracting office via ProjNet.

NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII) in the File Description.)

OFFERORS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO AVOID WAITING UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE TO

ATTEMPT TO TRANSMIT THEIR PROPOSALS. TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH UPLOAD MAY RENDER

YOUR PROPOSAL TO BE LATE.

Receipt of Submissions

For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded in the DoD SAFE website. For proposals larger than the 2GB capacity of the DoD SAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the DoD SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. The electronic proposal submittal contents shall conform to the details of the solicitation and subsequent amendments.

SPECIAL PROVISION IN RESPONSE TO CORONOVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID19) ON

ACCEPTANCE OF BONDS AND OTHER FINANCIAL PROTECTIONS

Please be advised that in accordance with FAR Deviation 2020-o0016, Class Deviation – Original Documents, Signatures, Seals And Notarizations, Electronic signatures and electronic, mechanically-applied or printed dates may be used and shall be considered original signatures and dates, without regard to the order in which they are affixed for all of part 28, as required by the solicitation.

2.5.2 Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted electronically as detailed above. Offers received by telegraph, modifications thereto, or cancellations of offers will not be accepted.

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

2.5.4 Offers received by email, modifications thereto, or cancellations of offers will not be accepted.

2.5.5 The proposal shall be submitted in an 8-½ inch x 11inch format (except that tables and graphic representations may be submitted on Z-folded 11inch x 17inch pages). Pages shall be numbered. Text shall have a minimum eleven

(11) point Arial or Times New Roman font. No proposal information may be included by reference. Proposals shall adhere to the allowable number of pages specified under each evaluation factor. If a proposal submission exceeds the page number limits reflected throughout the Solicitation, the Government will not consider the matters submitted within the pages that exceed the limits. Text printed on two sides of a page will be counted as two (2) pages. Tables graphics and charts may utilize a smaller font, as long as it is legible when printed without a magnifying glass.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring electronic copies are virus-free and shall run an anti-virus scan before upload into DoD SAFE. DO NOT INCLUDE PASSWORD PROTECTED DOCUMENTS. MATTERS OF FINANCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY MAY BE EMAILED DIRECTLY TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.

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

2.5.7 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: 11inch X 17inch Z-folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations and will be counted as one page.

The following additional restrictions apply:

a. File Packaging. 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.

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

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

2.5.9 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 in accordance with the evaluation scheme contained herein. After the evaluation team individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value, non-priced and price factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced or the highest rated non-priced 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. Furthermore, the Government will not make an award based on a proposal that received less than an acceptable rating for Factors 1, 3, and 4 or a limited or no confidence assessment rating in Factor 2.

INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS: Proposals must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this Request for Proposal (including attachments). The penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.The Government’s intent is to evaluate proposals and make the award without conducting discussions, clarifications, or any contact concerning the proposals received; therefore the proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to set a competitive range and discuss aspects of proposals with offerors if the Contracting Officer determines it to be necessary to do so. 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. Note specifically that the offeror will not be participating in a sealed bid procurement process under this acquisition method. Issuance of this RFP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

4.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT and EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS

4.1 VOLUME I - PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

TAB A

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

- A copy of signed SF1442 and all Amendments executed to date

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

- N/A

(if applicable)

Factor 1 TAB B Specialized Experience Factor 1 is approximately equal to Factor 2 and 3, and is more important than Factor4

Factor 2 TAB C Past Performance Factor 2 approximately equal to Factor 1 and 3, and is more important than Factor

Factor 3 Tab D Schedule Factor 3 approximately equal to Factor 1 and 2, and is more important than Factor

Factor 4 TAB E Small Business Participation Plan Factor 4 is less important than Factor 1, Factor 2 or Factor 3

The distinction between specialized experience and past performance is specialized experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

4.2 VOLUME II –PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor 5 TAB A Price (Contract Line Item Schedule and supporting detailed pricing data)

Factor 5 is approximately equal to Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 combined

TAB B SF1442 and all amendments, signed NA

TAB C Bid Guarantee NA

TAB D Required Pre-Award Information NA

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 adjectivally evaluated in accordance with paragraph 4.3.9 by the Technical Evaluation Team

(TET).

4.3.3 Factor 2 evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Factor 2 will be adjectivally evaluated in accordance with paragraph 4.3.10 by the SSEB.

4.3.4 Factor 3 will be adjectivally evaluated in accordance with paragraph 4.3.11 by the TET.

4.3.5. Factor 4 will be adjectivally evaluated in accordance with paragraph 4.3.12 by the Small Business Specialist, member of the SSEB.

4.3.6 Factor 5 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.

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

Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission requirements of the solicitation.

Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven practices/processes and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

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

4.3.8. The definitions for a strength, weakness, significant weakness, and deficiency which apply to all factors 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.

4.3.9 Rating Definitions for Factor 1 – Specialized Experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.3.10 Rating Definition for Factor 2 – Past Performance:

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

4.3.10.2 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

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.

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

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

4.3.10.5 The rating 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

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

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

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

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

No Confidence: Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4.3.11 Rating Definitions for Factor 3 – Schedule

Outstanding (O): Proposal indicates an exceptional schedule narrative and understanding of the phasing requirements to construct within the construction duration.

Good (G): Proposal indicates a thorough schedule narrative and understanding of phasing requirements.

Acceptable (A): Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate schedule narrative and understanding of the phasing requirements.

Marginal (M): proposal has not demonstrated an adequate schedule narrative and understanding of the phasing requirements.

Unacceptable (U): Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or schedule narrative is unacceptable.

4.3.12 Rating Definitions for Factor 4 – 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 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Submit the completed Proposal Data Sheet provided at the end of this Section, Attachment 1.

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

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

5.1.3 TAB A – SF 1442 and all amendments signed.

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

The Offeror may submit no greater than five (5) example projects that best demonstrate the Offeror’s experience on recent and relevant projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity to this RFP. For purposes of this evaluation a recency and relevancy are further defined as:

Recent. For a submitted project to be considered “Recent”, it should be at least 75% complete as of date of this amendment (Oct 7, 2021) or turned over within eleven (11) years of the date of issuance of this amendment (Oct 7, 2021).Past performance of projects performed more recently will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance on older projects.

Relevant. Submitted projects shall demonstrate the following two key aspects:

Construction of conditioned (climate controlled) commercial aircraft hangar of at least 6,500 square feet.

A project magnitude greater than $10,000,000.

If the Government is unable to determine the nature or extent of experience based on a submitted project, the project may be considered not relevant. Offerors may not submit classified information in their proposals.

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 task order contracts, the task order contract as a whole should not be submitted as a project and will NOT be considered by the Government; rather, Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

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. If the JV does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the constituent members. In this event, the Offeror should indicate what role(s) the member actually performed on the submitted project and what role is proposed for that member for this project if it is awarded the contract.

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

Subcontractor experience will not be considered to meet the requirements of this factor. The Government will evaluate only the first five example projects submitted, inclusive of any projects submitted demonstrating experience of an Offeror member. Any projects submitted beyond this limit will not be considered.

Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how each project demonstrates the Offeror’s experience in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the information included on the Company Specialized Experience form (Attachment 2) clearly describes this experience.

If an Offeror is submitting multiple buildings under one project such as a complex, the Offeror is strongly encouraged to describe the square-footage, construction cost, and characteristics of each building to allow for meaningful evaluation. Failure to distinguish buildings and square footage as described may be deemed less favorably. Offerors may use a single building from a building complex to be evaluated if the characteristics are described as stated above. Offeror shall clearly identify the building and how it meets the requirements in terms of recency and relevancy as specified by the solicitation.

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

For each example construction project submitted, Offerors should provide a project narrative to assist the Government in identifying project relevancy as defined in the evaluation criteria under Factor 1.

The narrative should clearly describe the scope of work performed by the Offeror, or team member, as applicable, and the relevancy to the proposed role for this project. 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: Offerors must limit the example project submission to two single-sided 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.

5.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate example projects to assess the extent to which the Offeror’s experience demonstrates recent and relevant Specialized Experience and/or a benefit to the Government to the extent to which it clearly demonstrates experience similar in type scope in complexity to the project, as specified in the submission requirements.

The Government may deem a more recently completed project, all other things being equal, more advantageous than an earlier completed project or a not fully completed project.

Those Offerors that demonstrate the highest degree of similarity to the requirements of this RFP will be evaluated most favorably. Additionally, more favorable consideration may be provided to those recent and relevant projects that also demonstrate the following experience aspects:

Projects that involved construction contained within a single envelope.

Projects that include construction of a high expansion foam fire suppression system Projects performed for the Department of Defense.

Projects that include construction adjacent to an active flight line.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror clearly describes the roles and/or responsibilities of its members, as applicable. The Government also will evaluate the extent of correlation between the previous demonstrated experience and the role proposed for this project.

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

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

5.3 TAB C - FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.3.1 Submission Requirements

The Offeror should provide past performance evaluations for the example projects submitted under Factor 1 – Specialized Experience. The Past Performance factor addresses 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 an offeror shall submit Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for each project included in Factor 1. The PPQ, along with the instructions for completing the questionnaire, is provided as Attachment 3. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before 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 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 emails: Allen Scott Brainerd at allen.s.brainerd@usace.army.mil, with a copy furnished to Dianne K. Grimes at dianne.k.grimes@usace.army.mil.

Offerors are strongly encouraged to provide any information on problems encountered and corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1 – Specialized Experience. 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. Similarly, Offerors are also strongly encouraged to address any adverse past performance issues, and must address any projects for which the Offeror, a member, or proposed subcontractor was issued a Cure Notice, Show Cause, or Termination for Default. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four

(4) single-sided pages) in total.

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

The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the Contracting Officer has received all completed questionnaires prior to the proposal closing date/time because any matter submitted after that time will not be considered

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 as described in Section 4.3.10 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, for performance information that is available to the Government.

Recency will be assessed in accordance with paragraph 5.2.1 in Factor 1.

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 in the Offeror’s past performance record, the Government will evaluate 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, 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.

5.4. TAB D – FACTOR 3 – SCHEDULE

5.4.1 Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall provide a narrative description of their schedule approach in sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the principal components of work described in the project specifications and drawings, and the offeror’s understanding of the site and other conditions that could impact schedule. The narrative must identify potential challenges to timely performance and quality and explain how the contractor will approach the project schedule to minimize these risks. The narrative must be a comprehensive, start-to-finish discussion of the significant features of work.

Offerors are encouraged to elaborate on other features of work that are considered relevant or where a high degree of risk is involved that may adversely affect the planned performance period. At a minimum, the following specific elements must be addressed in the narrative for each significant feature of this work and will be considered in the evaluation of each Offeror’s submission:

(1) Site preparation; (2) Utility coordination with Dominion Energy and Virginia Natural Gas, to include how the offeror would respond to delays in this feature of work, should they arise; (3) Construction work sequencing shown on PH101, PH102, and PH103 of the plans; (4) Site work to include erosion and sediment control plan; (5) apron and tow-away phasing plan shown on CP100 of the plans; (6) clean-up and demobilization.

In addition, the schedule narrative must include a description of how the offeror intends to perform the work under

CLIN 0010, Decrease Construction…