W9123621R4002 Draft Solicitation.pdf

THIS DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) IS NOT A FORMAL REQUEST FOR

PROPOSAL. PROPOSALS ARE NOT BEING REQUESTED OR EVALUATED AT THIS TIME.

A FINAL RFP WILL BE RELEASED AT A LATER DATE FOR WHICH INTERESTED

PARTIES MAY SUBMIT PROPOSALS. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE SOLICITATION WILL

BE RELEASED ON OR ABOUT SEPT 7, 2021.

The U.S. Army Core of Engineers Norfolk District (USACE) is seeking interested parties to thoroughly review the Draft RFP and provide comments, questions, suggested changes, and feedback by September 3, 2021, in the MS Excel file provided as an attachment.

USACE NAO does not anticipate posting responses to any comments, questions, suggested changes, and/or feedback received; however, all input will be considered in developing the Final RFP. Additionally, the Draft RFP is subject to change in the development of the Final RFP as a result of the USACE's consideration of the input received from interested parties in response to the Draft RFP.

Please submit all comments, questions, suggested changes, and feedback to the designated procurement email address at philip.d.mathews@usace.army.mil by populating and returning the MS Excel file provided as an attachment.

Construction of a new Explosive Decomposition Chamber (EDC) Facility at Holston Army Ammunition Plant (HSAAP) in Kingsport, TN

a) This acquisition is solicited as an unrestricted procurement using the Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection Process utilizing Tw o-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures in accordance w ith FAR 15.101-1 and 36.3.

b) NAICS Code: 236210-Institutional Building Construction

c) Small Business Size Standard: $39.5 Million

d) Magnitude of Construction: betw een $25,000,000 and $100,000,000.

e) The site visit is highly encouraged. There w ill be a site visit during Phase One on 10 Sept 2021, and a second site visit w ill be provided during Phase Tw o of this procurement. Further details w ill be provided via amendment

PHILIP D MATHEWS 757-201-7292

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________1461 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is mandatory, X negotiable. (See _________________________

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________08 Oct 2021 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______180 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

USACE, NORFOLK DISTRICT OFFICE

CONTRACTING OFFICE

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

W91236

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

757-201-7183FAX:TEL: 757-201-7608 TEL: FAX:

W9123621R4002 85

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W9123621R4002

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

W9123621R4002

FFP

Provide all labor, materials and supervision to design and construct an Explosive Decomposition Chamber Facility at Holston Army Ammunition Plant in Kingsport, Tennessee

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

0001 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

HSAAP is a Government-owned, Contractor-operated (GOCO) explosives materials manufacturing facility located in Kingsport, Tennessee. The facility generates explosives waste which has historically been open burned since the 1940s, and is currently open burned in pans operating under the existing HSAAP Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subpart X permit (TNHW-148) and Area B Clean Air Act Title V Air permit (568188).

HSAAP embarked on a four-phase approach beginning in 2014 to evaluate alternatives to open burning. The Phase 1 and 2 studies completed in 2019 identified the waste streams and alternative technologies for the disposal of explosive waste. The Phase 2 Study Final Report titled ‘Thermal/Non-Thermal Solutions to Open Burning Holston Army Ammunition Plant’ was sent to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) in March 2019. This report detailed the specific technologies available for disposing of explosive waste. The design and construction will utilize the Dynasafe - Static Detonation Chamber (SDC) and Air Pollution Control System (APC). This technology was chosen by the Government as documented and approved under Justification and Approval Document (J&A) # CENAO-CT-20-013 on 1 September 2020. The J&A is provided as Attachment 8.

The new EDC Facility, utilizing Dynasafe’s SDC and APC, will satisfy the Government’s requirements to safely and effectively treat the bulk explosive waste at HSAAP and meet the Army’s mission for Government installations to move away from the current open burning explosive waste treatment process and begin utilizing proven environmental treatment technology alternatives.

The EDC Facility resulting from this solicitation will be able to process the explosive waste generated at HSAAP in an efficient, emissions controlled thermal treatment system, that is compliant with plant operating permits and Army policy and will ultimately reduce/eliminate the open burning conducted at HSAAP. The EDC Facility will be comprised of multiple Dynasafe – SDCs with APC units, a central material handling building, and a central control room/building. The SDCs and other components will work together to treat the hazardous explosive waste streams from HSAAP.

Early Draft Site Layout and Environmental Assessment will be provided with the Phase One solicitation to assist offerors with assessing the general scope of the project. The DB RFP technical package will be released with the Phase Two amendment.

Initial Permit Packages for Air and RCRA are anticipated to be submitted by the facility to TDEC for review at the 65% design level in parallel with this acquisition and will be provided with the Phase Two Technical package.

B. OFFEROR’S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

NOTE: All questions and/or comments should reach the above referenced Contracting Office via ProjNet no later than 10 calendar days prior to proposal submission due date, 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: W91236-21-R-4002 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: ZRU9R8-HNYDAY

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.

C. SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

This solicitation will be conducted via Best Value Tradeoff Process, as authorized by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1, utilizing Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures in accordance with FAR 36.3.

The 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. This acquisition will result in a firm fixed price contract for Design- Build construction services. In accordance with DFARs 236.204, the magnitude of construction cost for the EWI/CWP Facility is between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000. Funds are not presently available for this acquisition.

No contract award will be made until appropriated funds are made available.

The Government will conduct a Best Value Tradeoff selection process based on the evaluation of five (5) 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. Factors 1 and 2 will be evaluated during Phase One.

Factor 1 will only be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for Phase Two. Factor 1 will not be considered in Phase Two and the overall determination for award. Factor 2 will move forward and will be considered in Phase Two and the overall determination for award. A maximum of five (5) highest rated proposals will be selected to proceed to Phase Two and will be requested to submit Phase Two proposals. Phase Two will require Offerors to submit responses to evaluation Factors 3 and 4 as well as Factor 5.

Phase One Factors:

Factor 1 – Management Approach Factor 2 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance

Phase Two Factors:

Factor 3 – Technical Approach Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Plan Factor 5 – Price

The relative order of importance of evaluation factors is Factor 2 and 3 are of approximately equal importance to each other; Factor 4 is less important than either Factor 2 or 3. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole (Factors 2- 5), the non-price factors (2, 3, and 4), when combined are approximately equal to price (Factor 5).

The Government 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 Government will determine the competitive range, authorize discussions with only those Offerors determined to be in the competitive range 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 Government 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 to: Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, hand carrying of proposals will not be accepted.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS

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 DODSAFE 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 September 16, 2021, and not later than (NLT) September 20, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.

Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

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: Philip Mathews at philip.d.mathews@usace.army.mil, and cc: PPMDContracts@usace.army.mil. The email request for the “request code” must be emailed to the POC NLT September 15, 2021, at 4:00 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 September 20, 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:

Philip Mathews at philip.d.mathews@usace.army.mil, and cc: PPMDContracts@usace.army.mil

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

W9123621R4002_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I A

W9123621R4002_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I B

W9123621R4002_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

The Offeror's proposal, which consist of two volumes, (i.e., Volume I A – Factors 1 and 2, during Phase One and Volume I B – Factors 3 and 4 and Volume II – Factor 5, during Phase Two), shall be submitted during the appropriate phase. Volumes and Factors will be bifurcated appropriately based on the corresponding phase. Any questions regarding electronic proposal submission shall be directed to Mr. Philip Mathews in 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. The DoD safe code can only be utilized once. If an upload is unsuccessful, an offeror will be required to request another code for the upload of its proposal.

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 DODSAFE website. For proposals larger than the 2GB capacity of the DODSAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded in to the DODSAFE 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.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring electronic copies are virus-free and shall run an anti-virus scan before upload into DoD SAFE.

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 cost/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. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the terms and conditions of the solicitation, provides the best overall value, and is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the five (5) evaluation factors: Management Approach, Specialized Experience/Past Performance, Technical Approach, Small Business Participation Plan, and Price. Factor 1 – Management Approach, will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable and only considered during Phase One to determine the highest rated proposals that are selected to proceed to Phase Two. The remaining factors, Factor 2 through 5 will be used in the Phase Two best value tradeoff decision with the following relative weights: Factor 2 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance and Factor 3 – Technical Approach are approximately equal in importance to one another, and each is more important than Factor 4

– Small Business Participation Plan. All non-price factors combined are approximately equal to Factor 5 – Price.

To receive consideration for award in Phase Two, a rating of no less than “Limited Confidence” must be achieved for Factor 2 and “Acceptable” for Factors 3 and 4. Additionally, any “other than small business” offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.702(a). Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offer or to the highest rated technical offer and that the Government reserves the right to reject all offers. The best value tradeoff decision and the determination for award will be based on Factor 2, Factor 3, Factor 4 and Factor 5.

This solicitation include price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns.

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 intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions, clarifications, or any contact concerning the proposals received; therefore, each initial proposal should be submitted on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

Discussions may be held in Phase One or Phase Two or both, if determined to be in the Government’s best interests.

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 (A) - PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

Factor Location Description Relative Importance TAB A SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet (Included at Attachment 1, Section 00 22 20)

SF1442 and all attachments, signed

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

N/A

Factor 1 TAB B Management Approach N/A Factor 2 TAB C Specialized Experience/Past Performance Factor 2 is of approximately equal importance to Factor

3 and is more important than Factor 4.

4.2 VOLUME I (B) – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

N/A TAB D Teaming Agreement with DynaSafe N/A Factor 3 TAB E Technical Approach Factor 3 is approximately equal importance to Factor 2 and is more important than Factor 4.

Factor 4 TAB F Small Business Participation Plan Factor 4 is less important than Factor 2 or Factor 3.

Note: Only those Offerors who have been notified by the Contracting officer to be included in Phase Two will be requested to submit VOLUME I (B).

4.3 PHASE TWO: VOLUME II –PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor 5 TAB A SF1442, and all amendments signed TAB B Price (Contract Line Item Schedule and supporting detailed pricing data) Factor 5 is approximately equal in importance to Factors 2, 3 and 4 combined.

TAB C Bid Guarantee Not Rated TAB D Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

Note: Only those Offerors who have been notified by the Contracting officer to be included in Phase Two will be requested to submit VOLUME II.

4.4 EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS

4.4.1 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.

4.4.2 Factor 1 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 5.2.2 by the Technical Evaluation Team (TET).

4.4.3 Factor 2 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 5.3.2 by the TET

4.4.4 Factor 3 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 6.1.2 by the TET

4.4.5 Factor 4 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 6.2.2 by the Small Business Evaluation Team.

4.4.6 Factor 5 will be evaluated by the Price Evaluation Team (PET) in accordance with paragraph 7.1.2. Proposals will be evaluated using price analysis techniques and will be evaluated for price fairness and reasonableness. Price will not be rated or scored.

4.4.7 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.

4.4.8 Rating Definitions for Factor 1 – Management Approach:

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.

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.

4.4.9 Rating Definitions for Factor 2 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance:

4.4.9.1 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.

4.4.9.2 Specialized Experience/ Past Performance. The Government will first evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s Specialized Experience/Past Performance as defined in paragraph 5.3.1 below.

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

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

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

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

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

4.4.9.4 Specialized Experience/ Past Performance will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

4.4.10 Rating Definitions for Factor 3 – Technical Approach

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.

4.4.11 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 PHASE ONE: VOLUME I (A) – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY (TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PHASE

ONE PROPOSAL) – PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1 TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Submit the completed Proposal Data Sheet provided as Attachment 1.

5.1.1 TAB A – Contractor Team Arrangements, if applicable – If an Offeror submits as a team, include a copy of the teaming agreement in Volume I (A), TAB A of its proposal. Teaming 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 (A), TAB A.

Teaming Agreement with Sole Source Technology Provider Dynasafe is not required for Phase One submittal but will be required for those Offerors who will be selected to proceed to Phase Two. Dynasafe will not provide exclusive teaming agreements with any offerors.

5.1.2 TAB A – Letter of Commitment shall be provided using the format provided as Attachment 5 and shall be signed by all parties. Offerors are required to submit a Letter of Commitment for Dynasafe and if applicable for any other subcontractor deemed appropriate for this project. Note, a Teaming Agreement with Dynasafe will be required to be submitted with Phase Two proposal.

5.2 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

5.2.1 Submission Requirements

The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Management Approach in accordance with Paragraph 5.2.2.

The composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build (DB) team for this contract will be evaluated under this factor. Each Offeror shall provide the following:

a) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm(s) and primary design firm(s) for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the roles, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). The narrative shall include sufficient information to enable the Government’s evaluation regarding offeror’s organization, teaming with subcontractors or Joint Ventures, as applicable, and include the Sole Source Technology Provider for the project. The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart, and matrix of roles and responsibilities that clearly identifies the lines of authority between entities. If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the narrative and organizational chart.

Offerors are also required to provide the rationale for proposing this arrangement providing the roles, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms, providing an organizational chart and providing a joint venture agreement (if applicable).

b) In addition to the narrative, if applicable the Offeror shall provide a signed copy of the Joint Venture agreement, Teaming Agreement, partnership agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement, or a Letter of Commitment from each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture member, the Designer of Record (DOR), partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.). A Letter of Commitment from Dynasafe is required to be submitted. A teaming agreement with Dynasafe will only be requested from those offerors who will be selected to proceed to Phase Two.

Page Limit: The management approach narrative shall be limited to three (3) single-sided pages including the organizational chart. The information requested in item b) is not included in this page limitation.

5.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

This factor will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror has assembled a comprehensive team to complete the design, and perform construction and commissioning of this project. The Government will also evaluate the organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror. The Government will evaluate the submitted narrative and organizational chart and offeror’s explanation of the roles and responsibilities of the team members and lines of authorities among team members the prime construction contractor has assembled. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Failure of the offeror to provide a narrative describing how the Primary Construction Contractor and Primary Design Firm will work with the Sole Source Technology Provider for the resultant contract will result in a rating of Unacceptable. Failure to provide letters of commitment for the proposed DOR and the sole source provider will result in a rating of Unacceptable.

The Government will assign a rating to this factor in accordance with paragraph 4.4.8. A proposal receiving an Unacceptable rating in Factor 1 will not be eligible for Phase Two.

5.3 TAB C – FACTOR 2 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE/PAST PERFORMANCE

5.3.1 Submission Requirements

The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Specialized Experience/Past Performance in accordance with Paragraph 5.3.2.

Offerors shall demonstrate recent and relevant design and 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.

For purposes of this evaluation the recency and relevancy are defined as follows:

Recent. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For a submitted construction project to be considered “recent,” a project must at a minimum be seventy-five percent (75%) completed or have been completed no more than ten (10) years immediately preceding the issuance of this Solicitation. For a submitted design project to be considered “recent,” a design shall be 100% completed no more than ten (10) years immediately preceding the issuance of this Solicitation. For design-build projects, the design portion shall have been completed no more than ten (10) years immediately preceding the issuance of this Solicitation. The Government will evaluate the recency of a submitted project and will deem a more recently completed project more advantageous than an earlier completed project or a not fully completed project. It is the Offeror’s ultimate responsibility to clearly identify percent complete and date of completion for each project submitted.

Relevant. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the Government will evaluate Offerors’ Specialized Experience/Past Performance record to assess the extent to which it clearly demonstrates similar experience with projects involving design and construction of thermal destruction and /or thermal decontamination and/or explosive operations process and handling facilities with a magnitude of $35 million (construction cost) or greater.

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.

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.

There are two aspects to this Factor: specialized experience and past performance record. Please read carefully to ensure all elements are addressed in your submission.

1) The Offeror may submit a maximum of five (5) projects for design and a maximum of five (5) projects for construction that best demonstrate experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity. The Design Experience shall be demonstrated for the proposed Designer of Record that will perform this function in this acquisition. The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor. These agreements or letters of commitment documents shall be submitted in Factor 1.

If the offeror submits a project demonstrating both design and construction experience, the offeror shall CLEARLY IDENTIFY which type of experience the project is being submitted for and provide the appropriate data sheet. If the project is submitted to demonstrate both design and construction experience, the Offeror shall submit a separate

Construction Data sheet and Design Data sheet. In this event, the Offeror should note that it will count as the maximum possible submitted projects for both design and construction. The Government will evaluate only the maximum of five (5) projects for design and five (5) projects for construction submitted, inclusive of any projects submitted demonstrating experience of an Offeror member or proposed subcontractor. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for construction and five (5) for design will not be considered. Submit example projects that best demonstrate the Offeror’s experience on recent and relevant projects, as these terms are defined in the Evaluation Criteria.

A project submitted to demonstrate construction experience is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. A project submitted to demonstrate design experience is defined as a complete, cumulative design effort performed under single task order or contract or related contract actions issued for the same design.

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

Offerors may submit projects that involve contracts with private concerns, local or state governments, or the Federal Government in the U.S. or acceptable foreign countries.

For each example design and construction project submitted, Offerors shall provide a project narrative to assist the Government in identifying project relevancy as defined in the evaluation criteria above.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV) or otherwise comprised of more than one firm, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Offeror team. If the Offeror team does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the team members individually. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all team members may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a maximum of five (5) design projects and five

(5) construction 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.

The narrative shall clearly describe the scope of work performed by the Offeror, team member, or proposed subcontractor, as applicable, and the relevancy to the proposed role for this project (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods).

Offerors must limit each example project submission to three 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 three pages will be evaluated. The page limit does not include any documentation submitted in accordance with paragraph 5.3.2.

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 clearly describes this experience.

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.

2) In addition, the Offeror shall provide documentation of performance evaluations for each example project submitted under Factor 2 –…