AM0001.pdf

W62N6MORDPOM

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

Design-Build Solar Generation Installation Presidio of Monterey, California

Ths purpose of this amendment is to clariify portions of Sections 00110 and 00120 and revise the amount for Liquidated Damages.

The proposal due date remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 45

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Jun-2010

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 W91238-10-R-0050

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-May-2010

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

03-Jun-2010

CODE

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J STREET-ROOM 878

SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

W91238 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91238-10-R-0050

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

00110

SECTION 00110

PROPOSAL BASIS OF AWARD,

GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS,

PHASE I INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATIONS,

AND CONTRACT AWARD

1. OVERVIEW.

This is a "Best Value" solicitation for the construction Solar Electricity Generation and Lighting Retrofits located at Presidio of Monterey, California. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to that responsible Offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price.

This is a two-phase design-build selection process acquisition requiring two separate proposal submittals, a phase-one (non-price technical volume) proposal and a phase-two (price and technical volumes) proposal. Phase-one will consist of an evaluation of only non-price factors which include Experience and Capability, and Past Performance of the offeror. Then at least three (3), but no more than five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors in phase-one will be offered the opportunity to submit a proposal under phase-two. Phase-two will consist of an evaluation of price and non-price factors which include Technical Approach.

The Government does not intend to conduct discussions during phase-one, nor request revised phase-one proposal. The Government reserves the right to conduct phase-one discussions, if it deems such to be in its best interest. The Government may communicate with an offeror to afford it the opportunity to respond to adverse past performance evaluations obtained from references on which it has not previously had an opportunity to comment, if that information makes a difference in the Government’s decision whether or not to include the offeror in the shortlist for phase-two.

2. BASIS OF AWARD.

2.1. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with the requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), no contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

2.2. SOURCE SELECTION USING THE TRADE-OFF PROCESS

The Government will select the offer that represents the best value to the Government by using the trade-off process described in FAR Part 15. This process permits tradeoffs between price and technical (“noncost”) factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The award decision will be based on a comparative analysis and an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

2.3. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PRICE TO THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price. The Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between technical merit (“quality”) and cost to the Government (i.e., the price). The degree of importance of price could become greater depending upon the equality of the technical proposals. If competing technical proposals are determined to be essentially equal, price could become the controlling factor.

2.4. EVALUATION OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

a. Price or cost to the Government will be evaluated and considered but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. The proposed price will be analyzed for reasonableness. It may also be analyzed to determine whether it is realistic for the work to be performed; reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and is consistent with the offeror’s Technical Proposal. Additionally, all offers will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

b. When applicable, the Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns will be applied. The Price Evaluation Adjustment for Small Disadvantaged Businesses will not apply to this procurement as it is currently suspended for Department of Defense.

c. Information required to be submitted in the Price Proposal volume in addition to the executed SF 1442 with acknowledgement of amendments and the completed pricing schedule will be used to determine the offeror’s eligibility for contract award in accordance with paragraph 2.1 above (for example, the offeror’s representations and certifications;

the bid guarantee; the offeror’s pre-award survey information; and the offeror’s small business subcontracting plan).

The Government may enter into exchanges with offerors about such information without it constituting discussions, subject to applicable FAR limitations, including FAR 15.306, Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals; FAR 28.101-4, Noncompliance with bid guarantee requirements; and 52.219-9, ALT II, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

d. The Government may consider the availability of funds for contract award in determining which proposal offers the best value to the Government. If an offeror’s proposed price(s) exceeds the funds made available for any item or group of items on the pricing schedule (excluding option line items), that offer may be ineligible for contract award, notwithstanding the reasonableness of the total proposed price for all of the line items on the pricing schedule

2.5. THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

a. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s technical proposal based on how well the proposal addresses each of the evaluation factors, listed below and further described in the submission requirements in Sections 00110 and 00120, and on how well the offeror has performed on related projects through the evaluation of the past performance information provided from references or obtained from other sources. Each of the evaluation factors will be evaluated by the Government and an adjectival rating and risk rating will be determined by consensus of the Government evaluation board.

b. The evaluation factors correlate directly to the main organizational tabs identified in the proposal submission instructions in Sections 00110 and 00120. However, any information contained in the technical proposal can nonetheless be considered by the Government in its evaluation under any factor.

Phase-One Proposal. (Section 00110)

(1) Factor 1: Experience and Capability

(2) Factor 2: Past Performance

Phase-Two Proposal. (Section 00120)

(3) Factor 3: Technical Approach

(4) Factor 4: Socio-Economic Considerations

2.6. RELATIVE WEIGHTING OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The Technical Evaluation Factors are listed below in descending order of importance, as follows:

Factor 1 – Experience and Capability is the most heavily weighted factor.

Factor 2 – Past Performance is weighted less than Factor 1 Factor 3 – Technical Approach is weighted less than Factor 2.

Factor 4 – Socio-Economic Considerations is the least heavily weighted factor it is weighted significantly less than any other evaluation factor.

2.7. GENERAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

a. The offeror’s conformance with the specified format and submission requirements will be considered during the technical evaluation. Failure to comply with the formatting and/or submission requirements may be seen as indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during contract performance. Lack of conformance could therefore result in a higher risk assessment, in addition to any other impacts on the evaluation. Material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable. However, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals. For example, a failure by a proposed key subcontractor to submit a properly executed letter of commitment may be considered as increasing risk, but will not be considered a proposal deficiency.

b. Technical proposals which do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions may be downgraded. The Government is under no obligation to search for information that is not in the specified location.

c. Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail may be downgraded. The proposal submission instructions are written to give prospective contractors, where feasible, an indication of the level of detail desired by the Government. The offeror’s failure to include information that the Government has indicated should be included may result in the proposal being downgraded and/or being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided.

d. Any prescribed page and formatting limitations will be strictly adhered to and enforced by the Government. The Government will not evaluate any excess information resulting from the offeror’s failure to comply with the submission instructions. Examples: If an offeror were to submit three pages in response to an item with a two page limitation, the information on the first two pages would be evaluated but the information on the third page would not be evaluated. If an offeror were to submit a fold-out sheet (e.g. 11”x17”) in response to a one-page limitation where fold-out sheets were not authorized, only the information that could reasonably have been submitted on one 8-1/2 x 11 inch sheet would be evaluated. If an offeror were to submit three 8-1/2 x 11 inch pages in response to a one not-to-exceed 11 x 17 inch page limitation, only the information that could reasonably have been submitted on one 11 x 17 inch sheet would be evaluated. If an offeror submitted alternates that were not requested, the information will not be evaluated.

e. The degree of risk to the Government inherent in the offeror’s technical proposal will be a consideration under every evaluation factor.

f. A “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.

“Weakness” means a flaw in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” is a proposal flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. The Government cannot accept an offer with a deficiency in its technical proposal. The term “acceptable” is therefore used in this context to describe a technical proposal that does not contain a deficiency and thus could be accepted by the Government, notwithstanding any weaknesses or significant weaknesses in the proposal.

g. The Government cannot make award based on a deficient offer. Therefore, a rating of “Unacceptable” under any factor will render the offer ineligible for award, unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with that offeror and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal.

h. Failure of a proposed subcontractor to furnish authorization for the Government to discuss its past performance with the offeror will not be considered a proposal deficiency. However, the Government will not be able to disclose to the offeror any details pertaining to their performance problems.

i. Past Performance Adjectival ratings and Performance Risk - Performance risks are those risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of current or past performance.

Excellent Essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

Risk Level: Very Low

Good Little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: Low

Adequate Some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: Moderate

Marginal Significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: High Poor It is extremely doubtful that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Risk Level: Very High

Unknown The offeror has no relevant past performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. By law, contractors with no relevant past performance history cannot be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. Risk Level: Unknown

j. Adjectival ratings and proposal risk for other than past performance.

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

Excellent

The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes numerous advantageous characteristics of substance, and essentially no disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance.

The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low

Good

The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low

Acceptable

The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages.

Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect moderate risk in that they are somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Moderate

Marginal

The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High

Susceptible to Being Made Acceptable

The proposal demonstrates an approach which, as initially proposed, cannot be rated Marginal because of error(s), omission(s) or deficiency(ies) which are capable of being corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal. These solutions are further considered to reflect high to very high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High to Very High

NOTE: A Susceptible rating cannot be a final rating. The final rating will either increase to a rating of Marginal or better or decrease to Unacceptable

Unacceptable

The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has numerous disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are far outweighed by disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages will not result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions are further considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision, are unsupported, and do not demonstrate an understanding of the requirement.

Risk Level: Very High

3 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR A TWO-PHASE DESIGN-

BUILD PROPOSAL.

3.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.

3.1.1 Media, Page Size, Margins, Fonts, and Page Limitations.

Submit only the hard-copy paper documents and electronic files specifically authorized elsewhere in this section. Do not submit excess information, to include audio-visual materials, electronic media, etc. Do not include links to information on websites in lieu of incorporating the information physically into the proposal. Except where another size is specifically authorized for a specific submission, use only 8 1/2” x 11” paper. Use at least 1 inch margins, which may include headers and footers. Do not justify the right margin. Ensure that all text and graphics are clearly legible. Do not use a font size smaller than 10, unusual font styles such as script, or condensed fonts. For submissions with page limitations, the pages will be counted as follows: One side of the paper is one page; information on both the back and front of one sheet of paper will be counted as two pages. Where authorized, a foldout sheet will count as one page.

Pages furnished for organizational purposes only, such as a “Table of Contents” or divider tabs, are excluded from page limitations.

3.1.2 Proposal Binding.

The preferred method for assembling proposals is a method that enables the rapid insertion or deletion of pages such as three ring binders. Ensure recommended capacity is not exceeded and that pages turn freely. Do not use spring clamps, spiral binding systems, or heat binding systems.

3.1.3 Conditioning of Offer.

Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal volumes. Inclusion of any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in a determination that the offer is unacceptable and thus ineligible for award. Resolve questions about the terms and conditions or technical requirements of the solicitation prior to submission of the offer; see “Inquiries”, located in Section 00 21 00, for points of contact. Notwithstanding the above, the offeror must clearly describe in the proposal cover sheet submitted with the price volume any exceptions, within the offer, to the contractual and/or technical terms and conditions of the solicitation.

3.1.4 Restrictions on Offeror-Provided Information.

“Confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can nonetheless be provided to the Government as part of the offeror’s technical proposal.

Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must clearly mark the information in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offeror – Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”. Files shall not contain classified data.

3.2 GENERAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION.

The proposal shall be submitted as summarized below and as required by the specifications.

a. Phase-One Proposal.

(1) Factor 1: Experience and Capability

(2) Factor 2: Past Performance

b. Phase-Two Proposal.

(1) Volume I – Cost/Price Volume

(a) Proposal Cover Sheet

(b) Standard Form 1442, Acknowledgement of Amendments, Joint Venture Agreement

(c) Pricing Schedule

(d) Work Breakdown Structure

(e) Representation, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors

(f) Bid Guarantee

(g) Pre-Award Survey Information

(h) Subcontracting Plan

(2) Volume II – Technical Volume

(a) Factor 3: Technical Approach

(b) Factor 4: Socio-Economic Considerations

Each offeror must submit a phase-one proposal consisting of only a “technical” volume and each selected phase-two offeror must submit a phase-two proposal consisting of both a “price” volume and a “technical” volume. The price volume includes the signed offer and the offeror’s proposed prices, as well as other “pro forma” requirements. The technical volume includes all required information relating to the “non-price” evaluation factors, which may include both technical and management evaluation criteria. The two volumes must be submitted as separate, physically distinct volumes. Both volumes must be received at the location shown in Block 8 of Standard Form 1442, not later than the date and time specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. The information in the two volumes is evaluated separately and independently. Therefore, all information intended by the offeror to be evaluated as part of the price volume must be submitted as part of the price volume. All information intended by the offeror to be evaluated as part of the technical volume must be submitted as part of the technical volume. Do not merely cross-reference similar material between the technical and price volumes. Information in the price volume will not be considered in the technical evaluation, and vice versa.

3.2.1 Marking of Proposal Volumes.

Mark each volume as either the “Price Volume” or the “Technical Volume”. Additionally, mark the outside front cover of each volume with the project title and location, solicitation number, name and address of the offeror, and volume copy number. (Markings which identify the offeror are not desired on either the back cover or on the spline/binding.)

3.2.2 Tabbing of Proposal Volumes.

Offers are to be formatted and tabbed in accordance with the instructions that follow for each proposal volume.

3.2.3 Table of Contents.

Include a table of contents for each proposal volume.

4 PHASE-ONE PROPOSAL.

4.1 NUMBER OF SETS OF THE TECHNICAL VOLUME.

The Technical Proposal is to be submitted in one hard “original” and 3 copies, each individually packaged. In addition, submit one complete copy of the technical proposal on Compact Disk (CD) using a searchable “pdf” file format.

4.2 FORMAT, CONTENTS, AND LIST OF TABS FOR THE TECHNICAL VOLUME.

Use 8-1/2” x 11” pages for the narrative portions of the proposal. There is not a page limit for the overall technical proposal; however, there may be limits imposed at the tab level. Organize your technical proposal as indicated below.

The tabs directly correlate to the technical evaluation factors. Although the Government may use information contained anywhere within the technical proposal in its evaluation of any technical evaluation criteria, the Government is not obligated to search for or to consider information that is not located in the specified location. Number the pages. Do not include information pertaining to your proposed pricing for this project in the technical proposal except as specified in the submittals under Tab 4, Socio-Economic Considerations. Limit your submittals to the information specified;

excess information will not be evaluated.

PHASE-ONE TECHNICAL VOLUME

TAB CONTENTS

1. FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY

Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Introduction and Matrix Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Example Projects Demonstrating Experience Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Corporate Resumes

2. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Example Projects Past Performance Key Subcontractor Commitment and Authorization Letters

4.3 DETAILED SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL.

a. The Offeror is required to propose a specific project team including key subcontractors for evaluation in response to this Request for Proposals. For purposes of this procurement, the terms “key subcontractors” are used to refer only to the prospective subcontractors whose qualifications, experience, and past performance will be evaluated by the Government as part of the source selection process. For reasons of efficiency, not all of the subcontractors critical to successful post-award contract performance have been included in this group. In order to streamline the proposal submission and evaluation process, please limit your submission to the information specifically requested. Information pertaining to other subcontractors not designated as “key” by the Government will be considered excess and will not be evaluated.

b. For the purposes of this procurement, a key subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor performing “key” major work elements for which capability information is required to be submitted for evaluation as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal. The Government has designated the following major work elements as “key”:

--Solar Panel Array construction effort

c. Preface – Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Introduction.

(1). Provide a brief introduction narrative. Identify and provide the name, DUNS number, address, and a brief description of the role and authority of each firm that will be involved in performance of this contract at the prime contractor and key subcontractor level. If the proposed prime contractor is a Joint Venture or teaming arrangement (i.e.

mentor protégé), describe the relationship, role, and authority (to include management authority) of each firm. (Note: If a proposed firm has branch offices, provide information for each individual branch office that will perform work under the contract with its own workforce.) List the major work elements to be self-performed by the offeror’s in-house work force, the major work elements to be performed by each key subcontractor, and any other major work to be subcontracted to other contractors. The submission is limited to two pages.

Tab 1 of the Technical Volume: Factor 1 – Experience and Capability.

1. General:

a. The information provided under this tab will be used in conjunction with the evaluation of the experience and capability of the offeror and proposed key subcontractor(s). The resumes and example projects will provide the primary basis for the Government’s evaluation of their qualifications and experience.

b. The offeror’s attention is directed to the clause in Section 00800 titled “Key Personnel, Subcontractors, and Outside Associates or Consultants”. In accordance with this clause, any post-award changes to the key subcontractors in the accepted proposal will require contracting officer approval.

c. The more similarities an example project has with the prospective contract, the more relevant it will be considered.

Relevant is defined as projects similar to the project in this solicitation in scope, project type, physical size, complexity, and that has a logical connection with the requirements of this acquisition. The more relevant the experience is the more favorable the evaluation rating.

Tab 1 of the Technical Proposal: Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Introduction and Matrix

1. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:

Identify and provide the name, address, and a brief description of the role and authority of each firm that will be involved in performance of this contract at the prime contractor and key subcontractor level. If the proposed prime contractor is a Joint Venture or teaming arrangement (i.e. mentor protégé), describe the relationship, role, and authority of each firm. (Note: If a proposed firm has branch offices, provide information for each individual branch office that will perform work under the contract with its own workforce.) Clearly identify the major work elements to be self-performed by the offeror’s in-house work force and the major work elements to be performed by each key subcontractor.

2. FORMATTING AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS:

The introduction narrative is limited to two 8-1/2” x 11” pages.

Tab 1 of the Technical Volume: Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Example Projects Demonstrating Experience and Capability

1. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:

a. The offeror is required to submit “example projects” for each of the three (3) below capability areas that demonstrate the firm’s capability to successfully complete the example project. Multiple projects can demonstrate a capability or an example project can demonstrate multiple capabilities. For example, one example project could demonstrate the capability of both the proposed prime construction contractor and a key subcontractor, if they had teamed together on the example project doing the same major work element as they are proposed to perform for this project.)

--At least one with no more than three example projects demonstrating the offeror’s design-build construction management capability as a prime contractor on a design-build construction project of similar type and scope;

--At least one with no more than three example projects demonstrating the capability of the firm (prime or subcontractor) that will be performing the design effort; and

--At least one with no more than three example projects demonstrating the capability of the firm (prime or subcontractor) that will be performing the construction of the solar panel array.

b. Example projects submitted to demonstrate a firm’s capability must be relevant to the work that the firm will be performing under the prospective contract (e.g. If offeror is proposing contractor ABC to perform the paving work, the submitted paving capability example project shall demonstrate contractor ABC’s paving capability experience). The offeror should explain how the work performed by the proposed firm in the example project is relevant to the proposed acquisition. The more similarities an example project has with the prospective contract, the more relevant it will be considered.

c. Submit construction projects that are either complete or substantially complete. (For this purpose, “substantially complete” means that only punch list items remain for project acceptance or that the majority of the elements of the project have been turned over to the customer for beneficial occupancy.)

d. Provide a summary matrix that clearly indicates which submitted example project(s) demonstrates the capability(ies) of the contractor (i.e. prime, subcontractor) proposed to perform the capability area identified in paragraph a above.

e. Formatting and Other Restrictions:

(1). Start the information for each example project on a new page. The submission is limited to 8-1/2” x 11” pages.

(2). Use the “Project Information Form” which follows for submitting the example projects. Use of an alternate format could result in a lower rating if all of the specified information is not provided. (Note: Do not submit a group of related jobs as one project unless all of the work was done under the same contract, or for indefinite delivery contracts, under one task order.)

(3). The summary matrix is limited to one page (NTE 11” x 17”).

3. Evaluation Criteria.

a. The Government will evaluate the recent relevant experience of the offeror’s proposed team (prime and key subcontractor(s)) on “example” projects demonstrating:

Prime Contractor’s design-build construction project management capability on similar project type, physical size, complexity, which has a logical connection with the requirements of this acquisition;

Design contractor’s (prime or subcontractor) design capability on similar project type, physical size, complexity, which has a logical connection with the requirements of this acquisition;

Construction contractor’s (prime or subcontractor) construction capability on similar project type, physical size, complexity, which has a logical connection with the requirements of this acquisition;

The examples of projects that most closely resemble the project identified in this solicitation will receive higher consideration.

b. Recent projects will be given greater consideration than projects which are not considered recent. Example projects completed before 2005 may be considered by the Government to be less recent, than projects completed after 2004.

The more recent the project is, the greater the consideration.

c. The following will be considered advantageous:

-- Prime contractor and key subcontractor teaming experience on similar projects.

-- Prior experience on government construction projects.

d. The Government realizes that the offeror may not be able to demonstrate relevant experience with all or most of the construction features of the current project on one example project; therefore, the Government will assess the team’s experience based on the cumulative experience gained on relevant example projects. Generally, projects that are not substantially complete will be given less consideration than projects which are either complete or substantially complete; however, for very large contracts spanning several years, the Government will determine whether sufficient progress has been made for the team member to have gained creditable relevant experience.

e. Generally, projects performed by an office of a team member that will not be performing work on this project with its own workforce will be given less consideration than projects performed by the office that will be performing work on this project with its own workforce.

f. Failure of the offeror to demonstrate relevant experience for itself or for any proposed key subcontractor will result in an “Unacceptable” rating.

PROJECT INFORMATION FORM

1. Example Project Number: Start with “1” for the first of all submitted projects and number consecutively.

2. Name of Contractor(s) that Project is Demonstrating Experience: Provide the name of the proposed firm(s) that this example project is demonstrating experience and capability.

3. Contract Number and Awarded Prime Contractor Name: Provide number assigned by the procuring Contracting Office and the name of the contractor that was awarded the contract.

4. Title and Location: Title and location of project or contract.

5. Month and Year Project Work Commenced and was Completed: Provide month and year.

6. Project Owner: Project owner or user, such as a government agency or installation, an institution, or corporation or private individual.

7. Point of Contact Name: Provide name of a person associated with the project owner or the organization that contracted for the construction, who is very familiar with the project and the firm’s (or firms’) performance.

8. Point of Contact Telephone Number: Include area code.

9. Brief Description of the Project: Provide contract type, dollar amount, physical size, and brief description of prime contracted effort.

10. Description of Proposed Prime/Key Subcontractor Employee Involvement:

a. Provide name of firm(s) (prime/key subcontractor) and branch offices, if appropriate, that were involved in the example project, their roles, and their respective contract numbers.

b. Describe the work effort performed by the proposed firm’s employees. If the firm (prime/key subcontractor) performed as a subcontractor, describe the work effort pertaining to the subcontracted effort, not the prime contract requirement. For each firm (prime/key subcontractor) that was involved on the example project, provide sufficient detail to establish the relevance to the current project to include (1) the performance period in month and year, (2) final dollar value, (3) physical size and (4) principal elements and special features of the work self-performed by that contractor’s employees.

Tab 1 of the Technical Volume: Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Corporate Resumes.

a. The offeror is required to submit a corporate resume for it self and each of the proposed key subcontractors.

b. The purpose of the corporate resume is to provide information that will substantiate that the prime and firm to which the work will be subcontracted has the resources necessary for successful performance in the area they are proposed to perform.

c. In the event of a contractor that is part of a large, multi-segmented business concern, the information provided should directly pertain to the specific segment of the business concern (i.e., the division, group, unit, etc.) that will perform work under the prospective contract with its own workforce. Information pertaining to the business concern in general or to other offices or locations of the firm which will not be self-performing work under the prospective contract with their in-house personnel or affiliates should not be submitted.

d. A standard format for the corporate resume is not specified. However, the Government is interested in information such as the following:

--Contractor name, office address, and telephone number for the office that will be performing work under the prospective contract.

--Type of business organization; date organized; date and state of incorporation, if applicable.

--Number of personnel on the present payroll in the following categories: partners, officers, other key, remainder.

--Number of permanent personnel on the present payroll.

--Equipment owned (relevant to the work to be performed).

--Total value of work in past six years exclusive of Joint Venture; Average annual gross income for the past six years.

--Largest job ever completed (contract amount, date completed, description, owner).

--Type of work in which firm specializes

--How long the firm has been performing work similar to what they would be performing on the current acquisition.

--Relevant specialized experience.

--Relevant certifications, etc.

e. Formatting and Other Restrictions.

The submission for each contractor is limited to three 8-1/2” x 11” pages.

f. Evaluation Criteria.

The information provided in the prime contractor’s corporate resumes will be evaluated to determine if the prime contractor has the resources necessary for successful performance. If there are proposed key subcontractors, the information provided in the subcontractors’ corporate resumes will be evaluated to determine if the proposed subcontractors have the resources necessary for successful performance of the subcontracted work. Offerors will receive a rating of no lower than “Marginal”, as long as the offeror has made a reasonable attempt to respond to the proposal submission requirements.

Tab 2 of the Technical Volume: Factor 2 – Past Performance.

1. General:

a. The information provided under this tab will be used in conjunction with the evaluation of the past performance record of the offeror and proposed key subcontractors. Information other than that supplied by the offeror under this tab may be utilized by the Government in its evaluation of past performance.

b. The more similarities an example project has with the prospective contract, the more relevant it will be considered. Relevant is defined as projects similar to the project in this solicitation in scope, project type, physical size, complexity, and that has a logical connection with the requirements of this acquisition. The Government is especially interested in relevant experience in solar generation construction. The more relevant the experience is the more favorable the evaluation rating.

2. Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Past Performance

a. Offerors are to provide past performance evaluation information on the example projects submitted under the Experience and Capability factor (e.g. Construction Contract Administration Support System (CCASS) or similar performance evaluation). Previous past performance evaluation completed on another agency’s form is acceptable.

b. If an official written performance rating or evaluation is not available for a proposed key subcontractor, then send a copy of the completed* example “Project Information Form” to the reference along with a past performance questionnaire and a cover letter (see sample formats provided below). The cover letter must request that the reference return both the Project Information Form and the completed questionnaire to the Government no later than the date set for receipt of proposals. Provide the name and phone number of the person who was furnished a copy of the modified Project Information Form and the questionnaire.

[*Note: In order to protect sensitive source selection information, the copy of the Project Information Form that is sent to the references may be modified as follows: (1) Insert the name of the firm for which the past performance evaluation is being requested and the applicable contract number in Block #3; and (2) At a minimum, furnish the information specified through Block #10, Proposed Prime/Key Subcontractor Involvement, except that the information in Block #10 can be limited to the firm requesting the reference.

c. Provide the following additional information for each of the example projects submitted under the Experience and Capability factor.

(1). Compliance with Socio-Economic Requirements: (only applies to contract awarded by a federal agency.)

Address the contractor’s compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, currently titled “Utilization of Small Business Concerns” by listing the percentage participated by each small business concern category.

(2). Safety Record: Detailed information pertaining to reportable injuries with lost workdays or fatalities on this project. For contracts with reportable injuries (lost workdays or fatalities), also include the total number of hours worked under the contract. Provide frequency rate.

(3). Performance Problems: Describe any performance problems on this project about which a customer may make adverse remarks. Describe actions taken to correct any performance shortcomings. If no performance problems, provide a statement to this effect.

(4). Quality Awards: Any quality awards received for this project by a proposed team member.

(5). Contract Prices: Original and the final contract price. If different, provide brief explanation.

(6). Completion Dates: Original and the final completion date. If different, provide a brief explanation.

3. Formatting and Other Restrictions:

Start the information for each example project on a new page. There is not a page limitation for this submission.

4. Evaluation Criteria.

(1). The Government will evaluate past performance information to assess the level of performance risk associated with the offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the solicitation. The currency and relevance of the information (as determined by the Government), the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance may be considered.

(2). This comparative risk assessment of past performance information is separate from the responsibility determination required under FAR Subpart 9.1.

(3). The Government will evaluate the information submitted by the offeror pertaining to recent, relevant contracts.

The Government may also use data obtained from other sources, including automated databases and questionnaires.

References other than those identified by the offeror may be contacted by the Government. The Government may take into consideration the offeror’s performance of contracts with the agency; other Federal, State, and local government activities; and commercial concerns.

(4). In general, example projects that the Government did not consider relevant for the purposes of evaluating experience will not be considered relevant for the purposes of evaluating past performance.

(5). For the purpose of the past performance evaluation, offerors shall be defined as business arrangements and relationships, such as Joint Venture participants, teaming partners, and key subcontractor(s). The past performance record of each firm in the business arrangement may be evaluated by the Government.

(6). The evaluation may take into consideration the offeror’s quality of workmanship; adherence to contract schedule; effectiveness of management, including the subcontracting aspect; compliance with labor standard;

compliance with safety standards; commitment to customer satisfaction; and business relationship.

For Federal contracts, the evaluation will also include the offeror’s history of compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, currently titled “Utilization of Small Business Concerns”. For other than small businesses (e.g. large business), the evaluation will also include the offeror’s past compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, currently titled “Small Business Subcontracting Plan”.

(7). The evaluation may take into account the number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken, and the overall work record.

(8). In the case of an offeror without a record of recent, relevant past performance (and for which there is also no recent, relevant past performance information for its predecessor companies or key subcontractors), or for whom information on past performance is not available or cannot be verified, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. For the purpose of this procurement, an “Adequate” rating is considered to be a neutral rating that is neither favorable nor unfavorable. Notwithstanding the above, the Government is not precluded from making award to a higher-priced offeror with a favorable past performance record over a lower-priced offeror with a neutral past performance rating.

SAMPLE OF LETTER WITH ATTACHMENTS TO BE SENT TO THE REFERENCES

OF THE CONTRACTOR THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE EXAMPLE PROJECT

(TO BE USED ONLY IF AN OFFICIAL PERFORMANCE RATING OR EVALUATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE ON THE EXAMPLE PROJECT WAS NOT PROVIDED IN THE

OFFEROR’S TECHNICAL VOLUME)

Date

Name and Address of Reference

Dear __________________:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, is conducting a past performance review of our firm’s past performance as part of an upcoming source selection acquisition.

Your name was given by us to the government as a reference of our past performance on the following contracts with your agency/firm:

INSERT LIST

We have attached a “Project Information Form” describing our firm’s involvement for each of the above listed contracts.