SF30 12-R-0001 Amend 0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Design-Build (2-Phase) of a Life Science Test Facility (LSTF) Building Addition, Dugw ay Proving Grounds, Utah. This project is a Design-Build of a 41,200 SF permanent addition to the existing Life Sciences Test Facility (LSTF) building. Project w ill house test research, design, analysis and report w riting area for scientists, an area for calibration, maintenance and repair of sensitive laboratory instruments, an autoclave w ith supporting equipment, ten Bio-Safety Level 2 (BSL2), f ive BSL3 labs and one additional BSL3 Aerosol Chamber. The existing building w ill be renovated so that access to the new addition is through the existing LSTF.

This is a Full and Open (Unrestricted) Acquisition. Estimated Cost Range is betw een $ 25,000,000 and $ 50,000,000.

Purpose of this amendment is to provide revised Section 00 22 10 (specifically Page 1) to revise the number of offerors to be offered the opportunity to submit a proposal for Phase 2.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-Feb-2012

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 W91238-12-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Jan-2012

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

29-Feb-2012

CODE

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J STREET

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:

W91238-12-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION - CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) SCHEDULE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 VOL 1 Technical Specs

Div 01-49

636 05-JAN-2012

Attachment 2 VOL 2 Attachments Drawings Reports

1105 05-JAN-2012

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Amended Section 00 22

21 22-FEB-2012

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The Issued By organization has changed from

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J ST

SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

to

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J STREET

SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDED SECTION 00 22 10

SECTION 00 22 10

PROPOSAL BASIS OF AWARD,

GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS,

PHASE I INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATIONS,

AND CONTRACT AWARD

1. OVERVIEW

a. This is a "Best Value" solicitation for the construction of a Design-Build Life Science Test Facility Addition at Dugway Proving Grounds, Utah.. 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.

b. 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 Organization and Technical Approach, Experience and Capability, and Past Performance of the offeror. Then at least three (3), but no more than five (5) six (6) 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 Solution, Management Approach, Key Personnel and Socio-Economic Considerations.

c. The Government does not intend to conduct discussions during phase-one, nor request revised phase-one proposals. 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 (“non-price”) 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 price, when combined, are significantly more important than 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 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 reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and is consistent with the offeror’s Technical Proposal. Additionally, all offers may 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 funds anticipated to be made available for award of the MILCON- and/or Equipment- funded contract line items have been identified in the Notes to the Pricing Schedule in Section 00 10 00. 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, if applicable), 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

The offerors are reminded that the Contract award shall not exceed the cost limitation described in Section 00 10 00 for this project. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within the cost limitation. There is no obligation to approach or match the cost limitation in the offer.

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 00 22 10 and 00 22 20, 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 for all technical factors other than past performance. The Past Performance factor will be evaluated by the Government and a relevancy and confidence level 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 00 22 10 and 00 22 20. 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 00 22 10)

(1) Factor 1: Organization and Technical Approach

(2) Factor 2: Experience and Capability

(3) Factor 3: Past Performance

Phase-Two Proposal. (Section 00 22 20)

(1) Factor 4: Technical Solution

(2) Factor 5: Key Personnel

(3) Factor 6: Management Approach

(4) Factor 7: 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 – Organization and Technical Approach is the most heavily weighted factor.

Factor 2 – Experience and Capability is weighted less than Factor 1.

Factor 3 – Past Performance. Both Factors 2 and 3 are of approximately equal importance.

Factor 4 – Technical Solution, Both Factors 1 and 4 are of approximately equal importance.

Factor 5 – Key Personnel is weighted less than Factors 2 and 3.

Factor 6 – Management Approach is weighted less than Factor 5.

Factor 7 – 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 may be strictly adhered to and enforced by the Government. The Government may 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 (e.g. key subcontractor), 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 team member such as a key subcontractor to furnish authorization for the Government to disclose and 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 Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The Government will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

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

2. Past Performance Confidence Assessments - In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the table below:

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

j. Technical/Risk Rating for other than past performance.

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

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 16, 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: Organization and Technical Approach

(2) Factor 2: Experience and Capability

(3) Factor 3: Past Performance

b. Phase-Two Proposal

(1) Volume I – 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

(1) Factor 4: Technical Solution

(2) Factor 5: Key Personnel

(3) Factor 6: Management Approach

(4) Factor 7: 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 required 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 seven (7) copies. 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. Limit your submittals to the information specified; excess information will not be evaluated.

PHASE-ONE TECHNICAL VOLUME

TAB CONTENTS

1. FACTOR 1 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

Organization Chart Self-Performed Work Narrative

2. FACTOR 2 – EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY

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

3. FACTOR 3 – 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 may 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”:

--Design Firm --Containment Laboratory Construction Effort --Any Subcontractor performing work greater than $1,000,000.00

c. Any changes to key subcontractors in your Phase 2 proposal from your Phase 1 proposal will not be allowed.

d. The Offeror’s attention is directed to the clause in Section 00 73 00 titled “Key Personnel and Subcontractors”.

In accordance with this clause, any post-award changes to the key personnel and/or key subcontractors in the accepted proposal will require contracting officer approval.

e. Preface – Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Introduction

(1). Provide a brief introduction narrative. Identify and provide the name, DUNS number, address, POC e-mail 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 Proposal: Factor 1 – Organization and Technical Approach

1. Organization and Management

a. Provide information that describes the offeror’s organization including the Prime Contractor, Design Firm(s) and Key Subcontractors.

b. Organization: Describe what firms will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities on the project. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its design firms(s). Include a simple organizational chart, illustrating the organization, including the proposed quality control group(s). Identify the design firm(s) chosen for the project, if not to be self-performed. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team.

Resumes and names of individual team members are not required.

c. Self-Performed Work: Generally describe the items the offeror will self-perform to comply with the requirements in Section 00 72 00 for self-performed work (Reference clause 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the Contractor).

d. Formatting and Other Restrictions: The submission is limited to six 8-1/2” x 11” pages total.

e. Evaluation Criteria

(1.) Government will evaluate whether the responsibilities and lines of authority between the construction firm, design firm, and key subcontractors are appropriate and well-defined. The Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s approach to design coordination and review and the offeror’s approach to support during design, construction and after project turnover appears to be reasonable, realistic, achievable, and reflects logical sequencing and progression of activities. The Offeror should strive to select and commit to design firms to achieve an “acceptable” or better rating. Joint venture participant’s contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

(2.) Self-Performed Work: The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s resources to determine if it has the capability to self-perform the required amount of the project, in accordance with public policy to assure adequate interest in and supervision of all work.

Tab 2 of the Technical Volume: Factor 2 – 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 00 73 00 titled “Key Personnel and Subcontractors”. 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 in project type/scope, physical size, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The more relevant the experience is the more favorable the evaluation rating.

2. Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Example Projects Demonstrating Experience and Capability

a. The offeror is required to submit “example projects” for each of the three (3) below capability areas that demonstrate the prime’s and/or key subcontractor’s experience and capability to successfully complete the example project. Multiple projects can demonstrate a experience and capability or an example project can demonstrate multiple experiences and capabilities.

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

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

--At least one with no more than three example projects demonstrating the experience and capability of the lead Architect-Engineer firm (prime or subcontractor) that will be designing the project;

b. Example projects submitted to demonstrate a firm’s experience and capability must be relevant to the work that the firm will be performing under the prospective contract . The offeror should explain how the work performed by the proposed firm in the example project is relevant to the proposed acquisition

c. Do not submit design projects which have not been completed. Do not submit construction projects that are not 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.) If a design-build project is being used by an A-E to demonstrate their design capability, the design portion of the contract must be complete in order for it to be considered.

d. Provide a Summary Matrix that indicates which submitted example project(s) demonstrates the experience(s) and capability(ies) of which firm (i.e. prime, subcontractor) will perform the capability area identified in paragraph “2.a.” above. For example:

Capability #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 Prime Design Build Management X X X Largest Construction Capability X X X Lead A-E Design X X X

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” below to submit 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”).

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)/Key Subcontractor (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 contract 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 Month and Year Project was Completed.

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

10. 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.

f. Evaluation Criteria

(1). 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/scope, physical size, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontract/teaming with the requirements of this acquisition;

Construction contractor’s (prime or subcontractor) construction capability similar project type/scope, physical size, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontract/teaming with the requirements of this acquisition, and duration of this project;

Design firm’s design experience and capability using similar design (e.g., architect, engineer, fire, etc) disciplines on projects which have 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.

(2). Recent projects will be given greater consideration than projects which are not considered recent. Example projects completed before January 01, 2007 may be considered by the Government to be less recent. The more recent the project is, the greater the consideration.

(3). The following will be considered advantageous:

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

-- Prior experience on government construction projects.

(4). Prime contractor’s prior subcontract/teaming experience on relevant example projects with key subcontractors proposed for this project is advantageous for evaluation purposes. If the prime contractor is a Joint Venture and is submitting prior work experience as the same Joint Venture on relevant example projects, it would be considered advantageous for evaluation purposes. The involvement of proposed key personnel on the example project performing the same role as proposed for this project is advantageous for evaluation purposes.

(5). 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, construction projects that are not substantially complete will be given less consideration than construction projects which 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.); 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.

(6). 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.

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

3. Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Corporate Resumes

a. The offeror is required to submit a corporate resume for itself and each of the proposed key subcontractors. If proposing as a Joint Venture submit a corporate resume for each team member.

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, DUNS number, 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; Average annual gross income for the past six years.

--Largest job in past six years (contract amount, date completed, description, owner).

--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.

Tab 3 of the Technical Proposal: Factor 3 – Past Performance

1. General

a. The information provided under this tab will be used in conjunction with the evaluation of the relevant 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 greater the degree of relevancy.

The Source Selection Authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.

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. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), questionnaire, similar performance evaluation, or other performance evaluations completed previously).

b. The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2 Experience and Capability.

Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project (s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Connie L Newell via email at Connie.L.Newell@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

c. Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 3 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

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

e. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

f. 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.)

(a). 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.

(b). If the contract included a small business subcontracting plan, address compliance with FAR 52.219-9, currently titled “Small Business Subcontracting Plan” either (i) by listing the subcontracting plan goals for each small business category and the percentages that were actually achieved by small business category OR (ii) by attaching the eSRS Individual Subcontracting…