Amendment_0001_DDJC_Tracy _CA_IDIQ_MATOC_29_Jun_2015.pdf

W91238-15-R-0013

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

Project: DB/DBB IDIQ MATOC for Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (DDJC) Tracy, CA Regional Requirements The purpose of this amendment:

A. Change clause 52.216-9 Order Limit minimum $5,000 to $10,000 B. Change min guarantee to $10,000; Single task order max $10,000,000 and aggregate $20,000,000 C. Revise Section 00 22 10 paragraph 4.3.2.3.a.(2) all changes identif ied w ith change bars and highlighted.

D. Extend the proposal due date from 2 July 2015 to 7 July 2015 10 AM.

POC: Angela Gerlitzki at 916-557-5326 or email at angela.m.gerlitzki@usace.army.mil. All terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 22

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-Jun-2015

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 W91238-15-R-0013

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Jun-2015

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 X is extended, 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

29-Jun-2015

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:

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 Specifications IDIQ BD

DDJC, Tracy, CA

1523 13-MAR-2015

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The delivery order maximum amount has decreased by $10,000,000.00 from $20,000,000.00 to $10,000,000.00.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 10

SOLICITATION SECTIONS PERTAINING TO OFFEROR’S SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION

PROPOSAL BASIS OF AWARD

GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND

INSTRUCTIONS, PHASE I INSTRUCTIONS AND

EVALUATIONS,

AND CONTRACT

AWARD

1. OVERVIEW.

a. This action is a "Best Value" solicitation for a design build general construction multiple award task order contract (MATOC) at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (DDJC) Tracy, California, but can be used throughout the USACE South Pacific Division. The Contracting Officer will award to those responsible offerors whom the Source Selection Authority determines offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price of the task order project. The task order project requirements will be provided in the amendment to initiate phase two.

b. This solicitation utilizes a two-phase source selection process 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, Technical Approach, and Past Performance of the offeror. Approximately eight of the most highly qualified offerors in phase-one will be given the opportunity to submit a proposal under phase-two. Phase-two will consist of an evaluation of price and a non-price factors which may include a Technical Solution and Management Approach. The phase- two technical volume requirements will be provided in the amendment to initiate phase two. Approximately four of the most highly qualified offerors in phase-two will be awarded as a result of this solicitation. A combined total of all contracts awarded under this solicitation shall not exceed $46 million at any one time.

c. The Government neither intends to conduct discussions during phase-one, nor request revised phase-one proposals. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct phase-one discussions, if it deems such to be in its best interest in accordance with FAR 15.306.

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 non-price evaluation factors, when combined, will be greater 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). 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 will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

b. 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; and the offeror’s pre-award survey information).

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 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.

Phase-One Proposal. (Section 00 22 10)

(1) Factor 1: Experience and Capability

(2) Factor 2: Technical Approach

(3) Factor 3: Past Performance

Phase-Two Proposal. (Section 00 22 20) to be included with the amendment initiating phase two.

c. The Source Selection Authority will consider both phase one and phase two proposal evaluation with their relative strengths and weaknesses in determining the best value to the Government.

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 – Technical Approach is weighted less than Factor 1.

Factor 3 – Past Performance is weighted less than Factor 2.

Phase-two factors and their level of importance will be incorporated into the amendment to initiate phase-two.

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 may 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. Responses that are essentially blanket offers of compliance are not adequate substitutes for the detailed and complete technical information necessary to establish that an offeror can meet US Government needs. 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 (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 key 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 that may impact their overall rating.

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

RATING DESCRIPTION

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.

j. 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

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.

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: Experience and Capability

(2) Factor 2: Technical Approach

(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

(2) Volume II – Technical Volume to be included with the amendment to initiate phase-two

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. The technical volume includes all required information relating to the “non-price” evaluation factors. 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.

3.2.1 Marking of Proposal Volumes.

Mark each volume as either the “Price Volume” or the “Technical Volume”. In addition, 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 spine/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 six (6) copies. In addition, submit one complete copy of the technical proposal on Compact Disk (CD).

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 – EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY

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

2. FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Multiple Task Order Capability Bonding Capability

3. FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

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

4.3 DETAILED SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL.

4.3.1 Preface – Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Introduction

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”:

-- Architect-Engineer Design Firm

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 “Personnel, Subcontractors and Outside Associates”. 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. Provide a brief introduction narrative. Identify and provide the name, DUNS number, address, point of contact 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, 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 (2) 8-1/2”x11” pages for narrative.

f. The Government will not evaluate the Preface - Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Introduction. The purpose of this narrative is to provide a brief introduction for information purposes; however, if applicable, the government reserves the right to consider it throughout the evaluation of the other factors.

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

4.3.2.1 Potential future projects under the MATOC.

a. The purpose of this contract is to provide a streamlined contract vehicle to primarily support the installations Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization needs. The primary North American Industry Classification Systems (NAICS) code is 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction with a size standard of $36.5 million. The IDIQ's primary NAICS code applies to the principle regional requirements and it determines the size standard for the entire MATOC contract and subsequent orders. In addition, these MATOC IDIQs will also allow the use of secondary NAICS for both specialized trades, 238XXX and heavy and civil engineering construction, 237XXX.

Therefore, typical efforts vary in a wide range of potential requirements, to include, those descriptions listed under NAICS 236220, 237XXX, and 238XXX. Typical task orders will be between $300,000 and $2,000,000.

b. The potential project types, to be issued under the resulting contract as individual task orders include, but are not limited to: design build and/or design bid build general construction services including designing and renovation of existing structures, repairing existing structures, new structural design and construction, flooring repairs, HVAC repairs and replacements, electrical upgrades, fire suppression systems, concrete, and demolition work.

4.3.2.2. General

a. The resumes and example projects will provide the primary basis for the Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s experience and capability.

b. The Government is interested in selecting a contractor with the ability to demonstrate a wide variety of experience and capability to reduce performance risk associated with successful completion of any requirement within the NAICS identified in paragraph 4.3.2.1(a), above. Paragraph 4.3.2.1(b) emphasizes the scopes that we anticipate based on known customer requirements.

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

a. The offeror should if possible submit “example projects” per (1) and (2) below, that demonstrate the prime’s and/or key subcontractor’s wide experience and capability meeting the Evaluation Criteria to successfully perform within this MATOC. If the proposed work is demonstrating relevancy to the potential project types in 4.3.2.1(a) or 4.3.2.1(b), the offeror should explain how the work performed by the proposed firm in the example project is relevant to what experiences and capabilities. Example projects can demonstrate multiple experiences and capabilities. However, if an example project is being used for multiple experiences and capabilities, ensure sufficient information is provided to demonstrate those applicable experiences and capabilities. Each example project submitted does not need to demonstrate multiple experiences and capabilities; however, all the example projects should collectively demonstrate wide experience and capability. Submit:

(1) Three (3) but no more than five (5) example projects demonstrating the offeror’s recent/relevant design-build experience and/or capability on design-build and/or construction projects; and

(2) Three (3) but no more than five (5) example projects demonstrating the experience and capability of the Architect- Engineer design firm’s recent/relevant design and/or design-build experience and capability; and

(2) The offeror may submit more than one Architect/Engineer design firm demonstrating the experience and capability of the Architect-Engineer design firm’s recent/relevant design and/or design-build experience and capability; however, the example projects will be limited to three no more than five for all of those proposed and

b. Do not submit construction projects that are not 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.

c. Provide a Summary Matrix that indicates which submitted example project(s) demonstrates which experience and/or capability. The example provided is not mandatory, develop and provide your own matrix that best explains your proposal.

PRIME A/E

CAPABILITY/EXAMPLE PROJECT #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10

Prime - Construction only X X D-B X X X X X Renovation/Repair of Existing Structures/Facilities X X X X X X

New Construction of Structures/Facilities X X X X

Electrical X X X X X X X X

Fire Suppression X X X X X X X

Demolition X X

Concrete X X X X X

Ability to manage multiple projects at once X X X X X X X Proper management of scope, schedule, and budget X X X X X X X X X X

Prime Contractor’s general contractor/construction/project management

X X X X X

Prime and A/E teaming X X X X

Corps of Engineers experience X X X X Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (DDJC) experience X X X X

d. Formatting and Other Restrictions.

(1) Start the information for each example project on a new page.

(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 (1) 8-1/2”x11” page.

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. Include original completion date and actual completion date and a succinct description for changes in these two dates.

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) original contract amount and final dollar value (include an explanation for the difference), (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.

11. Please list the other projects you were completing concurrently (please include dollar value for each concurrent project).

e. Evaluation Criteria.

(1) Demonstrated experience and capability in the following areas will be evaluated for relevancy (similar project type dollar value, and contract type of potential project types identified in paragraph 4.3.2.1, above) and recency (example projects completed before 2010 will be considered by the Government to be less recent, than projects completed on or after 2010; the more recent the project is, the greater the consideration).

(a) Prime Contractor’s contractor/construction/project management experience and capability.

(b) Architect-Engineer Design firm’s experience and capability.

(c) Experience and capability with the typical effort and/or listed Government potential projects described in 4.3.2.1.

Experience and capability specific to potential project types identified in 4.3.2.1(b) will be viewed more favorably.

(d) Experience managing multiple projects at once.

(e) Experience of proper management of scope, schedule, and budget.

(2) Demonstrations of experience and capability in the following areas may be considered advantageous. (A lack of any of the below items will not be considered unfavorable.):

(a) Prime contractor and Architect-Engineer designer teaming experience on similar design-build projects.

(b) Prior experience on Corps of Engineers construction projects.

(c) Prior experience on DDJC construction projects.

4.3.2.4. 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 firm.

b. The purpose of the corporate resume is to provide information that will substantiate that the prime and firm to which work will be subcontracted have the resources necessary and available 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:

(1) Contractor name, office address for the office that will be performing work under the prospective contract.

(2) Type of business organization; date organized; date and state of incorporation, if applicable.

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

(4) Number of permanent personnel on the present payroll.

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

(6) Total value of work in past six years; Average annual gross income for the past six years.

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

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

(9) Type of work in which firm specializes

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

(11) Relevant specialized experience.

(12) Relevant certifications, etc.

e. Formatting and Other Restrictions.

The submission for each contractor is limited to three (3) 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 identified subcontracted work. The greater the resume demonstrates the resources for successful performance of the requirement, the higher the rating.

4.3.3 Tab 2 of the Technical Proposal: Factor 2 – Technical Approach.

4.3.3.1. Multiple Task Order Capability

a. Provide information that describes the offeror’s approach to successfully complete multiple projects, in multiple disciplines, and in multiple locations concurrently. Clearly describe the approach beginning with the offeror’s capability to propose on simultaneous task order requests for proposals. Offeror’s shall include the challenges associated with this and their approach to mitigate those challenges (some examples may be ability to obtain materials, meet key personnel requirements, meet key subcontractor requirements, maintaining lines of communication, and meet major milestones on time). In addition, offeror’s shall describe how they have successfully managed concurrent, disparate projects in the past and any lessons learned. Offerors shall discuss any risks identified in their approach and describe how they will mitigate those risks.

b. Formatting and Other Restrictions: The submission is limited to three (3) five (5) 8-1/2” x 11” pages total.

c. Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to successfully complete multiple projects, in various disciplines, in various locations that occur concurrently. The Government will also evaluate the proposed approach to manage simultaneous task order requests for proposals. The offeror’s understanding of possible challenges associated with this and their approach to mitigate those challenges. The proposal will be evaluated for how well it demonstrated that the offeror has successfully managed concurrent, disparate projects in the past and any lessons learned. The identified risks and mitigation techniques will be evaluated for foresight and understanding of rick management.

The greater the narrative demonstrates lessons learned and mitigation techniques to reduce risk while successfully managing numerous projects, in various disciplines, in various locations, at a given time will be viewed more favorably.

4.3.3.2. Bonding Capability-Letter of Assurance

a. The offeror must have bonding capacity of $10 million for a single task order and an aggregate bonding capacity of $20 million.

b. Offerors shall demonstrate sufficient bonding capacity in the form of a letter from their Surety. The Surety must be listed on the Department of the Treasury’s Listing of Certified Companies in accordance with FAR 28. The listing is available below:

http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/suretyBnd/c570_a-z.htm

c. Formatting and Other Restrictions: There is not a page limitation for this submission.

d. Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s bonding capacity letter of assurance to ensure bonding capacity of $10 million for a single task order and an aggregate bonding capacity of $20 million has been provided by a Surety listed on the Department of the Treasury’s Listing of Certified Companies. This submission will be evaluated for acceptability and not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. If the offeror cannot demonstrate sufficient bonding capability during phase one, further consideration of the proposal will be terminated and the offer will be rejected.

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

4.3.4.1. General.

a. The information provided under this tab will be used to evaluate 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.

4.3.4.2. Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Example Projects Past Performance.

a. Offerors shall provide past performance evaluation information on the example projects submitted under Factor1, Experience and Capability (e.g. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), 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 1 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 shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). 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, Angela Gerlitzki via email at Angela.M.Gerlitzk@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 two 2 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. It is preferred that performance recognition documents be provided for the example projects; performance recognition documents from other than example projects will be considered less relevant.

d. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), 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 http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/suretyBnd/c570_a-z.htm mailto:Angela.M.Gerlitzki@usace.army.mil 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. Formatting and Other Restrictions

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

(2) Sample Past Performance Questionnaire (next page):

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR.

THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11)

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S…