W91238-16-R-0022-0001.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

Project: USDA Forest Service Kern River Ranger District Engine Station Relocation, Lake Isabella, California

This amendment includes the follow ing information: 1) Site Visit List; 2) Responses to Request for Information; 3) Revised specs and draw ings per the responses; 4) Changes to section 00 22 16, Source Selection Information; 5) Update to the Price Schedule; and 6) a new Wage Determination, dated 1 April 2016.

The proposal due date is not extended as a result of this amendment. Therefore, proposals are due by 11am PST, 13 April 2016.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 52

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Apr-2016

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 W91238-16-R-0022

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Mar-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-Apr-2016

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO

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:

W91238-16-R-0022

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION - CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) SCHEDULE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The performance period code Negotiable has been added.

The following have been modified:

PRICE SCHEDULE

USDA Forest Service, Kern River Ranger District, Engine Station Relocation Price Schedule

CLIN Item Description Quantity Unit $/Unit Total Price

0001 Site Improvements 1 JOB

0002 Building Improvements 1 JOB

0003 Visitor Information Trailer 1 JOB

0004 Furnishings 1 JOB

0005 Furniture and Equipment Relocation 1 JOB

Base Total:

Optional

Renewal Energy System - Wind Turbine System – This option may be exercised within 30 days from notice to proceed.

1 JOB

Optional

Renewal Energy System - Solar Panel System – this option may be exercised within 30 days from notice to proceed.

1 JOB

Options Total:

The offerorr will provide a price for the one option that best fits the offerrors technical expertise and schedule. The Government will evaluate the base award and the selected option. Evaluation of the option will not obligate the Government to exercise the option.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been deleted:

52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or

Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

OCT 2010

52.232-13 Notice Of Progress Payments APR 1984

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for the construction of the USDA Forest Service Kern River Ranger District Engine Station Relocation at Lake Isabella, California. The resultant contract will be a single Firm-fixed-price contract.

1.2 The purpose of the Source Selection Plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value Decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Trade-Off Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1). In as much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the offeror to perform the resulting contract, the proposal shall be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract.

1.3 The Government will utilize a small business competitive best value trade-off solicitation.

1.4 The Government will provide detailed plans and specifications for the project and evaluate offerors’ technical solutions and price. Interested offerors will submit proposals for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select the offeror that represents the overall best value for this procurement.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Firms formally organized as construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms, or any other interested parties may submit proposals. A firm may offer more than one proposal by entering into more than one association. Associations may be joint ventures or include key team subcontractors. Any legally organized offeror may submit a proposal.

2.2 Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. The offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement. The teaming agreements shall be provided and submitted in Tab A of Binder 1, Technical Factors.

2.3 If applicable, the offeror shall submit evidence from the offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel.

2.4 Information submitted about any company other than the offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, or other associated business, will not be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant to this acquisition. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight of the information to this procurement. Information about subcontractors may not be given much weight unless the proposal contains evidence that the subcontractor is committed to perform the work. If information about a subcontractor is properly submitted and given weight during the evaluation, the expectation is that this subcontractor will perform this work.

Before utilizing another subcontractor for this work, the Government must consent.

2.5 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in Block 7 of Standard Form 1442.

2.6 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT:

3.1 Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each binder of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. The complete table of contents shall be included in each binder.

3.3 Printed Matter Submissions. Written material shall be on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper printed in no less than a 10 point font. For organization charts or schedules, a folded 11” x 17” format may be used. The page count is at the discretion of the contractor. However, it is anticipated this should be approximately 25 pages but no more than 50 pages in total.

3.4 Binders. Proposals shall be submitted in tabbed, three ring binders.

3.5 Number of Copies. Offerors shall submit the following:

Binder 1, Technical Factors 1-3: an original and five copies Binder 2, Price Factor 4 and Solicitation Information: an original and two copies

3.6 Proposals shall be marked:

Date of Closing: 13 April 2016

Time of Closing: 11 a.m.

Solicitation RFP: W91238-16-R-0022

3.7 Electronic Submission. In addition to the hard copies required in paragraph 3.5, all offerors shall submit their proposal on a CD-ROM. Written portions of the proposal shall be in MS Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF format. The electronic version shall be either a single file tabbed in the same order as the hard copy or multiple files hyperlinked to a single table of contents. Any portion of the proposal not available in electronic format, i.e. cut sheets, if applicable, should be scanned in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, thus making it available electronically. The CD-ROM must be clearly labeled by solicitation number, project name, installation, and offeror’s name. The CD-ROM shall be marked with a label stating “Unclassified//Controlled Unclassified Info.” In the event of any conflict between the electronic submission and the hard copy submission, the hard copy submission will govern and will be the material upon which the Government bases its evaluation and ultimately, its decision. Electronic media may be submitted in an un-editable format.

Binder 1: Technical Proposal

TAB A: Teaming Agreement(s), if applicable. See paragraph 2.2. Note to 8(a)—SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture. See paragraph 2.3. If there is no teaming agreement, please clearly state that there is no teaming agreement.

TAB B: FACTOR 1 Schedule and Risk Management

TAB C: FACTOR 2 Technical Approach

TAB D: FACTOR 3 Past Performance of Relevant Projects

Binder 2: Price and Solicitation Information The CD with the electronic submissions should be included in this binder. This will include the technical (to include the schedule) and price proposals.

TAB E: Proposal Cover Sheet. The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1(c)(2). This provision, titled “Instruction to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition” is provided in full text in by reference Section 00 21 00. The format and content for the proposal cover sheet is as follows:

1. Solicitation Number;

2. The name, address, DUNs, telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror (and electronic address if available);

3. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

4. Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addressed is available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation; and

5. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

TAB F: SF 1442 and Joint Venture Agreement. Standard Form 1442 completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the offeror. Include the offeror’s DUNS number in block 14 of the SF 1442, along with the offeror’s address. All amendments will be acknowledged in accordance with the instructions on the SF 30, Amendment.

Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

TAB G: Price Schedule. Submit a completed Price Schedule of the offeror’s proposed contract prices using the format in Section 00 10 00 of the solicitation. Submit the completed Price Schedule on the CLINs work for the project. Prices will be proposed for all contract line items and sub-contract line items. Unit prices will be extended to the actual “dollar and cents” amounts (i.e., two decimal places). Do not round off the extended prices to the nearest dollar. Check your pricing submission very carefully for mathematical any clerical errors prior to submission. Any qualification of pricing may render the proposal unacceptable and therefore not eligible for award.

TAB H: Pre-Award Survey Information. The Contracting Officer is required to make an affirmative pre-award determination of the apparent successful contractor’s responsibility in accordance with the mandatory requirements in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors. The Contracting Officer will have sufficient information available to determine that a prospective contractor meets these minimum standards.

Therefore, the offeror is requested to provide the pre-award survey information described below:

1. The completed Construction Contractor Data Form with Supplemental Schedules A-C (see Attachment C at the end of this section). If the offer is being submitted by a Joint Venture, submit a separate form for each Joint Venture participant. The offeror may submit pre-award survey information in another format, provided that the information furnished is substantially the same as that which would be furnished on the Construction Contractor Data Form and its supplemental schedules.

2. Current Financial Statements. If the financial statement is more than 60 days old, submit a certificate stating that the firm’s financial condition is substantially the same, or, if not the same, state the changes that have taken place. If a Joint Venture, provide this information for each participant in the Joint Venture.

3. Banking Information. Provide letters from banks or other financial institutions with which the contractor conducts business. The letters should contain information about your firm’s accounts, loans, lines of credit, etc. The Government is interested in financial stability, timely payments, the length and nature of the relationship between the firms and the financial institution, and the firm’s financial ability to perform the contract. The letters should also provide the name and telephone number of the bank representative the Government may contact. If a Joint Venture, provide this information for each Joint Venture participant.

4. Surety Information. Provide information on the Surety. If it is a Corporate Surety, provide the name of the Surety, and the Surety will be checked for acceptability per FAR 28.202. If it’s an individual Surety provide the name of the Surety and information on the pledged assets. The assets of an individual surety will be checked for acceptability per FAR 28.203-2 and FAR 28.203-3.

The Government will treat the pre-award survey information submitted by the offeror as proprietary.

TAB I: Bid Guarantee. All offerors must submit a bid guarantee, (e.g., Standard Form 24, Bid bond) which complies with the requirements of FAR 28.101 Bid Guarantees, and any Defense and Army supplements thereto.

4. EVALUATION RATINGS

4.1 Proposal Ratings: Factors 1 and 2 will be adjectivally rated. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals.

See paragraph 6 below for a discussion of the evaluation criteria applicable to these factors.

4.2 Technical Rating Definitions.

The following combined technical/risk rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of Factors 1 and 2.

4.3 Past Performance Assessment Definitions. The following criteria will be used to establish relevancy and the performance confidence for Factor 3. Please note the confidence rating will be used as the overall rating for this factor.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition 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.

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

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.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue 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.

Purple 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.

Green 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.

Yellow 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.

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

Proposal is unawardable.

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.

5. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

For purposes of this RFP, an “offeror” may include a group of two or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Section 9.601. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently-proposed contractor team arrangement, may be considered as a part of the evaluation of the offeror’s proposal.

In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a prime contractor and subcontractor(s), where the prime contractor submits the proposal in response to this RFP, the prime contractor must have completed at least two of the total number of projects submitted for Factor 3 for consideration in response to the past performance requirements of this RFP.

An offeror that relies upon the performance history of a member or members of a proposed contractor team arrangement will be expected to maintain that arrangement during performance of any contract awarded to that offeror under this RFP. As a part of their proposal, the offeror must provide a contractor team agreement signed by all parties, identifying the legal name(s) of all entities and describing the nature of each entity’s relationship (teaming/partnering, joint venture, etc.) and its role on this project. Past Performance information will not be considered without the teaming arrangements. In the case of joint ventures, at least one project will be submitted from each member to demonstrate past experience. This documentation shall be provided in Binder 2 of the offeror's proposal.

5.1 FACTOR 1: SCHEDULE AND RISK MANAGEMENT:

5.1.1 SCHEDULE:

The offeror shall provide a detailed schedule(s) showing how the work will be performed in order to meet the definition of substantial completion, the deliverables and the maximum number of days described in FAR clause 52.211-10. The offeror shall submit a preliminary schedule for construction and a narrative report. Schedules or diagrams may be provided separately in a size that is easily read, but shall be bound and clearly labeled as Addendum to Binder 1. The schedules shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which deliverables are to be achieved. The offeror shall use a critical path method in either the Precedence Diagram Method (PDM) or the Arrow Diagram Method (ADM); however, schedules shall be graphically represented. The schedule should show adequate detail, logic and sequences to demonstrate offeror can meet required completion date.

At a minimum, the offeror should show the following features in the schedule:

a. Preliminary integrated schedule for site work, utilities and facility.

b. Events associated with submittals and the proper handling of the review comments.

c. O&M manual submission and required operator training.

d. The anticipated critical path on the schedule.

e. As-built submissions.

Offerors are required to describe and discuss rationale, assumptions and thought process used in generating the schedule to support project delivery performance. Offeror should describe the process for Government submittal compliance reviews, market influence on skilled labor and resourcing and procurement of materials. Offerors are also requested to describe how they might reduce the overall review and acquisition times by aligning trades with cognizant disciplines and by offering specific details on the intended equipment and vendors at the submittal review stage.

In addition to the hard copy of the schedule, the schedule shall also be submitted electronically in Primavera .xer and Portable Document File (PDF) formats.

5.1.2 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN:

“The offeror shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP) that will show how the offeror is planning to mitigate uncertainties to include, but are not limited to, unknown site conditions, revised mission requirements, construction phasing, challenging earthwork, winter season construction, schedule risks and cost and time growth as a result of the above. The offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed project completion duration (12 months) and clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, weather, interfaces with the customer, etc.). Discuss how they plan to mitigate delays due to unforeseen conditions or events and recover time on the schedule in order to maintain or beat the scheduled duration. Identify the risks that exist in the critical or near-critical path (either inside or outside the offerors control) which may impede project success in delivery, and what measures the offeror will take to mitigate potential impacts of all identified risks.

Lessons learned from the projects submitted in Factor 2 are encouraged. Additionally, how those lessons will be applied to this project are also encouraged.”

5.2 FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH:

5.2.1 TECHNICAL NARRATIVE:

The offeror must submit a detailed narrative on their technical approach, sequence of work, and other management aspects of the project in order ensure an on time completion of the project. The narrative must be a comprehensive, start-to-finish discussion on the significant features of this work. As a minimum, specific elements of the narrative are identified below and will be considered in the evaluation of each offeror’s submission. Offerors are encouraged to elaborate on other features of the work that are considered relevant or where a high degree of risk is involved that may adversely affect the planned performance period.

The detailed project narrative must demonstrate a thorough and current knowledge of best practices in construction.

The narrative shall address the assumptions and techniques to be used in this project including those related to the various disciplines involved. Specific submission requirements are indicated below:

a. Ability to perform earthwork (grading, excavation, etc.) in soils containing large (3’ and larger) granitic boulders.

b. Ability to construct a fire station with associated structures (e.g. parking, leach field, fencing, solar panels, wind turbines, landscaping, roadway improvements, etc.).

c. Ability to coordinate with local utility providers to connect to water, electricity and telecommunication services.

d. Ability to provide traffic control during high volume visitor usage at the Lake Isabella recreation area.

e. Ability to work with multiple subcontractors.

f. Experience working with Federal construction contracts and Department of Defense construction management procedures and requirements.

g. Ability to work at geographically remote sites with limited skilled labor pools and limited ancillary construction services (e.g. aggregate plants, concrete plants, paving services, etc.).

Offerors are encouraged to elaborate on other features of the work that it considers relevant. Such topics may include: Compliance with Energy Policy Act of 2005, Physical Security, Anti-Terrorism Force Protection (ATFP), commissioning and opportunities for renewable energy technologies and recycled construction materials. Describe how you would work in a remote site, sharing site and/or working with multiple contractors in or on a remote site.

5.2.2 KEY PERSONNEL:

“The offeror must submit the names and qualifications of key project personnel identified below.

Project Manager, Quality Control Manager, Superintendent, Site Safety and Health Officer

The resumes of these key project personnel shall highlight specific experience and qualifications on projects of a similar type, size, and technical issues. Each of the named personnel must demonstrate experience for their specialty and be regularly engaged in the positions for which they are being proposed. Prior experience working together on past projects by the key project personnel shall be highlighted.

The Key Personnel Resumes shall at a minimum include the following:

1. Personnel’s Title on this project;

2. Number of years with this firm and with other firms;

3. Number of years in this position or role;

4. Specialization;

5. Professional Registration (Type and State Registration);

6. Personnel’s specific experience and qualifications relevant to this project; and

7. Education.

5.3 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE OF RELEVANT PROJECTS:

Projects submitted must demonstrate past performance by the physical and successful completion of similar projects within seven years of the original date of issuance of this RFP. The Offeror shall submit past performance information on a minimum of three completed similar projects but not more than five. In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a prime contractor and subcontractor(s), at least two of the submitted projects must document the prime contractor’s past performance. The remaining project(s) may come from other members of the contractor team arrangement, as defined above. In the case of a joint venture teaming arrangement, each member of the joint venture entity must each submit at least one project under this factor. The information regarding the projects that is required to be supplied is identified on the form entitled “CONTRACTOR’S PAST EXPERIENCE” (Attachment B).

Similar projects must demonstrate of the following project types (either individually or in combination thereof): A Design-Bid-Build approximately $5,000,000.00 - $10,000,000.00, preferably a Fire Station or like building, work with solar panels, wind turbines, multiple utility providers, ability to perform earthwork (grading, excavation, etc.)

in soils containing large (3’ and larger) granitic boulders and construction of a septic leach field.

Project examples shall provide a short narrative discussing the project and shall include:

• Name and location of the project,

• The contract award amount and the final contract amount based on scope of work performed,

• The original project start date and completion date as well as the actual or anticipated completion date,

• Project specific special or unique requirements that may be applicable to this solicitation.

All examples shall include the name, address, and telephone number of a representative of the customer. The Government may choose to contact the customer representative to verify any changes in dates or possible problems resulting from management or operations during the example project period of performance.

The offeror may submit other types of projects, but must explain the relevancy of those projects to the project that is being solicited in this RFP.

Provide the Offeror’s assigned performance evaluations for the submitted projects that demonstrate the Offeror’s performance on recent and relevant Design-Bid-Build projects. The Offeror should provide formal performance evaluation. Formal performance evaluations are those that are similar to the Department of Defense Performance Evaluation (Construction) Form DD2626.

In addition to formal evaluations or if a formal evaluation is unavailable, the Offeror shall obtain the information using the Past Performance Questionnaire included. See Attachment C. 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, Past Performance of Relevant Projects. 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 (Attachment C), 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, Carlen Capenos via email at Melissa.A.DeNigris@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. Offerors may use previously completed PPQs and do not need to have one completed specifically for this project but must include it as a hardcopy.

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

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.

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.

6. EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.1 FACTOR 1: SCHEDULE AND RISK MANAGEMENT: The offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis. To achieve an “acceptable” the offeror will submit the information listed in paragraph 5.1 that demonstrates an adequate approach capable of meeting all requirements and objectives.

SCHEDULE: The offeror shall meet the requirements of this factor if the section addresses all of the elements identified in paragraph 5.1.1, Schedule. The schedule must demonstrate a reasonable approach to the project and an understanding of the requirements of this project.

The Government will evaluate the use of the contract duration of 12 months. In assessing the reasonableness of the schedule, the Government may take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations.

All field overhead costs are to be included in the contract price for the proposed contract duration. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g., weather, long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with coordinating submittals, the offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the contract duration and the realism of the schedule.

The schedule shall be considered meeting the criteria by submitting a schedule that is reasonable and will obtain substantial completion of the project within the contract duration. Should the offeror provide a schedule that is shorter than 365 days, the proposal may be rated more favorably.

RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN: The offeror shall meet the requirements of this factor if the section addresses all of the elements identified in paragraph 5.1.2, Risk Management Plan.

The risk management plan shall be considered meeting the criteria by submitting a plan that is reasonable and will support completion of this project with a minimal/acceptable level of risk.

6.2 FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH:

PROJECT NARRATIVE: Project Narratives must provide a detailed, project-specific discussion of the significant features of the work described in this RFP and must address all of the elements identified in paragraph 5.2.1, Project Narrative. The project narrative must demonstrate a reasonable approach to the project and an understanding of the requirements of the project that is the subject of this RFP.

KEY PERSONNEL: The offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis. To achieve an “acceptable” the offeror will submit the information listed in paragraph 5.2.2, Key Personnel.

Extra consideration may be given for the following:

a. Demonstration of key personnel previously working together on Federal projects.

b. Demonstration of ability to work at geographically remote sites with limited skilled labor pools and limited ancillary construction services

6.3 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE: Past performance will be rated in terms of how likely there is a performance risk to the Government; that is, high confidence performance ratings will be taken as indicators of a low risk that the offeror will successfully perform the work. The more relevant a proposed project is, the more weight it will be given in the overall confidence assessment rating. If an offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if information on the offeror’s past performance is not available, the offeror must state that fact.

That offeror may be rated as Unknown Confidence/Neutral.

6.5 FACTOR 4: PRICE:

Price Analysis: The process of examining and evaluating an offeror’s proposed price to determine if it is fair and reasonable without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit/fee will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15. Price analysis may involve comparison with other prices; e.g., comparing an offeror’s proposed price with the proposed prices of competing offerors or with previously proposed prices for the same or similar items.

For evaluation purposes, the Government will evaluate the base price only when determining the best-value to the Government. Option prices will be evaluated for price reasonableness and reviewed for unbalanced pricing.

7. EVALUATION PROCEDURE

7.1 Source Selection Evaluation Board: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will prepare reports for the technical and price components of the proposal. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals against the solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria to ensure an equitable, impartial, and comprehensive evaluation against the solicitation requirements. The SSEB does not compare proposals against each other. The fundamental responsibility of the SSEB is to provide the Source Selection Authority with information to make an informed and reasoned selection. The SSEB will therefore prepare a summary report containing adjectival assessments for each factor and their supporting rationale; brief the SSA; and prepare any necessary items for discussion.

7.2 Ratings on individual factors, to include all supporting documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine the overall “best value” to the Government.

7.3 Discussions: Offerors are advised that it is not the intent of the Government to hold discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the offeror can submit to the Government.

7.4 Miscellaneous: The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award, to negotiate with offerors in a competitive range, if one is established, and to award a contract to the offeror with the most advantageous proposal to the Government.

7.5 Exceptions: Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

7.6 Restrictions: Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this section may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

8. BASIS OF CONTRACT AWARD:

NON-PRICE FACTORS

Factor 1 Schedule and Risk Management

Factor 2 Technical Approach

Factor 3 Past Performance of Relevant Projects

PRICE FACTORS

Factor 4 Price All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The non-price factors are listed in order of importance above (i.e.

Factor 1 is the more important than Factor 2 and Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3) Trade-Off Analysis: After all of the evaluations have been completed, the SSA will consider all factors to determine which offeror submitted the proposal that represents the "best value" to the Government for this project.

9. FORMS

Forms for offeror’s use in responding to this RFP are provided on the following pages. They include:

Attachment A: Contractor’s Past Experience Attachment B: Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment C: Pre-award Survey Forms

Attachment A: CONTRACTOR’S PAST EXPERIENCE

<<Picture>>

Contractor’s Name (Who performed the work?):

Project Name:

Project Location:

City, State

Project Owner: Point of contact information (owner name, POC name, address, and phone minimum) If Government Contract, additionally provide the contract number and contracting office)

Detailed Description: General scope and relevance. Provide a description of the project. Be sure to include features of this project that make it comparable in type or nature to the proposed project described in this request for proposal.

Detailed Explanation of Relevancy:

Problems encountered during performance and solutions to stated problems:

Lessons learned:

BGSF: XXX,XXX Lost Time Accidents:

Schedule:

Start Date:

MM-DD-YYYY

Original Completion:

MM-DD-YYYY

Final Contract Completion:

MM-DD-YYYY

Beneficial Occupancy Date:

MM-DD-YYYY

Cost Original Project Cost:

Final Project Cost:

Cost Difference

Original Subcontractor Cost:

Final Subcontractor Cost:

Cost Difference

Attachment B

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.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort

E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to E VG S M U N effectively lead, manage and control the program)

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that…