Supplementary_Instructions_amd2.pdf

Section 00 22 00 ‐ Supplementary Instructions

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

SOLICITATION SECTIONS PERTAINING TO OFFEROR’S SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION

PROPOSAL BASIS OF AWARD

GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS,

EVALUATIONS,

AND CONTRACT AWARD

1. OVERVIEW.

a. This solicitation is for the Sierra Army Depot (SIAD) Standard Magazine Rehabilitation, Herlong, CA . The Contracting Officer will award to the responsible offeror that represents the lowest‐price, technically‐acceptably proposal, considering all non‐price factors described herein.

b. 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 and FAR 52.215‐1(f)(4).

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 LOW‐PRICE, TECHNICALLY‐ACCEPABLE (LPTA) METHOD

The Government will select the offer that represents the best value to the Government by using the LPTA METHOD described in FAR Part 15. However, the Government shall evaluate the lowest‐price offeror. Should that offeror’s proposal be found to be technically acceptable in all non‐price factors, the Government shall stop evaluations and make direct award to said offeror, assuming their price is found to be fair and reasonable. Should the proposal not be technically acceptable in all non‐price factors, the Government shall evaluate the next lowest‐price offeror. This process will repeat until a technically acceptable offeror is found.

2.3. 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 the extent it clearly meets the minimum requirements for the solicitation as indicated in the below factors, 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 acceptability 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 acceptability 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.

(1) Factor 1: Technical Narrative

(2) Factor 2: Network Analysis Schedule

(3) Factor 3: Past Performance

2.6 RESERVED

This section contained no text.

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.

More than a nominal number of errors/mistakes or egregious errors/mistakes may affect the offeror’s ability to clearly meet the minimum requirements. 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

b. Technical proposals which do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions may be found to be unacceptable. 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 found unacceptable. 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 found unacceptable 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. The Government cannot make award based on a unacceptable 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 the revised proposal is found to be acceptable.

g. Technical Ratings: Other than Past Performance

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

ADJECTIVAL RATING

DESCRIPTION

“ACCEPTABLE”

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

“UNACCEPTABLE”

Proposal does not clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

h. Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

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

1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Revelancy Definition

“ACCEPTABLE”

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

“UNACCEPTABLE”

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:

Adjectival Rating Definition

“Acceptable” Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is neutral. (See note below.)

“Unacceptable” Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have neutral past performance.

In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “neutral” shall be considered “acceptable.”

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.

3.1.5. Key Personnel/Prime and Key Subcontractor

In connection with this contract, any key personnel, prime and key subcontractor, will be limited to individuals or firms that were specifically identified in the Contractor’s accepted proposal. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer's written consent before making any substitution for these designated prime and key subcontractor personnel. If the Contractor proposes a substitution, it shall submit the same type of information that was submitted in the accepted proposal to the Contracting Officer for evaluation and approval. The level of qualifications and experience submitted in the accepted proposal or that required by the Solicitation, whichever is greater, is the minimum standard for any substitution. The Contracting Officer will notify the awarded Contractor within 15 days after receipt of all required information of consent on substitutes. No change in fixed unit prices may occur as a result of key personnel or subcontractor substitution.

3.2 GENERAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION.

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

(1) Volume I – Technical Volume

(a) Factor 1: Technical Narrative

(b) Factor 2: Network Analysis Schedule

(c) Factor 3: Past Performance

(2) Volume II – Price Volume

(a) Proposal Cover Sheet

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

(c) Pricing Schedule

(d) Work Breakdown Structure

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

(f) Bid Guarantee

(g) Pre‐Award Survey Information

Each offeror must submit a 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.

TECHNICAL VOLUME

4.1 NUMBER OF SETS OF THE TECHNICAL VOLUME.

The Technical Proposal is to be submitted in one hard “original” and four (4) copies. In addition, submit one complete PDF copy of the technical proposal on Compact Disk (CD).

ONE COPY SHALL BE MAILED TO:

USACE, ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER

3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD

ATTN: STACY THURMAN, BLDG 1003, CEERD‐CTV

VICKSBURG, MS 39180

ORIGINAL AND ALL OTHER COPIES ALONG WITH CD SHALL BE SENT TO:

USACE, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

1325 J ST

ATTN: TIMOTHY BOYD, CESPK‐CT‐B

SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

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. For purposes of the CD electronic version of the proposal, “tabs” means searchable PDF bookmarks.

PHASE‐ONE TECHNICAL VOLUME

TAB CONTENTS

1. FACTOR 1 – Technical Narrative

2. FACTOR 2 – Network Analysis Schedule

3. FACTOR 3 – Past Performance

4.3.1 Tab 1 of the Technical Volume: Factor 1 – Technical Narrative.

4.3.1.1

a. Instructions

i. Offerors shall provide a technical narrative approach that clearly meets the minimum requirements in the RFP and specifically address and meet the Statement of Work requirements for the construction effort of the standard magazines. Narrative shall demonstrate the Prime Contractor’s and key subcontractor’s, capabilities and resources in construction execution to demonstrate successful completion of the project in accordance with the requirements of the RFP, address all major features of work and shall demonstrate knowledge of quality control procedures throughout the project duration.

ii. Formatting and Other Restrictions.

The narrative is limited to ten (10) 8‐1/2” x 11” pages

b. Evaluation Criteria.

**The Government will evaluate factor one to the extent is it reasonable, realistic, and achievable given the Government Requirements. Narratives that are found to clearly be reasonable, realistic, and achievable will be found to be acceptable.**

4.3.2 Tab 2 of the Technical Proposal: Factor 2 –Network Analysis Schedule.

a. Instructions

i. Offerors shall provide a Network Analysis Schedule (NAS) that shows a proposed phasing of work, and that the construction activities are in a logical sequence and exhibiting an achievable timeline within the period of performance. NAS shall include all Optional items.

ii. Formatting and Other Restrictions.

The schedule is limited to six (6) 11” x 17” pages

b. Evaluation Criteria.

The Government will evaluate factor two to the extent is it clearly reflects an understanding of the complexity of this project and are complete and reasonable. Schedules that clearly reflect and understanding of the complexity of this project and are found to be complete and reasonable

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

4.3.3.1. 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.

"Revised by Amendment 0002"

**a. The prime and each key subcontractor should provide at least one but no more than two projects representative of their experience for the same scope (relative size, type, complexity) occurring in the past five years compared to SIAD Standard Magazine Rehabilitation.**

b. The contractor shall also describe any performance issues, quality control on past contracts, timeliness of performance, customer satisfaction and cost control. Furthermore, the contractor must describe the project and how it is similar in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity to the Standard Magazine Rehabilitation project.

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 described above in 4.3.4.2.a. 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, Stacy Thurman using email at Stacy.D.Thurman@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.

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 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):

"Revised by Amendment 0002"

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 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)

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,

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 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

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

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 benefited

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back‐ up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued or any default action in comment section below

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping safety correction of noted

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

Form PPQ‐0 (9/30/11) Page 4 of 4

g. Evaluation Criteria

(1) The Government will evaluate past performance information to assess the level of performance confidence associated with the offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the solicitation and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. The regency and relevancy of the information (as determined by the Government), the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance may be considered.

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

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

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

(5) The evaluation may take into consideration the offeror’s quality; schedule/timeliness of performance; customer satisfaction; management/personnel/labor; cost/Financial Management; and Safety/security.

(6) Based on the offeror’s performance record, if the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is neutral. (See

(7) below), the proposal will be found to be acceptable.

(7) In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have neutral past performance.

In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “neutral” shall be considered “acceptable.”

PRICE VOLUME.

5.1 NUMBER OF SETS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL.

Submit the price proposal volume in an electronic format, using a searchable bookmarked “pdf” file format which will become part of the contract (this price volume may be on the same CD as the technical proposal, but both volumes must be in separate files. DO NOT submit hard copies of the price volume, except for the bid guarantee, if applicable.

1.2 FORMAT, CONTENTS, AND LIST OF TABS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL.

Use only 8‐1/2” x 11” pages. There are no page limits for the price proposal; however, limit responses to required information. Excess information will not be evaluated. Organize your price proposal as indicated below. For the price volume only, “tab” means a bookmark on a searchable PDF document. If a tab is not applicable to your proposal, omit that tab but do not renumber the subsequent tabs.

PHASE TWO PRICE PROPOSAL VOLUME

TAB CONTENTS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

1 Proposal Cover Sheet 2 SF 1442; Acknowledgement of Amendments; Joint Venture Agreement 3 Pricing Schedule 4 Work Breakdown Structure 5 Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors 6 Bid Guarantee 7 Pre‐Award Survey Information

1.3 DETAILED SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PHASE TWO PRICE PROPOSAL.

Tab 1 of the Price Proposal: Proposal Cover Sheet.

The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215‐1 (c)(2). This provision, titled “Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition” is incorporated by reference in Section 00 21 00. The format and content for the proposal cover sheet follows:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number:

2. The name, address, DUNS Number, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror.

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, e‐mail address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation:

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.

(End of Proposal Cover Sheet)

Tab 2 of the Price Proposal: SF 1442; Acknowledgement of Amendments; Joint Venture Agreement.

The Standard Form (SF) 1442 must be completed by the offeror and duly executed with an original signature by the official(s) identified in the proposal cover sheet as authorized to bind the offeror in accordance with FAR 4.102, which includes specific instructions pertaining to individuals, partnerships, corporations, Joint Venture participants, and agents. Include the offeror’s DUNS number in block 14 of the SF 1442, along with the offeror’s address. All amendments must be acknowledged in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment. If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), include a copy of the JV agreement and indicate its status.

Tab 3 of the Price Proposal: Pricing Schedule.

Submit the completed Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule (Section 00 10 00) with the offeror’s proposed contract prices inserted in the appropriate spaces. Prices must be proposed for all contract line items (except for those CLINs deleted from the solicitation). Unit prices must be extended to the actual “dollar and cents” amounts (e.g., to two decimal places). Do not round off the extended prices to the nearest dollar. Check your pricing submission very carefully for mathematical and clerical errors prior to submission. Any qualification of pricing may render the proposal unacceptable and therefore not eligible for award. However, offerors are encouraged to use callouts, footnotes, etc. to explain their lines of thinking where it would aid in the Government finding the price(s) fair and reasonable.

Tab 4 of the Price Proposal: Work Breakdown Structure.

Submit a Work Breakdown Structure of the offeror’s proposed contract prices, for each line item in the CLIN Schedule, using the example format below, in accordance with Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3‐ 740‐05. Again, offerors are encouraged to use callouts, footnotes, etc. to explain their lines of thinking where it would aid in the Government finding the price(s) to be balanced.

01 SUBSTRUCTURE 12 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

02 SUPERSTRUCTURE 13 EQUIPMENT

03 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 14 FURNISHINGS

04 ROOFING 15 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

05 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 16 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION

06 INTERIOR FINISHES 17 SITE PREPARATION

07 CONVEYING SYSTEMS 18 SITE IMPROVEMENTS

08 PLUMBING 19 SITE CIVIL/MECHANICAL UTILITIES

09 HVAC M2 20 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES

10 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS 21 DESIGN EFFORT

11 ELECTRIC POWER AND LIGHTING

Tab 5 of the Price Proposal: Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors.

The offeror must have electronically completed the annual representations and certifications on the “System for Award Management” (SAM) website in accordance with FAR 52.204‐8. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that these on‐line Representations and Certifications are updated as necessary to reflect changes, but at least annually to ensure that they are kept current, accurate and complete. In addition, the offeror must also complete and return the “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” included in Section 00 45 00 of the solicitation. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, all participants must separately complete both the ORCA Representations and Certifications and Section 00 45 00.

Tab 6 of the Price Proposal: 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.

Tab 7 of the Price Proposal: Pre‐Award Survey Information.

a. The contracting officer is required to make an affirmative pre‐award determination of the prospective contractor’s responsibility in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and its supplements. The contracting officer must 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 with its price proposal:

(1) The completed Construction Contractor Data Form with Supplemental Schedules A‐C (see format which follows). If the offeror is a large multi‐segmented business concerns, the data provided on the supplemental schedules may be limited to information that directly pertains to the specific segment of the business concern (i.e., the division, group, unit, etc.) proposed to perform work under the prospective contract with its own work force. 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 firm 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.

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

(Tab 7 of the Price Proposal: Pre‐Award Survey Information)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA DATE:

Firm Name and Telephone Number Main Office Address (Street, City, and State)

Branch Offices Services Rendered Construction Design Consultant

Organization Individual Joint Venture Partnership Corporation

Date Organized Date Incorporated:

State:

Names of Officers and Other Key Personnel

I – PRESENT PAYROLL PERSONNEL (List Number of Each Category Below) Partners:

Officers:

Other Key:

Remainder: Subtotal Permanent:

Maximum Personnel at Any Time:

Date:

Total:

II—EQUIPMENT OWNED III—FINANCIAL DATA AS OF

(DATE): Present Value ($)

Current Assets:

Acquisition Cost ($) Current Liabilities:

Net Worth:

IV—TOTAL VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WORK IN

PAST 6 YRS EXCLUSIVE OF JOINT VENTURE (LIST MOST RECENT

FIRST)

V—LARGEST JOB EVER

CONTRACTED

(If Other Than in Past Six Years)

$ LARGEST JOB IN PAST 6 YRS Contract Amount:

Date:

Description:

Owner:

$ Contract Amount:

Date:

Description:

Owner:

Avg. Annual Income

VI—TYPE OF WORK IN WHICH FIRM SPECIALIZES

NAME AND POSITION/TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING

SIGNATURE

See attachment for explanations or detailed description of item(s) reported above.

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA – SCHEDULE A – EXISTING COMMITMENTS

List below the construction projects your firm currently has under way, including recent awards. Also list construction projects for which your firm is the apparent successful offeror/bidder, but for which a contract has not yet been awarded.

CONTRACT

NUMBER

AMOUNT

DESCRIPTION/

LOCATION

ORGANIZATION/

CONTACT PERSON/

PHONE NUMBER

PERCENT

COMPLETE

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA – SCHEDULE B – COMPLETED PROJECTS

List below the principal construction projects your firm has completed within the past six years, including all DoD contracts with a total value exceeding $4,500,000.00.

NUMBER

AMOUNT

DESCRIPTION/

LOCATION

ORGANIZATION/

CONTACT PERSON/

PHONE NUMBER

PERCENT

SUBLET

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA – SCHEDULE C –

CONSTRUCTION AND/OR TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT

List total equipment and facilities owned for performing the prospective contract and present status as to whether or not it is currently committed to existing contracts.

QUANTITY

DESCRIPTION CONDITION

YEARS OF

SERVICE

PRESENT

STATUS

(End of Section)

1. Prices must be submitted on all individual items of this CLIN Schedule. Failure to do so may cause the proposal to be determined "unacceptable".

2. If a modification to a price is submitted which provides for a job adjustment to the total price, the application of the job adjustment to each item in the CLIN Schedule must be stated. If it is not stated, the offeror agrees that the job adjustment shall be applied on a pro rata basis to every item in the CLIN Schedule.

3. The offeror shall distribute his indirect costs (overhead, profit, bond, etc.) over all the items in the Pricing Schedule. The Government will review all submitted Pricing Schedules for any unbalancing of the items. Any submitted CLIN Schedule determined to be unbalanced may cause the proposal to be determined "unacceptable".

4. In the event there is a difference between a unit price and the extended total, the unit price will be held to be the intended proposed price. If the offeror shows only the total price but fails to enter a unit price, the total divided by the estimated quantity will be held to be the intended unit price.

ARITHMETIC DISCREPANCIES

(a) For the purpose of initial evaluation of bids, the following will be utilized in the resolving arithmetic discrepancies found on the face of Pricing Schedule as submitted by the bidder:

(1) Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected;

(2) Discrepancy between unit price and extended price, the unit price will govern;

(3) Apparent errors in extension of unit prices will be corrected;

(4) Apparent errors in addition of lump-sum and extended prices will be corrected.

(b) For the purpose of bid evaluation, the Government will proceed on the assumption that the bidder intends the bid to be evaluated on basis of the unit prices, the totals arrived at by resolution of arithmetic discrepancies as provided above and the bid will be so reflected on the abstract of bids.

(c) These correction procedures shall not be used to resolve any ambiguity concerning which bid is low.