Amendment_0002_Drawings_&_Specifications.pdf

W9123817R0078

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

A. The purpose of this amendment 0002 is to extend the response date and provide updated draw ings and specif ications.

B. The response date is extended from 3/12/2018 to 3/21/2018.

C. Atch 2_Draft Draw ings and Atch 3_Draft Specif ications have been updated.

D. Atch 5_Wage Determinations w ill be included in the Phase II portion of this solicitation.

E. To Section 4.4.3 Past Performance, add: Government w ill allow other Past Performance rating forms that contain substantially similar content and format.

F. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Mar-2018

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 W9123817R0078

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Feb-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-Mar-2018

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION - CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) SCHEDULE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 01 Statement of Work 3 Attachment 02 Draft Drawings 28 31-JUL-2017 Attachment 03 35% Design Submittal 75 22-APR-2017 Attachment 04 Atch 4_Supplemental

Contract Requirements

Attachment 06 Atch 6_Acknowledgement Statement to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 01 Statement of Work 3 Attachment 02 Atch 2_Draft Drawings 10 Attachment 03 Atch 3_Draft

Specifications

87 31-JAN-2018

Attachment 04 Atch 4_Supplemental Contract Requirements

Attachment 06 Atch 6_Acknowledgement Statement

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 12-Mar-2018 10:00 AM to 21-Mar-2018 10:00 AM.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

NSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SOLICITATION SECTIONS PERTAINING TO OFFEROR’S SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION

GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR

PREPARATION OF PHASE ONE PROPOSALS

1. OVERVIEW

a. This solicitation is for the Design-Build contract for the F-35A Munitions Maintenance Complex project at Hill

AFB, UT.

b. This solicitation utilizes a two-phase source selection process requiring two separate proposal submittals.

c. The Phase-One proposal consists of only non-price technical factors. The Government shall select approximately 3-5 of the most highly qualified offerors from Phase-One who will be given the opportunity to submit a Phase-Two proposal that consists of price and technical factors.

d. In accordance with FAR 15.306 the Government does not intend to conduct discussions during either phase of this solicitation, but reserves the right to do so if discussions appear to be in its best interest.

2. BASIS OF CONTRACT 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 “BEST VALUE” TRADE-OFF PROCESS

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

2.3 THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

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

The Past Performance factor will be evaluated by the Government to determine a Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

b. The evaluation factors correlate directly to the main organizational tabs identified in the proposal submission instructions.

Phase-One Proposal. (Section 00 22 10)

(1) Factor 1: Experience and Capability

(2) Factor 2: Past Performance

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

(3) Factor 3: Technical Approach

(4) Factor 4: Performance Capability

c. The Source Selection Authority will consider only the Phase-One evaluations during Phase-One, however both the Phase-One and the Phase-Two proposal evaluations during Phase-Two and all the relative strengths and weaknesses will be used in determining the best value to the Government.

2.4 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND OF PRICE TO THE

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

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

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

Factor 2 – Past Performance is weighted less than Factor 1.

Phase-Two “Phase Two criteria will be supplied once we are that point in the acquisition.” *Note: Phase One criteria will be used in the ultimate award decision.

3. GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR PHASE-ONE PROPOSALS ARE PROVIDED IN PHASE-ONE.

THE INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR PHASE-TWO WILL BE PROVIDED AFTER PHASE-ONE

DURING PHASE-TWO.

3.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. PHASE-ONE

a. 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.

b. Tabbing of Proposal Volume: Offers are to be formatted and tabbed in accordance with the instructions that follow.

c. Table of Contents: Include a table of contents for each proposal volume.

d. 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.

f. 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 each volume any exceptions to the contractual and/or technical terms and conditions of the solicitation contained within the offer.

g. Restrictions on Offeror-Provided Information: “Confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can nonetheless be provided to the Government as part of the offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must clearly mark the information in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offeror – Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data.” Files shall not contain classified data.

3.2 GENERAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION. PHASE-ONE

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

a. Phase-One Proposal.

(1) Technical Volume

(a) Submittal Information:

--The completed Standard Form 1442 with continuation pages, without a price, duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company. Ensure that the firm’s DUNS or DUNS+4 Number is entered in the block with its name and address.

--Your acknowledgement of any and all Amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 Amendment.

-- Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable) --Your completed Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Bidders/Offerors (Section 00 45 00).

(b) Preface

(c) Technical Factors

(2) Factor 1: Experience and Capability

(3) Factor 2: Past Performance

3.2.1 Marking of Proposal Volumes.

Mark each volume as “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.

4 PHASE-ONE PROPOSAL.

4.0 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR PHASE ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSALS:

REQUIRED CONTENTS OF PHASE ONE PROPOSALS

4.1 NUMBER OF SETS OF THE PHASE ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

The Technical Proposal is to be submitted in one hard “original” and four (4) copies for a total of five (5) Technical Proposals. In addition, submit one complete copy of the technical proposal on Compact Disk (CD).

4.2 FORMAT, CONTENTS, AND LIST OF TABS FOR THE PHASE ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Use 8-1/2” x 11” pages for the narrative portions of the proposal. The overall technical proposal has no page limit;

however limits may be imposed at the tab level. Number the pages by Tab so that the first page under each tab is numbered “Page 1” and following pages are numbered consecutively. 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. Do not include any information pertaining to proposed pricing for this project in the technical proposal; price proposals shall be submitted only during Phase Two of the source selection process. Limit your submittals to the information specified; excess information will not be evaluated. Organize your technical proposal as indicated below.

4.3 ORGANIZATION OF PHASE-ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

TAB Content to be included under each tab

TAB 1. FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY

Prime Contractor / Key Subcontractor(s) Example Projects Demonstrating

Experience and Capability

TAB 2. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Prime Contractor / Key Subcontractor(s) Example Projects Demonstrating Past

Performance

4.4 DETAILED SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PHASE-ONE TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL

4.4.1 Preface – Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Introduction

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

Information pertaining to other subcontractors not designated as “key” by the Government will be considered excess and may not be evaluated.

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

- Architect-Engineer Design

c. The offeror shall provide a brief introduction narrative, including the name, DUNS number, address, point of contact e-mail address, and a brief description of the role and authority of each firm that will be involved in performance of this contract at the prime contractor and key subcontractor level. If a proposed firm has branch offices, provide information for each individual branch office that will perform work under the contract. If the proposed prime contractor is a Joint Venture, describe the relationship, role, and authority (to include management authority) of each joint venture firm participating in the Joint Venture Agreement. List the major work elements to be self-performed by the offeror’s in-house work force, the major work elements to be performed by each key subcontractor, and any other major work to be subcontracted to other contractors. The narrative portion of this submission is limited to two (2) 8-1/2”x11” pages.

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

The example projects submitted at Tab 1 provide the primary basis for the Government’s evaluation of each offeror’s project experience and capability.

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

a. The offeror shall, submit “example projects” (either commercial or institutional) that demonstrate the prime’s and key subcontractor’s experience and capability meeting the evaluation criteria to successfully perform under the resulting contract.

b. The offeror must provide a narrative to explain how the experience and capabilities shown by the example projects are relevant to this project and show the contractor’s and key subcontractor’s understanding of the risks, and work requirements and approach necessary to successfully complete this project.

c. In doing so, the offeror should submit at least two (2) but not more than six (6) example projects that individually or collectively demonstrate the following characteristics of the prime contractor and key subcontractor:

(1) The offeror’s experience and capabilities as a prime contractor to successfully perform this contract.

Explain how the experience and capabilities shown by the example projects are relevant to this project and show the contractor possesses an understanding of the risks and requirements and approach necessary to successfully act as the prime contractor for this project.

(2) The offeror’s design-build management capability. Explain how the experience and capabilities shown by the example projects are relevant to this project and show the contractor’s and/or key subcontractor’s possess an understanding of the risks, and requirements and approach necessary to successfully manage the design-build requirements of this project.

(3) The experience and capabilities of the lead designer to design this project. Explain how the experience and capabilities shown by the example projects are relevant to this project and show the contractor and/or the key subcontractor possesses an understanding of the risks and requirements and approach necessary to successfully act as the lead designer for this design-build project.

(4) Explain whatever other characteristics that the offeror feels the example projects show that the contractor and/or its key subcontractor possess an understanding of the risks, and requirements and approach necessary to successfully complete this project.

d. Demonstrated experience and capability in the following areas may be provided:

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

(2) Prior experience on Corps of Engineers construction projects;

(3) Prior experience on Air Force construction projects;

(4) Prime contractor and/or Architect-Engineer Design firm experience constructing a munitions maintenance facility

e. Example projects may demonstrate multiple experiences and capabilities. If an example project is submitted for multiple experiences and capabilities, identify each attribute of experience and capability the offeror seeks to demonstrate. Each example project submitted does not need to demonstrate multiple experiences and capabilities, but all the example projects should collectively demonstrate the offeror’s range of relevant experience and capabilities.

f. Do not submit construction projects that are not substantially complete. (For this purpose, “substantially complete” means that only punch list items remain for project acceptance, or that the major elements of the project have been turned over to the customer for beneficial occupancy.) If a design-build project is submitted to demonstrate the design capability of an A-E firm, the design portion of the contract must be complete in order to be considered.

g. Provide a Summary Matrix that indicates which submitted example project(s) demonstrate which experience and/or capability. The example provided is instructional only; develop and provide your own matrix that best explains your proposal.

h. Formatting and other restrictions:

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

(2) Example projects are limited to 15 8-1/2" x 11" pages (or a maximum of 15 two-sided pages) total, for all projects.

(3) The Summary Matrix is limited to one (1) 8-1/2”x11” page.

(4) Follow the “Project Information Form” below as a template for submitting example projects. Use of an alternate format could result in a lower rating if all of the specified information is not provided. (Note:

Do not submit a group of related jobs as one project unless all of the work was done under the same contract, or for indefinite delivery contracts, under one task order.)

PROJECT INFORMATION FORM

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

2. Name of Contractor(s) / Key Subcontractor (s): Provide the name of the firm(s) whose experience and capabilities are demonstrated by this example project. If a Joint Venture (JV) project is being submitted, demonstrate the roles and responsibilities of each JV partner.

3. Contract Number and Awarded Prime Contractor Name: If project work was performed under a federal contract, provide contract number assigned by the procuring Contracting Office and the name of the contractor that was awarded the contract.

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

5. Month and Year Project Commenced and Month and Year Project was Completed: Include commencement date, original completion date and actual completion date, if different, and a succinct description for any time extensions.

6. Project Owner: Provide name of project and contract owner or user, such as a government agency or installation, an institution, or corporation or private individual.

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

8. Point of Contact Telephone Number: provide POC’s telephone number with area code.

9. Description of the Project: Provide information relevant to the evaluation criteria, including but not limited to the following: contract type, dollar amount (original contract amount and final dollar value with an explanation for any difference), physical size of project, description of completed facility, building materials, project complexities, systems, engineering disciplines, and brief description of prime contracted effort. Identify any institutional knowledge. If the firm proposed for this contract as prime contractor or key subcontractor performed as a subcontractor on the example project, describe the work effort pertaining to the subcontracted effort, not the prime contract requirement. Explain how the project demonstrates proper management of scope, schedule, and budget.

Highlight and/or provide details demonstrating experience/capability relevant to the subject procurement.

10. Provide name of branch offices, if any, involved in the example project and explain their roles, and their respective contact numbers.

11. Clearly describe how the example project is relevant to this project.

4.4.3 Tab 2 of the Technical Proposal: Factor 2 – Past Performance:

a. Offerors shall provide past performance information on each of the example projects submitted under Factor 1, Experience and Capability. Past performance information may include any evaluations contained in the Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), as well as any other questionnaires or performance evaluations previously completed.

b. A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is provided below for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Experience and Capability. Include completed Past Performance Questionnaires with your proposal and ensure that correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, including contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure prompt submittal of questionnaires via the offeror or directly by those third parties to the Government’s point of contact, Ms. Deanna C. Zemovich. Ms. Deanna C. Zemovich may be reached by email at Deanna.C.Zemovich@usace.army.mil; please copy Mr. Dan Czech at Daniel.E.Czech@usace.army.mil.

c. Reserved.

d. While the Government may consider past performance data obtained from other sources during its evaluation, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

e. Formatting and Other Restrictions:

(1) Start the information for each example project on a new page. This submission has no page limitation.

Government will allow other Past Performance rating forms that contain substantially similar content and format.

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

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: 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.

Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11)

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)

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

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)

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

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?

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

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

Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11)

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

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

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 or overruns)

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.

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

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 deficiencies, etc.)

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

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 issues) E VG S M U N

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

4.4.3. Key Subcontractor Authorization Letters:

a. Letters of authorization: Submit a letter of authorization from each proposed key subcontractor allowing the Government to discuss the key subcontractor’s past performance record with the offeror in conjunction with the Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s technical proposal.

b. Formatting and Other Restrictions: Each letter should be furnished on the business concern’s letterhead and signed by an authorized representative of the concern.

c. Failure of a key subcontractor to provide authorization for the Government to discuss its past performance record with the offeror will not be considered a proposal deficiency. However, if the Government is unable to discuss in detail any key subcontractor past performance problems with the offeror, the offeror’s overall rating for this factor may suffer.

5.0 GOVERNMENT EVALUATION OF PHASE-ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSALS:

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

5.1 GENERAL EVALUATION GUIDELINES

a. Material submitted by each offeror under each evaluation factor will be evaluated by the Government.

b. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s Phase One technical proposal on the basis of the thoroughness, factual detail and persuasiveness of the narrative and documentation submitted, and on the basis of the quality of each offeror’s performance record on relevant completed projects, as determined by evaluation of past performance information provided from references, or obtained from other sources.

c. Failure by an offeror to comply with formatting or submission requirements contained in the solicitation, the presence of significant mistakes or errors in a proposal, or the presence of more than a nominal number of less significant mistakes/errors in a proposal, may be considered indicative of an increased risk of inattention to detail or quality control during contract performance. Lack of conformance may therefore result in a higher risk assessment, in addition to other possible adverse impacts on the evaluation. Material omission(s) may cause a technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable. However, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government may waive informalities or minor irregularities in proposals. For example, a failure by a proposed key subcontractor to submit a properly executed letter of commitment may be considered reflective of increased risk but not an outright proposal deficiency.

d. Phase-One technical proposals which do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with these submission instructions may be downgraded. The Government is not obligated to search for information that is not in its specified location.

e. Any prescribed page and formatting limitations will be strictly adhered to by the Government. The Government will not evaluate information contained on pages that exceed the limitations set forth in these instructions. For example, submission of a three page document in response to a requirement with a two page limitation will be treated as follows: information on the first two pages will be evaluated while any information on the third page will be ignored. Similarly, if an offeror were to submit a fold-out sheet (e.g. 11”x17”) in response to an information request with a one-page limitation where fold-out sheets are not authorized, only the information that could reasonably be submitted on one 8-1/2 x 11 inch sheet will be evaluated. If an offeror were to submit three 8-1/2 x 11 inch pages in response to a request containing a not-to-exceed 11 x 17 inch page limitation, only the information that could reasonably be submitted on one 11 x 17 inch sheet would be evaluated. If an offeror were to submit alternates that were not requested (e.g. key subcontractor), the information would not be evaluated.

f. Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail may be downgraded. Responses that are essentially blanket offers of compliance cannot substitute for inclusion of the detailed and thorough technical information necessary to determine an offeror’s qualifications to successfully complete the proposed project. Accordingly a proposal’s omission of information the Government requests in this solicitation may result in a finding of deficiency or a downgrade of the proposal if inadequate detail is provided.

g. A “deficiency” is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement, or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. “Weakness” means a flaw in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” is a proposal flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. The Government cannot accept an offer with a deficiency in its technical proposal. The term “acceptable,” as used in this context, describes a technical proposal that is free of deficiencies and thus could be accepted by the Government, notwithstanding any weaknesses or significant weaknesses it may contain.

h. The Government cannot make award to a contractor with a deficient offer. Proposals containing deficiencies will be rated “Unacceptable,” making them ineligible for award unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with that offeror and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal.

5.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

a. Factor 1 – Experience and Capability:

(1) The example projects will be evaluated and compared to this contract to assess the offeror’s and key subcontractor’s experience and capabilities and understanding of the risks and requirements of this contract and the necessary approach to successfully complete this contract.

(2) Demonstrated experience and capability in the following areas may be considered advantageous, but the absence of any of the attributes listed below will not adversely affect an offeror’s rating:

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

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

(c) Prior experience on Air Force construction projects;

(d) Prime contractor and/or Architect-Engineer Design firm experience designing and/or constructing a munitions maintenance facility.

(3) More recent project experience and capabilities may be evaluated more favorably than experience and capabilities demonstrated on less recent projects.

(4) For Factor 1 the Government will assign an adjectival rating as set forth in the following chart:

EVALUATION STANDARDS AND EXPLANATION OF TERMS

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

ADJECTIVE

DESCRIPTION

“STRENGTH”

Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

“WEAKNESS”

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

“UNCERTAINTY” or

“AMBIGUITY”

Any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear because there may be more than one way to interpret the proposal or because inconsistencies in the proposal indicate that there may be an error, omission, or mistake. Examples include a mistake in calculation or measurement and contradictory statements.

“DEFICIENCY”

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Examples of deficiencies include a statement that the offeror cannot or will not meet a requirement, an approach that clearly does not meet a requirement, or omission of data required to assess compliance with the requirement.

b. Factor 2 – Past Performance:

(1) The evaluation of past performance will focus on three elements: the regency, relevance and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information) of the offeror’s past performance information:

A. Recency: past performance information about more recent example projects may be weighted more heavily than less recent example projects.

B. Relevance: the relevance of past performance data is determined by use of the table below:

C. Quality: the quality of a contractor’s past performance effort is determined by evaluating the technical skill and management capability evident in the example projects provided; see FAR 15.304(c)(2).

Government evaluators may also consider general trends in the quality of an offeror’s past performance.

(2) The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services similar to the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance, shall all be considered.

(3) Reserved.

(4) The past performance record of each firm in a business arrangement, such as Joint Venture participants, teaming partners, or key subcontractors, may be evaluated individually or collectively by the Government for the purpose of the past performance evaluation.

(5) The Government may review past performance information from any other source when making its evaluation. Sources may include 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.

(6) In the case of an offeror without a record of recent, relevant past performance (and for which there is also no recent, relevant past performance information for its predecessor companies or key subcontractors), or for whom information on past performance is not available or cannot be verified, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. For the purpose of this procurement, an “Unknown Confidence” rating is considered to be a neutral rating that is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

(7) Evaluation of the recency, relevance and quality of each proposal’s past performance presentation is combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror, indicating the Government’s level of confidence in that offeror’s ability to successfully meet the solicitation requirements.

(This confidence assessment is distinct from the responsibility determination required by FAR Subpart 9.1).

Accordingly each offeror will be assigned one of the following five adjectival ratings:

Adjectival Rating

Description

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.

Neutral Confidence

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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

5.3 RELATIVE WEIGHTING OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS – PHASE ONE

The Technical Evaluation Factors are listed below in descending order of importance for Phase-One:

Factor 1 – Experience and Capability is the more heavily weighted factor;

Factor 2 – Past Performance is comparatively less important than Factor 1.

5.4 SELECTION OF THE PROPOSALS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN PHASE-TWO

Approximately three to five of the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and invited to participate in Phase- Two. Invitations to participate in Phase II will be based on the phase I proposals. Those offers not selected will be excluded from the competition.

-- End of Section

(End of Summary of Changes)