W91238-18-R-0020-0006.pdf

W9123818R0020

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

The purpose of this amendment is to make multiple changes as a result of bidder inquiries. The follow ing items are changed.

1. Revised Attachment 2 - Supplemental Contract Requirements

2. Revised Draw ings and Specif ications (See Attachment 22 - Amendment Narrative)

3. Extended proposals due date from 17 September 2018 to 26 September 2018

4. Revised Section 00 22 00 - Supplementary Instructions

5. Included by full text FAR Clause 52.211-12 - Liquidated Damages -- Construction

6. Revised Section 00 73 00 - Supplementary Conditions

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Sep-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 W9123818R0020

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Aug-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

12-Sep-2018

CODE

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J STREET

SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

W91238 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

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 Attachment 1 - SOW

Replace POL Facilities

2 30-JUL-2018

Attachment 02 Attachment 2 - Supplemental Contract Requirements

1 30-JUL-2018

Attachment 03 Attachment 3 - Wage Determinations

12 09-FEB-2018

Attachment 04 Attachment 4 - Acknowledgement Statement

4 30-JUL-2018

Attachment 05 Attachment 5 - Cover Letter

3 30-JUL-2018

Attachment 06 Attachment 6 - Truck Offload Environmental Assessment

49 09-NOV-2012

Attachment 07 Attachment 7 - Finding of Significant Impact

2 09-NOV-2012

Attachment 08 Attachment 8 - Site Walk Instructions

1 09-AUG-2018

Attachment 09 Amendment Narrative 2 24-AUG-2018 Attachment 10 Revised Drawings 37 24-AUG-2018 Attachment 11 Revised Spec - 33 52

43.11

18 24-AUG-2018

Attachment 12 Revised Spec - 33 52 43.12

6 24-AUG-2018

Attachment 13 Revised Spec - 33 52 43.13

30 24-AUG-2018

Attachment 14 Revised Spec - 33 52 43.14

17 24-AUG-2018

Attachment 15 Revised Spec - 33 52 43.23

25 24-AUG-2018

Attachment 16 Revised Spec - 33 52 43.28

10 24-AUG-2018

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 01 Attachment 1 - SOW

Replace POL Facilities

2 30-JUL-2018

Attachment 02 Attachment 2 - Revised Supplemental Contract Requirements

1 12-SEP-2018

Attachment 03 Attachment 3 - Wage Determinations

12 09-FEB-2018

Attachment 04 Attachment 4 - Acknowledgement Statement

4 30-JUL-2018

Attachment 05 Attachment 5 - Cover Letter

3 30-JUL-2018

Attachment 06 Attachment 6 - Truck Offload Environmental Assessment

49 09-NOV-2012

Attachment 07 Attachment 7 - Finding of Significant Impact

2 09-NOV-2012

Attachment 08 Attachment 8 - Site Walk Instructions

1 09-AUG-2018

Attachment 09 Amendment Narrative 2 24-AUG-2018 Attachment 10 Revised Drawings 37 24-AUG-2018 Attachment 11 Revised Spec - 33 52

43.11

18 24-AUG-2018

Attachment 12 Revised Spec - 33 52 43.12

6 24-AUG-2018

Attachment 13 Revised Spec - 33 52 43.13

30 24-AUG-2018

Attachment 14 Revised Spec - 33 52 43.14

17 24-AUG-2018

Attachment 15 Revised Spec - 33 52 43.23

25 24-AUG-2018

Attachment 16 Revised Spec - 33 52 43.28

10 24-AUG-2018

Attachment 17 Revised Drawings 1 67 31-JUL-2018 Attachment 18 Revised Drawings 2 37 31-JUL-2018 Attachment 19 Revised Drawings 3 43 31-JUL-2018 Attachment 20 Revised Drawings 4 108 31-JUL-2018 Attachment 21 Revised Specifications 2272 31-JUL-2018 Attachment 22 Amendment Narrative 3 12-SEP-2018

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 17-Sep-2018 02:00 PM to 26-Sep-2018 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION CR

SECTION 00 22 00 - PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for construction to replace POL Facilities and appurtenances at Hill Air Force Base, UT. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror, whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the Government, all factors considered.

1.2 The basis of award is the Tradeoff Process. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable and offers the best value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's past performance, technical approach and management capabilities necessary for successful completion of the project. Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums.

2.2 Offerors shall submit the electronic copy of their proposals to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, Contracting Division, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 9 5 8 1 4 - no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442 with paper copies sent to arrive in the above office no later than the next business day (Monday through Friday, excluding Federal Holidays).

2.3 Offerors are required to submit a proposal made up of Experience and Capability, Past Performance, Technical Approach (Management Plan and Schedule), and Price and Pro Forma. All proposal materials shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified below. Volume I shall be submitted in original and six (6) paper copies and one electronic copy in Compact Disc (CD) format. Volume II shall be submitted in original only and one electronic copy in CD format. The original Volume II shall be placed in a separate envelope from Volume I. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

*NOTE: Provide the complete Volume I & Volume II proposal submittal including text, renderings, drawings, photographs, etc on one PDF file in CD format. The paper copy of the proposal shall be used for evaluation and will control any conflicts or discrepancies between the two media. Offeror is responsible for ensuring the paper copy is consistent with the electronic copy of the proposal.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical/quality proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is the Tradeoff Process.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, technical/quality evaluation, price evaluation, and cost/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that both a technical and price proposal were received.

3.2.2 Technical/Quality Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Technical factors will be rated using an adjectival-based system.

Past Performance will be rated based on relevancy and confidence.

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The SSEB, using price advisors as necessary, will evaluate the price proposals received in response to the solicitation. Prices will be evaluated for unbalancing of line items, for determining fair and reasonableness and realism. Price will not be evaluated with a rating system, but will be evaluated through the use of cost/price analysis. To determine price reasonableness and affordability, the SSEB may use any of the price analysis techniques described at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). Prices will not be revealed to any SSEB members until completion of the technical/quality evaluations, including consensus.

3.2.4 Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority (SSA) will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The SSA will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and sub-factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined are approximately equal to cost or price. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interest of the Government.

4.2 The factors below are listed in order of importance.

4.2.1 Volume I – Factor I – Experience and Capability

4.2.2 Volume I – Factor II – Past Performance

4.2.3 Volume I – Factor III – Technical Approach

Tab A – Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach Narrative

Tab B – Subfactor 2 – Network Analysis Schedule

4.2.4 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information (Sealed Envelope)

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout

Schedule

Tab B Joint Venture Agreements

Tab C Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and

Proof of Financial Ability

Tab D Pre-Award Information

4.3 Ratings

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Rating Definition

Very Relevant

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

Relevant

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Technical Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

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

Marginal

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

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

4.4 Definitions

4.7.1 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. See FAR 15.001.

4.7.2 Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

4.7.3 Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

4.7.4 Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

4.7.5 Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

4.7.6 Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

4.7.7 Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

4.7.8 Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPPIS.”

5. Volume I – Factor I – Experience and Capability

5.1 Preface – Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Introduction

5.1.1 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.

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

• Mechanical

• System Supplier

5.1.3 Any post-award changes to the key personnel and/or key subcontractors in the accepted proposal will require contracting officer approval.

5.1.4 Provide a brief introduction narrative. Identify and provide the name, DUNS number, address, point of contact e-mail address, and a brief description of the role and authority of each firm that will be involved in performance of this contract at the prime contractor and key subcontractor level. If the proposed prime contractor is a Joint Venture, describe the relationship, role, and authority (to include management authority) of each firm. (Note: If a proposed firm has branch offices, provide information for each individual branch office that will perform work under the contract with its own workforce.) List the major work elements to be self-performed by the offeror’s in-house work force, the major work elements to be performed by each key subcontractor, and any other major work to be subcontracted to other contractors. The submission is limited to two

(2) 8-1/2”x11” pages for narrative

5.1.5 The Government will not evaluate the Preface - Prime Contractor/Key

Subcontractor Introduction. The purpose of this narrative is to provide a brief introduction for information purposes; however, if applicable, the government reserves the right to consider it throughout the evaluation of the other factors.

5.2 Submission Requirements:

5.2.1 The offeror shall submit example projects per requirements below, that demonstrate the prime and key subcontractors experience and capability meeting the Evaluation Criteria to successfully perform under the resulting contract.

5.2.2 The offeror must explain how the work performed by the proposed firm in the example project is 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. Example projects can demonstrate multiple experiences and capabilities. However, if an example project is being used for multiple experiences and capabilities, ensure sufficient information is provided to demonstrate those applicable experiences and capabilities. Submit:

5.2.2.1 Two (2) example projects for the Prime and two (2) for each of the Key

Subcontractors that individually or collectively demonstrate the following characteristics of the prime contractor and key subcontractor. If Prime will be performing key subcontractor work, example projects indicated for Key Subcontractors may be submitted by the Prime instead.

5.2.2.2 Fully-functional United States military and U.S. located commercial aircraft fueling facility that is similar in features and complexity as this fuels project.

A similar example project may include a pumphouse and controls; associated distribution system; fill stands and off-load positions associated with multiple pumps for dispensing jet fuel. Example projects are not required to contain all of the aforementioned elements; however, example projects may be rated more favorably if they contain a majority or all of the aforementioned elements.

5.2.2.3 Projects that include fuel transfer and truck load/unload pumps

5.2.2.4 Demolition and replacement of above ground issue and receipt piping and supports.

5.2.2.5 Leak detection and cathodic protection for underground piping, and connections to tank.

5.2.2.6 Projects that include installation of similar Programmable Logical Controllers (PLC) based pump control systems for servicing fill stands, utilizing multiple pumps for dispensing jet fuel.

5.2.3 Submit construction projects that meet the criteria in 5.2.3 and are at least 75 percent complete within the last seven years. Proposals may be rated more favorable if they contain example projects that are substantially complete with only punch list items remaining for project acceptance or that the majority of the elements of the project have been turned over to the customer for beneficial occupancy.

5.2.4 Do not submit projects valued at less than $7,500,000.

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

Example Matrix

PRIME SUB#1 SUB#2

CAPABILITY/EXAMPLE PROJECT #1 #2 #3 #4

Fully-functional military and commercial aircraft fueling facility that is similar in features and complexity as this fuels project. This fuels project includes pumphouse and controls;

associated distribution system; fill stands and off-load positions associated with multiple pumps for dispensing jet fuel.

X X

Projects that include fuel transfer and truck load/unload pumps

X X

Demolition and replacement of above ground issue and receipt piping and supports.

X X

Leak detection and cathodic protection for underground piping, and connections to tank .

X X

Projects that include installation of similar Programmable Logical Controllers (PLC) based pump control systems for servicing fill stands, utilizing multiple pumps for dispensing jet fuel.

X X

5.2.6 Formatting and Other Restrictions:

5.2.6.1 Start the information for each example project on a new page.

5.2.6.2 Use the “Project Information Form” below to submit the example projects.

Use of an alternate format could result in a lower rating if all of the specified information is not provided. (Note: Do not submit a group of related jobs as one project unless all of the work was done under the same contract, or for indefinite delivery contracts, under one task order.) Example projects are limited to 10 pages 8-1/2" x 11" (maximum of 20 pages front and back) total, for all projects.

5.2.6.3 The Summary Matrix is limited to one (1) 8-1/2”x11” page that does not count against the 20 page limit for example projects.

PROJECT INFORMATION FORM

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

2. Name of Contractor(s)/Key Subcontractor (s) that Project is Demonstrating Experience: Provide the name of the proposed firm(s) that this example project is demonstrating experience and capability.

3. Contract Number and Awarded Prime Contractor Name: Provide contract number assigned by the procuring Contracting Office and the name of the contractor that was awarded the contract.

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

5. Month and Year Project Work Commenced and Month and Year Project was Completed. Include original completion date and actual completion date and a succinct description for changes in these two dates.

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

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

8. Point of Contact Telephone Number: Include area code.

9. Description of the Project: Provide information relevant to the Evaluation Criteria, including but not limited to the following information. Provide contract type, dollar amount (original contract amount and final dollar value (include an explanation for the difference)), physical size, project complexities and brief description of prime contracted effort. If the firm (prime/key subcontractor) performed as a subcontractor, describe the work effort pertaining to the subcontracted effort, not the prime contract requirement. Provide the performance period in month and year. Explain how the project demonstrates proper management of scope, schedule, and budget. Explain how the project demonstrates the experience and capability to reduce performance risk associated with successful completion of the project.

10. Provide name of firm(s) (prime/key subcontractor) and branch offices, if appropriate, that were involved in the example project, their roles, and their respective contract numbers.

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

5.2.7 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.7.1 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.

5.2.7.2 Demonstrations of 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:

5.2.7.3 Experience and capability specific to potential project types identified in

5.2.3 will be viewed more favorably.

5.2.7.4 Prior experience on Corps of Engineers construction projects.

5.2.7.5 Generally, projects performed by an office of a team member that will not be performing work on this project with its own workforce will be given less consideration than projects performed by the office that will be performing work on this project with its own workforce.

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

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

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.

6 Volume I – Factor II – Past Performance

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,

6.1.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1.1 Offerors shall provide past performance information on each of the example projects submitted under Factor 1, Experience and Capability. Past performance information shall 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.

6.1.1.2 The Past Performance Questionnaire 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, Mr.

Kenley Lott. Mr. Lott may be reached by email at Kenley.Lott@usace.army.mil.

6.1.1.3 Offerors are invited to include any performance recognition documents received within the last seven (7) years, such as awards, award fee announcements or determinations, customer letters of commendation, or any other form of performance recognition. It is preferred that performance recognition documents be provided for the example projects; performance recognition documents from other than example projects will be considered less relevant.

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

6.1.2 Formatting and Other Restrictions

mailto:Kenley.Lott@usace.army.mil

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

6.1.2.2 Sample Past Performance Questionnaire (next page):

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

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11)

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S 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)

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)

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 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):

6.1.3 Evaluation Criteria:

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

6.1.3.1.1 Recency: All projects should be substantially complete within the last seven (7) years.

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

6.1.3.1.3 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.

6.1.3.2 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.

6.1.3.3 Relevant performance recognition documents received within the last five

(5) years, such as awards, award fee announcements or determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other form of performance recognition may result in a more favorable rating.

6.1.3.4 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.

6.1.3.5 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.

6.1.3.6 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.

6.1.4 Key Subcontractor Authorization Letters.

6.1.4.1 Submit a letter of authorization from each proposed key subcontractor that provides authorization for 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.

6.1.4.2 Formatting and Other Restrictions: Each letter should be furnished on the business concern’s letterhead and signed by an authorized representative of the concern. There is not a page limitation for this submission.

6.1.4.3 Evaluation Criteria: Failure of a key subcontractor to provide authorization for the Government to discuss their past performance record with the offeror will not be considered a proposal deficiency. However, the Government will not be able to discuss in detail any key subcontractor past performance problems with the offeror which may impact the overall rating for this factor.

6.2 Factor II: Past Performance – Evaluation Criteria and Methodology

6.2.1 For Factor II the 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:

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,

7. Volume I – Factor III – Technical Approach

7.1 Tab A – Subfactor 1 – Management Plan

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

7.1.1.1 The Government is interested in how the offeror plans to structure, organize, control, and manage this project. Of particular interest is the prime contractor’s plan to manage and direct the construction with respect to quality and timely performance. Accordingly, Offerors must:

7.1.1.1.1 Provide a detailed narrative that clearly demonstrates:

7.1.1.1.1.1 That the offeror has the ability to effectively manage the vendors, consultants, and subcontractors on the team.

7.1.1.1.1.2 The offeror’s ability to coordinate all work throughout the construction phases.

7.1.1.1.1.3 The offeror’s understanding of the phasing of the work and the planned approach to accomplish the project’s scope.

7.1.1.2 The degree of risk to the Government inherent in the offeror’s technical proposal will be a consideration under every evaluation factor. There are two main risks that should be mitigated in the contractor’s proposal:

7.1.1.2.1 Operational Availability. The offeror should demonstrate 1) a clear understanding of the importance of operational availability of the customer’s mission systems, 2) address the understanding in their technical approach, and 3) demonstrate how they shall execute project phasing requirements in order to minimize downtime or periods of inoperability of the POL facilities. .

7.1.1.2.2 Ability to Execute. The offeror should demonstrate, in their proposal, the ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation within the price and schedule offered in their response.

7.1.1.3 Discuss how the offeror plans to ensure quality control throughout the project. This discussion should address the offeror’s understanding of, familiarity with, and intended use of Corps-specific procedures and automated information management/tracking systems related to quality control, per Section 01 45 00.15 10. Special areas of interest include the three-phase inspection process, RMS 3.0 utilization, and the submission/approval process.

7.1.1.4 Demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the roles and planned interaction between the various contractor personnel involved, such as the on-site Project Superintendent, the CQC System Manager, the CQC System Manager’s staff, Commissioning Agent, vendors, and the subcontractors.

Discussion must address lines of communication with the Government team.

7.1.1.5 Discuss common technical obstacles encountered on this type of project and ways the contractor plans on facilitating resolution and mitigating risks to the project schedule. Specific examples demonstrating depth of understanding will be considered more relevant than general examples.

7.1.1.6 Provide resumes for the proposed project manager, project superintendent, CQC system manger, and site safety and health officer. Specifically address how their experience supports execution of this project.

7.1.2 Formatting and Other Restrictions: the submission is limited to ten (10) 8-1/2” x 11”…