W9123818R0056_Amendment_0001.pdf

W9123818R0056

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:

A) Add Pre-Aw ard Survey to Section 00 22 00 as w ell as extend Proposal due date to 03 December 2018 at 4:00PM local time.

B) Add Government Furnished Property/Contractractor Acquired Property Clauses.

C) Provide updated Draw ings and Specifications as annotated.

D) Re-issue Submittal Register that now contains correct listing of required submittals.

E) Supplemental Instructions: update NTP date under "Technical Proposal, Volume 1, Tab 2, Project Schedule."

See Clarifications of Amendment attachments. All other terms, conditions and provisions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 43

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Nov-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 W9123818R0056

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Oct-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

07-Nov-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

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

Clarifications of Amendment attachments:

Attachment (09) Drawing Revisions

The Following Drawings are Issued as New:

VOL Sheet

Number

Sheet Name Revision Number

B1 LP101‐E Planting Plan 1

The Following Drawings are Re‐Issued with Revisions:

VOL Sheet

B1 CU105 UTILITY PLAN 1

B1 CU107 UTILITY PLAN 1

B1 A‐503 TYPICAL CEILING DETAILS 1

B1 A‐701‐A LEVEL 1 AREA A REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 1

B1 A‐701‐B LEVEL 1 AREA B REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 1

B1 A‐701‐C LEVEL 1 AREA C REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 1

B1 A‐701‐D LEVEL 1 AREA D REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 1

B1 A‐701‐E LEVEL 1 AREA E REFLECTED CEILING (CUP ) PLAN 1

B1 A‐702‐A LEVEL 2 (AREA A) REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 1

B1 A‐703‐A LEVEL 3 (AREA A) REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 1

B1 A‐704‐A LEVEL 4 (AREA A) REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 1

B1 A‐705‐A LEVEL 5 AND 6 (AREA A) REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 1

B2 MS001 SITE PLAN ‐ OVERALL LOCATION 1

B2 MS002 SITE PLAN ‐ CHILLED AND HEATING HOT

WATER PIPING DISTRIBUTION

The Following Drawings are revised by Narrative only (no additional drawings) below:

VOL Sheet Number Narrative Revision

B1 A‐01 Add the following abbreviations:

V/V – GOVERNMENT FURNISHED / GOVERNMENT INSTALLED.

V/C – GOVERNMENT FURNISHED / CONTRACTOR INSTALLED

B1 A‐401; A‐402; A‐404; A‐ 405;A‐406; A‐407; A‐408;

A‐409; A‐410; A‐411

Revise General Note 10 to read:

REFER TO QH. SERIES DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL SCHEDULED EQUIPMENT

AND ACCESSORIES NOT SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON ARCHITECTURAL ENLARGED

VIEWS; FOR THESE ITEMS REFER TO SHEET A‐03 FOR TYPICAL MOUNTING

HEIGHTS AND ABA REQUIREMENTS

B2 S‐403 Revise Keynote 1 on Detail D7/S‐403 to read:

"HSS4x3x1/8 SUB‐PURLINS. PROVIDE TWO SUB‐PURLINS PER PV PANEL AT AN

AVERAGE OF 2'‐6" O.C. COORDINATE FINAL SPACING AND LOCATION WITH

PV PANEL MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS.“

The Plumbing Sheets Drawing Scales are as indicated below:

3/32”=1’‐0”: Sheets PL100, PP101, PP102, PP103, PP104, PP105.

1/8"=1'‐0": Sheet PP102‐C.

3/16"=1'‐0": Sheets PL401, PP402.

1/4"=1'‐0": Sheets PL100‐A1 through PL100‐A4; PL100‐B1; PL100‐C1; Pl100‐ C2; PL100‐D1; PL100‐D2; PP101‐A1 through PP101‐A4; PP101‐B1; PP101‐C1;

PP101‐C2; PP101‐ D1; PP101‐D2; PP102‐A1 through PP102‐A4; PP103‐A1 through PP103‐A4; PP104‐A1 through PP104‐A4; PP403. 1/2"=1'‐0": PP201.

Attachment (10) Submittal Register The following submittal register is Re‐Issued with Revisions:

NOTE the following submittals removed from the Submittal Register (identified by strikethrough):

01 91 00 1.3.A Preliminary Commissioning Plan Submittal 01 91 00 1.3.B Final Commissioning Plan Submittal 01 91 00 1.3.C Systems Functional Performance Test Procedure 01 91 00 1.3.D Pre‐Functional Checklists 01 91 00 1.3.E Test and Inspection Reports 01 91 00 1.3.F Corrective Action Documents 01 91 00 1.3.G Preliminary Commissioning Report Submittal 01 91 00 1.3.H Final Commissioning Report Submittal

Attachment (11) Office Complex and Contractor Laydown The Following Attachment is Issued as New:

Attachment Specificatio n Section

Attachment 11 01 51 00 Office Complex and Contractor Laydown 1

Attachment (12) Specification Revisions

The Following Specifications are Re‐Issued in their entirety with Revisions (bold and underlined or identified with strikethrough):

VOL Specification

Section

Specification Title

Number

5A 01 51 00 UTILITIES 1

5A 01 64 01 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED EQUIPMENT 1

5A 08 33 00 COILING DOORS AND GRILLES 1

5A 08 33 13 COILING COUNTER DOORS 1

5A 11 13 19 DOCK LEVELERS AND EQUIPMENT 1

Contract Clause add info:

52.208‐9 Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Supply or Services May 2014

52.245‐1 Government Property Jan 2017

52.245‐9 Use and Charges Apr 2012

252.211‐7003 Item Unique Identification and Valuation Mar 2016

252.211‐7007 Reporting of Government‐Furnished Property Aug 2012

252.211‐7008 Use of Government‐Assigned Serial Numbers Sep 2010

252.245‐7002 Reporting Loss of Government Property Dec 2017

252.245‐7003 Contractor Property Management System Adminstration Apr 2012

252.245‐7004 Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal Dec 2017

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The below Table of Contents has been added

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 09 Attachment 9 AE

Drawing Revisions

15 26-OCT-2018

Attachment 10 Attachment 10 RMS Submittal Register

100 01-NOV-2018

Attachment 11 Attachment 11 Office Complex Laydown

1 26-OCT-2018

Attachment 12 Attachment 12 Specifications

26 29-OCT-2018

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 19-Nov-2018 10:00 AM to 03-Dec-2018 04:00 PM.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

PRE-AWARD SURVEY

Pre-Award Survey Information to be included in Pricing: Volume 2.

a. The Contracting Officer is required to make an affirmative pre-award determination of the prospective contractor’s responsibility in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and its supplements. The Contracting Officer must have sufficient information available to determine that a prospective contractor meets these minimum standards. Therefore, the offeror is requested to provide the pre- award survey information described below with its price proposal:

(1) The completed Construction Contractor Data Form with Supplemental Schedules A- C (see format which follows). If the offeror is a large multi-segmented business concerns, the data provided on the supplemental schedules may be limited to information that directly pertains to the specific segment of the business concern (e.g., the division, group, unit, etc.)

proposed to perform work under the prospective contract with its own work force. If the offer is being submitted by a Joint Venture, submit a separate form for each Joint Venture participant. The offeror may submit pre-award survey information in another format, provided that the information furnished is substantially the same as that which would be furnished on the Construction Contractor Data Form and its supplemental schedules.

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

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

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

(Volume 2 of the Price Proposal: Pre-Award Survey Information)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA DATE:

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

Branch Offices Services Rendered Construction Design Consultant

Organization Individual Joint Venture Partnership Corporation

Date Organized Date Incorporated:

State:

Names of Officers and Other Key Personnel

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

Officers:

Other Key:

Remainder: Subtotal Permanent:

Maximum Personnel at Any Time:

Date:

Total:

II—EQUIPMENT OWNED III—FINANCIAL DATA AS OF

(DATE): Present Value ($)

Current Assets:

Acquisition Cost ($) Current Liabilities:

Net Worth:

IV—TOTAL VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION AND

DEMOLITION WORK IN PAST 6 YRS EXCLUSIVE OF

JOINT VENTURE (LIST MOST RECENT FIRST)

V—LARGEST JOB EVER

CONTRACTED

(If Other Than in Past Six Years)

$ LARGEST JOB IN PAST 6 YRS Contract Amount:

Date:

Description:

Owner:

$ Contract Amount:

Date:

Description:

Owner:

Avg. Annual Income

VI—TYPE OF WORK IN WHICH FIRM SPECIALIZES

NAME AND POSITION/TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING SIGNATURE

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

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA – SCHEDULE A – EXISTING COMMITMENTS

List below the construction projects your firm currently has under way, including recent awards.

Also list construction projects for which your firm is the apparent successful offeror/bidder, but for which a contract has not yet been awarded.

CONTRACT

NUMBER

AMOUNT

DESCRIPTION/

LOCATION

ORGANIZATION/

CONTACT PERSON/

PHONE NUMBER

PERCENT

COMPLETE

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA – SCHEDULE B – COMPLETED PROJECTS

List below the principal construction projects your firm has completed within the past six years, including all DoD contracts with a total value exceeding $25,000,000.00.

NUMBER

AMOUNT

DESCRIPTION/

LOCATION

ORGANIZATION/

CONTACT PERSON/

PHONE NUMBER

PERCENT

SUBLET

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR DATA – SCHEDULE C –

CONSTRUCTION AND/OR TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT

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

QUANTITY

DESCRIPTION

CONDITION

YEARS

OF

SERVICE

PRESENT

STATUS

The following have been modified:

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

Section 00 22 00 – Supplementary Instructions

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS,

BASIS OF AWARD, AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial and advantageous to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to five (5) evaluation factors as follows:

(1) Company Experience (Non-Price Technical Factor)

(2) Company Capability (Non-Price Technical Factor)

(3) Past Performance (Non-Price Technical Factor)

(4) Small Business Participation (Non-Price Technical Factor)

(5) Pricing Information (Price/Cost Factor)

Non-Price Technical Factors when combined are approximately equal to Price/Cost Factor.

Within the Non-Price Technical Factors, Company Experience and Company Capability are equally the most important factors. Past Performance is less important than both Company Experience and Company Capability, but more important than Small Business Participation.

The Non-Price Technical Factors will be evaluated in the following descending order of importance:

(1) Company Experience and Company Capability

(2) Past Performance

(3) Small Business Participation

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1 - Company Experience: Each Offeror’s example projects demonstrating experience relevant in recency, scope, and fiscal magnitude will be assessed.

Factor 2 - Company Capability: Each Offeror’s demonstrated ability in managing schedule, organization including subcontractors, risk, and communication will be assessed, along with the availability of key personnel and key subcontractors and their commitment to this project.

Factor 3 - Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and performance confidence.

Factor 4 - Small Business Participation: Each Offeror’s small business participation Commitment Document will be assessed on Total Contract Amount. All Offerors, both Large and Small Business, will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses relative to the objectives and goals established for this procurement.

Small Business: 23% Small Disadvantaged Business: 10% Woman Owned Small Business: 5% Veteran Owned Small Business: 3% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business: 3%

Factor 5 - Price: The resulting award will be a firm-fixed price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal will address each factor as it applies to the solicitation. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Proposal Evaluation Process” of this plan. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

C. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Submittal of Offers

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 experience and capability, past performance, and use of small business necessary for successful completion of the project. Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums.

Innovative, creative or cost-saving proposals that meet or exceed the requirements are encouraged and will be rated accordingly.

Offerors shall submit their proposals to the US Army Corps of Engineers, 1325 J Street, Rm 878, Sacramento, CA 95814, no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

Offerors are required to submit a proposal made up of Company Experience, Company Capability, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Price. 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 eleven (11) paper copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD/DVD*.

Volume II shall be submitted in original and one (1) CD/DVD* only and shall be placed in a separate envelope. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

*NOTE: Provide the complete Volume I proposal submittal including text, renderings, drawings, photographs, etc on CD/DVD (one copy). Provide the complete Volume II proposal submittal on CD/DVD (one copy), including the final price breakout schedule(s) if the final price breakout schedule(s) are available electronically. Offeror is responsible for ensuring the paper copy is consistent with the electronic copy of the proposal. However, the paper copy of the proposal shall be used for evaluation and will supersede any conflicts or discrepancies between the two media.

The Offeror’s conformance with the specified format, submission requirements, and the Offeror’s attention to detail (e.g., typographical, grammatical, and reference errors) will be considered during the technical evaluation and trade-off. Failure to comply with the formatting and/or submission requirements or a lack of attention to detail may be seen as indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during contract performance. Lack of conformance or attention to detail could therefore result in a higher risk assessment, in addition to any other impacts on the evaluation. Material omission(s) may result in a deficiency, which will cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable. However, in accordance with FAR

52.215-1, the Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals.

Technical proposals that do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions may be found to have weaknesses or significant weaknesses. The Government is under no obligation to search for information that is not in the specified location.

Responses that are essentially blanket offers of compliance are not adequate substitutes for the detailed and complete technical information necessary to establish that an Offeror can meet Government needs. The proposal submission instructions are written to give prospective contractors, where feasible, an indication of the level of detail desired by the Government. The Offeror’s failure to include information that the Government has indicated should be included may result in the proposal being assigned a (significant) weakness and/or being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided.

Any prescribed page and formatting limitations will be strictly adhered to and enforced by the Government. The Government will not evaluate any excess information resulting from the Offeror’s failure to comply with the submission instructions. Examples:

If an Offeror were to submit three pages in response to an item with a two page limitation, the information on the first two pages would be evaluated but the information on the third page would not be evaluated. If an Offeror were to submit a fold-out sheet (e.g. 11”x 17”) in response to a one-page limitation where fold-out sheets were not authorized, only the information that could reasonably have been submitted on one 8- 1/2 x 11 inch sheet would be evaluated. If an Offeror were to submit three 8-1/2 x 11 inch pages in response to a one not-to-exceed 11 x 17 inch page limitation, only the information that could reasonably have been submitted on one 11 x 17 inch sheet would be evaluated. If an Offeror submitted alternates that were not requested, the information would not be evaluated.

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 inch 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 point, unusual font styles such as script, or condensed fonts; however, Offerors may use 8 point fonts on charts and graphics. 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.

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

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 “Instructions to Proposer”, located in Section 00 21 16, for instructions. Notwithstanding the above, the Offeror must clearly describe in the proposal cover sheet submitted with the price volume any exceptions, within the offer, to the contractual and/or technical terms and conditions of the solicitation.

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. Confidential Project is defined as projects containing confidential information of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security with the unauthorized disclosure. 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.

General Proposal Preparation

Each Offeror must submit both a “price proposal” volume and a “technical proposal” volume.

The price proposal includes the signed offer and the Offeror’s proposed prices. The technical proposal includes all required information relating to the “non-price” evaluation factors. The two volumes must be submitted as separate, physically distinct volumes. Both volumes must be received at the location shown in Block 8 of Standard Form 1442, not later than the date and time specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. The information in the two volumes is evaluated separately and independently. Therefore, all information intended by the Offeror to be evaluated as part of the price proposal must be submitted as part of the price proposal. All information intended by the Offeror to be evaluated as part of the technical proposal must be submitted as part of the technical proposal. Do not merely cross-reference similar material between the technical and price proposals. Information in the price proposal will not be considered in the technical evaluation, and vice versa.

Marking of Proposal Volumes.

Mark each volume as either the “Price Proposal” or the “Technical Proposal”. 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 that identify the Offeror are not required on either the back cover or on the spine/binding.)

Table of Contents and Tabbing of Proposal Volumes.

Each proposal should include a table of contents, and offers are to be formatted and tabbed in accordance with the instructions included herein for each proposal volume.

D. PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS

All proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with the following source selection procedures. The principal objective of this process is to select a responsible Offeror who submits the offer that is the Best Value to the Government. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all proposals received in response to this solicitation.

The source selection organization is established as a separate organization and management chain of command whose only purpose is to accomplish the objective above. The organization consists of a Source Selection Authority (SSA), Source Selection Authority Council (SSAC), and Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The organization will also have a separate Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) and Price team. The SSEB is comprised of separate Technical Evaluation, Past Performance and Small Business teams. The organization is designed to ensure active ongoing involvement of appropriate contracting, technical, logistics, legal, price analysis, small business, and other functional staff management expertise.

Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors.

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

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.

2. Technical Evaluation

The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Some factors will be rated using an adjectival-based system. Past Performance will be rated based on confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience, and how well the Offeror performed on that experience. Small Business Participation will be assessed based on the Offeror’s ability to meet targets established in the RFP.

3. Price Evaluation

Price to the Government will be evaluated and considered but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. The proposed price will be analyzed for reasonableness. Price may also be analyzed to determine whether it reflects a clear understanding of the requirements and to determine that it is consistent with the Offeror’s Technical Proposal. In addition, all offers will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

Information required to be submitted in the Price Proposal volume, in addition to the executed SF 1442 with acknowledgement of amendments and the completed CLIN schedule, will be used to determine the Offeror’s eligibility for contract award (for example: the work breakdown structure, the Offeror’s representations and certifications; the bid guarantee; and the Offeror’s pre- award survey information). The Government may enter into limited exchanges (Clarifications) with Offerors, subject to applicable FAR limitations, including FAR 15.306, “Exchanges with Offerors after Receipt of Proposals”. If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

The price evaluation findings as to reasonableness of prices will be provided to the SSAC and SSA for their consideration in making the trade-off decisions.

4. Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)

The SSAC represents the specific functional areas from which the SSA may require expertise.

The SSA may convene the SSAC at any stage in the evaluation process as needed. The SSAC will review the evaluation results of the SSEB to ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and the ratings are appropriately and consistently applied. The SSAC will consolidate their advice and recommendations into a written comparative analysis of the Offerors and provide a recommendation for use by the SSA in selecting the Offeror who represents the best value to the Government.

5. Cost/Technical Trade-off Analysis.

After all above evaluations are complete, the 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. Further details are provided in the following sections.

6. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

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. Non-Price Technical Factors 1 and 2 (Company Experience and Capability) will be assessed by the Government and an adjectival rating and risk rating will be determined by consensus of the Government evaluation board; Non-Price Technical Factor 3 (Past Performance) will be evaluated by the Government and a relevancy and confidence level will be determined by consensus of the Government evaluation board; and Non-Price Technical Factor 4 (Small Business Participation) will be evaluated by the Government and an adjectival rating will be determined by consensus of the Government evaluation board.

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

(1) Volume I-Factor 1 – Company Experience

(2) Volume I-Factor 2 – Company Capability

(3) Volume I-Factor 3 – Past Performance

(4) Volume I-Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

(5) Volume II-Factor 5 - Pricing Information (Sealed Envelope)

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation, for Factors 1 and 2, as follows:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Color Rating

Adjectival

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Furthermore, the evaluators will use the following risk descriptions:

Risk Level Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which are likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

evaluation, for Factor 3, as follows:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

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.

In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the table below:

Past Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

evaluation, for Factor 4, as follows:

Small Business Participation Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

7. Definitions

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). The presence of a deficiency will automatically result in an “Unacceptable” rating in the pertinent evaluation factor. The Government cannot make award based on an unacceptable offer. Therefore, a rating of “Unacceptable” under any factor will render the offer ineligible for award, unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with that Offeror and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal.

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.

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.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. In the case of Small Business Participation, the contractor shall meet the overall SB goal.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001. In the case of Small Business Participation, the proposal does not provide any support that contractor will meet proposed SB objectives or any of the proposed subcategory SB goals.

Uncertainty: Any aspect of a technical factor proposal for which the intent of the offer 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).

Clarification: Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

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.”

Discussions: Exchanges between the Government and the Offerors that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal.

E. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: VOLUME I

1. Number of Sets

The Technical Proposal is to be submitted in one hard “original” and eleven (11) copies. In addition, submit one (1) complete electronic copy of the technical proposal on CD/DVD. The Offeror may submit the electronic technical copy on the same disk as the electronic price copy;

however, both electronic copies must be in separate files.

2. Format, Content, and Tabs

Use 8-1/2 x 11inch pages for the narrative portions of the proposal. There may be page limits imposed at the tab level. Organize your technical proposal as indicated below. The tabs directly correlate to the technical evaluation factors. Although the Government uses information contained anywhere within the technical proposal in its evaluation of any technical evaluation criteria, the Government is not obligated to search for or to consider information that is not located in the specified location. Number the pages. Do not include information pertaining to your proposed pricing for this project in the technical proposal; failure to comply with this requirement will disqualify your proposal from consideration for award. Limit your submittals to the information specified; excess information will not be evaluated.

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL ( Volume I): TAB CONTENTS

TAB 1: Factor 1 – Company Experience TAB 2: Factor 2 – Company Capability TAB 3: Factor 3 – Past Performance TAB 4: Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

3. Detailed Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

TAB 1: Factor 1 – Company Experience

The information provided under this tab will be used to evaluate the experience of the Offeror and key subcontractors as related to the requirements of this solicitation. Example construction projects will provide the primary basis for the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s and proposed key subcontractor’s qualifications and experiences.

For purposes of this procurement, the term “key subcontractor” is used to refer only to the prospective subcontractors whose experience, capability, 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.

For 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. If the prime contractor will be performing any of the listed work elements, the proposal should make this clear to the evaluators in the preface. The Government has designated the following subcontractors as “key”:

i. Any firm that will be responsible for 10% or greater than $10 million of the construction effort (based on total Contract Amount). Should an Offeror not be utilizing any subcontractor performing 10% or greater than $10 million, then indicate that no firm meets this criterion in the preface.

ii. Any firm performing the earth work. The earthwork contractor must be trained and experienced in phased development of large raised sites of 26 acres or more to levels exceeding 6 feet above existing grade. The contractors training and experience shall include large-scale site-raise earth moving methods, techniques, procedures, equipment, site supervision, and management of earth moving operations. Phased construction experience shall include the sequential and timely development of multiple earth pads suitable for construction of individual building foundations.

NOTE: Offerors must provide letters of commitment for any key subcontractors whose projects are being submitted under this factor. Failure by a proposed key subcontractor to submit a properly executed letter of commitment will be considered as increasing risk, but may not be considered a proposal deficiency. However, example projects lacking corresponding letters of commitment from key subcontractors will be evaluated as not relevant and be assigned a SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS.

The more similarities an example project has with the prospective contract, the greater the degree of relevancy. Relevant for the purpose of Factor 1 is defined as projects considered as being 1) Similar in type/scope; 2) Recent; 3) Similar in dollar value; 4) Projects completed with high percentages of self-performance; 5) Project performed by the same team; and/or 6) Project performed by the same office may be considered more favorable and lower risk to the Government. The preferred similarities are listed in order of importance to the Government.

1) Example projects with type/scopes including work elements such as the following may be considered more favorable and lower risk to the Government than projects that include few to none of the following:

a. Multi-story medical administrative and/or clinical building construction

b. Multi-year projects requiring comparable coordination and management between multiple stakeholders

c. Medical construction including LEED certification with enhanced commissioning

d. Projects constructed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

e. Projects constructed for the U.S. Federal Government and/or DVA

2) Recent projects will be those that are complete or substantially complete (90% or more) on or after 1 January 2012. Projects in progress or completed prior to 2012 may be evaluated, but may be considered less favorable and higher risk to the Government.

3) Example prime contractor projects of at least $50,000,000 construction cost may be considered relevant and more favorable than projects that are less than this value. Prime contractor projects with construction costs exceeding $100,000,000 may be considered very relevant. For key subcontractor example projects, magnitudes of effort should be comparable to this project and will be considered more favorable than less relevant, low cost projects.

4) Prime contractor example projects (or example projects submitted by the prime in lieu of key subcontractors) indicating self-performance greater than or equal to 20% may be considered more favorable and lower risk to the Government.

5) Example projects completed by the same Joint Venture, if offering as a Joint Venture, or relevant projects completed with the same prime/key subcontractor teams may be considered more favorable and lower risk to the Government.

6) Prime and/or key subcontractor example projects that were completed by the same office/location as the offering team may be considered more favorable and lower risk to the Government.

As the prime contractor, the Offeror is required to submit three (3) representative example projects that collectively demonstrate the proposing Offerors capability. For the key subcontractors or the prime contractor performing work elements in lieu of the key subcontractors, the Offeror is required to submit one (1) example project for each key subcontractor work element.

The Government may not evaluate any excess information resulting from the Offeror’s failure to comply with the submission instructions. Examples: If an Offeror were to submit four (4) example projects in response to a requirement for three (3) projects, only the first three (3) projects will be evaluated and the information on the fourth project would not be evaluated.

Start the information for each example project on a new page. Each project submission is limited to four (4) 8- 1/2 x 11 inch pages. Include the “Project Information” which follows for submitting the example projects. (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.)

(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 example project is demonstrating experience: Provide the name of the proposed firm(s) that this example project is demonstrating experience.

(3) Include percentage of self-performance (prime contractor examples only or prime contractors submitting in lieu of key subcontractors)

(4) 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.

(5) Title and Location: Title and location of project or contract.

(6) 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.

(7) Project Owner: Project owner or user, such as a government agency or installation, institution, corporation, or private individual.

(8) 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 contractor’s (or contractors’) performance.

(9) Point of Contact Telephone Number: Include area code.

(10) Description of the Project: Provide dollar amount and type/scope description of offering contractor’s effort. Provide sufficient detail to establish the relevance to the current project to include (1) the performance period in month and year, (2) original contract amount and final dollar value, and (3) principal elements and special features of the work self- performed by that contractor’s employees (based on total contract amount).

(11) Office/Location: Indicate whether example project office/location will be used for proposal project.

Additional consideration may be given to an Offeror who provides:

Evidence of previous successful teaming experience between current team members.

Evidence of previous successful teaming experience between the prime and key subcontractors (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and structural).

TAB 2: Factor 2 – Company Capability

The information provided under this tab will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s capability to successfully complete this project, including approach and method to construct this project. Information provided will also be used to evaluate the Offeror’s ability to properly schedule and execute this project to ensure timely completion of a quality product.

Provide detail to support the Offeror’s ability to mitigate risk while completing a large construction project on an active medical campus and include technically feasible and innovative approaches to meeting the Government’s requirements. The approach and method must be in sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate (1) the Offeror’s understanding of the principal components of work described in the project specifications and drawings and (2) the Offeror’s understanding of the site and other conditions that could impact schedule.

Organization Chart

Provide…