W9123822R0008 AMENDMENT 0003.pdf

W9123822R0008

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:

1. Revise/add the follow ing language in section 00 22 00 of the solicitation (change are highlighted in RED):

a) Government w ill allow other Past Performance rating forms that contain the same content and similar format that is used in the PPQ or CPARS.

b) *Note: Phase 1, Factor 1 and Factor 2 criteria and evaluation rating w ill be carried forw ard and used along w ith the phase 2 criteria and evaluation ratings to make the ultimate aw ard decision.

c) Pre-aw ard Survey is not required for Phase I, Preaw ard Survey w ill be required for Phase II.

2. Add a second Wage Determination to Attachment 4 for Heavy Construction.

3. Add Attachment 5 PROJECT INFORMATION FORM.

All other terms and conditions remain in full effect and unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 10-Dec-2021

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 W9123822R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Nov-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-Dec-2021

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 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION DATE

Attachment 01 Statement of Work Attachment 02 Drawings Attachment 03 Supplemental Contract Requirements Attachment 04 Davis Bacon Wage Determination to:

Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION

Attachment 01 Statement of Work Attachment 02 Drawings Attachment 03 Supplemental Contract Requirements

Attachment 05 Project Information Form

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The following have been modified:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION

Attachment 01 Statement of Work Attachment 02 Drawings Attachment 03 Supplemental Contract Requirements

Attachment 05 Project Information Form

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

CONDITIONS AND NOTICES

INQUIRIES:

Prospective offerors should submit inquiries related to this solicitation in accordance with the following (collect calls will not be accepted):

a. For information related to amendments, and the dates set for receipt of proposals, please check https://beta.sam.gov

b. Contractual and Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org/projnet.

1. To submit and review bid inquiry items, offerors will need to be a current registered user or self-register into the system. To self-register go to the aforementioned web page and click on the QUICK ADD link. Select agency as USACE, and enter the Bidder Inquiry Key for this solicitation listed below, your e-mail address, and then click continue. Fill in all required information and click Add User.

2. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add an inquiry.

3. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via e-mail, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed.

4. The Solicitation Number is: W9123822R0008 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 2VJFP4-UXQ7S2

c. The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries 5 days prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary.

d. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, and review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

e. The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

f. Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

g. The point of contact for this solicitation is:

Contract Specialist: John Wysocki E-MAIL: john.wysocki@usace.army.mil

CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY, PREAWARD SURVEY:

In order to determine a contractor's responsibility for purposes of contract award in accordance with FAR Part 9, the contractor is required to provide a statement regarding previous experience and past performance in performing comparable work, information related to the business organization, financial resources, and/or plant to be used in performing the work (see Section 00 22 10 or 00 22 20 OR Attachments, Preaward Survey). All offerors will complete and return the Preaward Survey as part of the Price/Cost proposal. (Pre-award Survey is not required for Phase I, Preaward Survey will be required for Phase II. ) Failure to submit the Preaward Survey in conjunction with the price proposal will not of itself render the offer unacceptable.

https://beta.sam.gov/ https://www.projnet.org/projnet mailto:john.wysocki@usace.army.mil

Determination of Contractor Responsibility will be completed in accordance with FAR 9.104-1.

If the contractor or subcontractor does not already have sufficient resources demonstrated in the completed Preaward Survey, acceptable evidence of "the ability to obtain" the required, adequate resources (all of the resources discussed in FAR 9.104-1) normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, other resources, or personnel.

The Preaward Survey as a tool used by the Government in determining responsibility of the offeror is submitted as part of the Price/Cost proposal and is separate from the technical proposal's response to the technical evaluation criteria found later in this section. Some of the information required from the offeror for completion of the Preaward Survey and the technical proposal may be duplicative but it is necessary that the information be provided in full in both places and that the Price/Cost proposal and the Technical proposal be separate documents. DO NOT state, for example, in the technical proposal, "See Price/Cost proposal for past performance information".

AVAILABILITY OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS PUBLICATIONS DESCRIPTIONS:

a. The internet URL for Corps of Engineers publications is:

http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/

b. Construction Criteria Base (CCB). The Construction Criteria Base (CCB) system available through the National Institute of Building Sciences includes copies of Corps of Engineers methods and specifications.

Information about the CCB can be obtained from:

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ccb.php

FACSIMILE BIDS/OFFERS:

Facsimile bids/offers, modifications thereto, or cancellations of bids/offers will not be accepted.

PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS:

The bidder/offeror whose bid/offer is accepted will, within the time established in the contract, furnish performance and payment bonds in accordance with FAR 52.228-15.

INDIVIDUAL SURETIES IN SUPPORT OF BID BONDS:

Bidders/offerors utilizing individual sureties in support of a bid bond shall include a Standard Form (SF) 28 (Affidavit of Individual Surety), accompanied by a pledge of acceptable assets from each person acting as an individual surety, and include these with the SF 24 (Bid Bond), and the bid itself (see clause titled "Pledges of Assets," FAR 52.228-11).

Pledges of acceptable assets shall be in the form of (1) evidence of an escrow account and/or (2) a recorded lien on real estate.

If this is an IFB, failure to provide pledges of acceptable assets, with the bid, in the specified form, accompanied by a properly executed SF 24 and SF 28, will render the bidder nonresponsible and thus ineligible for award. If this is an RFP, failure to provide required documentation described herein may cause the offeror to be deemed "unacceptable".

ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS:

http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/ http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ccb.php

A written award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

System for Award Management (SAM) Registration:

It is a requirement that any and all contractors that intend to do business with the government must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. No contract may be awarded by the government to any contractor who is not registered in SAM. If your company is not registered in SAM, you must register in order to be eligible for any government award.

The following link provides access to the SAM website:

https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/

If you have difficulties with or questions regarding the SAM registration, the following link has been set up by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to assist contractors registering for CAGE codes for enrollment and navigation within SAM:

https://www.logisticsinformationservice.dla.mil/CAGETier3/

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with the requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

2. SOURCE SELECTION USING THE “BEST VALUE” TRADE-OFF PROCESS

The Government, during Phase-Two, will select the offer that represents the best value to the Government by using the tradeoff process described in FAR Part 15.

This process permits tradeoffs between price and technical (“non- price”) factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer when determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The award decision will https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ https://www.logisticsinformationservice.dla.mil/CAGETier3/ be based on a comparative analysis and an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

3. THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

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

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

Phase-One Proposal.

(1) Factor 1: Past Performance

(2) Factor 2: Technical Approach

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

d. The Source Selection Authority will consider only the Phase One proposals during Phase One, however both the Phase One and the Phase Two proposals, and all the relative strengths and weaknesses identified in both phases will be used in determining the best value to the Government in Phase Two.

e. Selection of The Proposals Invited to

Participate In Phase-Two. The most highly qualified offerors will be determined based on their ratings. The Government will evaluate the advantages each proposal offers when distinguishing between equal ratings. Approximately up to five of the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and invited to participate in Phase-Two. Those offers not selected will be excluded from the competition.

4. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNICAL EVALUATION

FACTORS AND OF PRICE TO THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION

FACTORS

All non-priced evaluation factors, when combined, are more important than cost or price. The Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between technical merit (“quality”) and cost to the Government (i.e., the price). If competing technical proposals are determined to be essentially equal, price could become the controlling factor.

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

a) Phase-One

Factor 1 – Past Performance is the most important factor.

Factor 2 – Technical Approach is the second most important factor

b) Phase-Two

Factors to be included by amendment upon issuing phase 2

*Note: Phase 1, Factor 1 and Factor 2 criteria and evaluation rating will be carried forward and used along with the phase 2 criteria and evaluation ratings to make the ultimate award decision.

B. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Instructions to Offerors for Phase-One Proposals are provided in Phase-One.

The Instructions to Offerors for Phase-Two will be provided after Phase-One and as an amendment during Phase-Two.

1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

a. The offeror’s conformance with the specified format and submission requirements will be considered during the technical evaluation. Failure to comply with the formatting and/or submission requirements may be seen as indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during contract performance. Lack of conformance may therefore result in a higher risk assessment, in addition to any other impacts on the evaluation. Material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable. However, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals. For example, a failure by a proposed key subcontractor to submit a properly executed letter of commitment may be considered as increasing risk but will not be considered a proposal deficiency.

b. Technical proposals which do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions may receive a lower rating. The Government is under no obligation to search for information that is not in the specified location.

c. Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail may receive a lower rating. 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 or exceed the needs of the Government. 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 receiving a lower rating and/or being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided.

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

Examples: If an offeror were to submit three pages in response to an item with a two-page limitation, the information on the first two pages would be evaluated but the information on the third page would not be evaluated. If an offeror were to submit a fold-out sheet (e.g. 11”x17”) in response to a one- page limitation where fold-out sheets were not authorized, only the information that could reasonably have been submitted on one 8-1/2 x 11 inch sheet would be evaluated. If an offeror were to submit three 8-1/2 x 11 inch pages in response to a one not-to-exceed 11 x 17 inch page limitation, only the information that could reasonably have been submitted on one 11 x 17 inch sheet would be evaluated.

e. The degree of risk to the Government inherent in the offeror’s technical proposal will be a consideration under every evaluation factor.

f. A “deficiency” is 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.

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

h. The term “acceptable” is therefore used in this context to describe a technical proposal that does not contain a deficiency and thus could be accepted by the Government, notwithstanding any weaknesses or significant weaknesses in the proposal.

i. The Government cannot make award based on a deficient 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.

j. Technical/Risk Rating for other than past performance.

COLOR

RATING

RATING

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.

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

Red

Unacceptabl e

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.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

The past performance evaluation will focus on three elements: the recency, relevancy and quality of the offeror’s past performance information.

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation

One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

Past Performance Confidence Assessments - In conducting a performance confidence assessment, offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the table below:

Adjectival RATING DESCRIPTION

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has ahigh 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.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION: PHASE-ONE

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

a. Marking of Proposal Electronic PDF’s Mark each PDF as the “Phase One - Technical Volume”, and include the project title and location, solicitation number, name and address of the offeror.

Offerors must include a table of contents for each proposal volume.

b. Tabbing of Proposal Volumes

Offers are to be formatted and tabbed in accordance with the instructions that follow for each proposal volume.

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

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

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

In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a prime contractor and subcontractor(s), where the prime contractor submits the proposal in response to this RFP, the prime contractor must have completed at least two of the total number of projects submitted for Factor 1 for consideration in response to the past performance requirements of this RFP. If information about a subcontractor is submitted and considered during the evaluation, the expectation is that this subcontractor will perform this work. Before utilizing another subcontractor for this work, the Government must provide written consent.

An Offeror that relies upon the performance history of a member or members of a proposed contractor team arrangement will be expected to maintain that arrangement during performance of any contract awarded to that Offeror under this RFP. As a part of their proposal, the Offeror must provide a contractor team agreement signed by all parties, identifying the legal name(s) of all entities and describing the nature of each entity’s relationship (teaming/partnering, joint venture, etc.) and its role on this project. Past Performance information of other than the Offeror will not be considered without the teaming agreements.

In the case of joint ventures, at least one project will be submitted from each member to demonstrate past experience. This documentation shall be provided in applicable section of the Offeror's proposal.

1. Media, Page Size, Margins, Fonts and Page Limitations

Submit only electronic files as specifically stated in this section. The Technical proposal must be submitted as one complete PDF original. 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 submission, use only 8 1/2” x 11” paper. Use at least 1-inch margins; except headers and footers may be outside the 1-inch margins. 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 font, unusual font styles such as script, or condensed fonts. For submissions with page limitations, the PDF pages will be counted as one page.

Pages furnished for organizational purposes only, such as a “Table of Contents” or divider tabs, are excluded from page limitations.

2. 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 “How to Submit Inquiries”, located in Section 00 21 16.

3. Restrictions on Offeror-Provided Information.

Proposals shall not contain classified data. “Confidential” projects may be submitted to demonstrate capability as long as all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of the offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors that include data in their proposals that they do not want disclosed or used except for evaluation purposes, must redact the data in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition.

4. Organization of Phase-One Technical Proposal

TAB 1. PREFACE

• Prime Contractor / Key Subcontractor Introduction

• The completed Standard Form 1442 with continuation pages, without a price, duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company.

Ensure that the firm’s DUNS or DUNS+4 Number is entered in the block with its name and address.

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

• Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable)

• Your completed Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of

Bidders/Offerors (Section 00 45 00).

TAB 2. FACTOR 1 –PAST PERFORMANCE

• Prime Contractor / Key Subcontractor(s) Example Projects

• Past Performance Data

• Key Subcontractor Authorization Letters

TAB 3. FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

• Design-Build UFC Requirements

C.1. DETAILED SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PHASE-ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

1. Tab 1 of the Technical Proposal: Preface (NOTE: this information is not rated as part of the evaluation factors)

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

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

Architect-Engineer Design

c. Any changes to key subcontractors in your Phase-Two proposal from your Phase 1 proposal will not be allowed.

d. Any subcontractors and outside associates or consultants required by the Contractor in connection with the services covered by the contract will be limited to individuals or firms that were specifically identified and agreed to during negotiations. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitution for these subcontractors, associates, or consultants.

e. 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 levels. If the proposed prime contractor is a Joint Venture, describe the relationship, role, and authority (to include management authority) of each firm. 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) 8.5’’ x 11’’ PDF pages for narrative.

*(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.)

f. 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.

2. Tab 2 of the Technical Proposal: Factor 1 –Past Performance

Past Experience:

i. The offeror shall submit “example projects” (either commercial or institutional) that demonstrate the prime’s and key subcontractor’s experience which meets the evaluation criteria and demonstrates their ability to successfully perform under the resulting contract.

ii. The offeror must provide a narrative to explain how the past experience shown by the example projects is relevant to this project and shows the contractor’s and key subcontractor’s understanding of the risks, work requirements and approach necessary to successfully complete this project. Relevant projects are of similar scope, square footage, security requirements, and complexity as this project.

iii. In doing so, the offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) up to six (6) example projects that are substantially completed within the past five (5) years that individually or collectively demonstrate the following characteristics of the prime contractor and key subcontractors. The narrative shall include the following information:

(1) The offeror’s experience as a prime contractor that demonstrates their ability to successfully perform this contract. Explain how the experience shown by the example projects is relevant to this project and show the contractor possesses an understanding of the risks and requirements necessary to successfully act as the prime contractor for this project.

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

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

iv. Demonstrated experience and capability in the following areas may be considered more favorably:

(1) Prior prime contractor and Architect-Engineer designer experience on similar design-build projects

(2) Relevant experience on U.S. Corps of Engineers construction projects or Air Force construction projects

(3) Relevant Experience designing and constructing airfield pavement projects that meet UFC 3-260-01 & UFC 3-260-02 requirements.

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

vi. Do not submit construction projects that are not substantially complete. Projects submitted must have a substantial completion date within five (5) years of the original date of issuance of this RFP. For this purpose, “substantially complete” means that only punch list items remain for project acceptance, or that the major elements of the project have been turned over to the customer for beneficial occupancy. If a design-build project is submitted to demonstrate the design capability of an A-E firm, the design portion of the contract must be complete in order to be considered.

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

Project #1 Project #2 Project #3 Prime Contractor

Design-Build Management

Experience of Lead Designer

Project #4 Project #5 Project #6 Prime Contractor

Design-Build Management

Experience of Lead Designer

Formatting and other restrictions:

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

• Example projects are limited to four (4) 8.5" x 11" PDF pages each and a maximum of 24PDF pages total, for all projects.

• The Summary Matrix is limited to one (1) PDF 8.5”x11” page.

• Follow the “Project Information Form”, Attachment 5 as a template for submitting example projects. Use of an alternate format could result in a lower rating if all 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.

. Past Performance.

a. Offerors shall provide this information in a SEPARATE PDF DOCUMENT. The information provided will be used to evaluate the past performance record of the offeror and proposed key subcontractors. Information other than that supplied by the offeror may be utilized by the Government in its evaluation of past performance.

b. Offerors shall provide past performance evaluation information on the example projects submitted above. The Offeror shall provide completed performance evaluations for the submitted projects that demonstrate the Offeror’s performance on recent and relevant projects of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity. The Offeror shall provide formal performance evaluations if they are available.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), see Solicitation Attachment, included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror included in this factor. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project (s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, John Wysocki via email at john.wysocki@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors may incorporate, by reference, into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Government will allow other Past Performance rating forms that contain the same content and similar format that is used in the PPQ or CPARS.

c. Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms 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.

d. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (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.

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

f. Formatting and Other Restrictions: Start the information for each example project on a new page. There is no page limitation for this submission.

3.1 Key Subcontractor Authorization Letters:

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

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

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

3. Tab 3 of the Technical Proposal: Factor 2 – Technical Approach

a. Offeror must demonstrate the approach to successfully complete Design-Build airfield pavement projects that meet UFC 3-260-01 & UFC 3-260-02 requirements (plus any other applicable UFCs as required per the design). The offeror’s understanding of possible challenges associated with this and their approach to mitigate those challenges. The proposal will be evaluated for how well it demonstrated that the offeror has successfully managed Design-Build projects with relevant listed UFC requirements in the past and any lessons learned. The identified risks and mitigation techniques will be evaluated for foresight and understanding of risk management. The greater the narrative demonstrates lessons learned and mitigation techniques to reduce risk while successfully managing Design-Build projects with relevant listed UFC requirements may be viewed more favorably.

b. Formatting and Other Restrictions: The submission is limited to four (4) 8.5” x 11” pages total.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. GENERAL EVALUATION GUIDELINES

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

b. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s Phase One and Phase Two technical proposals on the basis of the thoroughness, factual detail and persuasiveness of the narrative and documentation submitted.

c. Failure by an offeror to comply with formatting or submission requirements contained in the solicitation, the presence of significant mistakes or errors in a proposal, or the presence of more than a nominal number of less significant mistakes/errors in a proposal, may be considered indicative of an increased risk of inattention to detail or quality control during contract performance. Lack of conformance may therefore result in a higher risk assessment, in addition to other possible adverse impacts on the evaluation.

Material omission(s) may cause a technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable. However, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government may waive informalities or minor irregularities in proposals. For example, a failure by a proposed key subcontractor to submit a properly executed letter of commitment may be considered reflective of increased risk but not an outright proposal deficiency.

d. Phase One and Phase-Two technical proposals which do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with these submission instructions may be downgraded.

The Government is not obligated to search for information that is not in its specified location.

e. Any prescribed page and formatting limitations will be strictly adhered to by the Government.

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

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

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

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

2. Phase One - Factor 1 -Past Performance - Evaluation Criteria:

Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSAC may recommend and the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

All submissions by Offerors must demonstrate the minimum requirements for past performance, as stated in section 2. above. The level of relevancy for a project will be determined by the evaluated extent to which a single project demonstrates multiple requirements, or characteristics, identified in section 2. For example, a project that demonstrates both a Design- Build contract delivery method and experience and capability of the lead designer may be found to be more relevant than a project that demonstrates only a Design-Build delivery method. Additional consideration may be given to projects with greater scope complexity, size, and dollar amount. Additional consideration may be given to prior prime contractor and Architect- Engineer designer experience on similar design-build projects; prior experience on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers construction projects or Air Force construction projects; and prior experience designing and constructing airfield pavement projects that meet UFC 3-260-01 & UFC 3-260-02 requirements.

If projects submitted have comparable scope to this solicitation it may result in a higher relevancy rating which may lead to a higher confidence assessment. Projects of lesser relevance may lead to lower confidence assessments.

Validation of Offeror performance may occur through contacting the client POC provided by the Offeror on the first page of the PPQ and various government and commercial resources. Past Performance evaluations will be rated in terms of performance confidence for the Government.

That is, projects that are considered to be non- relevant in terms of size, scope or complexity, dollar value, completion within seven (7) years, responses to the Project Information Form, or not meeting the teaming requirements established in section 1 (submitted under Tab 1) and demonstrating low past performance evaluation ratings will be interpreted as indicators of no confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform the work. More relevant projects and high past performance evaluations will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Higher confidence assessments will be given for higher past performance evaluation ratings.

In the case of Offerors for which no recent and relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance report 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. In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

a. 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.

b. Relevant performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years, such as awards, award…