B08 W9123822R0009-0001 - 20220225.pdf

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

Amendment 0001 is issued to:

1) Correct the solicitation to reflect procurement as 100% total small business set-aside.

2) Update Section 00 22 00 evaluation factors to remove small business participation requirements.

3) Add and remove solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

4) Incorporate the most current w age determination for the project: UT20220086, dated 25 Feb 2022.

5) Update the Table of Contents to reflect the updated w age determination.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-Feb-2022

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 W9123822R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Feb-2022

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

25-Feb-2022

CODE

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J STREET

SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9123822R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION DATE PAGES

Attachment 01 Specifications 19 January 2022 1421 Attachment 02 Drawings 21 December 2021 117 Attachment 03 Construction Wage Requirements

Wage Determination UT20210086 21 January 2022 5 Attachment 04 Pre-Award Survey 20 January 2022 4 Attachment 05 Past Performance Questionnaire 28 January 2022 4 Attachment 06 Contractors Project Experience 28 January 2022 2 Attachment 07 SB Participation Commitment Document 28 January 2022 2 Attachment 08 Pricing Schedule 07 February 2022 1 to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION DATE PAGES

Attachment 01 Specifications 19 January 2022 1421

Attachment 02 Drawings 21 December 2021 117 Attachment 03 Construction Wage Rate Requirements

Wage Determination UT20220086 25 February 2022 5

Attachment 04 Pre-Award Survey 20 January 2022 4

Attachment 05 Past Performance Questionnaire 28 January 2022 4

Attachment 06 Contractors Project Experience 28 January 2022 2

Attachment 07 SB Participation Commitment Document 28 January 2022 2

Attachment 08 Pricing Schedule 07 February 2022 1

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required performance has changed from The Government requires construction of nine (9) earth-covered Modular Storage Magazines (MSMs), configured for air bearing operations for the staging of D5 missile motors, at the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR).

Each magazine shall include a mechanical room and an elevated concrete dock and floor with air-pallet-bearing floor finish. MSMs will be located within the existing munitions storage area (MSA) security perimeter. The size of each magazine is based on the Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board (DDESB) approved Modified Standard Navy MSM design.

Product Service Code: Y1GA, Construction of Ammunition Storage Buildings North American Industry Classification System (NAICS ): 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standard: $39,500,000 Annual Revenue There is no snall business set-aside for this procurement. Requirement is solicited with full and open competition.

In accordance with DFARS 236.204(ii), the project magnitude of construction is estimated to be between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000.

to

The Government requires construction of nine (9) earth-covered Modular Storage Magazines (MSMs), configured for air bearing operations for the staging of D5 missile motors, at the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR). Each magazine shall include a mechanical room and an elevated concrete dock and floor with air-pallet-bearing floor finish. MSMs will be located within the existing munitions storage area (MSA) security perimeter. The size of each magazine is based on the Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board (DDESB) approved Modified Standard Navy MSM design.

Product Service Code: Y1GA, Construction of Ammunition Storage Buildings North American Industry Classification System (NAICS ): 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standard: $39,500,000 Annual Revenue Requirement is 100% set-aside for small business concerns.

In accordance with DFARS 236.204(ii), the project magnitude of construction is estimated to be between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000..

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for the construction of Modular Storage Magazines (MSM) at the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR), in Utah.

1.2 The Government will utilize an unrestricted competitive Best Value Tradeoff procurement approach.

1.3 The Government will evaluate Offeror technical approaches, experience and capability, past performance, and price.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government contemplates award of one (1) firm-fixed-price contract to the responsive, responsible Offeror that submits the proposal determined to be the best value to the Government after evaluation is conducted in accordance with the evaluation factors identified in the solicitation.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

(a) Proposals will be evaluated based on the following factors and subfactors:

Volume 1 / Factor 1: Past Performance (separate PDF)

a. Tab 1 / Subfactor 1: Past Experience

b. Tab 2 / Subfactor 2: Past Performance

c. Tab 3 / Subfactor 3: Key Subcontractor Authorization

Volume 2 / Factor 2: Technical Approach (separate PDF)

a. Tab 1 / Subfactor 1: Technical Plan

b. Tab 2 / Subfactor 2: Schedule and Narrative

Volume 3 / Factor 3: Management Approach (separate PDF)

a. Tab 1 / Subfactor 1: Project Management Plan

b. Tab 2 / Subfactor 2: Concept of Operations

Volume 4 / Factor 4: Price (separate PDF)

a. Tab 1 / Subfactor 1: SF 1442 - signed offer and acknowledgement of amendments

b. Tab 2 / Subfactor 2: SF 1442, Section 00 45 00 - Representations and Certifications

c. Tab 3 / Subfactor 3: Bid Guarantee

d. Tab 4 / Subfactor 4: Pricing Schedule

e. Tab 5 / Subfactor 5: Pre-Award Survey

(b) Factors are listed in order of importance: Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, and Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

(c) Trade-Off Analysis: After all evaluations have been completed, the Government will consider all factors to determine which Offeror submitted the proposal that represents the "best value" to the Government for this project.

4.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT

(a) Marking Proposal Volumes. This will be an electronic submission. Each Volume must be submitted as a separate and searchable Adobe PDF. Mark each Volume PDF with the Offeror name and the title of the Volume, e.g., “Contractor X - Vol 2 - Technical”, “Contractor X - Vol 5 - Price”.

(b) Volume Coversheet. As required by FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), and this solicitation, each proposal Volume must begin a coversheet that includes the:

(i) Solicitation number.

(ii) Project title.

(iii) Offeror name, Commercial and Government Entity Program (CAGE) Code, unique entity identifier number (previously DUNS), physical address, e-mail address, telephone number, and facsimile number (if available).

(iv) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item.

(v) Name(s), title(s), e-mail address(es), and telephone number(s) of persons authorized to negotiate with the Government on the Offeror’s behalf in connection with this solicitation.

(vi) Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent must be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority (unless previously furnished to the Contracting office).

Please see FAR 4.102 for specific instructions pertaining to individuals, partnerships, corporations, JV participants, and agents.

(vii) Coversheet is limited to one (1) page.

(c) Volume Table of Contents. Include a table of contents for each proposal volume. Table of Contents is limited to one (1) page.

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

(e) Other Information. Although the Government may use information contained anywhere in the proposal in its evaluation of any criteria, the Government is not obligated to search for or to consider information that is not provided in the specified location. Number pages. Do not include information pertaining to an evaluator factor in a separate Volume. Limit submittals to the information specified; excess information will not be evaluated.

5.0 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1 FACTOR ONE (1): PAST PERFORMANCE AND EXPERIENCE: The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs for each numbered section to facilitate evaluation. All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate recency and relevancy.

5.1.1 PAST EXPERIENCE. The Offeror shall submit “example projects” that demonstrate the Offeror’s (prime and key Subcontractor[s]) experience which meets the evaluation criteria and demonstrates their ability to successfully perform under the resulting contract. 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 prime Contractor’s and key

Subcontractor’s understanding of the risks, work requirements and approach necessary to successfully complete this project.

The Offeror shall submit up to six (6) example projects that are substantially completed within the past six (6) years that individually or collectively demonstrate that it regularly engaged in projects of similar scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the subject procurement. The narrative shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

(a) Performance by the Offeror as a Prime Contractor [Prime Contractor]. 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.

(b) Modular Storage Magazines Construction [Prime Contractor or Key Subcontractor(s)].

(c) Lightning Protection [Prime Contractor or Key Subcontractor(s)].

In addition, demonstrated experience and capability in the following areas may be considered more favorably:

(a) Relevant experience on a similar project to the subject procurement which includes heavily reinforced concrete building structures with “blast door” construction/installation and “explosion proof” fixtures.

(b) Relevant experience on U.S. Corps of Engineers construction projects.

Projects submitted must have a substantial completion date within six (6) years of the original date of issuance of this RFP. “Substantial completion” means that only punch list items remain for project acceptance of that the majority of the elements of the project have been turned over to the customer for beneficial occupancy. Projects examples must identify the firms providing this experience and their role during said project, i.e., Prime Contractor or Subcontractor. In the case of CTA involving a Prime Contractor and Subcontractor(s), at least two of the submitted projects must have been completed by the Prime Contractor. The remaining project(s) may come from other members of the CTA, as defined above. In the case of a joint venture teaming arrangement, each member of the joint venture entity must each submit at least one project under this factor. Furthermore, project examples must provide a short narrative discussing the project, as well as the total dollar value of the contract at the time of award and at the time of completion.

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. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to identify, detail and demonstrate the relevancy of the submitted projects to the solicitation criteria elements. The evaluation board WILL NOT make assumptions. If projects do not address the above, the proposal will still be evaluated; however, it may demonstrate a potential increased risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

The following table is an example only. Offerors must provide a table based on the example projects being submitted to demonstrate Prime and key Subcontractor experience and capability.

Evaluation Areas Project

#1 Project

#2 Project

#3 Project

#4 Project

#5 Project

#6 Prime Contractor Modular Storage Magazines Lightning Protection Similar Reinforced Concrete Structures with “blast door” construction/installation and “explosion proof” fixtures

USACE projects

5.1.2 PAST PERFORMANCE. For each of the projects submitted in response to section 5.1.1, provide a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, or a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), completed by a representative of the owner that provides the owner's opinion of the Offeror's past performance for the project. The Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) included in the RFP (Attachment 5) is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the owner for each project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the owner point of contact. Organize all Past Performance Information in the same order in which the Projects are submitted.

Submit completed PPQs with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from an owner for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). At the owner's discretion, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Harold Teague, at Harold.E.Teague@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

Previously completed PPQs may be submitted provided that the documents do not reference any other RFP.

Submitted PPQs must only reference this RFP.

Submit copies of Federal/DoD/Navy/Army performance reviews even if they may be in the agency's databases or likely within the agency's arm's reach, i.e., Contractor's copy of CPARS evaluations for each of the projects submitted, to ensure the agency has all relevant past performance information.

Provide the DUNS number(s) and CAGE code(s) for the Prime Contractor and all teaming partners, e.g., design firms, key Subcontractors, joint venture partners, whose experience is included in this Factor. 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.

The Government reserves the right to contact and interview the owner's representative identified on the Past Performance Questionnaires including any other individuals acting for the owner's representative if the owner's representative is not available. In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of entities (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal; Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS); or other databases; interviews with Owners, Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

Offerors may also include performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) 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.

At no time during this process, or during any debriefing, or after any award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an Offeror's past performance be revealed to the Offerors or to any other party. If discussions are held, Offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references in accordance with guidelines identified in FAR Part 15.3. In this case, relevant comments will be extracted and provided to the Offeror.

5.1.3 KEY SUBCONTRACTOR AUTHORIZATION LETTERS. To get credit for proposed Key Subcontractors’ experience and capability, Offeror must provide a letter of commitment and authorization from each proposed key Subcontractor that:

(a) States the business’s intent to work on this project in the proposed specified capacity if the Offeror is awarded the contract; and authorization for the Government to discuss the key Subcontractor’s past performance record.

(b) Key Subcontractor(s) Commitment and Authorization Letter(s) must be furnished on the business’s letterhead and signed by an authorized representative.

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

5.2 FACTOR TWO (2): TECHNICAL APPROACH

5.2.1 TECHNICAL PLAN. Offerors shall provide a detailed technical narrative in sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the principal components of work described in the project specifications and drawings, and the Offeror’s understanding of the site and other conditions that could impact schedule. The narrative must be a comprehensive, start-to-finish discussion on the significant features of this work to include, but not limited to, staging, site preparation, site work, site constraints (such as austere environment and weather conditions), earthwork, site utilities, paving, and cleanup/demobilization, for the areas (a and b) listed below.

(a) Offerors will submit a Technical Plan for construction of the modular storage magazines (MSM), including but not limited to, discussion on the specialized concrete production and delivery, material fabrication/production and delivery, special inspections, and facility systems.

(b) Overall technical plan for mobilizing to the site including staging and trailer yards, strict compliance to the Facility Evaluation Tests (where applicable per the specifications), and the sequencing of work including interconnectivity to existing site features.

Offerors are encouraged to elaborate on other features of the work that are considered relevant or where a high degree of risk is involved that may adversely affect the planned performance period. As a minimum, the following specific elements must be addressed in the narrative for each significant feature of this work and will be considered in the evaluation of each Offeror’s submission:

5.2.2 SCHEDULE. The schedule must show adequate detail, logic and sequences to demonstrate the Offeror can meet the required completion date. The Offeror shall use a critical path method in either the Precedence Diagram Method (PDM) or the Arrow Diagram Method (ADM); however, schedules shall be graphically represented. The construction schedule must show that all construction activities are complete within the period of performance, using the assumptions and required minimum milestones listed below. The schedule must include all required milestones, identify the critical path(s), include appropriate timing of long lead time elements, and meet the required construction period of performance from NTP. The schedule must be provided in Primavera 6, printed to Adobe

PDF.

Schedule Narrative. Offerors are required to include a Schedule Narrative that describes and discusses the rationale, assumptions and thought process used in generating the schedule to support project delivery performance.

It must include a description of activities along identified critical path(s), a description of any anticipated problem areas or delaying factors and their potential impact, and an explanation of mitigating actions that will be required.

This Narrative Report should convey to the Government the Offeror’s thorough analysis of the schedule output with overlapping features of work, and its plans to compensate for any problems either known or potential, which are revealed through that analysis.

(a) ASSUMPTIONS: All Offerors must use an anticipated notice to proceed (NTP) date of 30 OCT 2022 to begin the 540-calendar day Period of Performance.

(b) The Schedule must include activities on or near the critical path, including the following MINIMUM activities and/or milestones (in no particular order):

1. NTP

2. Mobilization

3. Initial Partnering Session

4. Construction Activities detailed to the “Feature of Work” level, including Start/Finish of each

MSM

5. Adverse Weather

6. Long Lead Items

7. Final Commissioning System Testing (if applicable)

8. Electrical System Testing (if applicable)

9. Test and Balancing (if applicable)

10. Pre-Final Inspections

11. Final Inspections

12. Use and Possession of each MSM and supporting infrastructure

13. Substantial Completion date

14. Project Completion

The schedule provided in the proposal are for evaluation purposes and may be used as a basis for reviewing the Preliminary and Initial Schedule after NTP.

5.3 FACTOR THREE (3): MANAGEMENT APPROACH

5.3.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN:

(a) Discuss the management approach used to control construction, schedule, and closeout for the overall project. Provide information that clearly demonstrates that the Offeror has the ability to deliver a quality product, effectively manage the construction schedule and Subcontractors on the team, and coordinate all work throughout construction. Explanation to include: specific quality control procedures and testing to be used; quality control team coordination; Facility Evaluation Test coordination; management and coverage; site safety coordination; submittal preparation, tracking and approval process; Subcontractor management; and preparation and submission of record (i.e., shop drawings and schedules) documents.

(b) Provide a discussion of the onsite project manager and site superintendent, access to higher levels of corporate management and ability to obtain support from other corporate elements and Subcontractors. Include the onsite personnel’s authority to make on the spot decisions and the scope/limits of those decisions.

(c) Provide a discussion of the Offeror’s plan for coordinating the information flow between the Offeror and any Subcontractor(s) who may be employed in the project area and between the Offeror and the Government.

(d) Provide a discussion on how other projects the Offeror is, or may be performing, might impact on the resources to be utilized on this project (including the availability of onsite personnel), and address how the adverse impacts of such other work would be mitigated.

5.3.2 CONCEPT OF OPERATONS. The Offeror must address the following aspects of the project, which include concerns and challenges working at a remote work site and on an operational facility:

(a) Methodologies, productivity assumptions, proposed equipment, crew flow, work hours, and shifts including the logistics of a remote work site.

(b) Describe the plan for coordinating Government inspection activities, including facility evaluation tests.

(c) Plan for traffic control during construction.

5.4 FACTOR FOUR: PRICE

5.4.1 - SF 1442, Page Two (2) - signed offer and acknowledgement of amendments.

Offeror must fill out SF 1442 blocks 14, 15, 17, 20A, 20B, 20C, 30A, 30B, and 30C.

Offeror may complete SF 1442 block 19. Alternatively, Offeror may submit page one (1) of all issued SF 30s to acknowledge amendments. Offer must acknowledge all amendments using either of these methods.

Block 14 - Must include the Offeror’s CAGE code and/or unique entity identifier (EIN or DUNS).

Block 30A, 30B, and 30C - Must be duly executed and signed by an official authorized to bind the Offeror.

If the Offeror is proposing based on a CTA, include a copy of the JV agreement or other supporting documentation identifying the legal name(s) of all entities, describing the nature of each entity’s relationship (teaming/partnering, JV, etc.) and their role on the contract, and including signatures from all parties.

There is no page limit for this tab.

5.4.2 - SF 1442, Section 00 45 00 - Representations and Certifications.

In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.11, Offerors must be registered in SAM (www.SAM.gov) and have completed annual representation and certification requirements at the time an offer is submitted to be eligible for award.

Offeror may include all of SF 1442, Section 00 45 00.

Offeror must include FAR provision 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications, checked as appropriate in paragraph (b)(2).

If the Offeror has not updated their SAM representations and certifications since May 2021, Offerors should update them electronically through https://www.sam.gov or must complete and return Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFARS) 252.204-7017, Prohibition on the Acquisition of Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services - Representation.

There is no page limit for this tab.

5.4.3 - Bid Guarantee.

(i) Offerors must submit a bid guarantee, (e.g., Standard Form 24, Bid bond) which complies with the requirements of FAR 28.101 Bid Guarantees, and any Defense and Army supplements thereto.

(ii)

(iii) Offeror must provide contact information for contractual matters to be addressed to the Surety, including a phone number, email address, and a point of contact name (if a specific individual is assigned to handle contractual matters).

(iv)

(v) Tab is limited to ten (10) pages.

5.4.4 - Pricing Schedule.

(vi) Offeror should use the structure provided in solicitation Attachment 8, Price Schedule.

(vii)

(viii) Tab is limited to one (1) page.

5.4.5 - Pre-Award Survey.

(ix) Offeror must provide the completed Construction Contractor Data (Pre-Award Survey) Form with Supplemental Schedules A-C. 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.

(x)

(xi) Offeror must provide supporting letters from banks or other financial institutions with which the Offeror conducts business. The letters should contain information about your firm’s accounts, loans, available lines of credit, etc. The Government is interested in financial stability, timely payments, the length and nature of the relationship between the firms 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.

Tab is limited to fifteen (15) pages.

The Government will treat all Pre-Award Survey information submitted by the Offeror as proprietary.

6. EVALUATION APPROACH

6.1 FACTOR ONE (1): PAST PERFORMANCE AND EXPERIENCE.

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 5.1.1. Additional consideration may be given to projects with greater scope complexity, size, and dollar amount than the current requirement. Additional consideration may be given to projects that successfully demonstrated meeting aggressive schedules and/or fast-tracked projects.

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 non-relevant in terms of size, scope or complexity, dollar value, percentage completion within six (6) years, or not meeting the teaming requirements established in section 5.1.1. (submitted under Factor 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 positive 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 confidence. 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.

(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 six (6) years, such as awards, award fee announcements or determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other form of performance recognition may result in a more favorable rating

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

(d) The Government may review past performance information from any other source when making its evaluation. Sources may include past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

(e) Evaluation of the recency, relevance and quality of each proposal’s past performance presentation is combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror, indicating the Government’s level of confidence in that Offeror’s ability to successfully meet the solicitation requirements. (This confidence assessment is distinct from the responsibility determination required by FAR Subpart 9.1). Accordingly, each Offeror will be assigned one of the following five adjectival ratings identified in the general instructions for past performance.

(f) Past Performance will be evaluated using the following rating scales:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

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

Satisfactory Confidence 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.

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

“neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

6.2 FACTOR TWO (2): TECHNICAL APPROACH. The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis.

TECHNICAL PLAN: The more descriptive, logical, reasonable, or achievable the technical approach the more favorable the rating.

SCHEDULE: The Government will evaluate the schedule for all of the elements identified in paragraph 5.2.2, Schedule. The schedule shall be considered meeting the criteria by submitting a schedule that is reasonable and will obtain completion of the project within the contract duration.

The Government will evaluate the thoroughness and logic of each construction activity within the proposed project schedule to determine the extent to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to schedule, integrate, and phase the major features on the critical and near-critical path, including final close-out activities. The Government will also evaluate if the construction schedule includes critical project factors such as: obtaining all necessary approvals on schedule and pre-work plans, project climate, weather sensitive work, and phasing/sequencing constraints. As part of its evaluation, the Government will assess whether the Offeror’s approach to the scheduling/phasing/sequencing of these major activities beginning with the notice to proceed indicates sequences proposed to accomplish each work element and appropriate interdependencies between various work elements, identifies long lead items, and addresses proper sequencing of submittals to include review time by Government personnel and submittal corrections. The Government will also consider whether the Offeror’s schedule is realistic and demonstrates a schedule that identifies all major elements of work for this project, meets the Government’s requirements, and is obtainable.

Factor Two (2) will be evaluated using the following rating scale:

6.3 FACTOR THREE (3): MANAGEMENT APPROACH. The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and a 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 a 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.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS: The Government will evaluate a plan that demonstrates an adequate approach capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The more descriptive, logical, reasonable, or achievable the approach the more favorable the rating.

Factor Three (3) will be evaluated using the following rating scale:

6.4 FACTOR FOUR (4): PRICE. The proposed prices will be evaluated using price analysis. This includes a process of examining and evaluating an Offeror’s proposed price to determine if it is fair and reasonable without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit/fee. Price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15. Price analysis may involve comparison with other proposed prices received in response to this solicitation; comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid; comparison of proposed prices to the independent government estimate; analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the Offeror;

or any other techniques mentioned in FAR 15.401-1(b)(2). The Base and options will be evaluated at the time of award and the sum total will be calculated to determine the overall price.

The Government will also carefully review the submitted price proposal for unbalanced pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.401(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Procuring Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Other items submitted in the Price Volume will be evaluated for responsiveness to the solicitation and to determine responsibility.

7. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 Source Selection Evaluation Board: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is comprised of a Chairperson and evaluators (also known as SSEB members). The SSEB members are organized into functional teams corresponding to the specific evaluation criteria (e.g., Technical Team, Past Performance Team, and Price

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and a 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 a 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.

Team). The SSEB does not compare proposals against each other. The SSEB evaluates proposals against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria to ensure an equitable, impartial, and comprehensive evaluation against the solicitation requirements.

7.2 The SSEB Report (to include ratings on individual factors) will be provided to the Selection Authority (SSA).

The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine the overall “best value” to the Government and document this in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

7.3 Discussions: Offerors are advised that it is not the intent of the Government to hold discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government.

7.3.1 Clarifications: In accordance with FAR 15.306(a), clarifications are limited exchanges, between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

7.3.2 If discussions are conducted, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will schedule the discussion sessions, and each Offeror will be notified of the time and place at least two (2) business days prior to their discussion session. The PCO will provide additional instructions with the notification. Discussions with Offeror (if necessary) after establishment of the competitive range are for the purpose of allowing Offerors the opportunity to revise their proposals. Discussions will be tailored to each Offeror’s proposal and shall be conducted with each Offeror in the competitive range, as authorized by FAR Part 15.306(d) and (e).

7.4 Restrictions: Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this section may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

7.5 General Evaluation Guidelines:

(a) Proposals that 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 US Government needs. The proposal submission instructions are written to give prospective Contractors, where feasible, an indication of the level of detail desired by the Government. The Offeror’s failure to include information that the Government has indicated should be included may result in the proposal receive a lower rating and/or being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided.

(b) The degree of risk to the Government inherent in the Offeror’s technical proposal will be a consideration under every evaluation factor.

(c) 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.

(d) A “Weakness” means a flaw in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(e) 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.

(f) 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.

(g) 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.

(End of Section)

SECTION 00 70 00 - CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT

The following have been added by reference:

52.219-6 Notice Of Total Small Business Set-Aside NOV 2020 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns OCT 2018

The following have been deleted:

52.219-4 (Dev) Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small

Business Concerns (DEVIATION 2020-O0008)

SEP 2021

52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns OCT 2018 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan DEC 2021 52.219-9 Alt II Small Business Subcontracting Plan (NOV 2021) Alternate II NOV 2016 52.219-16 Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan SEP 2021 52.236-1 Performance of Work by the Contractor APR 1984 252.219-7003 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DOD Contracts) DEC 2019 252.242-7004 Material Management And Accounting System MAY 2011

(End of Summary of Changes)