W9123823R0004-0003.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

The purpose of this amendment is to change the past performance relevancy from $60M to between $25 to $80M.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Dec-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 W9123823R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Nov-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

16-Dec-2022

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:

W9123823R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

00 22 00

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 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 offeror proposed evaluation factors will be evaluated by the Government and an adjectival rating and risk rating will be determined by 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.

Factor 1: Past Performance

Factor 2: Technical Approach

Phase-Two Proposal. To be included with the amendment initiating phase two.

Factor 3: Technical Narrative and Network Analysis Schedule

Factor 4: Organization, Management, and Quality Control

Factor 5: Small Business Participation Commitment Document

c. 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.

d. 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. Up to five (5) 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 evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly 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 order of importance:

Phase-One Proposal

PHASE ONE FACTORS

FACTOR DESCRIPTION RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

1 Past Performance Most Important Factor

2 Technical Approach.

Less important than Factor 1 but more important that Factor 3

Phase-Two Proposal (which will be included with the amendment initiating Phase-Two)

PHASE TWO FACTORS

FACT

OR

DESCRIPTION RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

Technical Narrative and Network Analysis

Schedule

Less important than Factor 2 but more important than factor 4.

Organization, Management, and Quality

Control

Less important than Factor 3 but more important than Factor 5.

Small Business Participation Commitment

Document Least important Factor

*Note: Phase-One, Factor 1 criteria and evaluation rating will be carried forward and used along with the Phase-Two 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 reflective of increased risk but not an outright 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 Adjectival

Rating

Description

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and/or at least one significant strength, 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, or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green

Acceptable

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

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

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

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. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305[a][2][iv]). In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.”

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

Adjectival

Description

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

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

Somewhat

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

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

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

Description

Substantial

Confidence

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

Satisfactory

Confidence

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

Neutral

Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited

Confidence

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

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

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION: PHASE-ONE

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

a. Marking of Proposal Volumes

Mark each volume as the “Phase-One - Technical Volume”, and include the project title and location, solicitation number, name and address of the offeror.

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.

Phase One proposals shall be organized by sections indicated in the table below:

PHASE ONE FACTORS

TECHNICAL FACTOR DESCRIPTION

Volume 1 –

Tab - 1

PREFACE

• Pre-Award Survey

• Prime Contractor / Key Subcontractor Introduction

• 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.

• 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)

• Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of

Bidders/Offerors (Section 00 45 00).

Volume 1 –

Tab - 2

1 Past Performance

Volume 1 –

Tab - 3 2 Technical Approach.

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-One 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

a. Recency: The Government will first evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recent project are ones that are substantially completed within the past six (6) 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.

b. Relevant: The Government will then determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to similar:

• Scope - Roof and seismic upgrade with historic significance

• Square footage -500,000 SF or larger

• Magnitude-$60M or larger between $25 to $80M

• Complexity- Building with significant abandoned utilities with work to be accomplished while occupied – no disruptions in service is allowed.

• Security requirements- Access to Hill AFB and work on the flight line with areas of the building restricted.

i. The offeror shall submit “example projects” (either commercial or institutional) that demonstrate the primes 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.

iii. In doing so, the offeror shall submit no more than six (6) examples recent and relevant projects that are substantially completed within the past six (6) 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. Provide a narrative to 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. Provide a narrative to 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. Provide a narrative to 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 large re-roof and structural update projects

(4) Relevant experience designing and constructing of historic structures and work with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

(5) Relevant experience performing construction activities on a large building while the building is occupied.

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

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

viii. 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 24 PDF pages total, for all projects.

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

Follow the “Project Information Form”, see Solicitation Attachment 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.

c. 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.

c. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), see Solicitation Attachment # 3, 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 shall 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, Britanie Butler via email at Britanie.v.Butler@usace.army.mil by the proposal closing date and time. Offerors shall not incorporate, by reference, into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. They shall be included with proposal submission. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

mailto:Britanie.v.Butler@usace.army.mil

d. 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.

e. 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.

f. 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.

g. 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 allowing the Government to discuss the key subcontractor’s past performance record with the offeror in conjunction with the Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s technical proposal.

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

c. Failure of a key subcontractor to provide authorization for the Government to discuss its past performance record with the offeror will not be considered a proposal deficiency.

However, if the Government is unable to discuss in detail any key subcontractor past performance problems with the offeror, the offeror’s overall rating for this factor may suffer.

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

a. Provide information that describes the offeror’s approach to successfully complete

Design Build projects with secure facility (ICD 705) requirements. Clearly describe the approach beginning with the offeror’s capability to design and construct a building to ensure a secure facility with ICD 705 requirements and milestones are met. Offerors shall include the challenges associated with this and their approach to mitigate those challenges (some examples may include but are not limited to the ability to obtain materials, meet key personnel requirements, meet key subcontractor requirements, maintaining lines of communication, and meet major milestones on time). In addition, offerors shall describe how they have successfully managed Design-Build projects with secure spaces that meet ICD 705 requirements in the past and any lessons learned.

Offerors shall discuss any risks identified in their approach and describe how they will mitigate those risks.

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 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 SSEB 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 secure facilities to meet Intelligence Community

Directive (ICD) 705 requirement

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 six (6) 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 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.

3. Phase One - Factor 2 -Technical Approach- Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to successfully complete Design-

Build secure facility projects that meet ICD 705 requirements. 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 ICD 705 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 secure facility requirements may be viewed more favorably.

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 14 calendar days to submit Final Proposal

Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting

Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least 3 business days prior to their discussion session. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting

Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place virtually over the phone or via a web conferencing service.

(End of Summary of Changes)