Attachment 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers Final 20250311.pdf

SECTION II

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (00 21 16)

PART I – GENERAL

1.1 SOURCE SELECTION

This competitive procurement uses source selection procedures to select the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the requirements of the solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government will use the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) method to evaluate proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal.

Lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process, the number of proposals to be evaluated for technical acceptability will include up to the lowest three priced offers. The number of proposals to be evaluated is limited to the lowest three and the technical proposal shall be provided to the evaluator(s) without any identification of price. If the lowest three priced proposal are not found to be technically acceptable then the next lowest price proposal shall be evaluated. If that proposal is also not found to be technically acceptable, then the process described will be conducted again as many times as necessary, until such time as the Government identifies three technically acceptable proposals. Identifying the lowest three technically acceptable offers provides a safe measure to the Government. Ultimately, when it comes to LTPA, the Government will award to the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable responsive Offeror. If the Contracting Officer later determines that discussions are necessary, the procedures in FAR 15.306 shall be followed.

1.2 INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT CONDUCTING DISCUSSIONS

In the event the Government determines to conduct discussions IAW DFARS 215.306(c). The Contracting Officer will follow the procedures at FAR 15.306 (c) and (d).

Microsoft Teams meeting will be conducted with recording if discussions are held. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the “acceptable” proposals.

1.3 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1.3.1 PROPOSAL CONTENT. Contractor shall be responsive/responsible prospective contractor prior to technical evaluation. In order to be determined responsive, a prospective contractor must furnish the following information with their proposal:

a. TAB A: Cover Sheet. Coversheet shall be on company letterhead and must contain your UEI number, CAGE code, Tax ID, and authorized representative(s) who can obligate your company contractually, sign the bid, and sign, other contract actions; include telephone number with area code and complete email address for each authorized representative.

b. TAB B: Signed and completed SF 1442 along with any amendments. Failure to provide this information may render the bidder non-responsive.

c. TAB C: Evaluation factors. The Offeror’s proposal shall contain a response to each of the following evaluation factors and shall be in the form prescribed by this solicitation. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and non-price factors in three volumes listed below:

Volume 1: Price Factor (SF 1442 Section 00 10 00) Volume 2: Non-Price Factor 1 – Past Performance

Non-Price Factor 2 – Technical Approach Volume 3: Non-Price Factor 3 – Small Business Participation

Failure to provide this information may render the Offeror non-responsive.

d. TAB D: Letter from Bonding Company. The Offeror shall provide a letter from a qualifying surety that validates the ability to provide bonding at the total proposal amount and specifies the Offeror’s aggregate and single project limits, provide the remaining bond capacity, and impact anticipated from the proposed contract. Splitting bonds will not be accepted. Failure to provide this letter shall render your Offer as non-responsive.

e. TAB E: Bid Bond Guarantee. Per FAR 52.228-1, failure to provide a bid bond guarantee per FAR 52.228-1. Failure to provide this information may render the bidder non-responsive.

f. TAB F: Representations, Certifications. The bidder shall ensure that their business has completed an online Representations and Certifications at the System and Awards Management (SAM) website, which may be found at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM//. It is the bidder’s responsibility to ensure that the information provided in each representation and certification is completed truthfully and completely. A bidder’s failure to complete the online representations and certifications prior to the close of the Solicitation (to http://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ include listing of the applicable NAICS code and applicable size standards) will result in their bid being deemed non-responsive and eliminated from further consideration. Bidders shall submit the representations and certifications listed in Section 00 45 00 or provide a printed version of the documents from their corporate SAM profile. Bidder must be registered in the database IAW FAR 52.204-7 in order to be awarded a contract and have the applicable NAICS code listed in FAR 52.219-1(c), Small Business Program Representations (Alternate I), Representations.

1.3.2 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 (1) 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 8.5” x 11” paper. Use at least 1” margins, except headers and footers may be outside the 1” margins. Do not justify the right margin.

Ensure that all text and graphics are clearly legible. Do not use a font size smaller than ten (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 (1) page.

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

1.3.3 Conditioning of Offer.

Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the non-price 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 this ineligible for award. Resolve questions about the terms or technical requirements of the solicitation prior to submission of the offer; see “How to Submit Inquiries,” located in Section 00 21 16.

1.3.4 Restrictions on Offer-provided information.

Proposals shall not contain classified data. “Confidential” projects may be submitted to demonstrate capability if all 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 IAW FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors

– Competitive Acquisition.”

1.3.5 TAB C Evaluation Factors

1.3.6 VOLUME I – PRICE

PRICE FACTOR

Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

i. The Standard Form 1442 with Blocks 14 through 20c completed, signed, and dated;

ii. Acknowledge any and all amendments issued under this solicitation either by annotating it in Block 19 of the SF 1442 or signing each SF 30

iii. A completed Price Schedule for all Exhibit Line-Item Numbers (ELIN);

iv. Provide backup and supporting documentation on the rationale for each CLIN Pricing.

Tab 1 - Completed Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award (Construction, Alteration, or Repair) with continuation pages and acknowledgement of all Amendments, duly executed by an official authorized to bind the company.

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

(b) 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.

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

(UEI).

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

(e) 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.

(f) There is no page limit for this tab.

Tab 2 - Completed SF 1442 Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) Schedule (solicitation section 00 10 00) and completed Price Schedule.

(a) Prices must be proposed for all CLIN(s).

(b) Unit prices must be extended to “dollar and cents” amounts, i.e., two (2) decimal places; do not round prices to the nearest dollar.

(c) Check the pricing submission very carefully for mathematical and clerical errors prior to submission.

(d) Tab is limited to six (6) pages

(e) Supporting documentation – Provide backup and supporting documentation on the rationale for each CLIN Pricing.

1.3.7 VOLUME II – Technical

FACTOR ONE (1) – PAST PERFORMANCE

(a) Offerors shall submit at least one (1) but no more than three (3) examples of past performance within the last eight (8) years from date of solicitation issuance. Past performance shall demonstrate the prime and/or Key subcontractor(s) experience and quality of past performance, for capability to successfully perform work similar in size, scope, and complexity to the project described in this solicitation. Submission of this project shall be 100% complete.

(b) Past performance requirement:

i. For example project(s), the Past Performance shall contain:

(1) A project as a Prime Contractor or Key Subcontractor(s) on a project of a similar magnitude (not less than $25M), size and scope with overall performance rating of not less than Satisfactory. [Prime Contractor or Key Subcontractor(s)]

(2) Site improvement and the installation of a variety of government and/or privately-owned utility infrastructure systems and associated structures; including water, wastewater, storm water, industrial waste, natural gas, electrical distribution, and communications. [Prime Contractor or Key Subcontractor(s)]

(3) Constructing airport/airfield pavements (i.e. runway, taxiway, parking apron, etc.) [Prime Contractor or Key Subcontractor(s)]

ii. The Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of their past performance on submitted projects. The Offeror shall provide in their initial proposal a completed offeror performance evaluation, whether interim or final, found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS - CPARS.gov). If a completed Offeror performance evaluation does not exist in CPARS (example, non-U.S.

Government projects) the Offeror shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), hereinafter referred to as “PPQ”. (See Attachment AA) – Past Performance Questionnaire). If, at time of evaluation, a completed offeror performance evaluation exists in CPARS that conflicts with a submitted PPQ, the completed offeror performance evaluation shall govern. Offerors shall incorporate into their proposal PPQ’s previously submitted for other RFPs. This does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing https://cpars.cpars.gov/cpars/app/userlogin_input.action%3Bjsessionid%3DBA07E1E4A0508BA52DF46A1D2751DAAC detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. Letters of Recommendation or Appreciation are considered supplemental information to demonstrate customer satisfaction and are not considered equal to offeror performance evaluations and/or detailed PPQs.

iii. Do not submit projects that are not either complete or substantially complete. For this purpose, “substantially complete” means that only punch list items remain for project acceptance. 100% Completed projects only.

(c) If an Offeror has had to take corrective action due to substandard performance, they must explain the circumstances that led to the issue and detail the corrective measures implemented. Additionally, if the Offeror has encountered other performance problems, such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, or frequent warranty claims, they should provide an explanation for these issues as well.

(d) The Offeror must provide a narrative using the format in Attachment BB “Project

Information Form” for each submitted project, to explain how the example projects is relevant to the current project and shows the Prime Contractor and Key Subcontractor understanding of the risks, work requirements, and approach necessary to successfully complete this project. Project examples must provide a short narrative discussing the project, the total dollar value of the contract at the time of award, and the total dollar value at the time of completion.

(e) In a Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) involving a Prime Contractor and

Subcontractor(s), at least two (2) of the submitted projects must have been completed by the Prime Contractor. The remaining projects can be from other members of the CTA. For a Joint Venture (JV) arrangement, each member of the JV must submit at least one (1) project.

(f) Offerors may provide a table that outlines the example projects being submitted and indicate whether the project included Prime or Key Subcontractors experience and capabilities relevant to the requirement. Offerors are encouraged to submit a table similar to the following:

Evaluation Areas Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

A project as a prime contractor on a project of a similar magnitude (not less than $25M), size and scope.

Site improvement and the installation of a variety of government and/or privately-owned utility infrastructure systems and associated structures; including water, wastewater, storm water, industrial waste, natural gas, electrical distribution, and communications.

Constructing airport/airfield pavements (i.e. runway, taxiway, parking apron, etc.) [Prime Contractor or Key Subcontractor(s)]

(g) For this project submitted in response to Past Performance, the Offeror must provide a completed CPARS evaluation, and 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.

(h) The Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment AA) “Past Performance

Questionnaire (PPQ) is provided for the Offeror to submit to the owner reference for each project. Ensure correct contact information is provided for the owner point of contact.

(i) The Offeror shall submit a completed PPQ with their proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a project owner before the proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit the first page of the PPQ with the proposal, which will provide contract and contact information for the respective project(s). At the owner's discretion, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Contract Specialist, Natalia Gomez, at natalia.gomez@usace.army.mil and michelle.a.spence@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

(j) Previously completed PPQs may be submitted provided that the documents do not reference any other RFP. Submitted PPQs must only reference this RFP.

(k) Offerors must provide the SAM UEI number(s) and/or CAGE code(s) for the Prime Contractor and all teaming partners, e.g., design firms, key Subcontractors, and/or JV partners, whose past performance is included in this tab. 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.

(l) The Government reserves the right to contact and interview the owner's representative identified on the PPQ’s including any other individuals acting for the owner's representative if the owner's representative is not available.

(m) Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, past performance mailto:aurielle.ruiz@usace.army.mil mailto:michelle.a.spence@usace.army.mil information retrieved through CPARS using all CAGE/UEI numbers of entities (partnership, JV, 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.

(n) At no time 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 IAW guidelines identified in FAR Part 15.3. In this case, relevant comments will be extracted and provided to the Offeror.

(o) There is no page limit for this tab.

(p) Key Subcontractor Authorization Letters. To utilize proposed Key

Subcontractor past experience and capability, the Prime 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.

b. Authorizes the Government to discuss the key Subcontractor’s past performance record with the Prime Offeror.

c. Is furnished on the Key Subcontractor(s) letterhead and signed by an authorized representative.

(q) 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.

(r) Key Subcontractor Authorization letters is limited to ten (10) pages.

(s) Meeting the requirements of past performance with an overall performance rating of not less than Satisfactory will be rated as acceptable. Failure to meet the requirement for past performance and/or possessing less than satisfactory will be rated unacceptable.

FACTOR TWO (2) – TECHNICAL APPROACH

(a) Offerors shall provide a 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 the following elements:

1. Management Approach. List and describe key subcontractors and government, public and privatized utility system owners, as well as their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established to this point. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each entity’s roles and responsibilities on the project. Identify the work (including %) which will be self-performed by the Prime Contractor. If subcontractor experience is submitted for consideration as part of the proposal, the offeror should include a commitment signed by offeror and subcontractor certifying that if a contract is awarded resulting from the proposal, the parties commit to joint performance as proposed. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, include how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include an Organizational Chart that clearly illustrate key positions, names of key personnel, their firm affiliations, job locations and their job/position title within the organization (see specification 01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS and 01 45 00.00 10 QUALITY CONTROL).

The Organizational Chart is limited to one (1) PDF page not to exceed 11” x 17” in size and include a legend as well as indicate lines of authority and lines of communication using a separate depiction on the organization chart (e.g., color, lines, etc.).

2. Technical Approach. Provide a technical narrative in sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the principal components of work described in the specifications and drawings, and the Offeror’s understanding of the site and other conditions that could impact schedule.

The narrative must be a comprehensive discussion on the significant features of this work to include:

i. Coordination and incorporation of work to be performed by privatized utility system owners into the overall project schedule and effort.

ii. Construction of utility infrastructure and associated facilities, including but not limited to, coordination with UPSOs and other site tenants, site preparation, site security/safety, installation of subgrade utilities, installation of above-grade utilities and facilities, construction sequencing, inspections and acceptance, and clean-up.

iii. Overall plan for site operations including, but not limited to mobilization, staging and trailer yards, concrete batch plant, haul routes, parking, mitigation of impacts to adjacent facility occupants and operations, phasing/sequencing of work, mitigation of conflicts between this project with other concurrent East Campus projects, and coordination with tenant groups to meet current environmental requirements and restrictions within the project area.

iv. Construction of the airfield pavements, including but not limited to coordination with USACE TSC, site preparation, site security/safety, the establishment of free zones, Foreign Object Damage (FOD) control, installation of subgrade utilities, airfield lighting and signage, concrete design mix and testing, paving design mix approval, construction sequencing, inspections and acceptance, and clean-up.

3. Summary Network Analysis Schedule (NAS). Provide a NAS or GANTT chart, broken down to the “Feature of Work” level, that graphically illustrates the proposed integration, scheduling, and phasing of all major features of work on the critical and near-critical path for the performance of the Task Orders of this project listed below, including final close-out. Assume an arbitrary estimated, non-binding Notice to Proceed (NTP) date of 15 May 2025 for:

ELIN 0001 ( American Water Utility Infrastructure SOW) (799-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 04 June 2025)

ELIN 0002 ( City Light & Power Utility Infrastructure SOW) (799-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 04 June 2025)

ELIN 0003 (TACAN Relocation) (365-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 04 June 2025)

ELIN 0004 (Sitework - General, Paving/Surfacing) (545-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 04 July 2025)

ELIN 0005 (Airfield Paving) (545-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 04 July 2025)

ELIN 0006 (Airfield Lighting) (545-day Period of Performance) (Tentative

ELIN 0007 (Natural Gas Distribution Piping System) (365-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 01 March 2026)

ELIN 0008 (Fire Suppression Water Infrastructure) (365-day Period of

ELIN 0009 (Central Utility Plant/CA and FP Building) (365-day Period of

ELIN 0010 (ITN Node Comm Building) (365-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 01 March 2026)

ELIN 0011 (Industrial Waste Room) (365-day Period of Performance)

ELIN 0012 (Fuel Dock) (365-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 01 March 2026)

ELIN 0013-0016 is to be executed at time of need during the overall project Period-of-Performance and are not to be represented in summary schedule.

ELIN 0017 Construction Activities – any other work needed will be negotiated under this ELIN. Specification/Drawings/Design Package for DBB will be provided with a Request for Task Order Proposal. Capacity under this ELIN is $82M. Technical evaluation is not included for this ELIN.

Price is included as recorded capacity of $82M.

The schedule is to include activities on the near critical and critical paths including, but not limited to the following:

- NTP - Thirty (30) days from the specified CLIN Tentative Award Date

- Long lead time items

- Proportioning Study

- USACE TSC Pavement Workshop; USACE TSC Approval of airfield paving

- Adverse Weather per Section 01 00 00

- Construction activities broken down to the “Feature of Work” level

- Testing and commissioning of all utility infrastructure systems

- Prefinal Inspection(s)

- Final Inspection(s)

- As-Built Drawing submission

- Project Complete

Clearly identify the critical path.

Clearly indicate the total number of calendar days from NTP to Project Complete.

Milestone schedule cannot exceed the contract performance period specified in box 11 of the SF1442 and must be in compliance with any and all contractually required interim completion dates specified in the solicitation for separate parts or stages of work.

Should the Offeror discover during proposal preparation that the project cannot be completed within the required contract performance period, the offeror shall notify the Contracting Officer immediately.

The NAS project schedule is required to be included as part of the Technical Approach and is a preliminary schedule for pre-award evaluation purposes only. The actual NAS project schedule submitted in the Offeror’s Technical Proposal will not be incorporated into the contract.

Successful Offeror will be required to submit a FINAL schedule after contract award that fully complies with all requirements including required delivery date.

There is no individual page limitation for the NAS; however, pages must not exceed 11” x 17” in size (PDF) and font size is legible so each activity and its duration can be read.

Number line items on the NAS Project schedule for easy reference.

FACTOR TWO (2) page restriction is limited to (100) pages.

Meeting the overall elements of technical approach (Management Approach, Technical Approach and Summary Network Analysis Schedule) contained in Factor 2 will be rated as acceptable. Failure to meet the requirement for Factor 2 and/or possessing less than the minimum required technical approach will be rated unacceptable.

FACTOR THREE (3) – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

d. The factor shall be designed to require all offerors (both small and large businesses) to submit proposed Small Business Participation Proposal to identify the extent to which small businesses will participate in the performance of the proposed acquisition. Offeror shall meet the goals below:

Small Business 40%

Small Disadvantaged Business 6%

Woman Owned Small Business 5%

Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 5%

HUBZone Small Business 3%

This is accomplished by ensuring inclusion of a small business participation plan. The utility SO is not a subcontractor of the Prime will not be counted for that dollar value.

• Proposal Submission Instructions. The submission instructions should be written clearly enough to indicate that:

o Large business contractors may achieve the small business participation goals through subcontracting to small businesses.

o Small business contractors may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and subcontracting to other small businesses.

b. Small Business Participation Proposal. The Small Business Participation proposal format is designed to streamline and bring uniformity to responses and evaluations for Small Business Participation (FAR 15.304). The format provides clarity in that it is distinctly different that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required for large businesses only (FAR 52.219-9). A sample Small Business Participation Proposal format is located at Appendix E, and can be provided in the Instructions to offerors, or as an attachment to the RFP. a. Formatting and other restrictions: The submission is limited to six (6) 8.5” x 11” pages total.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD (00 22 16)

Offers will be evaluated using the LPTA source selection process outlined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and departmental supplements including Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215, DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) Part 215, the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures (dated 20 August 2022), Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) Part 5115, AFARS Appendix AA - the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3) (dated 28 November 2017), and the USACE Acquisition Instruction (UAI) Part 5115.

The Government contemplates award of one (1) firm-fixed-price contract to the responsive, responsible Offeror that submits the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal that is determined to be the best value to the Government.

1.1 OVERALL RATING

An overall non-price factor rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factor proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factor rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” make a proposal ineligible for award.

1.2 DEFINITIONS

Rating. The adjective/descriptor assigned by the evaluators to the non-cost/price factors and corresponding subfactors (if any). Proposals are evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors/subfactors.

Technical Rating. Assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. Determine whether the offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined below.

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Past Performance Rating. Assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements and prior compliance with FAR clauses 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Use the rating descriptions outlined below.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal. Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability (including past performance) but will not be ranked using the non-price Factors. In order for an Offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive an “Acceptable” rating in every non-price Factor. A proposal receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” in any non-price Factor will not be eligible for award. Additionally, any other than small business offeror must have an “Acceptable” Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.702(a).

1.3 VOLUME I – PRICE FACTOR EVALUATION

The price proposal will be evaluated to determine the reasonableness and completeness of the Offeror’s proposal. The Contracting Officer may conduct price realism if the Contracting Officer determined that it is necessary.

Unrealistically low (or high) proposed price or unbalanced prices, will be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or has made an unrealistic or unreasonable proposal.

Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price of all priced ELINs. ELINs 0001-0016 details are identified in (note: ELIN 0017 is recorded capacity included in the total price):

PN502671_ECI_Design Analysis_RTA Submittal_2024 09 20 UPDATED PN502671_ECI_Drawings Combined_RTA Submittal_2024 09 20 UPDATED PN502671_ECI_RTA Specifications_2024 09 20 UPDATED PN502671_ECI_RTA Submittal Register_2024 09 20

Reasonableness of an Offeror’s proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.305(a)(1) and (4). For Price to be reasonable, it must represent a Price that provides value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market and functional capabilities of the Offeror. Reasonableness is evaluated by assessing the compatibility of proposed costs with proposal scope and effort.

The price evaluation will also evaluate for the appearance of unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, bonds, etc., to the appropriate contract line-items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract. Offers found to be unreasonably high or unrealistically low may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

1.4 VOLUME II TECHNICAL EVALUATION

1.4.1 FACTOR ONE (1) – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated using the following rating:

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate the past performance on a similar construction project with the required characteristics defined in the solicitation submittal requirements for this non-price factor above in Factor one (1).

The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the Solicitation.

1.5 FACTOR TWO (2) – TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated using the following rating:

1.5.1 The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine how the Offeror meets all minimum requirements defined in the solicitation for this non-price factor above in Factor two (2). The Offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements of the project in order to be rated Acceptable.

Minimum requirements are:

(a) Offerors shall provide a 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 narrative must be a comprehensive, start-to- finish discussion on the significant features of this work to include the following elements:

1. Management Approach. List and describe key subcontractors and government, public and privatized utility system owners, as well as their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established to this point. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each entity’s roles and responsibilities on the project.

Identify the work (including %) which will be self-performed by the Prime Contractor. If subcontractor experience is submitted for consideration as part of the proposal, the offeror should include a commitment signed by offeror and subcontractor certifying that if a contract is awarded resulting from the proposal, the parties commit to joint performance as proposed. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, include how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team.

Include an Organizational Chart that clearly illustrate key positions, names of key personnel, their firm affiliations, job locations and their job/position title within the organization (see specification 01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS and 01 45 00.00 10 QUALITY CONTROL).

The Organizational Chart is limited to one (1) PDF page not to exceed 11” x 17” in size and include a legend as well as indicate lines of authority and lines of communication using a separate depiction on the organization chart (e.g., color, lines, etc.).

2. Technical Approach. Provide a technical narrative in sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the principal components of work described in the specifications and drawings, and the Offeror’s understanding of the site and other conditions that could impact schedule. The narrative must be a comprehensive discussion on the significant features of this work to include:

i. Coordination and incorporation of work to be performed by privatized utility system owners into the overall project schedule and effort.

ii. Construction of utility infrastructure and associated facilities, including but not limited to, coordination with UPSOs and other site tenants, site preparation, site security/safety, installation of subgrade utilities, installation of above-grade utilities and facilities, construction sequencing, inspections and acceptance, and clean-up.

iii. Overall plan for site operations including, but not limited to mobilization, staging and trailer yards, concrete batch plant, haul routes, parking, mitigation of impacts to adjacent facility occupants and operations, phasing/sequencing of work, mitigation of conflicts between this project with other concurrent East Campus projects, and coordination with tenant groups to meet current environmental requirements and restrictions within the project area.

iv. Construction of the airfield pavements, including but not limited to coordination with USACE TSC, site preparation, site security/safety, the establishment of free zones, Foreign Object Damage (FOD) control, installation of subgrade utilities, airfield lighting and signage, concrete design mix and testing, paving design mix approval, construction sequencing, inspections and acceptance, and clean-up.

3. Summary Network Analysis Schedule (NAS). Provide a NAS or GANTT chart, broken down to the “Feature of Work” level, that graphically illustrates the proposed integration, scheduling, and phasing of all major features of work on the critical and near-critical path for the performance of the Task Orders of this project listed below, including final close-out. Assume an arbitrary estimated, non-binding Notice to Proceed (NTP) date of 15 May 2025 for:

ELIN 0001 ( American Water Utility Infrastructure SOW) (799-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 04 June 2025)

ELIN 0002 ( City Light & Power Utility Infrastructure SOW) (799-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 04 June 2025)

ELIN 0003 (TACAN Relocation) (365-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 04 June 2025)

ELIN 0004 (Sitework - General, Paving/Surfacing) (545-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 04 July 2025)

ELIN 0005 (Airfield Paving) (545-day Period of Performance) (Tentative

ELIN 0006 (Airfield Lighting) (545-day Period of Performance) (Tentative

ELIN 0007 (Natural Gas Distribution Piping System) (365-day Period of

ELIN 0008 (Fire Suppression Water Infrastructure) (365-day Period of

ELIN 0009 (Central Utility Plant/CA and FP Building) (365-day Period of

ELIN 0010 (ITN Node Comm Building) (365-day Period of Performance)

ELIN 0011 (Industrial Waste Room) (365-day Period of Performance)

ELIN 0012 (Fuel Dock) (365-day Period of Performance) (Tentative Task Order Award: 01 March 2026)

ELIN 0013-0016 is to be executed at time of need during the overall project Period-of-Performance and are not to be represented in summary schedule.

ELIN 0017 Construction Activities – any other work needed will be negotiated under this ELIN. Specification/Drawings/Design Package for DBB will be provided with a Request for Task Order Proposal. Capacity under this ELIN is $82M. Technical evaluation is not included for this ELIN.

Price is included as recorded capacity of $82M.

The schedule is to include activities on the near critical and critical paths including, but not limited to the following:

- NTP - Thirty (30) days from the specified CLIN Tentative Award Date

- Long lead time items

- Proportioning Study

- USACE TSC Pavement Workshop; USACE TSC Approval of airfield paving

- Adverse Weather per Section 01 00 00

- Construction activities broken down to the “Feature of Work” level

- Testing and commissioning of all utility infrastructure systems

- Prefinal Inspection(s)

- Final Inspection(s)

- As-Built Drawing submission

- Project Complete

Clearly identify the critical path.

Clearly indicate the total number of calendar days from NTP to Project Complete.

Milestone schedule cannot exceed the contract performance period specified in box 11 of the SF1442 and must be in compliance with any and all contractually required interim completion dates specified in the solicitation for separate parts or stages of work.

All elements shall meet this minimum requirement in order to be evaluated as acceptable.

1.6 FACTOR THREE (3) – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The Offeror’s Small Business Participation will be evaluated using the following rating:

1.6.1 The Government will evaluate all the information listed in the Small

Business Participation Proposal. Offerors shall meet the Small Business Participation goals as stated above in Factor three (3) in order to be rated Acceptable.

1.6.2 All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

(a) The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

(b) The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

(c) Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

(d) The extent of participation of small business prime Offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the total contract amount;

Goals for this procurement are to be proposed by the Offeror as a percentage of the total contract amount excluding water and electrical utilities ELIN 0001-0002.

Goals less than the targets provided will be considered unacceptable. The proposal will be evaluated to the extent it meets the Government's Small Business Participation Goals as stated in the solicitation and the reasonableness of Offeror's explanation why the goal(s) cannot be met. Exceeding Government subcontracting goals may result in an acceptable rating (proportional to the amount exceeding the goal). Items that increase the likelihood of meeting socioeconomic goals, such as identifying specific subcontractors or enforceable commitments (this list is not exhaustive) will result as an acceptable proposal (proportional to the amount of risk reduced). However, failing to meet the overall subcontracting goal may limit the Offeror from receiving an acceptable rating.

The Small Business Participation Plan will be incorporated into the contract award. Additional Important Note for Other than U.S. Small Businesses ONLY:

A Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required (FAR 52.219-9) Separate from Small Business Participation Plan, other than U.S. Small Business Offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the Offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan) at the time of proposal. Other than U.S.

Small Businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan.