W9124C20R0007_0001_20200901.pdf

0011382458

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 amendment 0001 to solicitation W9124C20R0007 is to do the follow ing: Updated E4Clicks in Section B, to bold; use for proposal formatting ONLY. Will NOT be any pre-negotiated pricing.

Updated note 1 in Section B.

Updated.L.4.1 Added statement Updated L.4.3 from E to C.

Updated L.5.6 from 3 to 5 pages. Added statement M.3.1. Added statement M.3.1.2 Added statement Updated M.5.1.1 Removed M.5.1.4 Removed FAR Clause 52.217-8 Extend proposal submission from 31 August 2020, 2:00 PM EST, to 24 September 2020, 2:00 PM EST.

All other terms and conditions remain the same. See Summary of Changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Sep-2020

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 W9124C20R0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Jul-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

01-Sep-2020

CODE

MICC - FT JACKSON

4340 MAGRUDER AVE

FORT JACKSON SC 29207

W9124C 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9124C20R0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been modified:

ORDERING PROCEDURES

1. TASK ORDER ISSUANCE PROCEDURES

(a) Work under this contract will be ordered by written task orders issued on DD Form 1155 (Order for

Supplies or Services) to the contractor by the Contracting Officer. Each task order as a result of this solicitation will cite an individual task order number. Task orders will be placed in a sequential numbering system, which relate back to the basic contract and their assigned task order number.

(b) Task orders will be firm fixed price and clearly define the specific services to be performed or the performance required. Each task order may contain additional, site or project-specific, provisions.

Any additional provisions shall be a part of the task order request for proposal.

(c) Task order projects shall be for non-complex, construction-oriented projects requiring minimal design.

(d) In accordance with FAR 16-505(b) the Contracting Officer will give all awardees a “fair opportunity” to be considered for each order.

2. EXPECTED MAGNITUDE OF TASK ORDERS

(a) Task Orders will typically range from $2,000 to $3,500,000. Task order projects may require single discipline or multi-discipline for minor construction and repairs concerning sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) of real property maintenance type projects. In addition, task orders shall not be issued for work that exceeds statutory limitations for new construction.

SECTION B - CON'T

WORK HOURS

1. Normal work hours are from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, Monday – Friday, local time.

2. Other than normal work hours are all days & times not included in normal work hours.

The E4Clicks Premier Project Estimator (e4Clicks) shall be utilized for all proposals under this contract. The software will be used for formatting of proposals (ONLY), there will not be any pre-negotiated pricing. The Contractor shall purchase E4Clicks Premier Project Estimator (e4Clicks) to support the contract requirements within seven (7) calendar days of contract award.

Offerors binding MAIDIQ CAP RATES (submitted in accordance with section L) shall include: table:

Direct Hourly Labor Rate w/ Fringe Benefits

Contract Manager $

Contract/Site Superintendent

Quality Control Manager $

Percentage Applied

G&A (Applied to total cost less bonds)

Profit (Applied to total cost to include G&A less bonds) %

Note 1 – the Contractor Quality Control Person cannot be the SSHO on this project.

Disregard the statement on Attachment VIII, page 208, para 1.5.1.1.1. which states otherwise.

Note 2 - bonds shall be reimbursed at cost, no profit, G&A or overhead allowed once proof of payment is furnished.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been deleted:

52.217-8 Option To Extend Services NOV 1999

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

ADDENDUM

L SOLICITATION/PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS.

L.1. Introduction and Administration.

L.1.1. Offerors shall demonstrate their capability, understanding, and willingness to satisfactorily perform all requirements as described in the Basic MATOC SOW located in Section C of this solicitation. Capabilities may be established within either the Offeror’s corporate structure or through contractor teaming arrangements. The proposal shall be valid for two hundred and ten (210) calendar days from date of initial proposal submission.

L.1.2. The offeror’s written proposal shall be organized as stated in paragraph L.3 below.

L.1.3. Complete proposals are due no later than the date and time specified in the solicitation. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the entire proposal is submitted prior to the proposal due date and time. Failure of an Offeror to submit its proposal by the date and time deadline or in the manner specified in the solicitation may result in a determination that an Offeror is ineligible to be considered for award. Proposals will be handled IAW FAR 15.207. All late proposals will be handled IAW FAR 15.208.

L.1.4. Proposals shall be submitted in hard copy and on CD ROMs, in the formats and quantities noted below, to the address listed below. Email and/or Facsimile submissions will not be accepted.

MICC-Fort Jackson Attn: CCMI-CBR-JA (Sean Higgins/Dr. Regina Givens) Solicitation No.: W9124C-20-R-0007 4340 Magruder Avenue Fort Jackson, South Carolina 29207

L.1.5 The point of contact (POC) responsible for supplying additional information and answering all inquiries is the Contracting Officer via the Contract Specialist. Address all questions or concerns the offeror may have to the Contract Specialist, Sean O. Higgins (Sean.O.Higgins.civ@mail.mil) and Contracting Officer, Dr Regina Givens (regina.n.givens.civ@mail.mil). All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing via email. The email shall contain the solicitation number in the subject line.

Questions/inquiries are due no later 17 August 2020. All questions received before the question due date will be responded to online via the Beta.Sam (https://beta.sam.gov) as an amendment to the solicitation. Answers shall be posted without Offeror identification.

Questions received after the deadline may not be answered. The Government will not provide responses to questions that would reveal a potential Offeror’s confidential business strategy, technical solution, or any information that is considered unique to a particular Offeror.

L.1.6. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements. Proposals shall clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the entire requirement and associated risks, have the resources necessary to meet the requirement, and a valid and practical solution for the requirement. Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with the requirements, and statements paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information/narrative are considered inadequate and unsatisfactory. Mere reiteration of the requirement or standard reference material is discouraged and is considered inadequate and unsatisfactory. The Offeror shall include any data necessary to illustrate the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems.

L.1.7. If the offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, the offeror shall clearly identify the applicable Volume and exceptions with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken, what benefit accrues to the Government (if any), and its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Offerors are cautioned that taking an exception may render the offer ineligible for award. This information shall be provided in the format below.

Solicitation Document

Page/Paragraph Requirement/Portion Rationale & Impact

L.1.8. If the Offeror’s proposal indicates that: it cannot or will not meet any of the SOW requirements; provides an approach that clearly does not meet any of the SOW requirements; or, includes data which prompts the Government to question the Offeror's compliance with any of the SOW requirements. Then the Government may determine the proposal is non-responsive, and therefore ineligible for award.

L.1.9. Any data previously submitted in response to another solicitation, request for information, or sources sought notice, should be considered as unavailable during this proposal evaluation and source selection process.

L.1.10. Information beyond what is sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are neither necessary nor desired.

L.1.11. The Offer. The submission of the documentation specified below will constitute the offeror's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the RFP, concurrence with the Performance Work Statement, and contract type.

L.1.12. It is the Government’s intention to award without discussions. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. In accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 15.306, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and offerors notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR Part 15.306 (c)(2).

L.1.13. Debriefings. If a competitive range is established, the Contracting Officer will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon the offeror may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR

15.505. The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful offerors who were included in the competitive range, but not selected for award in accordance with FAR 15.503(b). Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR

15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

L.1.14. Proposals shall not contain classified information.

L.1.15. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, an ambiguity, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing at the email address identified above and shall provide supporting rationale for its assessment.

Section C, SOW, Section L&M, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe the rationale and impact of the exception

L.1.16 All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Beta.Sam web site at https://beta.sam.gov/.

L.1.17. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the

Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

L.2. Proposal Preparation Instructions.

L.3. The offeror’s proposal shall consist of four (4) separate volumes:

L.3.1. Proposal Format.

(a) Offerors shall submit an original of its proposal in the formats and quantities identified herein.

(b) Digital copies on CD-ROM Disk shall be provided in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and/or Excel and shall adhere to all proposal preparation instructions with the exception of the requirement for three ring binders.

VOLUME TITLE PAGE

LIMITS

(CD

ROM)

HARD

COPY

I Technical Acceptability (Factor 1)

Tab A, Construction Experience (Subfactor 1) Tab B, Management Approach (Subfactor 2) Tab B, Sample Project Response (Subfactor 2.1) Tab C, Bonding Capacity (Subfactor 3)

1 1 Original and 3 Copies

II Past Performance (Factor 2) 30 1 1 Original and 3 copies

III Price (Factor 3)

N/A 1 1 Original and 1 copy

IV General

Tab A-Exceptions/Assumptions Tab B-Standard Form (SF1442) Tab C-Section K (Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors) Tab D-Organizational and Consultant Conflict of Interest Tab E-Offeror Points of Contact and Other Information

N/A 1 1 Original and 1 copy

(c) Hard Copies of each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring loose leaf binder which shall permit the volume to lie flat when open.

(d) Each volume shall have a cover sheet clearly marked as to volume number, title, solicitation identification and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All text shall be single spaced. Printing shall be easily readable (12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing). File names should be “Company Name – Initial” for the first submission. File name of later submissions (if necessary), shall be “Company Name – Revision X’ with X indicating the number of the revision.

(e) Indexing. Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. This Index is for informational purposes only and will not be evaluated.

(f) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with a definition for each. This glossary is for informational purposes only and will not be evaluated.

(g) Cross-Reference Matrix. Each volume shall contain a cross-reference matrix to assure that all requirements are addressed and easily accessible to the evaluators. The cross reference matrix shall provide a single integrated index for the entire proposal. This matrix format shall cross-reference the proposal volumes and proposal paragraphs to the applicable Factor/Sub factors and PWS paragraph/RFP requirements. The format of the cross-reference matrix shall be identical for all volumes. This matrix is for informational purposes only and will not be evaluated.

(h) The proposal shall not exceed the page limits stated above. If the page limits are exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit will be not be read nor evaluated. If discussions become necessary, page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors.

(i) Page limitations includes all appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc.

(j) Page Limits do not include covers for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, cross reference indices, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Pages will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.

(k) A page shall be an 8 ½ X 11” sheet of paper. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Letter size and spacing requirements for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the offeror but must be easily readable. The documents will be formatted in a standard business font (Arial, Times New Roman, Courier New) with a 12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing font and single spaced. The offeror will not utilize compressed spacing. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾ inch side margins. The contractor shall number each page in the standard (1 of 2) format order to eliminate any confusion. In the event contractor creates an ambiguity in their numbering of pages, the Government shall exercise its own discretion relating to the page count.

L.4. VOLUME 1: FACTOR 1 - Technical Acceptability. Construction Experience (Subfactor 1), Management Approach (Subfactor 2) and, Sample Project Response (Subfactor 2.1) and Bonding Capacity (Subfactor 3).

This volume provides Offerors with an opportunity to demonstrate their construction experience, design/build experience, management approach, sample project response, and bonding capacity to meeting the solicitation requirements. It shall be prepared in a format consistent with the PWS and the evaluation criteria in Section M of the solicitation.

The offeror’s Technical Approach shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology it will use. It shall demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the requirement and ability to successfully perform future task orders. It shall be of sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the Offeror’s Technical proposal. The proposal shall cover the entire five year period of the contract. This volume shall be organized as follows:

L.4.1. TAB A: SUBFACTOR 1 – Construction Experience.

The offeror must thoroughly demonstrate that it has attained sufficient experience to successfully manage and execute varied projects simultaneously as envisioned by the Statement of Work and annual dollar limits. Evaluation of experience will take into consideration the number, variety and scope of projects that the offeror has executed simultaneously. Evaluation will be based on the offeror’s five (5) projects submitted, which were performed within the last three (3) years or are currently being performed with at least 50% of the project complete. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) projects will be evaluated. For each project submitted, offeror shall submit Attachment V – Project reference sheer (PRS) and Attachment VT – project reference overview sheet.

L.4.2. TAB B: SUBFACTOR 2 - Management Approach.

The offeror must demonstrate that it has the necessary approach to successfully manage Fort Jackson Construction MATOC. The Offerors approach to managing multiple projects simultaneously will be evaluated for understanding and feasibility to effectively manage five (5) simultaneous construction on-going projects similar in nature, size, magnitude, complexity and scope to this requirement. The Offeror’s Corporate Organizational Structure and Communication Approach will be evaluated to determine the comprehensiveness of the approach and the likelihood of success with minimal disruption and risk to the Government. The Offeror shall demonstrate the ability to manage a Quality

Control Plan staff to execute multiple on-going projects. This evaluation will include the Quality Control Staff, Estimating Staff, and any other positions the Offeror considers to be key and the qualifications of those position(s); what parts of the organization are responsible for managing and accomplishing what work (identify each organizational element, i.e., Division/Branch/Team); where decision making authority lies within the organization; and how the offeror will simultaneously manage multiple task orders; and identify specific work the prime, subcontractors or teaming partners are performing. The offeror shall demonstrate the ability to estimate, manage, schedule, and integrate teaming partners/subcontractors into their organization. Job qualifications associated with each Offeror identified key labor category must demonstrate the offeror’s knowledge and understanding of necessary experience, education, and licensing/certification. The Management Approach shall include:

• An organizational structure, narrative, and summary chart delineating lines of management authority, where decision making authority lies within the organization, supervision, span of control, and accountability for the management and oversight of the MATOC. The structure shall include subcontractors and/or teaming partners, if applicable;

• Explanation of relationships between corporate and on-site management/administration; between/across technical disciplines; and between the prime and its subcontractors. Describe the management of subcontractors and/or teaming partners, and their integration into the overall structure

• An approach to managing multiple task orders requirements covering a wide variety of tasking areas, utilizing multiple skill sets, in multiple locations simultaneously; A process to hire, train, and retain a sufficient number of personnel with a wide diversity of experience, education, and qualifications with proven expertise in their field to successfully meet mission requirements. This process shall include a timeline for hiring, training, and replacement of personnel during performance of the base contract and all task orders (within 30 days of task order award or 5 business days of vacancy). Address methods to reduce personnel turn-over and turbulence.

• Resumes for the Key Personnel, the rationale for that designation, and the qualifications that will be required of these key positions (i.e., degree, certifications, licenses, relevant experience); The contractor shall provide a Program Manager (PM), and an Alternate PM to act when the PM is unavailable, who shall be responsible for the performance of the work and shall have full authority to act for the contractor on all contract matters relating to daily operation of the contract.

• The QCP, as a minimum, shall address continuous process improvement;

procedures for scheduling, conducting and documentation of inspection;

discrepancy identification and correction; corrective action procedures to include procedures for addressing Government discovered non-conformances;

procedures for root cause analysis to identify the root cause and root cause corrective action to prevent re-occurrence of discrepancies; procedures for trend analysis; procedures for collecting and addressing customer feedback/complaints, and a process to monitor personnel compliance with security, training, and qualification requirements.

L.4.2.1 – TAB B - SUBFACTOR 2.1 –Sample Project Response

L.4.2.1.1. The offerors shall provide a technical approach to thoroughly demonstrate an overall understanding of the technical requirements and objectives to successfully execute the Sample Project in accordance with the Statement of Work (Attachment III, IV, and VIII) to include: Description of the scheduling technique and project planning methodology using completing the sample project to include approximate number of days. A narrative demonstrating how the project will be accomplished utilizing the proposed project schedule and rationale for selecting the proposed schedule. Identification of the automated scheduling systems used a description of events that must be considered in the schedule associated with, but not limited to, submittals, inspections and closeout and procedures, processes and methods for managing the progress of project and interacting with the Government from beginning to end.

NOTE: This is a notional TO that the Government reserves the right to award

L.4.3. – TAB C - SUBFACTOR 3 – Bonding Capacity

The offerors shall demonstrate their ability to obtain sufficient bonding of $5 million minimum per task order. The offeror shall submit information showing minimum available bonding capacity of $28 million aggregate with verification from the Securities or Bonding Company (to be completed by Surety Company and submitted by Offeror). The information shall include how long the Surety Company has provided bonding for the Contractor and the bonding limit for a single project, aggregate amount, and current available bonding. The corporate bonding surety must appear on the Department of Treasury Listing of Approved Securities (Department Circular 570).

L.5. VOLUME 2: FACTOR 2 – Past Performance.

L.5.1. Offerors must thoroughly demonstrate, by way of their past performance, their likelihood of successfully performing the solicitation's requirements. In assessing past performance, the Government will assess the Offeror's/Joint Venture’s overall past performance, and will examine how well the offeror performed in the following areas:

Quality Control (QC); Timely Performance; Effectiveness of Management; Compliance with Labor/Safety Standards; and, Customer Satisfaction. Recency and relevancy assessments will be performed in conjunction with the evaluation. The contractor's submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, scope and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation, to include any contracts demonstrating performance of multiple construction projects simultaneously..

L.5.2. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant Past Performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort as it relates to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors must submit a maximum of five (5) recent/relevant project references. It is anticipated that task orders will range from $250,000.00 to $3,500,000.00.

Therefore, past performance efforts that were awarded at $250,000.00 and over will be more relevant than past performance efforts that were awarded at a value less than $250,000.00. Also, identify whether active or completed contracts, were either Government or commercial. To be determined recent, the contracts must have been awarded, completed, or are ongoing within three (3) years from the date of this solicitation.

Past performance information that does not meet this recency requirement will not be evaluated. For relevancy, the Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of the recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under the submitted contracts relate to this acquisition.

L.5.3. Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed. The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter, executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance. Past Performance information described herein is required on the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 20% or greater of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price.

L.5.4. Past performance of greater relevancy 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.

L.5.5. The Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information shall be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant. The past performance evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. As a result of the recency and relevancy assessments of the contracts evaluated, one confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

See FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) for treatment of past performance relative to small business Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate offeror past performance.

However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested by this paragraph risk rejection or a less than acceptable performance rating by the Government. All past performance comments received will be taken into account and could affect the overall rating. The overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received.

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Neutral” rating. A confidence rating of “Satisfactory or Substantial Confidence” will be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

L.5.6. Submission Requirements. The offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following:

•Table of Contents

• Summary Page describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and /or joint venture partner that the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets for the past performance experience in accordance with Attachment V – PRS and Attachment VI – project reference overview sheet.

• Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information

• Client Authorization Letters for each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.

• Organization Structure Change History— Organizational Structure Change History.

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), your

"roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

• Specific Relevant Contracts Format - Sheets in accordance with Attachment V - PRS and are limited to 5 page per reference. The offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror’s past performance with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, which is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this Solicitation. The submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. Performance Assessment Questionnaires (PA) – Attachment VII. For all relevant contracts identified, the Offeror shall forward a copy of the PAQ to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. The points of contact shall return the questionnaires to sean.o.higgins.civ@mail.mil or regina.n.givens.civ@mail.mil not later than the proposal due date and time. Any PAQs not timely returned directly to one of the above named individuals will not be reviewed and evaluated.

The information contained in the PAQs will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance. If the Offeror does not have a recent/relevant performance record or it is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, please state this on the Summary Page.

L.6. VOLUME 3: FACTOR 3 – Price.

L.6.1. This volume shall contain all required pricing information described below. The Offeror shall not include pricing information in any Volumes 1, 2, or 4 of its proposal.

L.6.2. It is expected that all contracts awarded will be based upon adequate price competition; therefore, the Offeror is not required to provide certified cost/pricing data with its proposal. If, after receipt of the proposals, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist in accordance with FAR 15.403-1, the Offeror shall provide certified cost/pricing data as requested by the Contracting Officer. Similarly, if the contracting officer determines a fair and reasonable price cannot be established with price analysis alone, the offeror may be asked, and shall then provide, other than certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and/or FAR 15-404-1(a).

L.6.3 Contractor Pricing for MATOC. The offeror shall submit their approach for accomplishing the Sample Project from commencement to completion. The approach shall describe the Offeror’s understanding of the work required utilized the SOW, specifications, and drawings. The government reserves the right to de-conflict minor mathematical, rounding or clerical errors.

L.6.3.1. The Offeror shall identify in the Price Proposal Volume if each labor category is subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards/Davis Bacon Act. Offerors shall mailto:sean.o.higgins.civ@mail.mil mailto:regina.n.givens.civ@mail.mil present line item details and accompanying prices that clearly demonstrates to the Government that the Offeror fully understands the complexity of the work to be performed. Proposals must price all work categories necessary to perform the sample project IAW the SOW. This volume will breakdown the sample project price by line item and will include the following:

Direct Hourly Labor Rate w/ Fringe Benefits Contract Manager $ Contract/Site Superintendent $ Quality Control Manager $ (The Contractor Quality Control Person can be the SSHO on this project.)

Percentage Applied:

G&A (Applied to total cost less bonds) % Profit (Applied to total cost to include G&A less bonds) %

Note that bonds shall be reimbursed at cost, no profit, G&A or overhead allowed once proof of payment is furnished.

L.6.3.2. The fully burdened labor rates proposed for each year cannot be adjusted except for instances where the labor categories are subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards/Davis Bacon Act and a revision is permitted under the provisions of FAR Clause 52.222-43. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to include inflation; that appropriately identifies fringe, overhead, G&A, profit rates, etc., where warranted.

L.6.3.3. Should a contract be issued to the offeror, the proposed rates provided will become the maximum rate allowable (ceiling rate) for that labor category on the basic award. At the task order level ceiling rates can be discounted, pricing task orders and task order modifications.

L.7. VOLUME 4: – General and Administrative This volume shall be organized as follows:

L.7.1. TAB A, Exceptions/Assumptions.

Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, any assumptions used in the proposal preparation must be identified.

L.7.2. TAB B, Standard Form (SF) 1442.

The offeror shall include a completed and signed SF 1442. Any amendments to the solicitation shall be acknowledged in Block 14, Acknowledgement of Amendment and/or signed and submitted with the offeror’s proposal.

L.7.3. TAB C, Section K (Representation, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors).

The offeror shall ensure that Section K is submitted thoroughly completed with all blocks in each certification/representation completed truthfully and completely. If utilizing Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA), offerors are reminded to complete all certifications annotated in ORCA for completion based on individual acquisitions prior to proposal submission. Provide a complete copy of all certifications from ORCA, System for Award Management (SAM), and all additional certifications found within the solicitation. All Representations and Certifications within Section K of this RFP shall be addressed, completed, and provided under this section. Negative responses are required.

L.7.4. TAB D, Organizational and Consultant Conflict of Interest (OCI) – FAR 9.5.

L.7.4.1. If applicable, the offeror shall present an Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan which shall detail how they will ensure compliance with FAR 9.5. The OCI Mitigation Plan should clearly identify a credible and concrete mechanism for identifying, avoiding, neutralizing, or mitigating actual or potential conflicts. The OCI Mitigation Plan should clearly present the firm’s review process for evaluating an actual conflict if identified. The offeror shall address the conflict pursuant to this OCI provision.

Additionally, the offeror warrants that, to the best of the offeror’s knowledge and belief, there are no relevant facts or circumstances which could give rise to an Organizational and Consultant Conflict of Interest (OCI) as defined in FAR 9.5 and that the contractor has disclosed all such relevant information.

L.7.4.2. The Contracting Officer will review any mitigation plans submitted in response to this Request for Proposal prior to award. The Contracting Officer will determine whether there is an OCI issue based on the information submitted and if the mitigation plan resolved any OCI concerns. If the Contracting Officer determines that there is an OCI issue and that it cannot be mitigated, the Contracting Officer will inform the Offeror that the proposal will not be evaluated or considered for award. The Contracting Officer and Offeror must resolve any OCI issues prior to the evaluation and consideration for award.

L.7.5. TAB E – Offeror Points of Contact & Other Information.

Provide the name, title, phone number, and e-mail address of the offeror’s principal point(s) of contact for the proposal. Also identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government and contractually bind the offeror. The Offeror shall provide their Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), and contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) code.

(Offerors who are awarded an IDIQ contract, will receive task orders for the minimum guaranteed amount.)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. Basis for Contract Award.

M.1.1. The Government intends to solicit and award on a 100% Hub-zone small business set aside competitive basis resulting in the award up to five (5) awards as a result of this solicitation. This competitive acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) PGI 253.215., and AFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5107 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Army the greatest confidence that each will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably and in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.

To arrive at a best value decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors described in this provision. Award will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

M.1.1.1. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. The competitive range, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

Offeror’s may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any discussion period.

M.1.2. Rejection of Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be non-compliant with contract terms and conditions.

M.1.3. Contractor Responsibility: In accordance with FAR 9.1, the Contracting Officer shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility with the Small Business Administration. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The Contracting Officer shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel.

Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the Contracting Officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

M.2. FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

M.2.1. Evaluation criteria consist of price and non-price factors. The proposals will be evaluated based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability Subfactor 1: Construction Experience Subfactor 2: Management Approach Subfactor 2.1: Sample Project Response Subfactor 3: Bonding Capacity

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price (Sample Project)

M.2.2. Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, Technical/Risk and past performance when combined are significantly more important than price. Technical/Risk and Past Performance are approximately equal.

M.2.3. EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review to verify all proposals conform to the administrative requirements set forth in Section L, Paragraph L-3 The Government may reject any proposal that fails to comply with the RFP requirements, terms and conditions as non-compliance may hinder the Government’s ability to properly evalute the proposal.

M.3. Technical Acceptability.

M.3.1. Factor 1/ Subfactor 1: Construction Experience.

The offeror clearly demonstrated that it has attained sufficient experience to successfully manage and execute varied projects simultaneously as envisioned by the Statement of Work and annual dollar limits. Evaluation of experience will take into consideration the number, variety and scope of projects that the offeror has executed simultaneously.

Evaluation will be based on the offeror’s five (5) projects submitted, which were performed within the last three (3) years from the date of this solicitation or are currently being performed with at least 50% of the project complete. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) projects will be evaluated. Offerors without a record of Construction experience will not be evaluated acceptable or unacceptable.

M.3.1.1 Factor 1 / Subfactor 2: Management Approach.

The offeror clearly demonstrated that is has the necessary approach to successfully manage a MATOC. The Government will evaluate the following:

The Offeror fully described an approach to managing multiple projects simultaneously to effectively manage five (5) simultaneous on-going projects similar in nature, size, magnitude, complexity and scope.

The Offeror provided a Corporate Organizational Structure and Communication Approach to determine the comprehensiveness of the approach and the likelihood of success with minimal disruption and risk to the Government.

The Offeror demonstrated the ability to manage a Quality Control Plan staff to execute multiple on-going projects. This evaluation will include the Quality Control Staff, Estimating Staff, and any other positions the Offeror considers to be key and the qualifications of those position(s); what parts of the organization are responsible for managing and accomplishing what work (identify each organizational element, i.e., Division/Branch/Team); where decision making authority lies within the organization;

and how the offeror will simultaneously manage multiple task orders; and identify specific work the prime, subcontractors or teaming partners are performing.

The offeror demonstrated the ability to estimate, manage, schedule, and integrate teaming partners/subcontractors into their organization. Job qualifications associated with each Offeror identified key labor category must demonstrate the offeror’s knowledge and understanding of necessary experience, education, and licensing/certification.

M.3.1.2 Factor 2 / Subfactor 2.1: Sample Project Response.

The offeror demonstrated an overall understanding of the technical requirements and objectives to successfully execute the Sample Project in accordance with the Statement of Work (Attachment III and Attachment VIII). The approach includes:

a) Scheduling technique and project planning methodology used in completing the sample project to include approximate number of days.

b) Narrative…