W9126G-08-R-0175-0004.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

Design-Build W.W. White Road Bridge, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas is amended as follows:

a. Modify Section 00 22 11 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD ONE STEP BEST VALUE, DESIGN BUILD w ith revised Section 00 22 11 bearing the notation "ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT NO. 0004 TO SOLICITATION NO. W9126G-08-R-0175.

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

b. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

POC Andrea Bartula 817-886-1061 or andrea.n.bartula@usace.army.mil

END OF AMENDMENT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 38

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Jun-2008

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 W9126G-08-R-0175

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Apr-2008

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

05-Jun-2008

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH

ATTN: CESWF-CT

819 TAYLOR ST, ROOM 2A19

P.O. BOX 17300

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

W9126G 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND BASIS

OF AWARD ONE STEP - BEST VALUE, DESIGN-BUILD (SINGLE AWARD)

The following have been added by full text:

"ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT NO. 0004 TO SOLICITATION NO. W9126G-08-R-0175."

SECTION 00 22 11

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD ONE

STEP

BEST VALUE, DESIGN BUILD

(SINGLE AWARD)

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS AND ELEMENTS

4.1 VOLUME 1 – WEIGHTED FACTORS

4.2 VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

5.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB A - FACTOR 1 - DESIGN TECHNICAL

5.1 GENERAL

6.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB B – FACTOR 2 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

6.1 GENERAL

7.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB C – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

7.1 GENERAL

8.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB D – FACTOR 4 – KEY PERSONNEL

8.1 GENERAL

9.0 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 5 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

9.1 GENERAL

9.2 TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE)

9.3 TAB B – BID GUARANTEE

9.4 TAB C – SELF-PERFORMED WORK

9.5 TAB D – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

9.6 TAB D – SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

10.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

10.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

10.2 EVALUATION

10.3 EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

10.4 DEFINITIONS

10.5 PAST PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

10.6 TECHNICAL EVALUATION WEIGHTS

10.7 PRICE

ATTACHMENTS

1 – NOT USED

2 – NOT USED

3 – CONSTRUCTION – S PECIALIZED EXPERIENCE FORM

4 – DESIGNER – S PECIALIZED EXPERIENCE FORM

5 – KEY SUBCONTRACTOR - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE FORM

6 - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

7 - KEY PERSONNEL RESUME

8 - LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY PERSONNEL

9 - LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR (DESIGN FIRM OR KEY SUBCONTRACTOR)

10 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. This is a “Best Value” solicitation for the Design and Construction of a Design and Construct Bridge located at Fort Sam Houston. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror, whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

2.1. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to that responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority has determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered more important than the price; however the Contract award shall not exceed the cost limitation described in Section 00 21 00 for this project. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within the cost limitation. There is no obligation to approach or match the cost limitation in the offer. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Official must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal (within the cost limitation) would justify award to that offeror.

2.2. As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate betterments in proposals relative to the minimum standards in the RFP to determine if they offer additional value to the Government. In addition, innovations in proposals will be evaluated to determine if creative ideas of the Offeror are a better value to the Government compared to the minimum criteria.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume that offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

3.2. Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals.

Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal, provided that the Offeror or Offeror’s subcontractor has or will have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines and provided that the requirements specified in Contract clause, “Requirements for Registration of Designers”, are met. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

3.3. Submit proposals in tabbed, three-ring binders. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, where indicated below.

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS AND ELEMENTS

4.1. VOLUME 1 – WEIGHTED FACTORS (50 single-sided or 25 double-sided sheets) (AM#3)

Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 TAB A DESIGN/TECHNICAL

This factor is more important than factors 2, 3 and 4 (AM#2)

FACTOR 2 TAB B SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

This factor is equal in importance to factor 3 and 4

FACTOR 3 TAB C PAST PERFORMANCE

This factor is equal in importance to factor 2 and 4

FACTOR 4 TAB D KEY PERSONNEL

This factor is equal in importance to factor 2 and 3

4.2. VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 5 PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION Not Rated

N/A Vol. 2 TAB A Price (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And

Contract Line Item Schedule) Not Rated

N/A Vol. 2 TAB B Bid Guarantee Not Rated

N/A Vol. 2 TAB C Self-Performed Work (AM#4) Not Rated

N/A Vol. 2 TAB D Required Pre-Award Information (AM#4) Not Rated

N/A Vol. 2 TAB E Subcontracting Plan (AM#4) Not Rated

NOTE: 8(a) Joint Venture Offeror or Offeror submitting Proposal as HubZone Joint Venture shall submit evidence from Offerors SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist.

5.0 VOLUME 1– TAB A - FACTOR 1 – DESIGN/TECHNICAL

5.1. GENERAL: The design-technical Factor consists of conceptual level presentation drawings, technical approach narratives and information regarding material and system quality. It must clearly define the proposed scope and quality levels that the design-build team is offering to the Government in enough detail for the Government and the Offeror to mutually understand whether or not the proposal meets or exceeds the minimum Solicitation requirements. Fully developed drawings, details, or specifications are not desired or required.

5.1.1. Submission Requirements:

5.1.1.1. Technical Element 1: Construction Phasing and Traffic Control during Construction

5.1.1.1.1. Technical Narrative/Description.

Provide drawing(s) and a written narrative describing the Construction Phasing and Traffic Control during Construction. The narrative shall be tied to the construction schedule proposed in the PMP, and shall describe how the various construction activities will interact with each other and with adjacent construction activities performed by others. The narrative shall describe methods and procedures proposed to be implemented which will obviate the interference of construction work on adjacent sites, and maximize the cooperation and coordination with construction on adjacent sites. Specific attention shall be made to the proposed methods and procedures for the pavement terminals of this project, and tie-in to adjacent TxDOT pavement construction. Describe proposed traffic control sequences and procedures that will be instituted, which are in accordance with TxDOT standards and minimize disruption of traffic flow.

5.1.1.1.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.1.1.1.3. Offerors prescribing construction methods with minimum vehicular and pedestrian disruption will receive more favorable evaluations. Traffic disruptions during the local rush hours of 6:00 am to 9:00 am, and 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm will be rated unacceptable.

5.1.1.2. Technical Element 2: Proposed Pavement Section on Bridge Approach Ramps

5.1.1.2.1 Technical Narrative/Description.

The RFP documents demonstrate bridge superstructure and pavement sections including supporting foundation components for information only, and to establish geometric relationships. For this submittal, provide drawing(s), , assumptions, and a written narrative describing the proposed bridge superstructure, foundations, pavement section, including Portland Cement Concrete pavement and all foundation courses. The pavement design shall be developed using the criteria for loads and forces, traffic volume and speeds, service life, and consideration for locally available construction materials, and constructed using commonplace practices and equipment. If different pavement sections are proposed for the Basic Bid and any Bid Option such sections shall be addressed separately and completely.

Volume 2, Pro Forma submittal should reflect the pavement section(s) proposed herein.

5.1.1.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.1.1.2.3 Offerors who submit pavement sections which do not meet the criteria or standards of this RFP will receive an unacceptable rating for this factor.

5.1.1.3 Technical Element 3: Proposed Bridge Structural System

5.1.1.3.1 Technical Narrative/Description.

For this submittal, provide schematic drawings, and a written narrative describing the proposed structural system of the bridge. The structural system shall also include the foundation of the bridge. The submitted drawings and description shall provide enough information to clearly demonstrate the complete type of bridge construction ex.

Deck type, girder type, abutments, retaining structures, and guardrail system.

5.1.1.3.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.1.1.3.3. Offerors who submit structural system which do not meet the criteria or standards of this RFP will receive an unacceptable rating for this factor.

5.1.1.4. Technical Element 4: Project Management Plan (PMP)

5.1.1.4.1 Project Management Plans will be evaluated for inclusion of all tasks identified in the Project Management Plan submittal paragraph above. The ability of the Offeror’s plan to deliver a quality product and effectively manage the construction team and coordinate all work throughout the design and construction phase of this project will be evaluated. Higher evaluation ratings can be achieved with a thoroughly explained Project Management Plan suitable for the scope and complexity of this project, and which addresses each of the following:

1. Management Approach

2. Sub-Contractor Management

3. Quality Control Procedures

4. Schedule development and adherence (Phased Turn-Over)

5. Organization Chart

6. Acquisition of Environmental Permits

7. Safety

8. Preparation and submission of record (i.e. as-built) documents

9. Contract closeout

10. What is the work that will be self-performed by the offeror and what is the percentage of the overall contract value that this work represents? This percentage will be compared to the minimum specified in Contract Clause 52.236-1 PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR.

11. The team's computer-aided drafting and design (CADD) capabilities:

a. Is the CADD software to be used in the design of this project identified?

b. If all disciplines are not using the same CADD software, is the software that each discipline is using identified and which discipline will be responsible for the final set?

c. Is this software compatible with the Government's target CADD and in compliance with the Tri- Service A/E/C/ CADD standards?

d. How will compatibility be achieved if the design, or portion of the design, is prepared using a CADD system other than the Government's target CADD system?

5.1.1.5. Technical Element 5: Project Schedule

5.1.1.5.1. The Project Schedule will be evaluated for inclusion of all tasks identified in the solicitation. Offerors who propose and substantiate schedules that result in a period of performance of meeting that specified in Section 01 00 00.00 44 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE and illustrate a schedule of turnover of the finished product will receive a favorable evaluation. Proposals that indicate completion of the Contract in fewer days are desirable and will be given more favorable consideration. A proposal that is unrealistic or unsupported will be evaluated unfavorably.

6.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB B - FACTOR 2 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

6.1. GENERAL

6.1.1. Submission Requirements:

6.1.1.1. The offeror shall select the design firm(s) and key subcontractors for electrical and/or mechanical installation, (or prime contractor if design and/or electrical and mechanical work is to be self-performed). Also identify general subcontractors, if any of the design and construction is to be subcontracted out and describe the extent of their involvement in the project. The prime contractor and the design firm(s) (or prime contract if design is to be self-performed) shall each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects relating to the design and construction of bridges of this magnitude and located in this geographic region, Construction – Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 3), Designer – Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 4), and Key Subcontractor

– Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 5) at the end of the section. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Submit projects selected from those discussed in the experience narrative that are currently well underway (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer that five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those preformed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked for or government, private or commercial customers. The offeror shall select the design firm(s). If projects were design-build, so identify them. Experience beyond 5 years past for design firms will be given less consideration than more recent experience. Projects shall indicate experience in one or more of the following categories:

1. Construction Experience on Similar Vehicular Bridge Projects: Similar Projects include highway or interstate highway construction, particularly those containing multi-lane bridges, overcrossings, or interchanges designed in accordance with TxDOT criteria.

2. Design-Build Experience on Similar Vehicular Bridge Projects: Similar Projects include highway or interstate highway construction, particularly those containing multi-lane bridges, overcrossings, or interchanges designed in accordance with TxDOT criteria.

3. Military Construction and Design Experience: Military Construction and Design experience is considered to be experience on those projects constructed on and for military installations but may include projects for other Federal, State, or Local Government agencies.

4. Previous Experience as a Team: Extent to which members of the proposed team have worked together on previous projects as a team will be considered. Design team experience, construction team experience, and design-construction (build) team experience are all considered relevant.

5. Experience in the San Antonio, TX area.

The Offeror must clearly identify for which experience area(s) each project example pertains (e.g., Project A may qualify and be listed for similar highway projects, design-build, and military construction while Project B may qualify and be listed only for similar highway projects or San Antonio area; etc.).

6.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.1.2.1 The offeror will be evaluated based on the recent experiences of the construction and design teams (firms and/or individual team members). The amount of consideration will depend upon the extent of the offeror’s experience, similarity between previous project scopes of work and this project, and the relevance of the offeror’s experience to this project. Experience in the following areas will be considered, in descending order of importance:

Offerors may be evaluated more favorably where there is experience in more than one of the areas:

1. Construction Experience on Similar Vehicular Bridge Projects: A proposal offering Similar Highway Vehicular Bridge Project experience through project examples under the prescribed parameters of this solicitation may be evaluated more favorably than those which demonstrate the experience in the other areas, or using criteria other than TxDOT. Offerors may be evaluated more favorably based on, in descending order: (i) a larger number of similar projects; (ii) more recent projects; or (iii) projects with a dollar value over $5 million.

2. Design-Build Experience on Similar Vehicular Bridge Projects: No previous design-build team experience is necessary to qualify for award of this project; however, consideration will be given for recent, successful D-B team experience between the construction firm and design firms(s).

3. Military Construction and Design Experience: Familiarity with federal regulations and administration of Corps of Engineers or other federal contracts are considered relevant. Corps of Engineer projects are considered more relevant than those of other Federal agencies, state, or local experience.

4. Previous Experience as a Team. Extent to which members of the proposed team have worked together on previous projects as a team will be considered. Design team experience, construction team experience, and design-construction (build) team experience are all considered relevant.

5. Experience in the San Antonio, TX area.

7.0. VOLUME 1 - TAB C - FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

7.1. GENERAL

7.1.1. Submission Requirements:

7.1.1.1 Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner's perspective. The prime construction contractor and the design firm (or prime contractor if design is to be self-performed) shall provide customer reference name(s), company affiliation and current phone numbers on the specific project experience sheets in Tab B or other projects that establish a firm’s past performance. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer.

Projects cited shall be currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or construction substantially completed within three (3) years preceding the date of this solicitation. If the Government is unable to establish an Offeror’s past performance on relevant projects through ACCAS, CCASS, or previously submitted information or any other means readily available, the Government may contact and interview the points of contact utilizing the sample questionnaire shown in Attachment 6. Furthermore, the Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. The Offeror or the design firm may briefly provide information on problems encountered on identified projects and any corrective action.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

7.1.2.1. The Government will perform a risk assessment with respect to Past Performance. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. (see the interview form at Attachment 6). The Government will not release the Past Performance Evaluation Telephone Interview Questionnaire forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government also places a higher value on performance, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, Offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on performance, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

7.1.2.2. Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity. If the Government does not obtain past performance information and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance risk will be considered “unknown”.

8.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB D – FACTOR 4 – KEY PERSONNEL

8.1 GENERAL

8.1.1. Submission Requirements:

8.1.2. Resumes: The Offeror shall submit the resumes on lead and support design, construction, and management personnel who will work on this project. Provide summaries of the duties and responsibilities of these individuals, which clearly indicate the duties, and responsibilities for each of the individuals, in the format as shown in Attachment 7.

(1) Key personnel identified in this tab shall be Contractor’s senior working-level people who will be involved in design and construction on a day-to-day basis as opposed to departmental level supervisors or executives.

(2) Key personnel shall have experience in design and construction of projects to Similar Highway Vehicular Bridge Projects.

(3) Resumes shall list projects, identified in factor 2 SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE (Tab B), that show previous working relationships among key personnel.

(4) Minimum personnel qualifications are specified in Sections 01 33 16 DESIGN AFTER AWARD, Part 1 paragraph DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION KEY PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS; 01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE; and 01 45 04.00 44 CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL.

(5) The Project Manager as a minimum shall be a certified Project Management Professional (PMP).

Additional licenses are desirable.

(6) The proposal shall clearly present the credentials of each person, and shall show that each meets the requirements listed in the Contract.

(7) Resumes shall include examples of project experience and educational qualifications.

(8) If reassignment of personnel is considered possible, provide the names and resumes of the alternate professionals in each assignment.

(9) The design-build team shall consist of the following, as a minimum:

a. Project Manager (not dual hatted)

b. Lead Engineer

c. Lead Civil Engineer

d. Lead Structural Engineer

e. Lead Electrical Engineer

f. Design Quality Control Manager

g. Construction Quality Control Manager (not dual hatted)

h. Alternate Construction Quality Control Manager

i. Project Superintendent (not dual hatted)

j. Project Scheduler

k. Geologist/Geotechnical Engineer

l. Environmental Engineer/Environmental Scientist

m. Registered Land Surveyor

8.1.3. Evaluation Criteria:

8.1.3.1. Experience on similar highway projects, education, responsibilities/duties, and years of experience will be evaluated for the key construction personnel identified. Offerors with key design or construction personnel with prior experience on military construction projects and/or completion of design-build projects may receive a more favorable evaluation.

8.1.4. Letters Of Commitment: In an appendix, provide letters of commitment for all key personnel on the Design- Build team and any proposed alternate personnel. By identifying these personnel, the offeror is making a commitment that, barring unforeseen circumstances; they are the personnel who will be assigned to the project. A letter of commitment from each firm committing specific individuals from the firm may be provided in lieu of separate letters for each individual. After contract award, substitutions for any of the key personnel or alternates shall require the Contracting Officer’s approval. See Attachment 8 for a sample letter of commitment.

9.0 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 5 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

9.1 GENERAL Submit the Pro Forma information in a separate envelope labeled: “Volume 2 - Pro Forma Requirements.”

9.2 TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE)

9.2.1. Submission Requirements:

9.2.1.1. Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors”. Submit the Proposal Data Sheet, Attachment 10.

9.2.1.2. Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government’s will request a price breakdown of the Contract Line items in a sealed envelope marked “Price Breakdown Information”, in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

9.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

9.2.2.1. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

9.2.2.2. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

9.2.2.3. Award cannot be made for project cost for design and construction exceeding the cost limitation described herein.

9.3 TAB B – BID GUARANTEE

9.3.1. Submission Requirements:

Submit the Bid Bond in accordance with the Instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors”.

9.3.2. Evaluation requirements:

This item is not rated. The Government will review the Bid Bond for legal sufficiency. The Bond must be legally sufficient.

9.4. TAB C – SELF-PERFORMED WORK

9.4.1. Submission Requirements:

9.4.1.1. The Offeror shall confirm that it understands and that it shall perform the amount of work required to be self-performed, in accordance with the appropriate clause in Section 00 72 00 that applies to the contract performance.

9.4.2. Evaluation Requirements:

This is a GO/NO-GO requirement. In order to assure adequate interest in and supervision of all work, the Contractor shall be required to perform a significant part of the contract with its own forces. This public policy is expressed in various Statutes, as well as in the Federal Acquisition Regulations and in the Small Business Administration Code of Federal Regulations. The Offeror must confirm that it understands the amount of work performed, based on the status of the offeror, and that it will self perform the required amount of work with its own forces. For purposes of these clauses, work that is performed off-site, such as factory fabrication or factory assembly of modules, or direct design work, may also be taken into account as self-performed work.

9.5. TAB D – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

9.5.1. Submission Requirements:

9.5.1.1. Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of offeror responsibility, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

(1) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

(2) A certified statement listing; (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

(3) If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

8.5.1.2. One copy of the following information shall be provided:

(1) Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities)

(2) Number of years the firm has been in business

(3) Name, address and telephone number of firm’s bonding company

(4) Information showing offeror’s bondability for this project. Include the bond rate.

(5) Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references.

8.5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

In addition to the other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

9.6. TAB E – SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

9.6.1. Submission Requirements: (NOTE: This Requirement only applies to (the otherwise successful offeror if it is a Large Business. Large Business Offerors.)

9.6.1.1. A large business concern, in accordance with the definition as identified in FAR Clause 52.219-1, “SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REPRESENTATION”, [upon notification that it is the apparent successful offeror,] must submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (Jan 2002) (see Appendix A of this solicitation for the full FAR Clause). The goals established for small business, small disadvantaged business, woman-owned business, HUBZone business, Service disabled veteran-owned small business participation are described in Section 00 21 00, Instructions to Offerors. Note that the goals are expressed as a percentage of the total contract, not percentage of subcontracting.

9.6.1.2. The offeror should provide as much specific information on proposed subcontracted effort for the contract as possible. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be thorough, complete, and in accordance with AFARS Appendix DD and FAR Clause 52.219-9, as it will be incorporated into the contract upon award of the contract to the offeror, if acceptable and upon final approval of the Contracting Officer.

9.6.1.3. The Plan shall include a description of the types of services the firm proposes to subcontract with small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), woman-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), along with the proposed percentages of their participation, to demonstrate a plan to meet the subcontracting goals that will apply to these contracts. If practical, the offeror shall provide specific information on proposed subcontracted effort for this project.

9.6.1.4. Submit the firm’s subcontracting compliance on previous projects completed or underway within the past three years of the date of this solicitation. This requirement may be supported by using copies of the U.S.

Government Standard Form 295.

9.6.2. Evaluation Criteria:

9.6.2.1. The Government will evaluate the Plan in accordance with the rating scheme in Army FAR Supplement Appendix DD and with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9. This factor is rated as GO/NO-GO. To be acceptable (“GO” rating), subcontracting plans must:

(1) Adequately address the required statutory elements.

(2) Provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to answer affirmatively questions A through H of Appendix DD, Part 2, number 8, (Army FAR Supplement 19.705).

(3) A subcontracting plan that is rated 70 percent or less under the AFARS evaluation system will be carefully considered for acceptability. If discussions with Offerors are necessary, those areas where the plan is deficient will be reviewed with the Offeror with the goal of correcting deficiencies.

(4) As part of the evaluation, the Government will compare the small business subcontracting opportunities in the plan with the goals established in the solicitation with additional consideration given for a proposed subcontracting plan that exceeds the goals established in Section 00 21 00 of this solicitation. The Government will give additional credit for a plan which is more specific in nature as to the proposed subcontracting opportunities for Small Business Community (small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), woman-owned small business (WOSB), HubZone business (HUBZone), and service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB).

(5) As part of the subcontracting plan evaluation, the Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s past performance in establishing realistic yet challenging goals, and in achieving them

9.6.2.2. Due to requirements for review of the successful Offeror's subcontracting plan by other agencies, the Government reserves the right to negotiate the details of the final plan with the successful Offeror before award can be made. Minor weaknesses or minor deficiencies will not make the otherwise successful offeror ineligible, however award cannot occur until the Plan is deemed at least acceptable. This process is not considered to be discussions per FAR 15.306.

10.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

10.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

10.1.1. The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation.

The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

10.2. EVALUATION

10.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the RFP submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it.

10.3. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

10.3.1. General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements.

10.3.2. Review Write-up: the Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

10.3.3. Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of Excellent, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable to each factor, which reflect the Government’s confidence in each Offeror’s technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP.

10.4. DEFINITIONS

10.4.1. Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

10.4.2. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

10.4.3. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

10.4.4. Strength. Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

10.4.5. Significant Strength. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increase the probability of successful contract performance.

10.4.6. Uncertainty. Any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear because there may be more than one way to interpret the offer or because inconsistencies in the offer indicate that there may be an error, omission, or mistake.

10.4.7. Excellent. The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes numerous advantageous characteristics of substance, and essentially no disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low

10.4.8. Good. The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low

10.4.9. Acceptable. The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect moderate risk in that they are somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Moderate

10.4.10. Marginal. The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High

10.4.11. Unacceptable. The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has numerous disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are far outweighed by disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages will not result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions are further considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision, are unsupported, and do not demonstrate an understanding of the requirement. Risk Level: Very High

10.5. PAST PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

10.5.1. In addition to adjectival ratings, risk ratings shall be assigned to Past Performance. Past Performance Risk Ratings assess the risks associated with each Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent contracts. SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral/unknown risk rating for these factors:

10.5.2 Risk Rating System

10.5.2.1. Unknown Risk. No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the Offeror or key team members/subcontractors. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

10.5.2.2. Low Risk. Based on the Offeror's past performance record essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

10.5.2.3. Moderate Risk. Based on the Offeror's past performance record some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

10.5.2.4. High Risk. Based on the Offeror's past performance record extreme doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

10.6 TECHNICAL EVALUATION WEIGHTS

10.6.1 Relative Importance Definition.

For the purpose of this evaluation, the following terms will be used to establish the relative importance of the technical factors.

1. Significantly More Important: The criterion is at least two times greater in value than another criterion.

2. More Important: The criterion is greater in value than another criterion but less than two times greater.

3. Equal: The criterion is of the same value or nearly the same as another criterion.

10.6.2 ALL TECHNICAL FACTORS when combined are more important than PRICE.

10.6.3 Weight among technical factors (listed in descending order of importance):

FACTOR 1: DESIGN/TECHNICAL: This factor is more important than Factors 2, 3 and 4.

FACTOR 2 SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE: This factor is equal in importance to Factors 3 and 4.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE: This factor is equal in importance to Factors 2 and 4.

FACTOR 4: KEY PERSONNEL: This factor is equal in importance to Factors 2 and 3.

10.7. PRICE

10.7.1. The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine completeness, reasonableness, and understanding of the work. The evaluation will determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP.

Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the IGE, and any other pricing tools necessary.

10.7.2. Price will not be rated, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final best value determination for award.

W9126G-08-R-0175

SECTION 00 22 11 - ATTACHMENT 1

NOT USED

SECTION 00 22 11 - ATTACHMENT 2

NOT USED

SECTION 00 22 11 - ATTACHMENT 3

CONSTRUCTION – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE FORM

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last five years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.

a Type of Construction Represented ______________________________________________________ b Your Firm’s Name ___________________________________________________________________ c Name of Project_____________________________________________________________________ d Location of Project___________________________________________________________________ e Owner ____________________________________________________________________________ f General Scope of Construction Project ___________________________________________________ g Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self-Performed :

h Construction Cost ___________________________________________________________________ i Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out __________________________________________ j Dates Construction: Began___________________ Completed______________ k Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known __________________________________________ l Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages? ___________________________________

(If either is “Yes”, attach an Explanation) m Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company) ________________________________ n Current Telephone Number of Reference POC_____________________________________________

SECTION 00 22 11 - ATTACHMENT 4

DESIGNER – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE FORM

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last five years a Type of Construction Represented ______________________________________________________ b Your Firm’s Name ___________________________________________________________________ c Name of Project_____________________________________________________________________ d Location of Project___________________________________________________________________ e Owner…