180am3r.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The Solicitation for Design/Bid/Build IDIQ Contract for Construction Services for Installation Support Primarily for Air Force in the San Antonio, TX Area and Secondary Within the Southwestern Division Geographic boundaries, (SATOC, 8a), is amended as follows::

See Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: The proposal due date and time remain 11 July 2008 at 10:00 a.m. local time.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 36

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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-0180

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Jun-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, 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 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

26-Jun-2008

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9126G-08-R-0179 Section 00 11 00 Page 2 of 6

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION SF30 - CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 11 00 - STANDARD FORM (SF) 1442 AND CLIN SCHEDULE

CHANGES TO DOCUMENTS 00 - INTRODUCTORY, BIDDING, AND CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

1. Replacement Sections. - Replace the following sections with the accompanying new sections with the same spec number , bearing the notation "ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT NO. 0003 TO SOLICITATION NO. W9126G- 08-R-0180."

SF1442 SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD

00 11 00 DETAILED CLIN BREAKOUT SCHEDULE**

** FORMER TITLE WAS CLIN SCHEDULE

The following have been modified:

CLIN INFO

Design/Build, Design/Bid/Build IDIQ Contract For Construction Services For Installation Support

Primarily for Army in the San Antonio, TX Area and Secondary Within the Southwestern Division Geographic Boundaries.

CLIN SCHEDULE AND HYBRID WORK BREAKOUT STRUCTURE

NOTES:

1. ARITHMETIC DISCREPANCIES (EFARS 14.407-2)

(a) For the purpose of initial evaluation of bids, the following will be utilized in resolving arithmetic discrepancies found on the face of the CLIN schedule as submitted by bidders:

(1) Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected;

(2) In case of discrepancy between unit price and extended price, the unit price will govern;

(3) Apparent errors in extension of unit prices will be corrected; and

(4) Apparent errors in addition of lump-sum and extended prices will be corrected.

(b) For the purpose of price proposal evaluation, the Government will proceed on the assumption that the offeror intends his price proposal to be evaluated on the basis of the unit prices, the totals arrived at by resolution of arithmetic discrepancies as provided above and the price proposal will be so reflected on the abstract of bids.

(c) These correction procedures shall not be used to resolve any ambiguity concerning which proposal is low.

W9126G-08-R-0179 Section 00 11 00 Page 3 of 6

2. If a modification to a price proposal based on unit prices is submitted, which provides for a lump sum adjustment to the total estimated cost, the application of the lump sum adjustment to each unit price in the CLIN schedule must be stated. If it is not stated, the offeror agrees that the lump sum adjustment shall be applied on a pro rata basis to every unit price in the CLIN schedule.

3. Offerors must bid on all items.

4. Costs attributable to Division 01 General Requirements are assumed to be prorated among CLIN items listed.

5. Responders are advised that this requirement may be delayed, cancelled or revised at any time during the solicitation, selection, evaluation, negotiation and/or final award process based on decisions related to DOD changes in force structure and disposition of the Armed Forces.

6. The above CLINS identified with “TBD” are to be determined on a task order basis.

W9126G-08-R-0179 Section 00 11 00 Page 4 of 6

NOTES: (cont)

7. SITE VISITS: The site visit line items within this bid schedule shall contain only labor hour costs. All travel, per diem and supplies necessary for the site visit shall be negotiated and definitive within the work plan line item. For site visit definitions, see SECTION 00 90 00.

8.

Reference the Hybrid WorkBreakout Structure above. Offerors shall complete the Hybrid Work Breakout Structure (Firm-Fixed Price) Rates above in addition to the rest of the CLINs on the CONTRACT LINE ITEM (CLIN) SCHEDULE (Section 00 11 00). The Firm Fixed Price Work Breakout Structure applies to the PRIME CONTRACTOR ONLY. If the prime contractor does not currently employ any of these individuals, the prime shall provide the wage rate that it would pay that individual if the individual were employed by the prime contractor. In addition, these rates will also be evaluated for price reasonableness for the purpose of the initial award of the IDIQ. Unusually low or high rates may result in the Offeror’s not being selected for contract award. Offerors may not be given the opportunity to revise their prices, so Offerors are strongly encouraged to provide their best pricing the first time.

9. BONDING (Overhead and Profit shall not be applied to bond costs):

The Contractor shall include the cost of bonding for the appropriate guaranteed minimum as identified within this solicitation for the Base Period as well as a rate for additional bonding. There is no guaranteed minimum amount required for the Option Periods, just for the Base Period.

Unless requested by the Contractor in accordance with FAR 52.232-5(g) (Section 00 70 00, CONTRACT CLAUSES), the premiums paid for performance and payment bonds associated with the contract award will be reimbursed on a Task Order basis based on the value of the task order in accordance with the per unit price established in the bidding schedule. The Contractor shall submit a line item bid price to reflect costs for bonding per $1,000.00. The bid item shall be applied and listed separately on each task order when issued, based on the cost of the construction services.

The premiums paid for performance and payment bonds will not exceed the amount established in the bidding schedule. Upon verification of the bonding premiums as annotated on Standard Form 25 and 25A, the Government may modify the contract to reflect a decrease in the amount bid.

10. TRAVEL COSTS: Costs for travel may be negotiated for each task order as allowed by Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 31.205-46 Travel costs. The Federal Travel Regulation will be used for travel in the conterminous 48 United States. The Joint Travel Regulation will be used for travel in Alaska, Hawaii, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and territories and possessions of the United States. Travel costs are allocable expenses for transportation, lodging, meals, and incidental expenses associated with official Government business as allowed by FAR 31.205-46. (Federal Travel Regulation web site is http://www.policyworks.gov/org/main/mt/homepage/mtt/ftr/ftrhp.shtml. Joint Travel Regulation web site is http://www.dtic.mil/perdiem/trvlregs.html, then click on JTR – VOL 2 DOD CIVILIANS, then Acrobat PDF File.)

W9126G-08-R-0179 Section 00 11 00 Page 5 of 6

NOTES: (cont)

11. ABBREVIATIONS: For the purpose of this solicitation, the units of measure are represented as follows:

a. EA (each)

b. HR (hour)

c. K (thousand)

d. LS (Lump Sum)

e. TBD (To Be Determined)

END OF CLIN SCHEDULE

CLIN SCHEDULAL

Design/Build, Design/Bid/Build IDIQ Contract

For

Construction Services For Installation Support Primarily for Army in the San Antonio, Texas Area and Secondary

Within the Southwestern Division Geographic Boundaries.

HYBRID WORK BREAKOUT STRUCTURE

(to be attached to SF1442)

BASE PERIOD

ITEM

NO.

DESCRIPTION ESTIMATE

D QTY

UNIT OF

MEASUR

E

UNIT

PRICE

EXTENDED PRICE

0010 SITE VISIT **** **** **** ****

0010AA TYPE I SITE VISIT **** LS ****

0010BB TYPE II SITE VISIT **** LS ****

0010CC TYPE III SITE VISIT **** LS ****

0020 WORK PLAN TBD TBD TBD TBD

0030 CONSTRUCTION TBD TBD TBD TBD

0040 FIRM FIXED PRICE SUMMARY

WAGE RATES (see Note 8 below)

0040AA PROGRAM MANAGER 500 HR

0040BB PROJECT MANAGER 2000 HR

0040EE COST ESTIMATOR 500 HR

0040FF SUPERINTENDENT 2000 HR

0040GG QUALITY CONTROL MANAGER 2000 HR

0050 BONDING (PERFORMANCE AND

PAYMENT) (Lump Sum to Cover Amount of Guaranteed Minimum)

**** LS ****

0060 ADDITIONAL BONDING

(PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT)

(Unit price for each additional $1,000 of Bonding)

1 1k

BASE PERIOD TOTAL

OPTION YEAR 1

NO.

DESCRIPTION ESTIMATE

D QTY

UNIT OF

MEASUR

E

UNIT

1010 SITE VISIT **** **** **** ****

1010AA TYPE I SITE VISIT **** LS ****

1010BB TYPE II SITE VISIT **** LS ****

1010CC TYPE III SITE VISIT **** LS ****

1020 WORK PLAN TBD TBD TBD TBD

1030 CONSTRUCTION TBD TBD TBD TBD

1040 FIRM FIXED PRICE SUMMARY

WAGE RATES (see Note 8 below)

1040AA PROGRAM MANAGER 500 HR

1040BB PROJECT MANAGER 2000 HR

1040EE COST ESTIMATOR 500 HR

1040FF SUPERINTENDENT 2000 HR

1040GG QUALITY CONTROL MANAGER 2000 HR

1050 NOT USED **** **** **** ********

1060 BONDING (PERFORMANCE AND

PAYMENT) (Unit price for each $1,000 of Bonding)

OPTION YEAR 1 TOTAL

OPTION YEAR 2

NO.

DESCRIPTION ESTIMATE

D QTY

UNIT OF

MEASUR

E

UNIT

2010 SITE VISIT **** **** **** ****

2010AA TYPE I SITE VISIT **** LS ****

2010BB TYPE II SITE VISIT **** LS ****

2010CC TYPE III SITE VISIT **** LS ****

2020 WORK PLAN TBD TBD TBD TBD

2030 CONSTRUCTION TBD TBD TBD TBD

2040 FIRM FIXED PRICE SUMMARY

WAGE RATES (see Note 8 below)

2040AA PROGRAM MANAGER 500 HR

2040BB PROJECT MANAGER 2000 HR

2040EE COST ESTIMATOR 500 HR

2040FF SUPERINTENDENT 2000 HR

2040GG QUALITY CONTROL MANAGER 2000 HR

2050 NOT USED **** **** **** ********

2060 BONDING (PERFORMANCE AND

PAYMENT) (Unit price for each $1,000 of Bonding)

OPTION YEAR 2 TOTAL

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 modified:

SELECTION

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS,

NOTICE TO OFFERORS, AND BASIS OF AWARD

PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADE-OFF

1. PROPOSAL OVERVIEW. This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits San Antonio IDIQ Construction/Services. The purpose of the Source Selection plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the technical evaluation of proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value Decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Trade-Off Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1). In-as-much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform any resulting contract, the proposal should be specific and complete in every detail. The proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent. Local Instructions, including Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Provisions are located in Section 00 21 00.

1.1 Proposal Submissions and the Trade-Off Process. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

Offerors submit their performance and capability information for review and consideration by the Government. Relative weights among technical factors are provided in paragraph 5 Technical Evaluation Weights . The SSEB reviews, evaluates, and rates the proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP. Concurrently, the Government analyzes price proposals of Offerors. 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. The SSA compares proposals to one another and determines the best value for the government. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit. Any legally organized 8(a) offeror with an SBA-approved bona fide office in the Geographical area served by the SBA San Antonio District Office may submit a proposal

2.2 Where to Submit. Offerors shall submit their proposals to the Fort Worth District at the address shown in Block 7 of the Standard Form 1442.

2.3 Submission Deadline. Proposals shall be received by the Fort Worth District no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

2.4 General Requirements.

2.4.1 In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. Failures to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affect an Offeror's evaluation. Offerors should provide sufficient detail and clearly define all items required in this section. The Contracting Officer may remove any Offeror from further consideration during any phase of the procurement if the Offeror fails to meet the submittal requirements of the RFP or to reduce the competitive range for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

2.4.2 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as shown in paragraph 2.5 Submission Format.

2.4.3 Size of Printed Matter Submissions.

2.4.3.1 Written proposal materials shall be submitted in standard three ring loose-leaf binders. Proposals shall be tabbed and labeled in a manner to afford easy identification from a Table of Contents. Font size shall not be less than 10 point. Each page shall be identified with the appropriate page number centered at the bottom of the page. Sheet size of the proposal contents shall be 8-1/2 inches x 11 inches where sheets are prepared specifically for this proposal; however, if drawings, charts, or other graphics are submitted, sheets no larger than 11 inches x 17 inches and folded to 8-1/2 inches x 11 inches shall be used. 11 x 17 inch sheets will be counted as 2 8-1/2 inch x 11 inch sheets. Volume II, Technical Proposal, shall not exceed 80 pages (80 single-sided or 40 double-sided sheets), excluding the cover sheet and Table of

Contents. The Government will not review any information submitted in an appendix or attachment to the proposal. The Offeror must comply with the page limitation. The Offeror shall not submit verbatim sections of this solicitation as part of their proposal. Offers that do not meet these requirements may be subject to rejection.

2.4.3.2 The proposals shall contain a detailed table of contents. If more than one binder is used, the complete table of contents shall be included in each. A cover sheet identifying the Offeror (name, address, point of contact) project description, and solicitation number shall be provided. The second sheet shall be a Table of Contents. Offers that violate these rules unnecessarily delay the evaluation process and may be rejected by the Government after the initial evaluation without receiving any further consideration. The Government will not evaluate any information beyond the page limitation noted above.

2.4.3.3 Proposal revisions shall be submitted as page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g., bold face print or underlining. The source of the revision, e.g., Error, Omission, or Clarification, or amendment shall be included and be annotated for each revision. Proposal replacement pages shall be numbered, shall be clearly marked “REVISED”, shall show the date of revision, shall be submitted in appropriate number of copies (e.g., if two (2) copies of the original page was required, then two (2) copies of the revised page will also be required, and shall be a different color than the original pages they are to replace.

2.4.4 Number of Copies. Offerors shall submit an original and one (1) hard copy of Volume I and an original and five (5) hard copies of Volume II of their Proposal in both hard copy and electronic format.

Within three (3) days of contract award, the awardee shall submit both volumes, updated to include all revisions, in electronic format on a CD-ROM.

2.5 Submission Format.

2.5.1 The Proposal will be tabbed and submitted in a three ring binders in the following format:

VOLUME I – Price/Cost Proposal

TAB A – SF 1442, completed and signed by an authorized person from the company or team

TAB B – Section 00 11 00 – Supplies or Services and Price/Costs Schedule

TAB C – Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications

TAB D – PROPOSAL DATA SHEET – See the format provided in this Section. Ensure to include Offeror’s telephone number, FAX number, e-mail address and DUNS number. Duns number will be used to access CCASS data.

TAB E – Bid Bond (Standard Form 24)

TAB F – Pre Award Information (e.g. Bank and Supplier References)

In accordance with FAR 9.103(a) “… contracts shall be awarded to responsible prospective contractors only.” To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the standards at FAR 9.104 that requires a prospective contractor to have adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain them. As an aid in assessing responsibility, the offeror shall notify their bank/suppliers that the Corps of Engineers may contact them, and shall authorize the bank/suppliers to release the following information regarding the Offeror’s account. If a written authorization is required by their bank, Offerors shall provide that authorization with their proposal.

Name and telephone number of bank’s point of contact Number of year’s business has been conducted with each bank Types of open accounts (checking, loans, etc.)

Balance of current accounts (the banks will provide a "range of figures" for this information, such as, medium five-figures range) Means by which loans are secured and if paid as agreed Point of contact and telephone number of three (3) different suppliers

For the purpose of evaluating the preaward survey information submitted hereunder:

Preaward survey data will be evaluated and scored, as it relates to the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort.

The Government will use pre-award survey data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources to perform this assessment.

VOLUME II – Technical Proposal

THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY COST INFORMATION AND

SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT ANNOTATED ABOVE. ALL INFORMATION

SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THESE TABBED SECTIONS AND SHALL NOT BE

INCLUDED AS AN APPENDIX OR ATTACHMENT).

TAB 1 – FACTOR 1: CONSTRUCTION PAST PERFORMANCE (Worksheet & Questionnaire Provided)

TAB 2 – FACTOR 2: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE (No Worksheet Provided)

TAB 3 – FACTOR 3: DESIGN SUPPORT (No Worksheet Provided)

TAB 4 – FACTOR 4: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS (No Worksheet Provided)

3. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

3.1 FACTOR 1: CONSTRUCTION PAST PERFORMANCE (VOLUME II, TAB 1). Offerors shall be evaluated on construction projects completed or in progress in the last five years that are same/similar in nature to the project requirements solicited under this RFP. The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine technical capability to perform the proposed contract and how well it satisfied its customers. The information presented in the Offeror’s submittal, together with that from other sources available to the Government will comprise the input for evaluation of this factor. The following elements will be evaluated:

• Quality of Construction

• Timeliness of Performance

• Customer Satisfaction

• Subcontractor Management

• Documentation

• Safety Record

3.1.1 Offeror’s Submission Requirements.

3.1.1.1 Project Information Worksheets. Offerors shall provide project information on no more than ten completed (or substantially complete) projects, of which 3 projects submitted can be currently under construction and at least 30% complete, that reflect prior past performance in the construction elements referenced in paragraph 3.1 above The examples should be similar to this solicitation in project type and scope. As a minimum, the contractor shall provide the data specified in the attached “Project Information” Worksheet. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies for the purpose of this RFP, each company shall list project examples. The information provided on the Project Information Worksheets will be used in the evaluations of Factor 1, Construction Past Performance, and Factor 2, Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience.

3.1.1.2 Performance Documentation. For each project submitted, offerors shall submit available performance documentation. If no performance documentation is available, state so on the project information worksheet.

3.1.1.2.1 For Corps of Engineer or other DOD contracts, provide a copy of the signed CCASS (Construction Contract Administration Support System) evaluation issued at the completion of the project.

3.1.1.2.2 For non-Corps of Engineer contracts, provide a copy of the performance rating issued by the contracting agent.

3.1.1.2.3 Offerors may submit awards, letters or other forms of recognition relevant to the submitted projects that demonstrate the offeror’s performance capabilities and customer satisfaction.

3.1.1.3 Past Performance Questionnaires. For each project that does not have a final CCASS evaluation, offerors shall provide a questionnaire to the point of contact, clearly identifying the project to be evaluated.

A sample Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire is included at the end of this section. When completed, these forms shall be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the Fort Worth District Contract Specialist identified in the sample transmittal letter provided. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that the reference documentation is provided, as the Government may not make additional requests for past performance information from the references. The evaluation form shall be provided to the Contract Specialist directly from the reference. Do not request past performance questionnaires on projects that have final CCASS evaluations.

3.1.1.4 Safety Record. The offeror shall submit either OSHA Form 300, or 300a showing the incident rates for their firm for all projects within the past three years. This form, in Microsoft Excel format, can be downloaded from the Internet at:

http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/new-osha300form1-1-04.xls http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/HR/OSHA_Form_300.doc http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/oshalog300.pdf

This data is to be converted using the following formula for each of the three years:

Number of Lost Time Accidents for the year (Column H on Form 300 or 300A) x 200,000 divided by Man- Hours Worked that Year (from Form 300A) = Incident Rate for the Year

The contractor shall calculate the lost time incident rate for each of the past 3 years using the appropriate OSHA Form data . These calculations shall be presented for each year with the mathematical average of all 3 years. The target average lost time incident rate is 1.0. Offerors with an average lost time incident rate exceeding 1.0 are encouraged to submit an explanation of their incident rate and/or what they have done to improve their safety record. All offerors are encouraged to submit documentation indicating improvements in their safety record, safety awards, and other safety recognition.

If the Offeror has a safety incentives program, information shall be submitted describing this program. The description of the safety incentives program shall include as a minimum a description of what benefits the firm has seen by implementing the program, benefits to the customer and a description of how the program is administered.

3.1.1.5 Other Sources. The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the Offeror for information with respect to past performance on projects completed or substantially completed within the past 5 years and on projects that are currently under construction. These other sources may include, but are not limited to, CCASS, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the Offeror’s performance, and Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability.

3.1.1.6 New Companies and Joint Ventures. New companies and joint ventures entering the marketplace (without relevant company experience) are reminded that they, along with all other offerors, may submit past performance information for key personnel, using the attached “Project Information” worksheets. If such information is submitted, how long key personnel stayed on their assigned projects and how well they managed their portion of the referenced projects shall be used to judge past performance, along with any other information regarding such key personnel from any other sources the Government may choose to contact. If no such information regarding key personnel is given, then the new company or joint venture shall be given a neutral rating.

3.1.2 Evaluation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's responsiveness to the solicitation regarding past performance using the sources identified above. New Companies and Joint Ventures shall be evaluated on their own past performance, including the performance of key personnel as noted in 3.1.1.6, above, to determine the company’s ability to perform satisfactorily under the elements of evaluation.

Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. The Government treats an Offeror's lack of past performance as having no positive or negative evaluation significance. The Government will evaluate past performance based on the elements listed below:

• Quality of Construction. Based on all information available, the Government will assess the quality of the actual construction undertaken and the standards of workmanship exhibited by the Offeror.

• Timeliness of Performance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror completing past projects within the scheduled completion times.

• Customer Satisfaction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s past customer satisfaction, cooperation with customers, and interaction on past projects.

• Subcontractor Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s management of subcontractors, including mitigation of conflicts and resolution of disputes at the lowest level. For large businesses, the Government will also evaluate compliance with subcontracting plans.

• Documentation. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the

Offeror’s level of meeting customer satisfaction on timeliness and quality of the documentation, reports, and other written materials completed by the Offeror on past projects.

• Safety Record. All information available with respect to the Offeror’s safety record, to include

CCASS rating for safety, lost time incident rate, safety incentive program, safety awards, and other indications of improvements in safety will be taken into consideration in evaluating the Offeror’s overall safety record.

3.2 FACTOR 2: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE (VOLUME II, TAB

2).

Offerors shall be evaluated on their experience in two areas: experience with task order type contracts and experience in various types of construction-related work, including new construction, alterations, renovations and repairs, and design-build construction. The following list is indicative of the variety of work that may be performed by task order under this contract:

• SAFETY - Life safety upgrade, inflammatory gases and substances, industrial safety, industrial hygiene, fire protection, airfield pavements, confined space entry, radioactive and laser operations, hazardous materials, protection of work sites and property, and protection of workers.

• CIVIL - Facility site planning and layout, roads, parking areas, storm water, sewage drainage, and master planning.

• ARCHITECTURAL - Facilities with functional and aesthetic integrity.

• ENVIRONMENTAL - Removal and disposal of asbestos, lead-based paint, underground storage tanks, light’s ballast, transformers and other hazardous materials.

• STRUCTURAL - Structural engineering for conventional construction, construction materials, computer usage, loading, structural systems, and miscellaneous structural features.

• INSTRUMENTATION - Instrumentation for energy monitoring and control systems, direct digital control and fire protection.

• COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS - Conventional communication systems and fiber optics.

• SECURITY - Facility security systems; anti-terrorism/force protection measures.

• ELECTRICAL - Facility electrical power and service supply, distribution, utilization systems including lighting, power generation, and uninterrupted power supply (UPS).

• MECHANICAL - Facility heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC), elevators, and plumbing systems.

3.2.1 Offeror’s Submission Requirements. No additional project information is required to be submitted for this factor. The Project Information Worksheets submitted under Factor 1 shall be used to evaluate the offeror’s experience under this factor. Additional Project Information Worksheets shall not be submitted under this factor. Offerors are encouraged to submit a chart or table depicting their experience in the various types of construction activities listed in Paragraph 3.2 above.

3.2.2 New Companies and Joint Ventures. If offeror represents the combining of two or more companies for the purpose of this RFP, the proposal shall clearly identify the contractual responsibilities of each firm and the work to be performed by each; describe the nature of the association; indicate whether the firms have experience working together in construction ventures, including how long and how many projects. In addition, each company including joint ventures shall list their Government contract experience. Provide a copy of the commitment letter of the firms or the joint venture agreement. Prior to award of any contract, a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement will be required. If approval of the Joint Venture Agreement is required by the Small Business Administration, failure to timely provide an approved SBA Joint Venture Agreement may prevent award of a contract.

3.2.3 Evaluation. The Government will review the projects provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate the recent relevant specialized experience of the Offeror with similar projects. The Government will place a higher value on experience with similar task order contracts executed with the Corps of Engineers or other DoD Components. If the Offeror cannot provide suitable relevant experience and the evaluators consider that the information provided indicates that the Offeror has no relevant experience, a determination will be made as to the risk this lack of corporate experience presents to the Government and the proposal will be evaluated accordingly. The experience of individuals will not be evaluated under this factor.

FACTOR 3: DESIGN SUPPORT (VOLUME II, TAB 3) Design capability is an important element of this contract. Design work incidental to construction as well as design/build task orders may be issued under this contract. Offeror will be evaluated on the designers’ ability to support the design requirements for task orders issued under this contract based on their qualifications and experience.

3.3.1 Offeror’s Submission Requirements. Qualifications and experience for the designers to be utilized in support of this contract shall be provided using Standard Form (SF) 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications.

3.3.1.1 Personnel Qualifications. Key design personnel for SF 330, Part I, Block E, are defined as:

Architect, Mechanical Engineer, Civil Engineer, Structural Engineer, and Electrical Engineer. Minimum qualifications for each key designer are professional engineering or architect registration plus a minimum of 5 years design experience in his/her respective discipline. Two resumes for each discipline (architecture, mechanical, electrical, civil, structural) are required to be submitted under Block E.

3.3.1.2 Example Projects. Provide up to 10 example projects in SF330, Part I, Block F, that demonstrate the designer’s ability to support the design requirements for the variety of work that may be performed under this contract. Refer to Factor 2 above for a list of the variety of work that may be performed under this contract.

3.3.1.3 CADD Capabilities. In SF330, Part I, Block H, describe your CADD capabilities and experience with AutoCADD .

3.3.1.4 Team Experience. In SF330, Part I, Block H, discuss any prior work experience between the design team and the offeror. Also discuss design team experience for the Corps of Engineers (COE) or other DOD agencies and design experience in San Antonio.

3.3.2 Evaluation.

3.3.2.1 Personnel Qualifications. Resumes will be evaluated for qualifications and relevant technical experience to support the design requirements of this contract.

3.3.2.2 Example Projects. Projects will be evaluated and rated for relevancy compared to the variety of work that may be performed under this contract.

3.3.2.3 CADD Capabilities. The Government will review the designer’s CADD capabilities and experience for compatibility with San Antonio requirements.

3.3.2.4 Team Experience. Prior work experience between the design team and the offeror, design experience with the COE or other DOD agencies, or design experience in San Antonio are not requirements for this solicitation. However, additional consideration will be provided for prior experience in any of these areas.

3.4 FACTOR 4: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS (VOLUME II, TAB 4). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management effectiveness by considering the Offeror’s understanding and capability of successfully managing the project to completion. The following elements will be evaluated:

• Personnel Qualifications.

• Home Office Management and Support.

• Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization.

3.4.1 Offeror’s Submission Requirements.

3.4.1.1 Personnel Qualifications. Offeror shall identify the principal program personnel as outlined in Section 00 90 00, DESCRIPTION/SPECS/WORK STATEMENT, with their areas of responsibility and relationship with the management structure. Principal program personnel are defined as, but not limited to, Program Manager, Project Manager, Cost Estimator, Site Superintendent, Quality Control System Manager (ref: Sections 00 90 00 DESCRIPTION/SPECS/WORK STATEMENT and 01 45 04.00 CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL for minimum qualifications). Key design personnel qualifications will not be evaluated as part of this factor. Offeror shall provide key personnel resume information that includes as a minimum, the following:

• Name and Title

• Specific assignment on this project

• Name of Firm (If different from Offeror)

• Number of years with this firm/with other firms

• Education - Degree(s)/year/specialization

• Active registration: number/state/year

• Specific experience, including dates, and qualifications relevant to this project

Offerors are encouraged to provide descriptive analysis of why they feel their proposed personnel meet the criteria for principal program personnel experience.

3.4.1.2 Home Office Management and Support.

3.4.1.2.1 Describe the home office organization, responsibilities and lines of authority established for the contract. The use of a flow chart diagram of the home office management/support structure is encouraged.

3.4.1.2.2 Describe your plan and capabilities to respond to the Government's notification of a proposed Task Order requirement. Include your plan and capabilities to estimate, prepare, submit and/or negotiate Task Order proposals within the range anticipated under the awarded contract; your plan to interface with the Government for informational, collaborative and historical purposes regarding a wide variety of construction projects for a wide variety of customers simultaneously; your plan for task order management under the awarded contract, including your plan for conducting meetings and in-process reviews.

3.4.1.2.3 Describe your plan for managing subcontract performance, acquisition, execution and administration.

3.4.1.2.4 Describe your material purchasing system and capabilities.

3.4.1.2.5 Describe your resources in personnel, construction plant and equipment available to self-perform required work under individual Task Orders. Fully describe the type of work your firm is capable of self-performing and describe the types of work you intend to self-perform, if awarded this contract.

3.4.1.2.6 Describe your resources available and your capabilities to support this project concurrently with other projected on-going or new work. Describe your resources available and your capabilities to manage and execute several concurrent Task Orders. State why your firm is especially qualified to undertake this contract.

3.4.1.3 Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization. ALL OFFERORS are required to provide a narrative discussion of their plan, as well as provide the information requested in the below table, for utilization of small and small disadvantaged businesses. At a minimum, the narrative shall discuss:

3.4.1.3.1 Goals for subcontracting with small and small disadvantaged businesses in sufficient detail to allow Government evaluators to determine that these goals are realistic, justifiable, positive, and in accordance with the Government’s policy to maximize opportunities for these types of businesses.

3.4.1.3.2 The extent to which small disadvantaged businesses, and where appropriate, historically black colleges and universities/minority institutions (HBCU/MI) have been identified for participation as part of the Offeror’s team.

3.4.1.3.3 The Offeror’s past and present commitment to providing subcontracting opportunities and encouragement to small and small disadvantaged businesses.

3.4.1.3.4 The Offeror must complete the following table as part of their proposal to express in percentage what they plan to execute as a prime contractor and what they plan to subcontract for this project.

Utilization of Small and Small Disadvantaged Business

*Percentage

Self Perform (Prime Contractor) %

Subcontracted Work:

- Small and Small Business Disadvantaged Business %

- HBCU/MI %

Total: 100%

*Representative of the percentage of the total project.

3.4.2 Evaluation.

3.4.2.1 Personnel Qualifications. The Government will review the key personnel provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate the recent experience of the key personnel in similar projects. Resumes will be evaluated for qualifications and relevant technical experience to this project. The key personnel example projects should closely resemble the project identified in this solicitation.

3.4.2.2 Home Office Management and Support. The Government will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the Offeror’s organization, systems and plans for responding to task order requirements, estimating, submitting and negotiating proposals, for completing construction (new construction, alterations, or repairs), for managing subcontractors, capability and commitment to self-perform the required percentage of work, and the capacity to successfully accomplish the task orders along with other ongoing work, and multiple task orders, all in a timely manner.

3.4.2.3 Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization. The Government will evaluate narratives provided for the following elements. Greater detail and specificity will be given greater credit than general statements and commitments.

3.4.2.3.1 The extent to which the goals for subcontracting with small and small disadvantaged businesses are realistic, justifiable, positive, and in accordance with the Government’s policy to maximize opportunities for these types of businesses.

3.4.2.3.2 The extent to which small disadvantaged businesses, and where appropriate, historically black colleges and universities/minority institutions (HBCU/MI) have been identified for participation as part of the Offeror’s team.

3.4.2.3.3 The Offeror’s past commitment to providing subcontracting opportunities and encouragement to small and small disadvantaged businesses.

4. EVALUATION STANDARDS. Evaluation criteria (factors) will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions. Evaluators will apply the appropriate adjective to each criterion rated. The evaluator’s narrative explanation must clearly establish that the Offeror’s submittal meets the definitions established below. As each criteria is evaluated an assessment of Risk will be made. The “Adjectival Ratings and Risk Assessments” are applicable to all criteria except Past Performance. Past Performance Adjectival Ratings and Risk Assessments are listed below in Section 4.2.

4.1 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND RISK ASSESSMENTS

4.1.1 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

4.1.2 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 a good 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

4.1.3 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

4.1.4 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

4.1.5 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

4.2. PAST PERFORMANCE ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND RISK ASSESSMENTS

4.2.1 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 unknown risk rating.

4.2.2 Excellent. Essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

4.2.3 Good. Little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

4.2.4 Adequate. Some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

4.2.5 Marginal. Significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

4.2.6 Poor. It is Extremely doubtful that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

4.2.7 Unknown. The offeror has little/no relevant past performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction.

. Risk Rating System

4.2.8 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.

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

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

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

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

5.3 Weight among technical factors :

FACTOR 1: CONSTRUCTION PAST PERFORMANCE: This factor is more important than Factors 2, 3 and 4.

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

FACTOR 3: DESIGN SUPPORT: This factor is equal in importance to Factors 2 and 4.

FACTOR 4: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS: This factor is equal in importance to Factors 2 and 3.

6. PRICE.

6.1 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.

6.2 Price will not be rated, but will be a factor…