am_2.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) P ib d b GSA

The Request for Proposal for IDIQ MATOC for Construction Services (Design-Build) for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division (SWD), Small Business Set Aside, primarily Red River Army Depot, Texarkana, Texas, is amended as follows:

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

Note: The Receipt of Proposal Date is 1 September 2009, 2:00 pm, local time, as previously announced.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

W9126G-09-R-0096

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-July-2009

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

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 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

11-Aug-2009

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:

W9126G-09-R-0096

SECTION SF30 - CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00- PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Section 00 22 11 Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Criteria, and Basis of Award One Step - Best Value (Multiple Award): Replace Section 00 22 11 with accompanying Section 00 22 11 bearing the notation “ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT NO. 0002 TO SOLICITATION NO. W9126G-09-R-0096.”

CHANGES TO SEED TASK ORDER

2. Section 00 73 46 Wage Determinations: Replace Section 00 73 46 of the seed project only with accompanying Section 00 73 46 bearing the notation “ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT NO. 0002 TO SOLICITATION NO. W9126G-09-R-0096.” Section 00 73 46 for the MATOC solicitation remains unchanged.

End of Summary of Changes

ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT NO. 0002 TO SOLICITATION NO. W9126G-09-R-0096

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-1

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Criteria, and Basis of Award One Step - Best Value (Multiple Award)

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTION

Section 00 22 11

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS,

NOTICE TO OFFERORS, AND BASIS OF AWARD

AM #0002

1. PROPOSAL OVERVIEW. This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits proposals for IDIQ MATOC(s) primarily for Red River Army Depot, Texarkana, Texas, and within Southwestern Division boundaries. 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.

The scope of this MATOC includes, but is not limited to, construction, renovation, repairs, preventive maintenance, environmental abatement, and operations activities. The contracts are not only intended to execute new construction, design-build and design-bid-build, but to provide a timely response to remediation of real and personal property facilities, e.g., maintenance, repair, asbestos and lead-base paint abatement, and minor construction situations relating to, but not limited to, civil, mechanical, plumbing, structural, electrical, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), instrumentation, anti-terrorism and force protection.

From this solicitation, a pool of three to five contracts will be awarded. The pool of contracts have a combined estimated capacity of $49,900,000. Each contract shall have a base period of one year plus four one-year option periods. A guaranteed minimum of $10,000.00 per contract will be awarded for the base period only. Task orders issued under this contract may range from a minimum anount of $3,000 to a maximum amount of $5 million.

Historically, task order projects at Red River Army Depot have averaged approximately $200,000 in value.

The contractor shall perform in accordance with the attached Scope of Work, with the Scope of Work provided with each Task Order and within strict accordance of the terms and conditions specified herein.

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. A competitive range consisting of the most highly qualified technical offerors will be established prior to discussion (if held). Concurrently, the Government analyzes price proposals of Offerors utilizing the initial task order project cost proposal. Price will not be rated, but will be a factor 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.

1.2 Initial Task Order Project. The scope of work for the initial task order project is provided as part of this solicitation. Offerors are required to submit a cost proposal as part of the response to this solicitation for the initial task order project. The initial task order project cost proposal will be used to evaluate price for each pool in the basic MATOC contract. The best value initial task order project may be awarded to one of the most highly rated contractors as the initial task order.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit. Any legally organized small business offeror may submit a proposal.

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-2

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 90 pages (90 single-sided), 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 limitations. 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 Volumes II of their Proposal in both hard copy and electronic format. Within three (3) days of contract award, the awardees shall submit Volumes I and II, 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:

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-3

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 – Contract Line Item (CLIN) Schedule for the initial task order project

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)

1. Financial Capacity. Submit a letter of current bonding capacity from an acceptable Surety/Bonding Company. The letter shall address the offeror’s bonding capacity 1) for an individual task order and 2) aggregate bonding capacity. The information submitted will be considered for reasonableness considering the maximum task order amount for the pool and the offeror’s ability to secure additional bonding protection.

2. The bid guarantee shall be submitted in accordance with Section 00 72 00, Contract Clause 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee. The bid guarantee amount shall be 20% of the bid price for the initial task order project.

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)

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-4

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. VOLUME II: 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 defined in Paragraph 3.2 below. 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

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-5 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 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 and at least 30% complete. 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.

3.1.1.5 New Companies (AM #0002), Teaming Agreements, and Joint Ventures. New companies, (AM #0002) proposed teams with teaming agreements, 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, (AM #0002) team, 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(AM #0002), Teaming Agreements 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. (AM #0002) Past performance of subcontractors shall not be evaluated as part of this factor.

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, 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

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-6 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. For each of the projects submitted on the Project Information Worksheets in Factor 1, provide a narrative discussing the technical relevancy of the submitted project to this solicitation. In addition, offerors (AM #0002) shall are encouraged to submit a chart or table depicting their experience in the various types of construction activities listed in Paragraph 3.2 above. (AM #0002) Offerors shall limit their technical relevancy narratives and experience chart to the projects submitted on the Project Information Worksheets in Factor 1.

3.2.2 (AM #0002) New Companies, Teaming Agreements, 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 (AM #0002) or teaming agreement. Prior to award of any contract, a copy of the Joint Venture (AM #0002) or Teaming Agreement will be required. If approval of the Joint Venture (AM #0002) or Teaming Agreement is required by the Small Business Administration, failure to timely provide an approved SBA Joint Venture (AM #0002) or Teaming 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 and experience working at Red River Army Depot. 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 (AM #0002) or subcontractors will not be

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-7 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.

Offerors shall submit a complete SF 330, Parts I and II, for this factor, to include the specific information requested below for Part I, Blocks E, F(AM #0002), G and H.

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 5 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 MicroStation v8 and your ability to provide CADD files compatible with Microstation v8.

3.3.1.4 Team Experience. (AM #0002) In SF330, Part I, Block G, complete the matrix to graphically depict which key personnel identified in Block E worked on the example projects listed in Block F. 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 within SWD geographic boundaries, particularly at or near major military installations.

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, experience, and compatibility with Microstation v8.

3.3.2.4 Team Experience. Prior work experience (AM #0002) among key personnel, prior experience between the design team and the offeror or design experience with the COE or other DOD agencies 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.

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-8

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, 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

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-9 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

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-10 criteria is evaluated an assessment of Risk will be made. The “Proposal Risk Assessment” ratings are applicable to all criteria except Past Performance. Past Performance Risk is rated using the “Past Performance Risk Ratings” listed below.

4.1 Rating Adjectives

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 RISK RATINGS

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 neutral/unknown adjectival and risk rating.

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-11

4.2.2. Risk Rating System

4.2.2.1. Neutral / 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.

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

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

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

5. TECHNICAL EVALUATION WEIGHTS

5.1 Relative Importance Definition. For the purpose of this evaluation, the following terms will be used to establish the relative importance of the technical factors and subfactors.

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

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

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

5.2 VOLUME II TECHNICAL PROPOSAL:

5.2.1 ALL TECHNICAL FACTORS when combined are approximately equal in importance with PRICE.

5.2.2 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 Price will be evaluated using the price/cost proposal submitted for the initial task order project. The Government will perform a price analysis after completion of technical evaluations. 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 in making the final best value determination for award.

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-12

7. EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

8. RESTRICTIONS. Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this solicitation may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

9. PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

9.1 Each member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will independently consider all information provided in the technical proposal. Worksheets are provided on the following pages, which the evaluators will use to review the individual proposals.

9.2 Once these individual analyses are completed, the team will meet and determine a rating for each of the evaluation factors by consensus decision.

9.3 The evaluation team will document strengths (e.g., advantages), weaknesses (e.g., disadvantages), and other comments (e.g., deficiency and/or clarification) to support the rating for each factor, as well as the overall rating.

Documentation and comments are required for all ratings.

9.4 This consensus rating, will be provided to the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority for selection and award.

10. BASIS FOR AWARD –

10.1 Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility.

10.2 In order to determine which proposal represents the best overall value, the Government may compare proposals to one another. The Government will award three to five firm fixed-price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts in this pool to the responsible Offerors whose proposals the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable with regard to pricing for the initial task order, and whose proposals offer the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described herein. The combination of all technical (non-price) evaluation factors are significantly more important than the price. Best value will be determined by a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP.

10.3 As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in rating and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination.

10.4 Award of the first IDIQ will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best overall value to the Government based on the evaluated ratings. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. If other than the lowest offer, it must be sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest offer to justify the payment of additional amounts. Award of the initial task may be awarded concurrent with the award of the first IDIQ. The Contracting Officer will award the subsequent contracts to the Offerors whose proposals are considered to represent the remaining best value to the Government based on the evaluated ratings. Although the initial task order will not be awarded under the subsequent firm fixed-price IDIQs, the price proposed will only be used to assist in the evaluation of the best value proposal for award.

10.5 Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interests of the Government.

10.6 The Government intends to award multiple contracts without discussions based on initial proposals received;

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-13 therefore, the proposals shall contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. Should discussions be necessary after evaluations, the Government will establish a competitive range of the offerors that are the most highly rated. The Government reserves the right to address any pertinent issues in the proposals.

Section: 00 22 11 W9126G-09-R-0096

W9126G-09-R-0096 00 22 11-14

VOLUME II – TAB 1

PROJECT INFORMATION WORKSHEET

The information provided on this worksheet will be utilized in the evaluation of Factor 1, Construction Past Performance, and Factor 2, Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience.

1. Project Title/Description:

(For task order contracts, attach a list of task orders to this sheet, to include description, cost, dates of construction start/completion or percent complete if not completed, for each task order)

2. Location:

3. Contract number:

4. Procuring activity:

5. Procurement Point of Contact and Telephone Number:

6. Address and telephone number of owner/customer:

7. Type of Project (private sector, Government, planned unit development, etc.):

8. General Nature of the Contract:

9. Nature of Involvement in this project (i.e., General Contractor,…