am_1.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

SATOC IDIQ Task Order Contract for Construction and Design Build for Healthcare Facilities for the U.S. Air Force Medical Services. U.S. Army Medical Command (Medcom) and other Corps of Engineers customers with Healthcare Facilities Needs - 8(a) Set Aside for the Western United States Small Business Region 9, is amended as follows:

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

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-0115

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

1-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 X is extended. is not extended.

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

10-July-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-0115

SECTION SF30 - CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGE TO PROPOSAL RECEIPT DATE

1. Proposal Receipt Date: Change the proposal receipt date from "31 July 2009, 2:00 p.m., local time" to "7 August 2009, 2:00 p.m., local time".

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, CONTRACT FORMS AND CONDITIONS

2. Replacement Sections: Replace the following section with the accompanying new section of the same number and title bearing the notation " ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT NO. 0001 TO SOLICITATION NO. W9126G- 09-R-0115:"

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local Instructions

End of Summary of Changes

ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT NO. 0001 TO SOLICITATION NO. W9126G-09-R-0115

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 1 of 28

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS,

NOTICE TO OFFERORS, BASIS OF AWARD, AND LOCAL INSTRUCTIONS

W9126G-09-R-0115

SECTION 8(a) SET ASIDE FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. INDEFINITE

DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) SINGLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT (SATOC)

FOR DESIGN-BUILD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR FEDERAL HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADE-OFF

1. PROPOSAL OVERVIEW. This is a Request for Proposal (RFP) Number W9126G-09-R-0115 for a Single Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity type contract, also referred to as a Single Award Task Order Contract (“SATOC”), for construction services with incidental design capabilities (herein referred to as “design-build”). Task Order work may involve planning, programming, design and construction/renovation of healthcare facilities –namely hospitals, medical clinics, warehouses, vet clinics, and health & wellness centers. This solicitation will include one seed project; for the basic SATOC award.

There is a second project to follow immediately which will be awarded via task order within a short time after the original contract award and issuance of the seed project task order. A source selection plan has been established to create a uniform procedure for the technical evaluation of proposals by a 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).

Inasmuch as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform any resulting task orders under the 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 Regulations (FAR) Provisions are located in Section 00 21 00.

1.1 Proposal Submissions and the Trade-Off Process. The Trade-Off/Best Value 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). The SSEB will review, evaluate and rate the seed/initial task order project technical proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP for those offerors included in the competitive range. Concurrently, the Government analyzes price proposals of Offerors utilizing the seed/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 Task Order Project. The scope of work for a task order project is provided, in Section 00 73 20, as part of this Request for Proposal (RFP). Technical and cost proposals for the task order project are to be submitted as part of the response to this RFP. The task order project proposal may be awarded to one of the most highly rated contractors on the MATOC pool.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit. Any legally organized Offeror who has a Section 8(a) designation and a bona fide office located within the boundaries of SBA Region 9 (California, Arizona, Nevada) may submit a proposal, firms formally organized specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals.

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 2 of 28

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 and the date of proposal. 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 8/12 inch x 11 inch sheets.

Presentation boards, where requested, shall not exceed 20 inches X 30 inches.

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 under each evaluation factor.

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 six (6) hard copies of Volume II of their Proposal in both hard copy and electronic format.

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 3 of 28

Within three (3) days of contract award, the awardee shall submit all 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, Bidding Schedule – 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)

TAB G – Small and Small Disadvantage Business Utilization

TAB H – Subcontracting Plan (for large businesses only)

2.5.2 Submission Requirements –

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

Solicitation, Offer and Award, the Standard Form 1442, shall be completely filled out and signed by a principal of the firm authorized to bind the firm. Signature(s) must be in long hand and dated.

TAB B – Section 00 11 00, Bidding Schedule – Supplies or Services and Price/Costs Schedule All information pertaining to any costs associated with the line items contained in the Bid Schedule (Section 00 11 00) shall be confined to Volume II. Offeror shall not include any cost information in any other Volume of their proposal except Volume I. For the purpose of evaluating price/cost submitted hereunder: A price analysis will be completed of the offeror's price/cost proposal as submitted on the bid schedule, Section 00 11 00 to determine price reasonableness. If adequate competition is not obtained, however, a detailed cost analysis will be used to evaluate for cost realism (allowability, allocability, and reasonableness).

For the purpose of evaluating the rate submission:

A price analysis will be completed of the submitted hourly rates, overhead, and general and administrative (G&A) rates submitted for use on this contract.

Prices shall be firm. The offeror’s price, to be considered in the competitive negotiation evaluation, shall be the offeror’s Total Base Bid, including all option pricing, as shown on the bid/price proposal schedule.

The cost/price proposal will be evaluated separately, after evaluation of Volume II.

The cost/price proposal shall consist of the following:

a. Offerors shall complete the Bid/Price Proposal Schedule by filling out the pricing data blanks.

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 4 of 28

Supporting documentation listed below shall be used to augment the Bid/Price Proposal Schedule:

The professional labor rates shall be maximum rates subject to reduction based on the project location (per the bidding schedule notes).

b. Labor Overhead Rate, Field Office Overhead, General and Administrative Rate, Professional Fringe Benefit Rate, and Escalation on Professional Labor: Offerors shall submit a detailed breakout of the cost elements included in these proposed rates. The Government will evaluate the cost elements to ensure that no unallowable costs in accordance with federal acquisition regulations are included in the cost elements/pools. Evaluation will consider the realism and reasonableness of the proposed rates based on DCAA rate reviews and base labor rate comparisons to rates published at various Internet sites, such as http://www.salary.com.

c. Overhead and profit for the professional labor rates shall be applied proportionally to each category and will not be required to be shown separately.

d. For the Seed Task Order, Renovate and Repair the X-Ray facility at Davis Monthan AFB, the Offerors shall complete the Bid/Price Proposal Schedule by filling out the pricing data blanks. Proposals which do not include supporting data or which exceed the cost limitation may be considered non-responsive and may not be evaluated due to budget/statutory constraints.

A second, separately packaged proposal will be submitted for the secondary project, Renovate Building 5513 (Dental and Mental Health Clinic at Edwards AFB. For this requirement, the Offerors shall complete a second separate Bid/Price Proposal Schedule by filling out the pricing data blanks. Proposals which do not include supporting data or which exceed the cost limitation may be considered non-responsive and may not be evaluated due to budget/statutory constraints.

Propose the duration for all phases on the Bidding Schedule in the “CONTRACTOR PROPOSED PERFORMANCE PERIOD” column, inclusive of all specified review periods and Government phasing requirements. The proposed duration shall not exceed the maximum allowed duration shown in the PERFORMANCE PERIOD column. Include in the proposed duration all work, including site investigation, report, concept design, design, construction, and all close-out activities. This proposed contract duration will become the contractually binding completion period(s).

TAB C – Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications

Representations and Certifications. Representations are local, state, and federal representative statements and certifications made by the Offeror concerning a variety of issues. Complete each item in Section 00 45 00, REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS, and submit one original with the Volume II proposal.

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) on a yearly basis and 2) for any point during the life of the contract (i.e., ongoing work on active task orders and completed task orders). The information submitted will be considered for reasonableness considering the contract capacity of $12,000,000 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 Clauses, and shall be equal to twenty percent (20%) of the total proposed price for the Base Period, or $3,000,000, whichever is less.

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 5 of 28

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.

TAB G - 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:

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. 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.

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

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 %

- HCBU/MI %

Total: % *Representative of the percentage of the total project.

Evaluation:

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:

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.

The extent to which small disadvantaged businesses and where appropriate, historically black

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 6 of 28 colleges and universities/minority institutions (HBCU/MI) have been identified for participation as part of the Offeror’s team.

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

TAB H - Subcontracting Plan (for large businesses only) – Subcontracting Plan (for large business only) shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 and the subcontracting goals established by the Fort Worth District. Failure to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan may make the offeror ineligible for award of the contract.

VOLUME II – Technical Proposal

THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY COST INFORMATION. ALL

INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THESE TABBED SECTIONS AND SHALL NOT

BE INCLUDED AS AN APPENDIX OR ATTACHMENT).

TAB 1 – FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE (Questionnaire Provided)

TAB 2 – FACTOR 2: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS (No Worksheet Provided)

TAB 3 – FACTOR 3: RISK ASSESSMENT (Worksheet provided)

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

TAB 5 – FACTOR 5: PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM (Worksheet Provided)

TAB 6 – FACTOR 6: BETTERMENTS (Worksheet provided)

3. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

3.1 FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE & TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE (VOLUME II, TAB 1)

(Maximum 15 Pages)

3.1.1 Offeror’s Submission Requirements

The number of pages for Past Performance submission requirements is limited to 15 pages. Offerors shall provide information and examples of three (3) health-care/design-build projects the as a Prime Contractor and A-E of Record have completed or Offers shall provide information and examples of three (3) health-care/design-build projects if they have not completed any health-care/design-build projects as the Prime Contractor with an AE of Record. The Past Performance submission shall include name/phone/e-mail and institution/owner for each of the three (3) referenced projects.

In three pages or less, provide (3) examples of health-care/design-build projects the Prime Contractor and A-E of Record have completed. (Provide (3) each if they have not completed any projects together).

Provide (3) references (name/phone/e-mail and institution/owner).

3.1.1.1 Past Performance Questionnaires. Offerors shall identify the completed projects as described above to be used for reference and evaluation purposes and provide a questionnaire to the Point of Contact for each project listed. 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 as follows:

Mail:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 7 of 28

ATTN: CESWF-CT, Edward A. Chambers 819 Taylor Street, Room 2A19 P.O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300

E-mail: edward.a.chambers@usace.army.mil

FAX: 817 886-6407

It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that the reference documentation is provided, three (3) days prior to the proposal due date 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.

3.1.2 Evaluation. The SSEB will evaluate the Prime Contractor and A-E of Record based on their ability to 1) provide quality design and construction, 2) meet performance periods, 3) subcontractor management, 4) control costs, 5) customer satisfaction, and 6) maintain safety. 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 to determine the company’s ability to perform satisfactorily under the elements of evaluation.

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.

�Cost Control. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s ability to observe current cost levels, compare them with a standard plan or norm and institute corrective action to keep cost within acceptable levels.

�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.

�Customer Satisfaction. 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. Offerors who have effectively implemented and maintained their accident prevention program and have a documented safety incentive program will receive a more favorable evaluation. If there are excessive lost time accidents; Offeror is encouraged to submit an explanation of what they have done to improve their safety record.

3.2 FACTOR 2: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS (in Healthcare and Design-Build) (VOLUME II, TAB 2) (Maximum 15 Pages)

3.2.1 Offeror’s Submission Requirements.

Provide a list of names, qualifications and contact information for the following key personnel (NOTE: The level of qualifications presented here is expected to be provided on all Task Orders within this Program):

1) Program Manager

2) Prime Contractor – Project Manager

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 8 of 28

3) Prime Contractor – Superintendent

4) Prime Contractor – Quality Control Representative

5) A-E of Record – Project Manager

6) A-E of Record – Designer

7) A-E of Record – Quality Control Representative

Offeror shall provide for above 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.

3.2.2 Evaluation.

3.2.2.1 The Government will evaluate the adequacy, strength, and recent, relevant technical experience on similar projects of key personnel to include qualification requirements outlined in the Base Contract Section 01 10 00 SOW. The key personnel example projects should closely resemble the project identified in this solicitation.

3.3 FACTOR 3. Risk Assessment (RA) (VOLUME II, TAB 3) (Maximum 2 Pages)

3.3.1. Submission Requirements: As a result of the site visit, the Offeror shall identify risks associated with this project and the plan/solution to minimize or avoid such risks. Address how the risk may impact the project’s completion date, budget or customer’s satisfaction. Identify risks the Offeror does and does not control.

Propose any options that could increase the value (expectation of quality) of the work. Note: Please avoid marketing information, Contractor/manufacturer names, detailed technical data, transferring risk back to client, or gross generalities (i.e. “security and safety are our biggest risk”). All risk mitigation proposals accepted by the Government shall be made awarded as part of this contract. The RA must be completed for the Davis Monthan Project. The Risk Assessment spreadsheet is provided and shall not exceed two

(2) pages for the Davis Monthan Project.

3.3.2. Evaluation: The Offeror will be evaluated on 1) how well they articulate the risks associated with this project, 2) the level of risk (high/medium/low) 3) proposals on how they’re going to manage that risks during project execution and 4) the impact of the risk, and 5) whether it’s within or outside the Offeror’s control.

FACTOR 4: MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY (VOLUME II, TAB 4). (Maximum 12 Pages) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management capability by considering the Offeror’s understanding and capability of successfully managing the project to completion. The following elements will be evaluated:

�Risk Management Plan �SATOC Program Organizational Chart or Structure �Major Subcontractor Management Plan

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 9 of 28

�Task Order Organizational Chart �Task Order Process Chart �Task Order Response Plan

3.4.1 Offeror’s Submission Requirements.

3.4.1.1. Risk Management. Provide a maximum one page narrative or graphic illustrating how you plan to manage risk at the task order level including risk identification and your approach to mitigating such risk. Your risk management/assessment plan shall be furnished to identify any potential costly delays and or disruptions before or during project execution. Offerors will consider the changing engineering and construction industry and provide cost-effective solutions throughout the construction process to support the process of making informed decisions and keeping the project moving forward.

3.4.1.2. SATOC Program Organizational Chart or Structure. Provide an organizational chart, a maximum of one page, which clearly shows lines of authority and communication chain of the organization, including key personnel. “Key personnel” are defined as, but not limited to, Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Quality Control System Manager, and A-E of Record Project Manager, Designer, and Design Quality Control Manager.

3.4.1.3. Major Subcontractor Management Plan. One page maximum. Provide a list of Major Subcontractors including company name, address and contact information. Include a narrative outlining your approach to selecting subcontractors on a given task order and how their selection assists in mitigating risk.

3.4.1.4. Task Order Organization Chart. One page maximum. Provide a typical Task Order Organization Chart to establish a level of organization expected on all task orders issued under this contract.

3.4.1.5. Task Order Process Chart. One page maximum. Provide a chart that graphically illustrates how a task order is executed.

3.4.1.6. Task Order Response Plan. One page maximum. Provide your plan to respond to requests for proposals for multiple task orders (2-3) released at the same time with only 30 days to provide proposals.

3.4.2 Evaluation.

3.4.2.1 Risk Management. The Offeror will be evaluated on how well they articulate the management of risks associated with of a project, including risk identification and mitigation.

3.4.2.2 Organizational Chart or Structure. The organizational chart will be evaluated for chain of command, lines of communication and logical management structure.

3.4.2.3. Major Subcontractor Management Plan. The plan will be evaluated on the strength of proposed major subcontractors and the offeror’s approach to selecting and managing subcontractors at the task order level.

3.4.2.4. Task Order Organization Chart. The task order organizational chart will be evaluated for chain of command, lines of communication and logical management structure.

3.4.2.5. Task Order Process Chart. The task order process chart will be evaluated on the offeror’s understanding of the task order process.

3.4.2.6. Task Order Response Plan. The plan will be evaluated on the offeror’s capability to provide proposals for multiple task orders within a short turnaround.

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 10 of 28

FACTOR 5: PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM (VOLUME II, TAB 5) (Maximum 10 Pages)

3.5.1. Submission Requirements: Provide an organizational chart, one page maximum that clearly shows lines of authority and communication chain of the organization, subcontract plan with small businesses, including key personnel. Provide names, addresses, offices, and contact information of the Offeror’s project delivery team, on worksheet provided, specifically: The Program Manager, Project Manager, Design Manager, and Site Superintendent. Provide at least three completed design-build projects the individuals were involved in the last ten years and contact information for each project.

Identify each of the prime subcontractors by firm/office name, address and contact information to include:

The Architects & Engineer, Mechanical Subcontractor and Electrical Subcontractor.

3.5.2. Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the adequacy and strength of key personnel to include qualification requirements outlined in the SOW.

3.6 FACTOR 6: BETTERMENTS (VOLUME II, TAB 6) (Maximum 2 Pages)

3.6.1 Offeror’s Submission Requirements. (Max 2-Pages) (Worksheet Provided) Provide a list any material, equipment, component, assembly, system or process that improves the facility or its long-term sustainability. State how it improves the project and how it exceeds the requirement. (Use worksheet provided).

(Note: DO NOT PRICE BETTERMENTS. Any betterments shall be provided at no additional cost to the government. During the discussion phase (and prior to award) the government will inform the Contractor which betterments will be accepted.)

3.6.2 Evaluation.

The Offeror will be evaluated on technical merits of the recommended improvement and to what extent it exceeds the scope of work.

3.7 Evaluation of the initial proposal will be conducted by utilizing Factors 1 through 5 noted above.

3.8 Edwards AFB Task Order and other subsequent Task Orders may be evaluated based on the factors listed below. Factors 1 through 5 below are offered for this RFP proposal preparation only. Evaluation factors and TABs are subject to change for subsequent task orders.

TAB 1 – FACTOR 1: PROJECT TEAM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Worksheet will be provided)

TAB 2 – FACTOR 2: SUSTAINABILITY

TAB 3 – FACTOR 3: RISK ASSESSMENT (Worksheet will be provided)

TAB 4 – FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

TAB 5 – FACTOR 5: BETTERMENTS (Worksheet will be provided)

TAB 6 – FACTOR 6: TECHNICAL DESIGN

TAB 7 – FACTOR 7: QUALITY OF BUILDING SYSTEMS AND MATERIALS

TAB 8 – FACTOR 8: SITE DESIGN

TAB 9 – FACTOR 9: INITIAL OUTFITTING

Tab 1 – Factor 1: Management Capability (Maximum 12 Pages) (No Worksheet Provided) Tab 2 – Factor 2: Personnel Qualifications (Maximum 15 Pages) (No Worksheet Provided) Tab 3 – Factor 3: Project Delivery Team (Maximum 10 Pages) (Worksheet Provided) Tab 4 – Factor 4: Past Performance (Maximum 15 Pages) Tab 5 – Factor 5: Risk Assessment (Maximum 2 Pages) (Worksheet Provided)

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 11 of 28

Tab 6 – Factor 6: Betterments (Worksheet Provided) (Maximum 2 Pages)

3.8.1 Offerors shall provide their proposal in the same printed formatting and page sizes listed above for the Davis Monthan AFB Seed Task Order and organize their Technical Volume 2 for Edwards AFB Task Order Proposal based on the TABs and page counts shown above. The Edwards AFB Task Order proposal will include two (2) three ring binders same as described for Davis Monthan AFB Proposal.

Edwards AFB Task Order shall have Volume 1 as the Price/Cost Proposal and Volume 2 as the Technical Proposal.

3.8.2 Number of Copies for Edwards AFB Task Order. Offerors shall submit one (1) original and one

(1) hard copy of Volume 1. Submit one (1) original, three (3) hard copies and one (1) CD-ROM in electronic format of Volume 2. Within three (3) days of contract award, the awarded contractor shall submit all volumes, updated to include all revisions, in electronic format on a CD-ROM.

Offerors RFP proposal submittal will be two sets of 3-ring binders in the required number of copies for each task order proposal. Two binders for each project location. Price/Cost Volume I and Technical Volume II for Davis Monthan; and Price/Cost Volume 1and Technical Volume 2 for Edwards.

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 “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

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 12 of 28 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 risk rating.

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.

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 13 of 28

5.2 VOLUME II TECHNICAL PROPOSAL:

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

5.2.2 Weight among technical factors:

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE: This factor is more important than factor 2, FACTOR 2: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS: This factor is more important than factor 3.

FACTOR 3: RISK ASSESSMENT: This factor is more important than factor 4.

FACTOR 4: MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY: This factor is more important than factor 5.

FACTOR 5: PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM: This factor is more important than factor 6.

FACTOR 6: BETTERMENTS: This factor is least important.

6. PRICE.

6.1 Price will be evaluated using the price/cost proposal submitted for the seed/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.

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 –

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Instructions, Conditions, Notice to Offerors, Basis of Award, and Local

9 July 09 Page 14 of 28

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. It is the Government's intent to award one firm fixed-price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable with regard to pricing for the initial task order, and whose proposal offers 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. In the event that the technical and cost/price proposals become more equivalent for two or more large businesses, the subcontracting plan will become more significant and may become the determining factor for award.

10.4 Award of the 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.