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)

30-105-04 EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The Solicitation Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Central Issue Warehouses, Support Supply Activity Warehouses, and General Purpose Warehouses located in Georgia is amended as follows:

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is 07 December, 2:00 p.m, 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 AMERICA 15C. DATE SIGNED 15B. 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-11-R-0054

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Oct-2010

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

03-Nov-2010

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 CODE CODE

EMAIL: TEL:

W9126G-11-R-0054

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION

1. Section 00 21 00 paragraph 1.10(c), revised: “Electronic Format: Provide two five CDs in read-only format, preferably using .pdf files.” See attached 00 21 00 bearing the notation “W9126G-11-R-0054, Amendment No. 0001”.

2. Section 00 22 10 paragraph 5.1, add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: “Examples may be submitted for consideration on any other member of a Teaming Arrangement that will perform a major or critical aspect of the project.” See attached 00 22 10 bearing the notation “W9126G-11-R-0054, Amendment No. 0001”.

3. Section 00 22 10 paragraph 5.1.3, revised: “Describe team members’ experience on LEED projects, if not included on the project list not to exceed two pages.” See attached 00 22 10 bearing the notation “W9126G- 11-R-0054, Amendment No. 0001”.

End of Summary of Changes

W9126G-11-R-0054, Amendment No. 0001

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND

SECTION 00 21 00 (ID/IQ)

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

1.2. CONTRACT COST CEILING LIMITATION FOR DESIGN AND CONTRUCTION

COSTS

1.3. GOVERNMENT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

1.4. COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

1.5. OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

1.6. SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE

1.7. PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

1.8. ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS

1.9. PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS

1.10. PROPOSAL FORMAT

1.11. JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

1.12. BID GUARANTEE

1.13. CONTRACT PRICES - BIDDING SCHEDULE (PHASE 2 ONLY)

1.14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

1.15. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

This solicitation is for the Base Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC) for Design and Construction of Warehouses in the state of Georgia. The Government intends to award two or more contracts as a result of this solicitation. Individual projects under this contract will be awarded by task order. This solicitation also includes the initial task order which will also be awarded to one of the base contract awardees.

General Description of Work: IDIQ for Warehouse facilities located in Georgia. Types of projects will be primarily General Purpose Warehouses, Central Issue Facilities, and Supply Support Activity Warehouses.

Central Issue Warehouses: The primary mission of the CIF’s is to provide a single point for receipt, storage, issue, exchange, and return of all authorized organizational clothing and individual equipment items at the specified United States Army Installation. CIF facilities provide storage capabilities combined with office space, used in the administration of issuing soldier’s equipment as needed. The facilities support open storage for deployment functions as necessary by the Army Unit occupying the building. The functional and operational requirements of the CIW require that the design be based on the characteristics of the material being handled and stored, the volume and flow pattern through the facility, and the inventory pattern. Therefore, the overall building design and configurations will vary as required to meet project specific requirements.

Support Supply Activity Warehouses: SSAs will provide a facility capable of storing and maintaining the Army prepositioned stocks (APS) and items required for active duty operation.

The facility is similar to a parts wholesale warehouse. The functional and operational requirements of the SSA require that the design be based on the Adapt-Build Model standard design. Therefore, the overall building design and configurations will not vary.

General Purpose Warehouses: GPWs will be capable of supporting the storage of various equipment and materials, up to a Moderate-hazard level. GPW facilities may have substantially differing design and operational requirements in order to meet the Army’s needs on a worldwide basis. The facility type will provide an acceptable relationship between actual equipment dimensions, performance characteristics and the building dimensions. GPW’s are intended to be similar both functionally and technically to private sector industrial warehouses Supporting facilities include utilities; electric service; water, sewer, gas; paving, walks, curbs and gutters;

storm drainage; site improvements and information systems. Access for persons with disabilities will be provided in public areas. Comprehensive building and furnishings related interior design services are required. Comprehensive warehouse pallet and racking systems related to warehouse functional design services are required. Air conditioning will be provided in administrative areas, and warehouse areas will be ventilated and heated. Supporting work includes fire protection sprinkler and fire detection systems of the warehouses. .

1.1.1. Task Order

The scope of the initial task order includes all work required to design and construct a Central Issue Facility (CIF) at Fort Benning, GA. The work shall be in accordance with the Request for Proposal documents issued with the initial task order.

Task Order Description of Work: Construct a modified Standard Design Central Issue Facility (CIF) to include the warehouse with administrative offices, two issue lines, installation of intrusion detection system (IDS), energy monitoring and control system (EMCS) connections and building information systems. Special foundations are required. Supporting facilities include extending utilities infrastructure to the site, electric service, storm drainage systems, sanitary sewage systems, paving, parking, walks, curbs and gutters, parking, security fencing and gates, information systems, exterior and security lighting, fire protection and alarm systems, and site improvements. Access for persons with disabilities will be provided. Sustainable Design and Development (SDD) and Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05) features will be provided.

Comprehensive building and furnishings related interior design services are required. Air Conditioning (Estimated 50 Tons).

1.2. CONTRACT COST CEILING LIMITATION FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

COSTS

The Contract Cost Limitation (CCL) will be provided with the Request for Proposals (RFPs) for each individual requirement in Section 00 73 10. It is the Government's intent to award at full scope within the CCL. Preferences shall only be provided in the Offeror's proposal if the price can be provided within in or at the CCL.

1.3. GOVERNMENT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

The Offeror(s) must ensure that ALL mail sent to the Fort Worth District, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, either pre-contract or post-contract award, has a return mailing address on the outside of the envelope, package, box, etc. All Mail must have the following address:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ATTN: CESWF-CT-C, Cody Cotten

PO Box 17300

819 Taylor St (2A19)

Fort Worth, TX 76102

1.4. COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

Copies of the solicitation and amendments are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All solicitation documents will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website at:

www.fbo.gov

It shall be the contractor’s responsibility to check the websites for any amendments. The offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation.

A list of interested vendors (potential offerors and subcontractors) is available on the federal business opportunities web site (registration required) is available at: http://www.fbo.gov/ via Quick Search (Solicitation No. W9126G-11-R-0054).

1.5. OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

1.5.1. Bidder Inquiry

1.5.1.1. Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.projnet.org/projnet.

1.5.1.1.1. To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system. To self-register go to web page, click BID tab select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter Key for this solicitation listed below, and your e-mail address, click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that information on next screen is correct and click continue.

1.5.1.1.2. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add inquiry.

1.5.1.1.3. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

1.5.1.1.4. The Solicitation Number is: W9126G-11-R-0054

1.5.1.1.5. The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 929Z37-V3AWVS

1.5.1.2. The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquires 5 days prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary.

1.5.1.3. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

1.5.1.4. The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

1.5.1.5. Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

1.6. SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE

See Section 00 45 00, FAR 52.219-1 for the small business size standard/NAICS Code.

1.7. PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

This Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit the Government to pay, as a direct charge, any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal.

1.8. ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS

Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP, (including attachments). The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C.

1001.

1.9. PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS

Due to heightened security at Government installations, those offerors who have their proposals hand-delivered shall contact Cody Cotten, Contract Specialist, at 817-886-1077 or the Contracting Office Main Desk, at 817-886-1028 prior to delivering to the address shown below.

At the time specified on Standard Form SF 1442, Page 1, Item 9, it will be announced that receipt of proposals is closed. Official time will be established by the clock located in the area where the proposals are received. Recent terrorist threats have resulted in more time-consuming sign-in and escort procedures and may impact the timely delivery of offers. See FAR 52.215-1 for rules concerning late proposals.

Proposals receipt date and time are stated on Standard Form (SF) 1442.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District

ATTN: Cody Cotten

PO Box 17300

819 Taylor Street, Room 2A19

Fort Worth, TX 76102

Cody.D.Cotten@usace.army.mil

The Packaging that contains the Proposals shall be marked:

”Proposals for Solicitation Number: W9126G-11-R-0054, DO NOT OPEN”

1.10. PROPOSAL FORMAT

(a) Written materials: 8 ½” x 11” format, using 10 point or larger font size, in bound volumes, using 3-ring binders (except that Pro Forma material and price proposal shall be submitted in a closed manila envelope. Each bound volume will contain a Title Sheet on the cover for ready identification of the proposal and a full table of contents, separated by Tabs, as prescribed herein

(i) The prime, consortium, or joint venture’s name, address, a signature of the official that can bind the firm and a telephone number shall appear in the lower left corner of the title page of any document/volume to be evaluated.

(ii) Volume number, section and date submitted shall appear in the bottom right corner of each page (along with the revision number for the amended page, if necessary).

(b) Drawing sheets: Use 22” x 34” for full size drawings. Half-size sheets are also acceptable.

(c) Electronic Format: Provide two five CDs in read-only format, preferably using .pdf files. All price breakdown information to aide in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Excel format.

(d) Number of copies: Submit one original and four (4) copies of drawings and printed matter (Bound Volumes), as well as five (5) CDs. For Pro Forma information required in Phase 2:

Submit the original and one copy and one separate CD.

1.11. JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

When proposing as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture shall sign the SF 1442 and the bid bond unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. In addition, a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

If this is an 8(a) or HubZone joint venture, the offeror shall ensure that it complies with the applicable requirements of 13 CFR Part 124 and 13 CFR Part 126, respectively

1.12. BID GUARANTEE

A Bid Guarantee is not required for the Phase 1 proposal submission. A Bid Guarantee will be required for the initial Task Order in Phase 2. The penal sum of the bond will be required as in provision 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee. Facsimile Bonds are not acceptable.

1.13. CONTRACT PRICES - BIDDING SCHEDULE (PHASE 2 ONLY)

Payment for the various items listed in the Bidding Schedule shall constitute full compensation for furnishing all plant, labor, equipment, appliances, materials and bonds (performance and payment), and for performing all operations required to complete the work in conformity with the drawings and specifications. All costs for work not specifically mentioned in the Bidding Schedule shall be included in the contract prices for the items listed.

1.14. METHODS OF SOLICITATION

It is the intent of Government to issue design-build and design-bid-build (adapt-build) Request for Proposals (RFPs) under the contracts awarded as a result of this solicitation, which may be used as the basis for subsequent RFPs/task orders at the same or other installations within the region. Typically, AIT & BT projects will be executed using an Adapt-Build method. UEPHs and WT will be typically executed using a Design-Build method. Firms shall be required to perform both Design-Build and Adapt-Build execution methods. Typical evaluation criteria for both design-build and design-bid-build (Section 00 22 30) for subsequent task orders will be provided in Phase 2 for information only.

1.15. SOLICITIATION PROVISIONS

Section 00 22 10 - Phase 1 of a 2 Phase-Design Build Selection Procedures

PHASE 1 SELECTION PROCEDURES

SECTION 00 22 10 (ID/IQ)

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

4.0 Volume 1 - TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

5.0 Volume 1 - TAB B – FACTOR 1-1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 1-2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

7.0 TAB D – FACTOR 1-3 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.3. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

7.4. EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.5. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.6. EVALUATION

7.7. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

7.8. DEFINITIONS

7.9. PAST PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

8.0 PHASE 1 OVERALL RATING

9.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

PHASE ONE – SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

3 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN

CAPABILITY

4 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. The Government is looking for ways to streamline construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and achieve an aggressive schedule in executing task orders to meet the Army’s Transformation program goals of faster project execution at lower cost, while taking advantage of industry standards, means and methods. In Phase 1 of the 2 phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute design-build or construction task orders under the contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the qualifications in accordance with the criteria described in Section, 00 22 10 and will short-list no more than five (5) of the Phase 1 Offerors to compete for the base ID/IQ contract award awards and for the initial task order award in Phase 2.

1.2. In Phase 2, the short-listed Offerors will submit proposals for the initial task order in accordance with Section 00 22 20. In Phase 2, the Contracting Officer will award two or more firm fixed-price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts to those firms whose proposals offer the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2. One of the Phase 2 contract awardees will be awarded the initial task order in accordance with the Phase 2 evaluation and award procedures.

1.3. The short-listed Offerors will be announced by special notice or synopsis to the Federal Business Opportunities website. Offerors may be contacted separately to request their approval.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. To qualify for Phase 2, the Offeror’s design entity is required to have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines and the requirements specified in Section 00 73 00, ”Requirements for Registration of Designers”, must be met. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

2.2. Submit the Phase 1 proposal in a tabbed, three-ring binder. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, in paragraph 7.1.1 below. PHASE 1

DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Tab A SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet N/A

Tab B Factor 1-1 Specialized Experience 1st (Most Important Factor)

Tab C Factor 1-2 Past Performance 2nd (Less important than Factor 1-1)

Tab D Factor 1-3 Organization and Technical Approach

3rd (Less important than Factor 1-2)

4.0 TAB A - STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

4.1. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. Include the completed proposal data sheet (See attachment 1, provided at the end of this Section) and Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable)

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1-1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Offeror’s construction and design entities should each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects, using the Construction – Specialized Experience form – (Attachment 2), and Designer – Specialized Experience Form – (Attachment 3). Offerors may identify state and local Government and private projects that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If the Offeror is a joint venture, limited liability corporation, or integrated design-build firm provide experience information for design and construction, demonstrating the experience of each proposed design and construction entity as is relevant to their proposed role on this project. Submit projects selected from those discussed in the experience narrative that are currently well underway (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or construction substantially completed within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked for or Government, private or commercial customers. The Offeror shall select the design firm(s). If projects were design-build, identify them as such. Both the prime contractor and the design firm(s) shall each submit no more than five (5) projects. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and specialized experience cannot be provided as a JV, each partner can submit no more than five (5) projects each. Examples may be submitted for consideration on any other member of a Teaming Arrangement that will perform a major or critical aspect of the project.

5.1.1. Projects will be considered similar to this procurement if they are similar in complexity, in type, scope, or magnitude. The projects submitted should include the following criteria.

Projects do not have to include all of the criteria; however, projects that meet all of the criteria may be more highly rated.

(a) Construction of Warehouses or their equivalent or similar commercial or institutional type. All work must be new construction.

(b) Typical project size should reflect 30,000 square feet.

(c) Construction value of at least $8,000,000.00

(d) Additionally, projects should reflect Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection along with security and access control

5.1.2. The Offeror may provide a supplemental narrative (not project lists), not to exceed two pages, explaining how any corporate experience that is not directly related to the specific projects above is applicable to this project and how the Government will benefit.

5.1.3. The Offeror should describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described in the project list. Describe team members’ experience on LEED projects, if not included on the project list not to exceed two pages. Offeror may describe design-build experience on other type projects. The above information is limited to projects that are substantially complete (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed ) or that have been completed and turned over no longer than the past five years preceding the date of this solicitation.

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime contractor and design firms in design, construction or design-build, as relevant to their role on this project. Experience on the similar projects identified in the project lists will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government will place greater value on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience. The relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project will not be evaluated or considered under this factor.

5.2.2. The Government will evaluate demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. Previous design-build experience is not necessary for an acceptable rating. The Government may consider previous D-B experience strength, even if the experience is on different type projects other than this project. Similarly, the Government may consider previous recent teaming experience among the team members as value added, even if on different type design and/or construction projects than this project. The more relevant the experience, the more credit will be given.

5.2.3. The firm(s) preparing the design must demonstrate qualifications and experience in sustainable design and development, based on project experience on projects that have achieved US Green Building Council’s LEED certification, Green Build Reference Guide or the Corps of Engineers SPiRiT Rating tool for an acceptable rating or were certifiable at LEED silver or better or project experience on completed Corps of Engineers design-build projects that were validated as having achieving LEED silver rating for an acceptable rating. Additional consideration will be given if both the constructor and the design firm(s) demonstrate qualifications and experience on LEED.

6.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1-2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1. Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner’s perspective. The prime construction contractor and the design firm (or prime contractor if design is to be self-performed) shall provide customer reference name(s), company affiliation and current phone numbers on the specific project experience sheets in Tab B or other projects that establish a firm’s past performance. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. Additional past performance examples may be submitted for consideration on any other member of a Teaming Arrangement that will perform a major or critical aspect of the project. Projects cited shall be currently substantially complete (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or construction substantially completed within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. If the Government is unable to establish an Offeror’s past performance on relevant projects thru ACASS/ CCASS the Government may contact and interview the points of contact and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed reference, if the listed reference is not available. See the sample questionnaire shown at Attachment 4. Furthermore, the Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. The Offeror or the design firm may briefly provide information on problems encountered on identified projects and any corrective action.

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1. The Government will perform a risk assessment with respect to Past Performance. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. See interview questions at attachment 4. The Government will not release the Past Performance Evaluation – Telephone Interview Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government also places a higher value on performance which documents successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, including but not limited, to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, Offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on performance which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

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

7.0 TAB D – FACTOR 1-3 - ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

7.1.1. This information should address the Offeror’s organization and intended technical approach to executing the contract and design-build task orders. Demonstrate an understanding of the risk management process associated with design-build process.

Limit the information to fifteen pages or less clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution.

7.1.2. Organization: Demonstrate an understanding of the fundamental design-build problem, i.e. a design and construction proposal that complies with the RFP requirements including the funding constraints of the cost limitation (CCL). Demonstrate an understanding of the risk management process associated with design-build processes. Describe the team members, their resources, how their resources will be utilized, and their roles and responsibilities. Include a general description of the work the Offeror will self-perform to be compliant with the requirements of the Special Contract Requirement SCR 1.4, SELF- PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY THE PRIME CONTRACTOR applicable to this solicitation (See Section 00 73 00) and with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.236-1, Performance of Work by Contractor.

7.1.3. Technical Approach for Design-Build: Describe the technical approach to design and construction of this facility type. Include information on fast-tracking design and construction. The Government is looking for ways the design-builder will streamline design and construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and achieve an aggressive schedule. In Phase 2, the Offeror will describe merging its fast-track packaging into the proposal schedule and contract duration. A conceptual plan is required in Phase 2.

7.1.4. Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design. Discuss the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during design and construction. Provide information on how your design-build team will manage co-location of design and construction team members manage Government comments, the design team’s involvement throughout construction, and how sub-contractors will be integrated into design and construction. Discuss how the configuration management system will track and control design evolution and changes during design for quality control and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Describe the role of the construction team members during design. Describe the type of Building Information Modeling (BIM) system to be used on the project (See section 01 33 16 and Attachment F of that document for CADD/BIM requirements and for Contractor Electives for additional consideration, as described below in the evaluation criteria) and how the team intends to develop and use the model.

Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction, addressing, as a minimum, maintaining configuration management of the design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design; requests for information; shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals;

progress meetings; site visits, if any; contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

7.1.5. Planning and Scheduling: Provide information on your team’s project scheduling capabilities for design and construction. Identify the system you will utilize and how your team will implement the schedule to manage design and construction. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize “schedule creep”. In Phase 2, the Offeror will develop a summary schedule. In Phase 1, the Government is interested in the Offeror’s planning and scheduling capabilities.

7.1.6. Quality Control: Provide information on your team’s capabilities to assure quality control.

Describe your quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction. Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control, track design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation. After contract award, the selected design-builder will submit their Quality Control Plan for Government Approval.

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

7.2.1. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the organization and technical approach. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of design-build and the capability to execute the project. Some additional specific evaluation criteria are listed below.

7.2.2. Organization: The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. The Offeror is required to select and commit to design firms to achieve an “acceptable” rating. Joint venture participants’ contribution to the project should be commensurate with their skills and background. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability and intent to comply with the applicable requirements for self-performance of work by the prime contractor, as applicable to the type of solicitation (See Section 00 73 00, SCR .1.4, “SELF-PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY THE PRIME CONTRACTOR”)

7.2.3. Technical Approach for Design and Construction: The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides methods to streamline construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule, including such things as fast-tracking, using factory built modules or assemblies, panelization, pre-cast, tilt-up, standard designs, etc. The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces on-site craft labor and susceptibility to inclement weather delays.

7.2.4. Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: The use of 3-dimensional (3D) Building Information Model (BIM) technology in the design process is a requirement. The BIM requirements are described in Section 01 33 16, “Design After Award. The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms and the staff during design and construction. The constructor must be actively involved in the design process, not just leaving it up to the designer (see Special Contract Requirement (SCR:

“Constructor’s role during Design”). The Offeror must have an effective configuration management system to control and track revisions to the design. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record and the Government reviewers. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction. The Government places greater value in collaborative development of the Building Information Model as early as possible during the design and construction process. Additional consideration will be given to a team that includes as many subcontractors as possible (e.g., the key subs for electrical and mechanical, the fire protection subcontractor, fabricators, etc.) during design development, prior to release of the applicable design packages for construction, so that systems and trade coordination can reduce interferences, increase constructability and speed up construction operations.

Additional consideration will also be given to a team that includes one or more BIM “Contractor Electives”, as described in Appendix F of Section 01 33 16.

7.2.5. Planning and Scheduling: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s scheduling capabilities to develop and implement an integrated fast track design-build schedule and the systems that will be utilized to implement the schedule. Additional consideration will be given for Design-builders that provide 4-D Schedule Modeling with demonstrated experience in.

7.2.6. Self-Performed Work: The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s resources to determine if it has the capability to self-perform the required amount of the project, in accordance with public policy to assure adequate interest in and supervision of all work.

These requirements are outlined in Section 00 73 00.

7.2.7. Quality Control: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction. The Government places value upon continued participation by the designers of record during the construction quality control process. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the staffing plan to cover all required tasks and responsibilities.

8.0 PHASE 1 OVERALL RATING

8.1. In addition to individual factor ratings, the SSA will assign an overall rating for the Phase 1 proposal.

9.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

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

9.2. EVALUATION

9.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase 1 submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1.

9.2.2. The Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified Offerors to shortlist for Phase 2.

9.2.3. The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select up to five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors to short-list for Phase 2.

9.3. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

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

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

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

9.4. DEFINITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

9.4.6. Deviation. Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria.

The Offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is a considered deficiency if it fails to meet one of the minimum requirements of the RFP. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

9.4.7. Excellent. 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 solutions which are considered 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.

9.4.8. Good. 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 satisfactory 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 be low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk level: Low.

9.4.9. Acceptable. 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.

9.4.10. Marginal. The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, 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 expected to feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect high risk in that that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High.

9.4.11. Unacceptable. The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has numerous disadvantages of substance, and advantages, 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 be 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.

9.5. PAST PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

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

9.5.2. Risk Rating System

9.5.2.1. 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. .

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

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

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