Amend6_Ft_Hood_MATOC.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

Solicitation W9126G-13-R-0017, Fort Hood Small Business IDIQ MATOC FY13 is amended as follows:

See SF30 Continuation Sheets(s)

NOTE: This is a POST CLOSING Amendment. The proposal receipt date is changed to June 14, 2013, 5:00 p.m., CDT.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W9126G-13-R-0017

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Feb-2013

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer 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

07-Jun-2013

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH

ATTN: CESWF-CT

819 TAYLOR ST, ROOM 2A17

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-13-R-0017 Amendment 0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following items are applicable to this amendment:

1. Proposal Receipt Date - The proposal receipt date has been changed to June 14, 2013, 5:00 P.M., CDT.

2. Revised Section(s) - Replace the following sections with the accompanying new sections of the same number and title, each bearing the notation “W9126G-13-R-0017, Amendment No. 0006”.

• 00 22 10 – PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

End of Summary of Changes

Post Closing Amendment 0006

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

Fort Hood New MATOC Solicitation W9126G‐13‐R‐0017

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 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2. RELEVANCY DETERMINATION

5.3. CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 Volume 1 - TAB C – FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.2 EVALUATION

7.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

7.5 DEFINITIONS

7.4.12 PAST PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

PHASE ONE – SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – CONSTRUCTION – PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

3 – DESIGNER – PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

4 – COMPANY PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. The Fort Worth District intends to award at least two (2) but no more than ten (10) Small Business Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC) for the Fort Hood, Department of Public Works and the Central Texas Area Office located on Fort Hood Army Installation located in Killeen, Texas. The estimated maximum task order limitation is $5 million with a minimum task order limitation of $2,500. In determining which contractor to solicit for a given task order requirement the Government will consider - 1) the complexity of the work, 2) contract task order limitation, 3) on-going work, 4) bonding capacity, and any other task order specific requirement.

1.2. In Phase 1 of the 2 phase selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) submit specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute a wide variety of construction activities, to include but not limited to, new construction, maintenance, repair, alteration and minor construction type tasks, including asbestos and lead based paint abatement and other environmental remediation incidental to the construction, for both military and civil projects. The contracts are not only intended to execute new construction, design-build and design-bid-build, but to provide a timely response to remediation of real and personal property facilities, e.g., maintenance, repair and minor construction situations relating to, but not limited to, civil, mechanical, plumbing, structural, electrical, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), instrumentation, anti-terrorism and force protection. The Government will evaluate the qualifications in accordance with the criteria described herein and intends to select more than ten (10) of the Phase 1 Offerors to compete in Phase 2. The Government reserves the right to select more than ten

(10) of the Phase 1 Offerors if, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, consideration of additional offerors is warranted.

1.3. In Phase 2, the selected Phase 2 Offerors will submit proposals for evaluation in accordance with Section 00 22 20. In Phase 2, the Contracting Officer will award at least two

(2) but no more than ten (10) firm fixed-price contracts to the firms whose proposals offer the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2.

1.4. The selected Phase 2 Offerors will be announced by special notice or synopsis to the Federal Business Opportunities website. Offerors may be contacted separately to request their proposal.

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. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

2.2. Submit the Phase 1 proposal in electronic format, as described in Section 00 21 00.

Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, in paragraph 6.1.1 below. PHASE 1 DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

PHASE 1, VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Factor Location Description Relative Importance Vol.1, Tab A SF 1442 and Proposal Data

Sheet N/A

Factor 1 Vol. 1, Tab B Past Performance Equal in importance to Factor 2 Factor 2 Vol. 1, Tab C Organization and Technical

Approach Equal in importance to Factor 1

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 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1. The Offeror’s construction and design entities shall each demonstrate past performance through the submission of recent/relevant projects, using the Construction – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Attachment 2) and Designer – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Attachment 3). If a single entity performs both construction and design work in-house, they only need to submit no more than five (5) projects. If the Offeror is a joint venture, limited liability corporation, or integrated design-build firm, provide past performance information for design and construction projects relevant to each of the proposed roles on this MATOC. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked for or Government, private or commercial customers. If projects were design-build and new construction, identify them as such. Both the prime contractor and the design firm(s) shall each submit no more than five (5) projects completed within six (6) years from the date of this solicitation or fully designed and with at least 50% construction progress completed within six

(6) years from the date of this solicitation, that best represent their experience relevant to this solicitation. No more than Two (2) of the five (5) projects submitted may be fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and past performance cannot be provided as a JV, each partner can submit no more than five (5) projects each.

5.1.2. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment 4) is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror included in its proposal for Factor 1, Past Performance that does not have a final CCASS or ACASS evaluation or is a non-Federal Government project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQ should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If any negative past performance information is received to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Mrs. Ali Marshall, via e-mail at:

Alisa.Marshall@usace.army.mil mailto:prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposals PPQ’s previously submitted for other RFPs.

However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

5.1.3. Do not request past performance questionnaires (PPQ) on projects that have final CCASS or ACASS evaluations. If a CCASS or ACASS evaluation exists and a PPQ is provided for the same project, the CCASS or ACASS evaluation will be reviewed as the official past performance record for the project, and the PPQ will not be considered by the Source Selection Board or the Source Selection Authority.

5.1.4. For USACE or other DoD projects which are underway but do not yet have an interim or final CCASS or ACASS evaluation, one PPQ per contract may be submitted; to be considered, the PPQ shall be signed by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) for the contract.

5.1.5. In lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires, Offerors may submit performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition relevant to the submitted projects to demonstrate the Offeror’s performance capabilities and customer satisfaction.

5.1.6. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluation of past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS number of team members (Partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquires of owner representative(s), Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rest with the Offeror.

5.1.7. Projects will be considered relevant to this procurement if they are similar in complexity, in type, scope, and magnitude of (a), (b), (c), and (d) listed below. Relevancy is defined as performance in a variety of multi-discipline vertical construction projects completed within six (6) years from the date of this solicitation or fully designed and with at least 50% construction progress completed within six (6) years from the date of this solicitation, to include the following:

(a) A minimum of two examples of repair/renovation, addition, or alteration of an existing facility project; with a construction value of at least $1 million; and

(b) A minimum of one example of Design/Build project with a construction value of at least $1 million; and

(c) A minimum of one construction project with a Construction value of at least $1 million;

and

(d) Construction entity must be the Prime Contractor on a minimum of two projects submitted; Design entity(ies) must be the Designer of Record on a minimum of two projects submitted.

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

5.1.9. Offerors may submit but, are not required to submit any additional past performance information. The Government will utilize CCASS, ACASS, and any other information deemed relevant to assess confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform.

5.2. RELEVANCY DETERMINATION:

5.2.1. The Government will review the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the past performance is to the multiple relevancy criteria listed above in paragraph 5.1.7. Past performance on the projects identified in the project forms will receive more consideration than past performance 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 past performance will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project past performance.

5.2.2. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence rating than past performance of lesser relevance.

5.2.3. Contracts with lower degrees of relevance will not be as strong of predictors of likely future contract performance success and will typically have less influence on the final past performance confidence rating.

5.2.4. Contracts that have little or no relevance typically do not influence the performance confidence rating; however, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating.

5.2.5. To be determined relevant or higher, the construction entity and the design entity(ies) must each submit a collection of projects that meets all defined aspects of relevancy relative to their role on this MATOC.

5.3. CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.3.1. The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include ACASS, CCASS, and other past performance information deemed relevant, to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. If the Government cannot establish the Offeror’s relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire to conduct telephone interviews on any source it deems relevant to the evaluation. The Government will not release the information gathered to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects that the offeror submitted.

5.3.2 In determining the performance confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor, the degree of relevancy of all of the considered efforts; the overall performance record of the offeror on each contract assessed; number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised); and trend data will be considered.

Contracts with higher degrees of relevance will typically have a greater influence on the final performance confidence rating. Contracts with lower degrees of relevance will typically have less influence on the final performance confidence rating however, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating. The resulting relevancy assessment determination will then be used to decide the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

The Past Performance Factor will be given a single rating based on the confidence evaluation criteria.

5.3.3 The performance confidence rating will be established based on the past performance of the firms or that of its predecessor, if applicable. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its 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, a rating of Unknown confidence will be assigned.

5.3.4 If negative information is received, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to provide input as required by FAR 15. ACASS and CCASS that are part of the official record will be utilized as if the Offeror has already had an opportunity to respond.

6.0 TAB C –FACTOR 2 - ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1. This information should address the Offeror’s organization and intended technical approach to executing the contract. Demonstrate an understanding of the risk management process associated with design-build process. Limit the information to fifteen (15) pages or less clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution. Evidence of Bonding Capacity is NOT included in the 15 page limitation.

6.1.2. 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 design and construction team members, their technical competencies, their resources, how their resources will be utilized, and their roles and responsibilities. Describe any previous teaming experience between current team members. Include a general description of the work the Offeror will self-perform.

6.1.3. Technical Approach for Design-Build: Describe the technical approach to design and construction. Include information on design and construction. Describe team members’ knowledge of and expertise in design of sustainable facilities. Describe your team’s familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions (both design and construction) within the geographic boundaries of this MATOC.

6.1.4. 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 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.

6.1.5. 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”. 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 provide an achievable and flexible schedule. 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.

6.1.6. 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. Do not submit a quality control plan. After contract award, the successful Offerors will submit their Quality Control Plan for Government Approval.

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

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

6.1.7.2 Describe your resources in personnel, construction plant and equipment available to self-perform required work under individual Task Orders. Fully describe the type of work your firm is capable of self-performing and describe the types of work you intend to self-perform to be compliant with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.236-1, Performance of Work by Contractor in Section 00 72 00, if awarded this contract.

6.1.7.3 Describe your resources available and your capabilities to support this project concurrently with other projected on-going or new work. Describe your resources available and your capabilities to manage and execute several concurrent Task Orders, which may be located throughout the Southwestern Division and surrounding areas. Describe your firm’s capabilities to execute projects on a limited Nation-wide basis. Describe why your firm is especially qualified to undertake this contract.

6.1.8 Single Contract and Aggregate Bonding Capacity: Evidence of Bonding Capacity:

Submit a letter of commitment from a surety, signed by an officer or agent authorized to bond, that identifies the offeror’s available bonding capacity and limits that the surety will bond the Offeror, as the successful awardee for this project, taking into consideration the Cost Ceiling Limitation described in this Solicitation. The surety must be acceptable to the Government and must appear on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies.” If the Offeror submits evidence from an individual Surety, the individual surety must include documentation meeting the requirements of FAR 28.203 and contract clause 52.228-11.

6.1.8.1 If the joint venture involves a constructor and an A-E firm and the constructor intends to provide the bond, provide a complete explanation with confirmation from the surety.

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1. 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 task orders. Some additional specific evaluation criteria are listed below.

6.2.2. Organization: The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute task orders. 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. Previous teaming by the construction contractor and design firm(s) will be considered a strength.

6.2.3. Technical Approach for Design and Construction: The firm(s) preparing the design must demonstrate qualifications and expertise in sustainable design and development. The Government will evaluate demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions.

6.2.4. Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: 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: “Constructor’s Role during Design”, Section 00 73 00). 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. 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.

6.2.5. 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. The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides methods to streamline construction and manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and supports an achievable and flexible schedule.

6.2.6. 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.

6.2.7 Task Order Procedures and Task Order Management: The Government will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the Offeror’s understanding of task order procedures, plans for responding to task order requirements, submitting proposals, for completing construction (new construction, renovation/repairs, and design/build), for managing subcontractors, capability and commitment to self-perform the required percentage of work, and the capacity to successfully accomplish the task orders throughout the Southwestern Division and surrounding areas along with other ongoing work, and multiple task orders, all in a timely manner. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to perform projects on a limited Nation-wide basis.

6.2.8 Single Contract and Aggregate Bonding Capacity: The offeror must show satisfactory bonding capacity and access to a surety listed on the Department of the Treasury’s Circular 570 for at least the amount stated in the Solicitation in the Funds Limitation provision. Individual sureties must be acceptable per the requirements of FAR 28.203 and contract clause 52.228- 11.

7.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.1.1. 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.

7.2. EVALUATION

7.2.1. 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.

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

7.3. The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, intends to select more than ten (10) of the Phase 1 Offerors to compete in Phase 2. The Government reserves the right to select more than ten (10) of the Phase 1 Offerors if, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, consideration of additional offerors is warranted. In Phase 2, the selected Phase 2 Offerors will submit proposals for evaluation in accordance with Section 00 22 20. In Phase 2, the Contracting Officer will award at least two (2) but no more than ten (10) firm fixed-price contracts to the firms whose proposals offer the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2.

7.4. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

7.4.1. General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the information submitted for each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements.

7.4.2. 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.

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

7.5. DEFINITIONS

7.5.1. Deficiency. A deficiency is 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. See FAR 15.001.

7.5.2. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

7.5.3. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

7.5.4. Strength. Any aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

7.5.5. Significant Strength. An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

7.5.6. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

7.5.7. Outstanding. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

7.5.8. Good. Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

7.5.9. Acceptable. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

7.5.10. Marginal. Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

7.5.11. Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

7.5.12. PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS. A single confidence rating shall be assigned to Past Performance.

7.5.12.1. The relevancy determination will assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired under this solicitation.

7.5.12.2. The confidence rating assesses 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 confidence rating.

7.5.13. Relevancy Determination Definitions

7.5.13.1. Very Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

7.5.13.2. Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

7.5.13.3. Somewhat Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

7.5.13.4. Not Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

7.5.14. Confidence Rating System

7.5.14.1. Unknown Confidence (Neutral). 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. .

7.5.14.2. Substantial Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

7.5.14.3. Satisfactory Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

7.5.14.4. Limited Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

7.5.14.5. No Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

End of Section 00 22 10

PHASE 1 - TAB A

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 1

Solicitation Number

Firm

Address

Phone

Fax

Email

Tax ID Number

DUNS Number

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the ACASS or CCASS databases. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted.

Provide a DUNS number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide DUNS for each.

Firm 1 Nature of Association DUNS Number

Firm 2 Nature of Association DUNS Number

Firm 3 Nature of Association DUNS Number

Authorized Negotiators IAW FAR 52.215-11 - The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals

(RFP).

Name

Title

Address

Telephone

Email

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(To be completed for each project submitted)

CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT #_______

Offeror:

Project and Location:

Owner:

Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference:

Telephone:

Awarded Construction Cost: Final Construction Cost:

Explain Cost Growth, if any:

Date of Award:

Original Completion Date: Revised Completion Date:

Explain Time Growth, if any:

General Scope of Construction and Offeror’s Role:

Work Your Company Self-Performed:

Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out:

Describe extent of relevancy of the project by checking all applicable boxes below and provide any additional narrative to support relevancy assessment (in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the scope of the RFP). Higher relevancy will be assessed based on ability to meet multiple relevancy criteria listed below.

Multi-discipline vertical construction of a new facility

Repair/renovation, addition, or alteration of an existing facility project; with a construction value of at least $1 million

Design/Build project with a construction value of at least $1 million

Construction value of at least $1 million

Fully designed and with at least 50% construction progress completed

Prime Contractor

Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known :

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(To be completed for each project submitted)

DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN PROJECT #_______

Offeror:

Project and Location:

Owner:

Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference:

Telephone:

Estimated Construction Cost: Actual Construction Cost:

Date of Award: Original Design Completion

Date:

Revised Design Completion Date:

Explain Time Growth, if any:

General Scope of Construction and Offeror’s Role in Design:

Offeror’s Role in Design (Self-Performed Work):

Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out:

Describe extent of relevancy of the project by checking all applicable boxes below and provide any additional narrative to support relevancy assessment (in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the scope of the RFP). Higher relevancy will assessed based on ability to meet multiple relevancy criteria listed below.

Multi-discipline vertical construction of a new facility

Repair/renovation, addition, or alteration of an existing facility project; with a construction value of at least $1 million

Design/Build project with a construction value of at least $1 million

Construction value of at least $1 million

Fully designed

Designer of Record

Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known :

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 4

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status…