Solicitation_Amendment_W9126G16R0005.pdf

W9126G-16-R-0005

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 No. W9126G-16-R-0005 is modified as follow s:

1) Evaluation criteria changed from Low est Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) to Best Value Trade-Off.

2) Sections 00 22 10 & 00 22 20 have been amended

3) Duplicate FAR Clause 52.246-12 deleted

4) Proposals due 27 June 2016 at 1:00 pm, Central Standard Time (CST) All other terms and conditions remain unchanged POC: Tiffany Jolly (817) 886-1181 Email: Tiffany.S.Joly@usace.army.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Jun-2016

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-16-R-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-May-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, 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 1 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

17-Jun-2016

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORT WORTH

819 TAYLOR ST, RM 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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION SF30 - CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

Global Changes

CLIN 0001 -- CLIN 0005

The CLIN description has changed from Base: LPOE MATOC, MN & NC to Base: LPOE MATOC, MN

& ND.

SECTION 00 22 10 - PHASE 1 OF A 2 PHASE-DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

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

6.0 Volume 1 - TAB B – FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.0 Volume 1 – TAB D – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

8.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.3. DEFINITIONS

9.0 PHASE 1 – RATINGS – PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

9.2. EVALUATION

9.3. DISCUSSIONS

9.4. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

9.5. DEFINITIONS

9.6. PAST PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 - EXPERIENCE INFORMATION

3 - RESUME FORM – KEY PERSONNEL AND QUALIFICATIONS

4 – DESIGNER – PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

5 – NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

1.1. The Fort Worth District intends to award a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) with a target of four (4) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts to provide Repair and Alterations (RA) services of Land Ports of Entry (LPOE) in of the support the Department of Homeland Security’s LPOE RA program. The estimated maximum task order limitation is $5,000,000 with a minimum task order limitation of $2,000.

In Phase 1 of the 2 phase design build selection procedures, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) shall submit specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute a wide variety of multidisciplinary services required for preparation of, but not limited to, renovation, repairs, preventive maintenance, environmental abatement, and erosion control, earthwork and operations construction activities; restoration of roads, parking lots, bridges, fences, gates, equipment and fixtures, as applicable under these MATOCs. The contracts are not only intended to execute design-build construction and design-bid-build, but to provide a timely response to remediation of facilities, e.g., maintenance, repair, asbestos and lead-based paint abatement, and minor construction situations relating to, but not limited to, civil, mechanical, plumbing, structural, electrical, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), instrumentation, anti-terrorism and force protection. The Government will evaluate the qualifications in accordance with the criteria described herein to select the most responsible offerors to compete in Phase 2.

1.2. 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 a MATOC with a target of four (4) firm fixed-price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD (MATOC)

2.1. The Contracting Officer will award a target of four (4) firm fixed-price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts to the responsible Offerors whose proposals the Source Selection Authority determines conform to the solicitation, price is determined to be fair and reasonable with regard to the initial task order, and whose (AM1)technically “Acceptable”(AM1) proposals (AM1)are lowest price the best overall value(AM1) to the Government (AM1)considering price and non-price factors described herin(AM1).

(AM1)All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are significantly more important than price; however, Tthe(AM1) initial Task Order award may not exceed the cost limitation described in Section 00 73 10, which will be provided during Phase 2 for the seed project. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the (AM1)lowest price technically “Acceptable” best value(AM1) proposal within the contract cost limitation for the initial task order. There is no obligation to approach or match the contract cost limitation in the offer. After the Government evaluates and rates each proposal, the SSEB prepares the (AM1)consensus evaluation comparative analysis(AM1) to determine the technical rating (AM1)best values and make a recommendation to the SSA which proposals represent the best value for award(AM1).

2.2. First Award and Seed Project. Award of the first IDIQ will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is (AM1)for the seed project in Phase 2 is determined to be the lowest priced technically “Acceptable” offer with a fair and reasonable price determined to represent the best overall value to the Government based on the evaluated ratings and the proposed price for the initial task order. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the SSA must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal for the initial task order would justify award to that Offeror(AM1). The Offeror receiving the first award will receive the task order for the seed project with the award of the basic IDIQ.

2.3. Subsequent Awards and Minimum Guarantee Task Orders. Award of the subsequent IDIQ contracts will be made to the Offeror(s) (AM1)(target of three (3) whose proposal(s) is (are) considered (AM1)to represent the a target of three (3) next lowest price technically “Acceptable”best value(AM1) to the Government based on the evaluated ratings and the proposed price for the seed project.; with a target of four

(4) total IDIQ awards. The price proposed under Phase 2 will be used to place the technically “Acceptable” proposals in lowest to highest price sequence for award of an IDIQ.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1. 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. Joint-Venture offerors must be in compliance with FAR 19.1403. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

3.2. 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.

4.0 PHASE 1 - PROPOSAL CONTENTS 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 Experience Most important factor

Factor 2 Vol. 1, Tab C Organization and Technical Approach Less important than Factor 1

Factor 3 Vol. 1, Tab D Past Performance Less important than Factor 2

5.0 PHASE 1 - VOLUME 1, TAB A - STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

5.1. 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 the following documents (if applicable). If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), include a copy of the JV Agreement. If a JV Agreement has not been finalized/approved, indicate its status. JV Agreements must clearly indicate the percentages of the JV participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party, and a clear delineation of responsibilities and authorizes between the JV parties. If the Offeror is a Limited Liability Company, include a copy of the Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement. If the Offeror has teaming agreements and/or letters of commitment, please include under this Tab.

6.0 VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.1.1. The offeror must submit at least three (3) examples of recent, relevant repair, alteration or construction experience of the firm or proposed team members using only the Experience Information Form provided as Attachment 2. Each example is not to exceed three (3) pages. Offeror shall submit no more than five (5) projects total. (Documentation submitted that exceeds twenty (20) pages will not be considered by the Government).

6.1.2. Recent means completed, or currently in progress with at least 75% construction completed, within the past seven (7) years from the date of this solicitation.

Projects will be considered relevant to this procurement if they are the same or similar in complexity, in type, scope, and magnitude:

An example of repair, alteration, or construction of a facility involving at least three of these trades;

architectural, MEP, structural or civil with a construction value of at least $200,000.

Note: Ensure the descriptions clearly identify which required project type(s) it meets.

6.1.3. Offeror must be the Prime Contractor on a minimum of two projects submitted.

6.1.4. If the Offeror is a joint venture, limited liability corporation, or integrated design-bid-build firm, provide experience information for construction projects relevant to each of the projects listed above.

If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer.

6.1.5. The Offeror may provide a supplemental narrative (not project list), 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. In any case, the experience submission shall not exceed 20 pages.

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.2.1. The Government will review the project descriptions submitted, subject to the established quantity limitations, to ensure the experience requirements have been met. Experience in the following project types may be considered a strength.

(a) A minimum of two examples of repair, alteration, or construction of a facility involving three of these trades; Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Structural or Civil with a construction value of at least $200,000.

(b) A minimum of one example repair, alteration, or construction of a facility involving two or more of these trades; Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Structural or Civil with a construction value of at least $500,000.

(c) A minimum of one example of repair, alteration, or construction of a facility involving two or more of these trades; Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Structural or Civil will a construction value of at least $750,000. If two or more of these examples are provided the strength may be considered significant.

6.2.2. The Government will review any supplemental narratives submitted, up to two pages, to determine how the corporate experience described may benefit the Government, which may be considered a strength.

7.0 VOLUME 1, TAB C – FACTOR 2 – 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. Limit the information to fifteen (15) pages or less clearly but concisely describing the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution. The offeror shall provide an organizational chart within the fifteen-page limit. Resumes are excluded from the maximum fifteen (15) page limit. Documentation that exceeds fifteen (15) pages will not be considered by the Government.

7.1.2. Organization: Identify the construction firm that will be utilized on this contract, their technical competencies, roles and responsibilities. Demonstrate an understanding of the risk management process associated with design-build processes. Describe any previous teaming experience between current team members. Describe the team members, their resources, how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities, and include an Organizational Chart. Project Managers must have a minimum of 10 years’ experience managing construction projects or a minimum of 5 years’ experience managing construction projects combined with an Engineering or Construction Management bachelor’s degree.

Construction superintendents must have at least ten (10) years’ experience on construction projects. The Design Lead must have a minimum of five years design experience combined with an Engineering bachelor’s degree. The Design Lead must be clearly identified as the “Design Lead” in the organization chart, in the individuals resume and meet the prescribed experience and educational requirements. Any other term in lieu of Design Lead will not meet these requirements. The Design Lead can also serve as a Design Team member for any of the disciplines identified (i.e. Dual Hat). If the Design Lead serves as a Dual Hat it shall be denoted in the organizational chart individuals resume (ex: Design Lead/Civil Engineer). The primary responsibility of the Design Lead is to coordinate between the Design Team disciplines during the development and design process to provide a multidiscipline synchronized deliverable that is complete and has passed the QC process. The Design Lead is also responsible for leading the effort to resolve technical/design issues. The Design Lead assists with shaping the project and developing the schedule, resource allocation and team assignments. The Design Lead will occasionally take on the role of the Project Manager and assume responsibility of guiding the Design Team through the design and development process. Design Team shall include a Civil, Mechanical, Structural, Architectural, and Electrical Engineer; each shall have a minimum of at least two years design experience combined with a bachelor’s degree in the appropriate trade. The resume Form – Key Personnel and Qualifications (Attachment 3) must be used.

7.1.3. Capability:

7.1.3.1. 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 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting in Section 00 72 00, if awarded this contract.

7.1.3.2. Describe your capability 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 in remote locations throughout the US. Describe why your firm is especially qualified to undertake this contract.

7.1.3.3. 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.

Evidence of minimum aggregate bonding capacity of $20,000,000.00. 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. 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.

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.2.1. Organization: The Government will evaluate the construction team members proposed to be utilized on this contract, their technical competencies, roles and responsibilities to determine experience and skills.

7.2.2. Evidence of previous teaming experience between current team members on at least one (1) project may be considered a strength. The strength may be considered significant if there is evidence of previous teaming experience on two (2) or more projects.

7.2.3. The credentials of the proposed Project Manager will be reviewed to ensure they have an

Engineering or Construction Management degree and at least five (5) years’ experience on construction projects or a minimum of ten (10) years’ experience managing construction projects. Additional experience over ten (10) years with an Engineering or Construction Management degree may be considered a strength.

Additional experience over fifteen (15) years with an Engineering or Construction Management degree may be considered a significant strength.

7.2.4. The credentials of the proposed Construction Superintendent(s) will be reviewed to ensure they have at least ten (10) years’ experience on construction projects. Additional experience over fifteen (15) years may be considered a strength. Additional experience over twenty (20) years may be considered a significant strength.

7.2.5. The credentials of the proposed Design Lead will be reviewed to ensure they have an Engineering degree and at least five (5) years’ experience on design projects. Additional design experience over ten (10) years may be considered a strength. Additional combined design and construction experience over fifteen (15) years while still meeting the five (5) year minimum design experience may be considered a strength.

7.2.6. The credentials of the proposed Design Team will be reviewed to ensure they each have an Engineering degree in their specific trade and at least two (2) years’ experience on design projects.

Additional experience over 5 years with an Engineering degree in their specific trade may be considered a strength. The strength may be considered significant if all Design Team members have over eight (8) years of experience on design projects.

7.2.7. Capability:

7.2.7.1. The Government will review your identified resources in personnel, construction, plant and equipment available to self-perform required work, the type of work your firm is capable of self-performing and the types of work you intend to self-perform to evaluate your firm’s ability to comply with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting in Section 00 72 00, if awarded this contract. Demonstrating the ability to self-perform at least thirty percent (30%) of the work required under this contract may be considered a strength. Demonstrating the ability to self-perform over forty percent (40%) of the work required under this contract may be considered a significant strength.

7.2.7.2. The Government will review your identified capability to support this project concurrently with other projected on-going or new work, manage and execute several concurrent Task Orders, which may be located in remote locations throughout the Northwestern US, and firm’s qualification to undertake this contract to determine your ability to successfully perform multiple projects simultaneously. Evidence of your ability to perform up to four, NTE minimum bonding capacity of $20,000,000 projects simultaneously in geographically separate and isolated areas may be considered a strength.

7.2.7.3. 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 clause 52.216-19, Order Limitations. Individual sureties must be acceptable per the requirements of FAR 28.203 and contract clause 52.228-11.

8.0 VOLUME 1, TAB D – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

8.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.1.1. The Offeror’s construction entities shall each demonstrate past performance through the submission of recent/relevant projects, using the NAV/FAC USACE Past Performance Questions.

(Attachment 5) and Designer – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Attachment 4) for each project submitted in Factor 1, Experience. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment 6 5) 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, Experience that does not have a final CPARS 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’s 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, Tiffany Jolly, via e-mail at: Tiffany.S.Jolly@usace.army.mil 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. There is not a page limitation for this Factor.

8.1.2. Do not request past performance questionnaires (PPQ) on projects that have final CPARS evaluations. If a CPARS evaluation exists and a PPQ is provided for the same project, the CPARS 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.

8.1.3. For USACE or other DoD projects which are underway but do not yet have an interim or final

CPARS 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.

8.1.4. Offerors may submit performance recognition documents received within the last seven (7) years from the date of this solicitation 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.

8.1.5. 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.

8.1.6. Projects will be considered relevant to this procurement if they are similar in complexity, in type, scope, and magnitude. Relevancy is defined under Tab B, Factor 1, Experience.

8.1.7. 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.

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

8.2. RELEVANCY DETERMINATION:

8.2.1. The Government will review the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the past performance is to the project under consideration. 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.

8.2.2. 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.

8.2.3. 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.

8.2.4. 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.

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

8.3. CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA:

8.3.1. The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include CPARS, 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.

8.3.2. In determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance, the degree of relevancy / recency 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 relevance assessment conclusions will then be combined, along with the assessed quality of performance on prior contracts, to arrive at a single performance confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor.

8.3.3. 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.

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

9.0 RATING AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

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 for the Phase 1 submission are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the 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.

9.2.2. The Government reserves the right to allow proposal revisions in accordance with FAR 15.306(d)(5) Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified Offerors.

9.2.3. (AM1)Upon evaluation of the final Phase 1 proposals, the SSA will select the most highly qualified firms to continue in the evaluation process and receive the RFP for Phase 2. The Contracting Officer will award a target of four (4) firm fixed-price contracts to the firms whose proposals offer the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors.(AM1)

9.3. DISCUSSIONS (If Necessary) –

9.3.1. During Phase 1, the Government intends to shortlist firms without discussions to move to

Phase 2.A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that discussions with Offerors are required. In such an event, the SSA will approve a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

9.3.2. If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with each Offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

9.3.3. Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their Phase 1 proposal revisions for final evaluation.

9.4. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

9.4.1. 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.

9.4.2. 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.

9.4.3. 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.

Outstanding: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable: Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.

Unacceptable: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective.

9.5. DEFINITIONS

9.5.1. 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.

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

See FAR 15.001.

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

9.5.4. 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.

9.5.5. 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.

9.5.6. 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).

9.5.7. 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.

9.5.8. 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.

9.5.9. 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.

9.5.10. 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.

9.5.11. Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is un-awardable.

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

Performance.

9.6.1. 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.

9.6.2. 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.

9.6.3. Relevancy Determination Definitions

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

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

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

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

9.6.4. Confidence Rating System

9.6.4.1. 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.

9.6.4.2. 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.

9.6.4.3. 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.

9.6.4.4. 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.

9.6.4.5. 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.

PHASE 1 – VOLUME 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

PHASE 1 - VOLUME 1 - TAB B

EXPERIENCE INFORMATION

SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENT 2

EXPERIENCE INFORMATION

(To be completed by Contractor)

1. Contractor:

Name:

Address:

2. Contract /Task Order(TO) /Purchase Order (PO) Number:

3. Contract/TO/PO Dollar Value:

4. Contract/TO /PO Status: Active Complete

Completion Date (w/ extensions):

5. Project Title:

Location:

6. Project Description-- to include description of the work, the role of the contractor on the project, and specific responsibilities of the contractor in performance of the effort:

7. Project Owner or Project Manager for the Client – provide:

Name:

Address:

Telephone Number and E-mail:

Continuation Sheet - Experience

PHASE 1 – VOLUME 1 - TAB C

SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENT 3

RESUME FORM - KEY PERSONNEL AND QUALIFICATIONS

(Complete one form for each key person)

1. NAME AND TITLE:

2. ROLE IN THIS CONTRACT:

3. NAME OF FIRM WITH WHICH ASSOCIATED (city and state):

4. YEARS EXPERIENCE:

Total:________________ Design________________ Construction:_____________

5. CURRENT PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION (state and discipline), IF APPLICABLE:

6. EDUCATION (degree and specialization), if applicable:

7. OTHER PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS (Publications, Organizations, Training, Awards, etc.):

8. OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE ON SAME/SIMILAR PROJECTS:

a.

(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (city and state):

(2) DATE COMPLETED:

(3) PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC

ROLE:

b.

c.

d.

PHASE 1 – VOLUME 1 - TAB D

SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 4 - PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET or DESIGNER – 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.

A minimum of two examples of repair, alteration, or construction of a facility involving three of these trades; architectural, MEP, structural or civil with a construction value of at least $200,000.

A minimum of one example repair, alteration, or construction of a facility involving two of more of these trades; architectural, MEP, structural or civil with a construction value of at least $500,000

A minimum of one example repair, alteration, or construction of a facility involving two of more of these trades; architectural, MEP, structural or civil with a construction value of at least $750,000

Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known :

PHASE 1 – VOLUME 1 - TAB D

SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENT 5

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:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 5

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE

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…