B3_Solicitation_Amd_0004.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

Revises Section 002210, paragraph 6.2.1

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 26

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Feb-2017

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-17-R-0034

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Jan-2017

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 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

21-Feb-2017

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-17-R-0034

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION SF30 - CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

The following have been modified:

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 – EXPERIENCE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 VOLUME 1 - TAB C – FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1. NARRATIVE

6.2. RESUMES

6.3. BONDING CAPACITY

7.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB D – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.0 PHASE 1 – EVALUATION PROCEDURES / RATING SYSTEM

8.1. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.2. RATING SYSTEM

8.3. DEFINITIONS

ATTACHMENT 1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

ATTACHMENT 2 – EXPERIENCE INFORMATION

ATTACHMENT 3 – RESUME FORM

ATTACHMENT 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. The Fort Worth District intends to award at least two but a target of five (5) contracts as an 8(a) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) pool with a total maximum capacity of $30,000,000 for construction services in the El Paso, Tucson and Yuma Border Patrol sectors. The estimated maximum task order limitation is $20,000,000 and the minimum task order of $2,000 and a minimum guarantee for each contract awarded in the pool of $2,500. Task orders will be competed amongst the MATOC Pool contractors and be issued will be firm-fixed price.

1.2. This solicitation will be evaluated under the Two-Phase Design Build Process. In Phase 1, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) may submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the design-build construction IDIQ contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described in the solicitation and intends to select up to five (5) of the Phase 1 Offerors to compete in Phase 2.

The Government reserves the right to select more than five (5) 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 Offerors will submit preliminary technical design proposals for an initial task, the contract duration, a preliminary schedule and a price proposal. The Government will evaluate the Phase 2 proposals, in accordance with the criteria described for Phase 2 in the solicitation, and intends to award the first IDIQ to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best overall value to the Government based on the evaluated ratings from Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposals and the proposed price for the initial task order. Award of the subsequent contracts will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) is (are) considered to represent the second (2nd) and a target of five (5) best value(s) to the Government based on the evaluated ratings from Phase 1 and Phase 2 and the proposed price for the initial task order. Offeror(s) selected for the MATOC pool (not awarded the seed contract) will be awarded an initial task order based on the minimum guarantee amount of $2,500.00.

1.4. It is not intended for the Offerors to complete and provide price information in Phase 1. A Task Order Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) schedule will be provided in Phase 2, which will require pricing by the Offeror. In Phase 1 of the 2 phase design-build 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 Design-Build and/or Design-Bid-Build (DBB) construction activities including, but not limited to: design and construction of roads, parking lots, boat ramps, heli-pads, bridges, automated border barrier gates, retaining walls, drainage improvements, pedestrian border fences, vehicle border fences, airport runways, airport taxiways, levees, flood walls and lighting, irrigation systems, cemetery expansions to include pre-placed crypts, columbaria, ossuaries/memorial walls; and repair or alteration of all of these.. PHASE 1 DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICING

SUBMISSION. The Government will evaluate the qualifications in accordance with the criteria described herein and select up to five (5) Offerors to continue to Phase 2.

1.5. In Phase 2, the selected Offerors will submit proposals for evaluation in accordance with Section 00 22 20. The Contracting Officer will award contracts to the firms whose proposals offer the best overall value to the Government considering the price and non-price factors using the Trade-Off Process.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Firms that are enrolled in the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Program, 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 Ventures must be in compliance with FAR 19.

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

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND EVALUATION FACTORS

File Name Description Factor Relative Importance

Volume 1, Tab A SF 1442, Proposal Data Sheet and completed Representations and Certifications: 52.204-8 252.204- 7007 Alternate 1, 52.209-7 and 52.223-22

N/A

Volume 1, Tab B Factor 1 Experience Most important factor

Volume 1, Tab C Factor 2 Organization and Technical Approach

Less important than Factor 1, but more important than Factor 3.

Volume 1, Tab D Factor 3 Past Performance Least important

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

4.1. Submit the SF 1442, FAR completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror.

4.2. Submit the completed proposal data sheet (Attachment 1) and the following documents (if applicable):

If the offeror is a Joint Venture a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal. All members of the joint venture shall sign the SF 1442 and the bid bond unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

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, include a copy.

Submit SBA certification of a bona fide office in either the SBA El Paso, New Mexico or

Arizona District if the offeror is not serviced by one of those districts.

4.3. Submit completed provisions 52.204-8, 252.204-7007 Alternate A, para e (if required), 52.209-7 and 52.223-22.

5.0 VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1. The Offeror must submit at least four, but no more than 10 examples of recent, relevant construction, design or design-build projects as experience of the proposed team members using the Experience Information Form provided as Attachment 2. At least one of the projects submitted for the proposed design firm must have been a design-build project.

5.1.2. The Offeror must be the prime contractor on a minimum of two of the projects submitted. The proposed design firm(s) must be the Designer of Record on a minimum of two of the projects submitted. If an offeror plans on having a subcontractor perform more than 50% of the construction work, identify that subcontractor as a team member and submit two experience projects on which that subcontractor was a Prime Contractor.

5.1.3. Any experience projects for which the offeror or team member was not the prime must clearly identify the portion of the project they completed and the value of that work.

5.1.4. It is acceptable to represent both construction and design services in one project. Each example is not to exceed two (2) pages.

5.1.5. Recent means completed, or currently in progress with at least 50% construction completed, within the past 10 years.

5.1.6. Relevant means similar to the services required under this contract, with a value of $500,000 or greater:

Design and construction of roads, parking lots, boat ramps, heli-pads, bridges, automated border barrier gates, retaining walls, drainage improvements, pedestrian border fences, vehicle border fences, airport runways, airport taxiways, levees and flood walls and lighting, irrigation systems, cemetery expansions to include pre-placed crypts, columbaria, ossuaries/memorial walls; and repair or alteration of all of these.

Note: Ensure the descriptions clearly identify which required project type(s) it meets. If projects were design-build, identify them as such.

5.1.7. 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, identify them as such.

5.1.8. 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. Any more than two pages will not be read.

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.2.1. 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.

More than the one design-build project required for the proposed design firm may be considered a strength.

Horizontal construction project with a construction value of at least $1,500,000.

Road project with a construction value of at least $1,500,000.

Project that includes at least one mile of pedestrian and/or vehicle border barrier fencing:

Metal security fencing with a minimum of 18 feet in height; i.e., Steel bollard fencing, steel picket fencing, steel corrugated pale fencing, welded wire mesh, expanded metal, knotted wire fence. Vehicular barriers constructed of metal or concrete beams will be considered. Vehicular barriers constructed of 2 feet or greater in height constructed of similar materials maybe considered.

Project that includes at least one automated border barrier gate:

Metal border barrier gate with a minimum height of 18 feet and minimum width of 20 feet; i.e. motorized overhead sliding gate with enclosed drive and operator system(s) that is operated by radio frequency activation and pressing the appropriate pushbutton(s) on a control console/key pad with emergency manual operations capabilities.

A construction project to include excavation of a minimum of 25,000 cubic yards of materials.

Levees and/or floodwalls with a construction value of at least $1,500,000.

5.2.2. 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. Any more than two pages will not be read.

6.0 VOLUME 1, TAB C – FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL

APPROACH

6.1. NARRATIVE

6.1.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Submit an organizational chart on an 8.5”X11” page and a narrative that clearly but concisely describes the Offeror’s organization, capability and intended technical approach to project management and execution of the contract. Limit the information to 15 pages. Documentation that exceeds 15 pages will not be considered by the Government. Include the following:

Identify your team: the design and construction firms that will be utilized on this contract, their technical competencies, roles and responsibilities. Describe any previous teaming experience between the proposed team members.

Describe your team’s or joint venture’s resources in personnel, construction, plant and equipment.

Describe the type of work your firm or (joint venture) would self-perform under this contract to be compliant with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting.

Describe your firm’s capability to support completing several task orders located in remote locations concurrently, with other on-going or potential new work. Provide any examples of your firm’s performance of multiple projects simultaneously in geographically separate and isolated areas.

6.1.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The Government will review the proposal to ensure it meets the submission requirements.

Evidence of previous teaming experience between current team members may be considered a strength.

Substantial ability to self-perform work required under this contract may be considered a strength.

Evidence of your firm’s ability to perform multiple projects simultaneously in geographically separate and isolated areas may be considered a strength.

6.2. RESUMES

6.2.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Submit one resume for the person your firm proposes for each position identified below for performance of this contract. Resumes must clearly identify that the persons proposed at least meet the requirements identified for each position. Resumes are excluded from the fifteen page limit identified for the narrative. The Resume Form – Key Personnel and Qualifications (Attachment 3) may be used.

Project Manager: The Project Manager shall be an individual with a recognized four-year college degree in engineering or related technical field or business/management and a minimum experience of five-years in managing and supervising construction projects similar in scope, complexity and magnitude to the assigned task order, or an individual with a minimum of 10 years of experience managing and supervising construction projects similar in scope, complexity and magnitude to the assigned task order.

Construction Superintendent: Must have five (5) years of experience as a project superintendent, or 10 years of construction experience.

Construction Quality Control Manager: Must be a graduate (BS) engineer, graduate (BS) architect, graduate (BS) of construction management, or an engineering technician with at least two (2) years of college and a Corps of Engineers Construction Quality Management Certificate, or a construction person with a minimum of ten years construction experience. Must have a minimum of five (5) years of experience on relevant construction projects.

Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO): Must have a minimum of five (5) years of safety work experience of a progressive nature, with at least five (5) years of safety work experience on similar projects.

Design Team: Submit resumes for civil, architectural, structural, geotechnical, electrical, mechanical, and Lead Designer disciplines. Each must be a registered professional engineer and/or licensed architect.

The Lead Designer must have a recognized four-year or higher college degree in Engineering or Architecture, be professionally licensed, and have at least 10 years of experience in managing design projects and at least 10 years of design experience. The Lead Designer shall be a senior level professional engineer or architect with extensive knowledge and skills related to the managing of design projects similar to the work contained in the RFP. They shall provide the general oversight and have primary control and responsibility for the technical development of all engineering products produced by the design team and for engineering support during construction. The same individual shall function as the Lead Designer for the duration of each task order/project. The Lead

Designer position may be performed by a person also performing another design team position.

6.2.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The Government will review the submitted resumes to ensure the submission requirements have been met. Additional experience may be considered a strength.

6.3. BONDING CAPACITY

6.3.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Submit a letter of commitment from your insurance company or surety, signed by an authorized agent of that firm that identifies your surety and aggregate bonding capacity.

The minimum aggregate bonding capacity must be $10,000,000. The surety 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 insurance company or surety. The Bonding Capacity letter is excluded from the fifteen page limit identified for the narrative.

6.3.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The Government will review the letter of commitment to ensure the submission requirements have been met. An aggregate bonding capacity of greater than $10,000,000 may be considered a strength.

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

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

7.1.1. The Offeror shall submit either a Government completed Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR), or a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment 4, for each project submitted in Factor 1, Experience, and Factor 2, Organization and Technical Approach, Narrative.

7.1.2. When a PPQ is required, the Offeror or its team members shall provide the PPQ to the client for each project for completion. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQ’s should be submitted with the proposal. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client before proposal closing date, the Offeror must complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

7.1.3. If a client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Alice Austin, via e-mail at: alice.m.austin@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

7.1.4. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.

However, Offerors may include the completed PPQ(s) in this proposal that were previously submitted. PPQ(s) must be within 10 years from the date of this solicitation.

The Government may utilize previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

7.1.5. Offerors may submit other past performance information for the offeror or team members, however it may not be considered if not for recent relevant projects, or it cannot be verified, so ensure a client POC with contact information evaluation is included.

7.1.6. There is no page limit for this factor.

7.1.7. 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.

7.1.8. Do not request past performance questionnaires (PPQ) on projects that have final evaluations in PPIRS. If a PPQ is provided for the same project, the PPIRS evaluation will be reviewed as the official past performance record for the project, and the PPQ will not be considered.

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

7.1.10. Offerors may submit performance recognition documents received within the last 10 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.

7.1.11. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluation of past performance. 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.

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

7.2.1. The Government will review the Offeror’s past performance information received, determine the project’s recency, relevancy, and quality and assign a performance confidence assessment rating.

7.2.2. Recency. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine if the past performance is recent. Recent is defined as completed, or currently in progress with at least 50% construction completed, within the past 10 years.

7.2.3. Relevance. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

The Government will consider projects performed as a prime contractor more relevant than similar projects performed as a subcontractor.

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.

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.

Projects will be considered relevant if they are similar to the services required under this contract, with a value of $500,000 or greater:

Design and construction of roads, parking lots, boat ramps, heli-pads, bridges, automated border barrier gates, retaining walls, drainage improvements, pedestrian border fences, vehicle border fences, airport runways, airport taxiways, levees and flood walls and lighting, irrigation systems, cemetery expansions to include pre-placed crypts, columbaria, ossuaries/memorial walls; and repair or alteration of all of these.

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.

7.2.4. Quality. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The Government determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

7.2.5. Performance Confidence Assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. It will be 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.

7.2.6. If negative information is received to which the firm has not had an opportunity to respond, they will be given that opportunity.

7.2.7. In the case of firms for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the firm’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the Government may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

8.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES / RATING SYSTEM

8.1. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate the proposals and identify strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies for each evaluation factor. 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.

8.1.2. Offerors 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.

8.1.3. 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.

8.1.4. 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 Government will establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals.

8.1.5. 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.

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

8.1.7. After evaluation the SSEB will assign an adjectival rating to each factor. The ratings will reflect the Government’s confidence in each Offeror’s ability to perform the requirements Based upon the ratings, t Source Selection Authority (SSA) will select up to five (5) of the most highly rated offerors to submit a proposal in Phase 2 of the solicitation.

8.2. RATING SYSTEM

8.2.1. The following ratings will be used with Factors 1 and 2:

Outstanding: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good: Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

8.2.2. The following ratings will be used with Factor 3, Past Performance:

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.

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.

Neutral Confidence: No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

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.

8.3. DEFINITIONS

8.3.1. 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.

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

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

8.3.4. 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.

8.3.5. 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.

8.3.6. 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).

SECTION 00 22 10 -ATTACHMENT 1

PHASE 1 – VOLUME 1 TAB A

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Solicitation Number

Firm

Address

Phone

Fax

Email

Tax ID Number

CAGE

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

SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENT 2

PHASE 1 - VOLUME 1 - TAB B

EXPERIENCE INFORMATION

EXPERIENCE INFORMATION PROJECT #____

(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:

Address:

Telephone Number and E-mail:

Continuation Sheet - Experience

SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENT 3

PHASE 1 – VOLUME 1 - TAB C

RESUME FORM

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 AS

ROLE IN BLOCK 2:

Total:________________ With current firm:_____________

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. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:

a.

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

(2) DATES

STARTED/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 5

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 4

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE

QUESTIONNAIRE

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

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 reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U N

c) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

(End of Summary of Changes)