W9126G-17-R-0046.pdf

For the Design and Construction of the VHA Building 10 Renovation

100% Set-Aside for Service Disabled Veteran Ow ned Small Business (SDVOSB) Firms

Magnitude of Construction: Betw een $5,000,000 and $10,000,000

Best Value/Trade Off

DELBERT SPRIGGS 817-886-1055

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

19-Jul-2017

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______30 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________540 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________ copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________18 Aug 2017 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______60 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH

ATTN: CESWF-CT

819 TAYLOR ST, ROOM 2A17

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

W9126G

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE W9126G

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

CESWF-EC

819 TAYLOR STREET, ROOM 4A17

FORT WORTH, TX 76102

FORT WORTH TX 76102

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

817-886-6403FAX:TEL: 817-886-1043 TEL: 817-886-1680 FAX:

W9126G-17-R-0046 59

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued)

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

Section 00 11 00 - Standard Form (SF) 1442 and CLIN Schedule

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

0001 Destination Government Destination Government

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

0001 N/A N/A N/A N/A

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

Funded Amt:

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

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.204-7 System for Award Management OCT 2016

52.204-22 Alternative Line Item Proposal JAN 2017

52.211-2 Availability of Specifications, Standards, and Data Item

Descriptions Listed in the Acquisition Streamlining and

Standardization Information System (ASSIST)

APR 2014

52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition JAN 2017

52.228-1 Bid Guarantee SEP 1996

52.236-27 Alt I Site Visit (Construction) (Feb 1995) - Alternate I FEB 1995

52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated By Reference FEB 1998

52.252-3 Alterations in Solicitation APR 1984

52.252-5 Authorized Deviations In Provisions APR 1984

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR

1. The Offeror shall submit an offer for the furnishing of all labor, material, equipment, and other requirements necessary to perform all work in strict accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the contract to include all attachments thereto, and the basic contract.

2. The Government intends to issue a Firm Fixed Price contract resulting from this Request for Proposal (RFP) to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value to the

Government using the Tradeoff process.

3. This is a Two-Phase Design-Build solicitation for a contract that is a 100% set-aside for

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Firms.

4. Proposals are due 30 days from issuance of the Phase 1 RFP at 2:00 PM Central

Standard Time.

5. MAGNITUDE OF PROJECT: Between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000

6. PROPOSAL EXPENSE AND PRE-AWARD COSTS: The Government will not pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of the initial and/or any subsequent proposals.

7. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: See Section 00 73 00, 52.211-10

Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work

8. INQUIRIES

• General questions relative to these documents should be submitted via e-mail to: Delbert Spriggs

Email: Delbert.Spriggs@usace.army.mil

Phone: 817-886-1055

• Technical questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via ProjNet at www.projnet.org

6 The Quick Add Key is: 2GGA59-EYFUIP http://www.projnet.org/

7 From the home page, select “Quick Add” at the top right hand side of the screen. Select "USACE" as the Agency

Enter the Quick Add

Key in “Key” Enter your email address

Check to agree to the Privacy and Security Notice.

If you are not registered a set of fields will appear. Complete all the fields. Once completed, you will be taken to the inquiry page for the solicitation. From here you can view all inquiries or add an inquiry.

*** Please Note: Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. Inquiries containing multiple questions may be rejected.

8 Include the solicitation number, project title and location of project with your questions. Note that due to the highly constricted schedule and firm contract award dates for this requirement, inquiries MUST be received by this office not later than 5 business days prior to the proposal due date.

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

10 Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder

Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

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

SELECTION PROCEDURES

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

OVERVIEW

BASIS OF AWARD

1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

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

4.0 Volume 1 - TAB B – FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

4.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Volume 1 – TAB D – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

EVALUATION CRITERIA

DEFINITIONS

PHASE 1 – RATINGS – PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

EVALUATION

DISCUSSIONS

EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

DEFINITIONS

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

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. The Fort Worth District intends to award a Design-Build (D-B) contract to provide Renovation of Building

10 at Waco, TX in support of the Veteran Affairs (VA) Veteran Health Administration (VHA). The estimated maximum award limitation is $7,000,000.

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, and preventive maintenance. The contract is not only intended to execute design-build construction, but to provide a timely response to remediation of the facility, 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 D-B contract. Award will be fair and reasonable with regard to pricing for the contract, and whose proposals offer the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described herein.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Firms formally organized as SDVOSB 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.

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

Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, in paragraph 6.1.1 below.

PHASE 1 - 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

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

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.

4.0 VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

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).

Recent means completed, or currently in progress with at least 75% construction completed, within the past six (6) 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 medical facility involving at least three of these trades; Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, 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.

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

If the Offeror is a joint venture or limited liability corporation, 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.

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.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

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 one example of repair, alteration, or construction of a medical facility involving two or more of these trades; Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Structural or Civil with a construction value of at least $2,500,000. If two or more of these examples are provided, the strength may be considered significant.

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.

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

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.

Organization: Identify the construction firm that will be utilized on this contract, their technical competencies, any medical construction experience, and 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, and experience in medical construction. 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.

Capability:

Describe your resources in personnel; construction, plant and equipment available to self- perform required work under individual contracts. 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.

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 contracts, which may be located in remote locations throughout the US. Describe why your firm is especially qualified to undertake this contract.

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.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Capability:

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.

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 contracts, 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.

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.

VOLUME 1, TAB D – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

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 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, Delbert Spriggs, via e-mail at: Delbert.Spriggs@usace.army.milmailto: 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.

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.

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.

Offerors may submit performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RELEVANCY DETERMINATION:

mailto:

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.

More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success (I.E. medical construction) 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.

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.

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 contract.

CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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.

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.

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.

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.

RATING AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES

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.

EVALUATION

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.

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

Offeror.

The Contracting Officer will award a D-B contract to the firm whose proposal offers the best overall value to the

Government, considering the price and non-price factors.

DISCUSSIONS (If Necessary) –

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.

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.

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 and selection to move to Phase 2.

EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

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.

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.

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.

DEFINITIONS

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

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

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.

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.

Relevancy Determination Definitions

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

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

Somewhat Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and

Not Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and

Confidence Rating System

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.

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.

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.

W9126G-17-R-0046

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 /Purchase Order (PO) Number:

3. Contract/PO Dollar Value:

4. Contract/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

(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 the applicable box 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 one example of 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 $2,500,000.

Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known :

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

QUESTIONNAIRE

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…