B3_Solicitation_Amendment-2_W9126G-17-R-0049.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

The Solicitation for Small Business $45M Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) For Vertical Construction Services in support of Fort Polk, Louisiana is amended as follows:

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Phase 1 Proposal Receipt date is 3 April 2017, 12:00 p.m., CST, as previously announced in FEDBIZOPS.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF 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 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

W9126G-17-R-0049

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14 Mar 2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

28-Mar-2017

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH

ATTN: CESWF-CT

819 TAYLOR ST, ROOM 2A19

P.O. BOX 17300

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

W9126G 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

X 1

W9126G-17-R-0049

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Section 00 22 10 PHASE 1 DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES: In sections 6.1.1, the number of pages were changed from 10 pages to 15 pages. The following change will have the notation <Amendment No. 002>

End of Summary of Changes

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

PHASE 1 SELECTION PROCEDURES

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

<Amendment No. 001> <Amendment No. 002>

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENTS, EVALUATION FACTORS AND PROCEDURES

3.1 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL CONTENTS & EVALUATION FACTORS

3.2 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

3.3 RATING AND OTHER DEFINITIONS

3.4 DISCUSSIONS

4.0 TAB A: SIGNED OFFER

4.1 STANDARD FORM 1442

4.2 PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

4.3 BONDING CAPACITY

4.4 JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT / LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT

5.0 TAB B: FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 TAB C: FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

ATTACHMENT 1: Proposal Data Sheet

ATTACHMENT 2: Construction – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet

ATATCHMENT 3: Design – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet

ATTACHMENT 4: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

1.0 OVERVIEW

The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria described herein, using the evaluation rating systems outlined below. Price information in Phase 2 will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and for material unbalancing, as described herein. Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.

2.0 GENERAL

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 construction activities, to include but not limited to, shall consist of construction activities such as new construction, minor construction, sustainment, restoration and/or modernization services for military projects. The contracts are intended to execute construction, design-build and design-bid-build. All services required under these contracts shall be described in an individual scope of work which may include, but not limited to new construction, minor construction, and sustainment, restoration and/or modernization services for projects to include the following: Repair and Alternation of real facilities, e.g., maintenance, repair and minor construction services relating to the following: Mechanical, Plumbing, Structural, Electrical and Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC). Instrumentation repair incidental to construction. Asbestos and lead based paint abatement, and other environmental remediation incidental to the construction. Anti-terrorism and force protection systems upgrades, repairs, and installation. Vertical construction of new buildings, building renovation or repair. Repair of parking areas, and pedestrian walkways adjacent to the facility being repaired or constructed incidental to construction. Lighting installation or repair incidental to construction. Interior or exterior painting of buildings or structures incidental to construction. Storm water system improvement and repair incidental to construction.

Other site work including site grading and drainage, landscape plantings, exterior irrigation systems, and retaining walls incidental to the construction. The Government will evaluate the qualifications in accordance with the criteria described herein and intends to select up to ten (10) of the Phase 1 offerors to compete in Phase 2. The Government reserves the right to select more than ten (10) of the Phase 1 offerors if, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, consideration of additional offerors is warranted.

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

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENTS, EVALUATION FACTORS AND PROCEDURES

3.1 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL CONTENTS & EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

TAB A Signed Offer Not rated.

FACTOR 1 TAB B Past Performance Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance.

FACTOR 2 TAB C

Organization & Technical Approach

Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance.

3.2 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

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.

3.2.1 The Government will review the proposals and rate the information submitted for each evaluation factor, using a Combined Technical/Risk Rating with the exception of Past Performance. 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. The SSEB will then assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor that will be supported with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

3.2.1.1 Combined Technical/Risk Ratings:

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

(b) 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.

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

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

(e) 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 un-awardable.

3.2.2 Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase 1 submission and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability.

3.2.3 Offerors shall not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1.

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

3.2.5 The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, intends to select up to ten (10) of the Phase 1 offerors to compete in Phase 2. The Government reserves the right to select more than ten (10) of the Phase 1 offerors if, in the opinion of the Source Selection Authority, consideration of additional offerors is warranted. In Phase 2, the selected Phase 2 offerors will submit proposals for evaluation in accordance with Section 00 22 20. In Phase 2, the Contracting Officer will award at least two

(2) and up to a target of five (5) firm fixed-price contracts to the offeror’s whose proposals offer the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2.

3.3 RATING AND OTHER DEFINITIONS

3.3.1 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 -- Definitions.

3.3.2 Weakness: means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

3.3.3 Significant Weakness: is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

3.3.4 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.

3.3.5 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.

3.3.6 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).

3.4 DISCUSSIONS (If Necessary)

3.4.1 The Government intends to award without discussions. 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.

3.4.2 If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with each Offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR

15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

3.4.3 Upon conclusion of discussions, those offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

4.0 TAB A: SIGNED OFFER

Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

4.1 STANDARD FORM 1442. Submit the SF 1442 completed and signed by a person authorized by the offeror.

4.2 PROPOSAL DATA SHEET. Complete and submit Attachment 1.

4.3 BONDING CAPACITY

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

28.203 -- Acceptability of Individual Sureties and FAR Clause 52.228-11 -- Pledges of Assets.

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

4.4 JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT / LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT

4.4.1 Joint Venture: When proposing as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture shall sign the bid bond unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. In addition, a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration. If this is an 8(a) or HubZone joint venture, the Offeror shall ensure that it complies with the applicable requirements of 13 CFR Part 124 and 13 CFR Part 126, respectively.

4.4.2 LLC: When proposing as an LLC, the offeror must submit a copy of the operating agreement which clearly demonstrates the authority to bind the

LLC.

5.0 TAB B: FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1 The Offeror’s construction and design entities shall each demonstrate past performance through the submission of recent/relevant projects, using the Construction – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Attachment 2) and Designer – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Attachment 3). If the Offeror is a joint venture, limited liability corporation, or integrated design-build firm, provide past performance information for design and construction projects relevant to each of the proposed roles on this MATOC. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked with for Government, private or commercial customers. If projects were design-build, identify them as such.

5.1.2 Both the prime contractor and the design firm(s) shall each submit three (3) to five (5) projects completed within AM#1six (6) eight (8) AM#1 years from the closing date of Phase 1. Projects submitted by the designer, for design experience only, must be 100% complete. Projects submitted for D-B construction experience, design must be 100% complete and construction must be at least 50% construction progress completed. The projects submitted shall best represent experience relevant to this solicitation.

If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and past performance cannot be provided as a JV, each partner can submit at least three (3) but no more than five (5) projects. See para. 5.1.8, below for project submission requirements.

5.1.3 The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment 4) is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror included in its proposal for Factor 1, Past Performance that does not have a final Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation or is a non-Federal Government project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. The completed PPQ shall be submitted with the offeror’s proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s) 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 Contract Specialist via e- mail prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposals PPQ’s previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

5.1.4 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.

5.1.5 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.

5.1.6 Offerors may submit performance recognition documents received within the last AM#1six (6) eight (8) AM#1 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition relevant to the submitted projects to demonstrate the Offeror’s performance capabilities and customer satisfaction.

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

5.1.8 Projects will be considered relevant to this procurement if they are similar in complexity, in type, scope, and magnitude. Relevancy is defined as performance in a variety of multi-discipline vertical construction projects completed within AM#1 six (6) eight (8) AM#1 years from the date of this solicitation or fully designed and with at least 50% construction progress completed within AM#1 six (6) eight (8) AM#1 years from the closing date of Phase 1, to include the following:

(a) A minimum of one example of multi-discipline vertical Design-Build construction of a new facility; AND

(b) A minimum of one example of Design-Build repair/renovation, addition, or alteration of an existing facility; AND

(c) A minimum of two examples of Design/Build construction; with a Construction value of at least $3 million; AND

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

5.1.9 The Offeror may provide a supplemental narrative (not project lists), not to exceed two (2) pages, explaining how any corporate past performance for the construction and design entities, that is not directly related to the specific projects above, is applicable to this project and how the Government will benefit.

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

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Offerors will be evaluated base on a relevancy determination and a confidence rating.

5.2.1 Relevancy Determination:

5.2.1.1 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

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

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

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

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

5.2.1.2 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.

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

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

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

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

MATOC.

5.2.2 Confidence Rating:

5.2.2.1 Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings:

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) 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.

5.2.2.2 The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include CPARS, PPIRS, FAPIIS, 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.

5.2.2.3 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.

5.2.2.4 The performance confidence rating will be established based on the past performance of the firms or that of its predecessor, if applicable. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its key personnel apart from that of the entity. If the Government does not obtain past performance information and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, a rating of Unknown confidence will be assigned.

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

6.0 TAB C: FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1 SUBMISSON REQUIREMENTS

6.1.1 This information shall address the Offeror’s organization and intended technical approach to executing the contract. Demonstrate an understanding of the risk management process associated with design-build process. Limit the information to <AM#2>fifteen (15) ten (10)</AM#2> pages or less clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution.

6.1.2 Organization: Demonstrate an understanding of the fundamental design-build problem, i.e. a design and construction proposal that complies with the RFP requirements including the funding constraints of the cost limitation (CCL). Demonstrate an understanding of the risk management process associated with design-build processes. Describe the design and construction team members, their technical competencies, their resources, how their resources will be utilized, and their roles and responsibilities.

Describe any previous teaming experience between current team members.

Include a general description of the work the Offeror will self-perform.

6.1.3 Technical Approach for Design-Build: Describe the technical approach to design and construction. Include information on design and construction.

Describe team members’ knowledge of and expertise in design of sustainable facilities. Describe your team’s familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions (both design and construction) within the geographic boundaries of this MATOC.

6.1.4 Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design. Discuss the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during design and construction. Provide information on how your design-build team will manage co-location of design and construction team members; manage Government comments, the design team’s involvement throughout construction, and how sub-contractors will be integrated into design and construction. Discuss how the configuration management system will track and control design evolution and changes during design for quality control and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Describe the role of the construction team members during design. Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction, addressing, as a minimum, maintaining configuration management of the design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design; requests for information; shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals; progress meetings; site visits, if any; contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

6.1.5 Planning and Scheduling: Provide information on your team’s project m2ecdrg9 Cross-Out scheduling capabilities for design and construction. Identify the system you will utilize and how your team will implement the schedule to manage design and construction. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize “schedule creep”. The Government is looking for ways the design-builder will streamline design and construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and provide an achievable and flexible schedule. In Phase 2, the Offeror will develop a summary schedule. In Phase 1, the Government is interested in the Offeror’s planning and scheduling capabilities.

6.1.6 Quality Control: Provide information on your team’s capabilities to assure quality control. Describe your quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction. Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control, track design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation. Do not submit a quality control plan. After contract award, the successful offerors will submit their Quality Control Plan for Government Approval.

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

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

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

6.7.1.3 Describe your resources available and your capabilities to support this project concurrently with other projected on-going or new work. Describe your resources available and your capabilities to manage and execute several concurrent Task Orders, which may be located in the Fort Polk and its surrounding areas. Describe why your firm is especially qualified to undertake this contract.

6.2 EVALUATION CRITIERA

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

6.2.2 Organization: The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute task orders.

The Offeror is required to select and commit to design firms to achieve an “Acceptable” rating. Joint venture participants’ contribution to the project shall be commensurate with their skills and background. Previous teaming by the construction contractor and design firm(s) will be considered a strength.

6.2.3 Technical Approach for Design and Construction: The firm(s) preparing the design must demonstrate qualifications and expertise in sustainable design and development. The Government will evaluate demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions, to include, but not limited to ASHRAE 90.1, UFC 04-010-01, and ASHRAE 62.1.

6.2.4 Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms and the staff during design and construction. The constructor must be actively involved in the design process, not just leaving it up to the designer (see Special Contract Requirement: “Constructor’s Role during Design”, Section 00 73 00). The Offeror must have an effective configuration management system to control and track revisions to the design. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record and the Government reviewers. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction. Additional consideration will be given to a team that includes as many subcontractors as possible (e.g., the key subs for electrical and mechanical, the fire protection subcontractor, fabricators, etc.) during design development, prior to release of the applicable design packages for construction, so that systems and trade coordination can reduce interferences, increase constructability and speed up construction operations.

6.2.5 Planning and Scheduling: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s scheduling capabilities to develop and implement an integrated fast track design-build schedule and the systems that will be utilized to implement the schedule. The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides methods to streamline construction and manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and support an achievable and flexible schedule.

6.2.6 Self-Performed Work: 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.

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

6.2.8 Task Order Procedures and Task Order Management: The

Government will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the Offeror’s understanding of task order procedures, plans for responding to task order requirements, submitting proposals, for completing construction (new construction, renovation/repairs, and design/build), for managing subcontractors, capability and commitment to self-perform the required percentage of work, and the capacity to successfully accomplish the task orders throughout Fort Polk and surrounding areas along with other ongoing work, and multiple task orders, all in a timely manner.

End of Section 00 22 10