B3_Soliciation_Amendment_2.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)

30-105-04 EXCEPTION 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 the Volar Barracks Package B Bldgs 2272 & 2277 in Fort Polk, LA:

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is 5 March 2018 @ 9:00 am, as previously announced.

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 AMERICA 15C. DATE SIGNED 15B. 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.

W9126G18R0019

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Feb-2018

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

23-Feb-2018

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 CODE CODE

EMAIL: TEL:

W9126G18R0019

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Section 00 22 10 PHASE I DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES, replace the existing section with the attached bearig the notation: W9126G18R0019-0002.

End of Summary of Changes

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE I DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENTS, EVALUATION FACTORS AND PROCEDURES

3.1 PHASE I 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)

W9126G18R0019, AMENDMENT 0002

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 II 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 I 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, Mechanical-Electrical-Plumbing (MEP) renovation; structural and architectural repair and/or renovation; and site/civil work. Work will also include Anti-terrorism and force protection systems upgrades, repairs, and installation, as well as Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) repair/renovation. This contract will be executed as design-build.

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

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENTS, EVALUATION FACTORS AND PROCEDURES

3.1 PHASE I 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 Source Selection Evaluation Board (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. After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign ratings as follows:

Factor 1- a confidence rating of “Substantial, Satisfactory, Neutral, Limited, or No Confidence; and a Relevancy rating of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant.

Factor 2- an adjectival rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor.

The ratings 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.

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

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

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

3.2.3 The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, intends to select up to five (5) of the Phase I Offerors to compete in Phase II. The Government reserves the right to select more than five (5) of the Phase I Offerors if, in the opinion of the Source Selection Authority, consideration of additional offerors is warranted. In Phase II, the selected Phase II Offerors will submit proposals for evaluation in accordance with Section 00 22 20. In Phase II, the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to the firm whose proposal offered the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase

II.

3.3 RATING AND OTHER DEFINITIONS

3.3.1 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 -- Definitions.

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

3.3.3 Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal 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).

3.3.7 Adjectival Ratings Definitions

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

3.3.8 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.

3.3.9 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.

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

3.3.11 Relevancy Determination Definitions:

(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.

3.3.12 Confidence Rating Definitions

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(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.

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 Source Selection Authority (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 constructor and an A-E firm and the constructor 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 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 project. 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, be they Government, private or commercial customers. If projects were design-build, identify them as such. Both the prime contractor and the design firm(s) shall each submit three (3) to five (5) projects completed within six (6) years from the closing date of Phase I.

Projects submitted by the designer for design experience only must be 100% designed with construction at least 75% complete. Projects submitted for DB construction experience, design must be 100% complete and construction must be at least 50% construction progress completed. The projects submitted shall best represent their experience relevant to this solicitation.

Two (2) of the projects submitted must be D-B and a minimum of $15M each.

At least one of the projects must 100% construction complete and the other shall be at least 75% construction complete. All other projects submitted must be at least 75% complete. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and past performance cannot be provided as a JV, each partner SHALL submit three (3) to five (5) projects. Two (2) of the projects submitted must be D-B and a minimum of $15M each.

5.1.2 The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment 4) is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror included in its proposal for Factor 1, Past Performance that does not have an interim or final Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), CCASS, or ACASS evaluation or is a non-Federal Government project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed PPQ should be submitted with the offerors 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) 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.

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

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

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

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

5.1.7 Projects will be considered relevant to this procurement if they are similar in complexity, in type, scope, and magnitude. Relevancy is defined as performance in a variety of multi-discipline vertical construction projects completed within six (6) years from the date of this solicitation or fully designed and with at least <AM#1>50% 75%<AM#1> construction progress completed within six (6) years from the closing date of Phase I, to include the following:

(a) Major renovation or new construction of multi-story barracks building or similar commercial facility; and

(b) Typical project size should reflect a minimum of <AM#2>40,000 33,000<AM#2> square feet; and

(c) <AM#1>Construction value of at least $15,000,000.00.<AM#1><AM#2>Construction value of at least

$15,000,000.00. <AM#2>

(d) Projects meeting one or two, but not all three, of the relevancy criteria defined above will be considered “somewhat relevant”.

Projects which meet all three relevancy criteria will be considered “relevant”.

(e) Projects meeting two or more of the relevancy criteria stated above will receive additional relevancy consideration if they also meet three or more of the following features in terms of complexity. Projects meeting only one of the relevancy criteria will not receive additional relevancy consideration for complexity:

• Design-build construction,

• Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection (compliant with UFC

4-010-01),

• Progressive collapse,

• Building envelope air barrier system and building air leakage testing,

• LEED certification*

(f) In addition to the criteria above, the following requirements must also be met:

• A minimum of two examples of multi-discipline renovation of an existing facility, including significant structural, architectural, mechanical, electrical, and interior finishes; and

• A minimum of two example of Design/Build construction;

with a Construction value of at least $15 million; and

• 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.

• Contracts that involved the simultaneous, major renovation of multiple buildings will be considered a strength.

• Previous teaming experience between the design entity and the offeror will be considered a strength.

• The designer must have been the DOR on a minimum of two

(2) D-B renovation projects, with both having a construction contract value of at least $15M.

• <AM#2>All projects submitted must be a minimum of

$15M for the initial contract cost. <AM#2>

* The firm(s) preparing the design must demonstrate qualifications and performance in sustainable design, based on project performance on projects that have achieved US Green Building Council’s LEED certification at LEED Silver or better. Additional consideration will be given if both the constructor and the design firm(s) demonstrate qualifications and performance with LEED.

5.1.8 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.

5.1.9 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 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.

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

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

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

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

5.2.2 Confidence Rating:

5.2.2.1 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.

5.2.2.2 In determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance, the degree of relevancy/recency of all of the considered efforts; the overall performance record of the Offeror on each contract assessed; number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised); and trend data will be considered. Contracts with higher degrees of relevance will typically have a greater influence on the final performance confidence rating. Contracts with lower degrees of relevance will typically have less influence on the final performance confidence rating however, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating. The resulting relevance assessment conclusions will then be combined, along with the assessed quality of performance on prior contracts, to arrive at a single performance confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor.

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

5.2.2.4 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 TAB C: FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1 SUBMISSON REQUIREMENTS

6.1.1 This information should address the Offeror’s organization and intended technical approach to executing the contract. Demonstrate an understanding of the risk management process associated with design-build process. Limit the information to <AM#1>ten (10) fifteen (15)<AM#1> 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 and construction 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 and describe your team members' experience with the work required under this contract. 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 the local area. Describe your plan for managing subcontract performance, acquisition, execution and administration. Describe your resources in personnel; construction plant and equipment available to self- perform required work under this contract. 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.

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

6.1.5 Planning and Scheduling: Provide information on your team’s project scheduling capabilities for design and construction. Identify the system you will utilize and how your team will implement the schedule to manage design and construction. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize “schedule creep”. The Government is looking for ways the design-builder will streamline design and construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and provide an achievable and flexible schedule. In Phase II, the Offeror will develop a summary schedule. In Phase I, 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. Describe your approach to ensure quality construction and addressing quality issues during construction to avoid impact to the schedule. Do not submit a quality control plan. After contract award, the successful Offerors will submit their Quality Control Plan for Government Approval.

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.2.1 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the organization and technical approach. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of design-build and the capability to execute contracts. 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 contracts. The Offeror is required to select and commit to design firms to achieve an “acceptable” rating. Joint venture participants’ contribution to the project should be commensurate with their skills and background. Previous teaming by the construction contractor and design firm(s) will be considered a strength.

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

6.2.4 Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: The Government will e v a l u a t e 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 and constructor in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction.

Additional consideration will be given to a team that includes as many subcontractors as possible (e.g., the key subs for electrical and mechanical, the fire protection subcontractor, fabricators, etc.) during design development, prior to release of the applicable design packages for construction, so that systems and trade coordination can reduce interferences, increase constructability and speed up construction operations.

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

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

End of Section 00 22 10

ATTACHMENT 1

W9126G18R0018: PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Firm:

Address:

Phone:

FAX:

Email:

TAX ID Number:

DUNS Number:

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the CPARS 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: DUNS:

Nature of Association:

Firm 2: DUNS:

Firm 3: DUNS:

Authorized Negotiators IAW FAR 52.215-1 - 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: Phone:

Title: Email:

Address:

ATTACHMENT 2 –

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(To be completed for each project submitted)

CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT #

Offeror:

Project and Location:

Was this project performed by the division or unit of the company submitting the offer for W9126G-18- R-0018?

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: Percent Complete:

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 and complexity of the project by checking all applicable boxes below. RELEVANCY:

Major renovation or new construction of multi-story barracks building or similar commercial facility; and

Typical project size should reflect a minimum of 40,000 square feet; and

Construction value of at least $15,000,000.00.

Projects meeting two or more of the relevancy criteria stated above will receive additional relevancy consideration if they also meet three or more of the following features in terms of complexity.

Projects meeting only one of the relevancy criteria will not receive additional relevancy consideration for complexity:

Design-build construction, Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection (compliant with UFC 4-010-01), Progressive collapse, Building envelope air barrier system and building air leakage testing, LEED certification

A minimum of two examples of multi-discipline renovation of an existing facility, including

A minimum of two example of Design/Build construction; with a Construction value of at least

$15 million; and 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.

Contracts that involved the simultaneous, major renovation of multiple buildings will be considered a strength.

Previous teaming experience between the design entity and the offeror will be considered a strength.

The designer must have been the DOR on a minimum of two (2) D-B renovation projects, with both having a construction contract value of at least $15M.

<AM#2>All projects submitted must be a minimum of $15M for the initial contract cost. <AM#2>

Provide any additional narrative to support relevancy assessment (in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the scope of the RFP).

Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known :

ATTACHMENT 3

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(To be completed for each project submitted)

DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN PROJECT #

Offeror:

Project and Location:

Was this project performed by the division or unit of the company submitting the offer for W9126G-18- R-0018?

Owner:

Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference: Telephone:

Awarded Construction Cost: Final Construction Cost:

Explain Cost Growth, if any:

Date of Award: Original Design Completion Date:

Revised Design Completion Date:

Percent Complete:

Explain Time Growth, if any:

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

Work Your Company Self-Performed: Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out:

Describe extent of relevancy and complexity of the project by checking all applicable boxes below. RELEVANCY:

Major renovation or new construction of multi-story barracks building or similar commercial facility; and

Typical project size should reflect a minimum of 40,000 square feet; and

Construction value of at least $15,000,000.00.

Projects meeting two or more of the relevancy criteria stated above will receive additional relevancy consideration if they also meet three or more of the following features in terms of complexity. Projects meeting only one of the relevancy criteria will not receive additional relevancy consideration for complexity:

Design-build construction, Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection (compliant with UFC 4-010-01), Progressive collapse, Building envelope air barrier system and building air leakage testing, LEED certification

A minimum of two examples of multi-discipline renovation of an existing facility, including significant structural, architectural, mechanical, electrical, and interior finishes; and

A minimum of two example of Design/Build construction; with a Construction value of at least $15 million; and

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.

Contracts that involved the simultaneous, major renovation of multiple buildings will be considered a strength.

Previous teaming experience between the design entity and the offeror will be considered a strength.

The designer must have been the DOR on a minimum of two (2) D-B renovation projects, with both having a construction contract value of at least $15M.

<AM#2>All projects submitted must be a minimum of $15M for the initial contract cost. <AM#2>

Provide any additional narrative to support relevancy assessment (in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the scope of the RFP).

Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known :

ATTACHMENT 4, Page 1 of 4

W9126G18R0018: Past Performance Questionnaire

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information:

Firm Name:

Address: Phone

Number:

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 prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information

Contract Number:

Delivery/Contract Number (if applicable):

Title:

Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Award Amount:

Final Price:

4. Project Description:

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:

8. Client’s Signature:

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

NOTE: IAW: Procurement Instruction Letter: (PIL) 2012-01. THE CONTRACTOR MAY COLLECT AND RETAIN

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES FROM CLIENTS FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE GOVERNMENT. AFTER

COMPLETION OF THIS FORM, THIS FORM MAY BE DUPLICATED BY THE OFFEROR. THE GOVERNMENT

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

E (EXCELLENT) – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds the Client’s/Government’s expectations. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

V (VERY GOOD) – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some of the Client’s/Government’s expectations. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

S (SATISFACTORY) – Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element contains some minor problems for which corrective action taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M (MARGINAL) –Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the 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.

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

N (NOT APPLICABLE) – No past performance record is identifiable or the element is not applicable to this project.

1. Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance.

E V S M U N

2. Compliance with contractual terms and conditions. E V S M U N

3. Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones.

4. Quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts.

E V S M U N

5. Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements.

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

7. Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors?

E V S M U N

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

responsiveness to administrative reports).

9. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance.

E V S M U N

10. Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations.

E V S M U N

11. Effectiveness of material management. E V S M U N

12. Effectiveness of acquisition management. E V S M U N

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

14. Contractor’s management of their safety program. E V S M U N

15. Responsiveness regarding safety issues. E V S M U N

16. If this was a cost type contract, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under-runs or overruns).

17. If this is/was a Government cost type contract, the Contractor’s timeliness in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation and monthly status reports/budget variance reports.

18. If this is/was a Government cost type contract, the Contractor’s accuracy regarding monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation and monthly status reports/budget variance reports.

19. Ability to hire/apply a qualified workforce to this effort.

E V S M U N

20. Ability to retain a qualified workforce on this effort E V S M U N

21. 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

22. Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problem? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

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

OVERALL RATING:

Any additional comments related to the contractor’s performance:

REQUIREMENT: Send electronically in PDF to Mrs. Paige E. Stone. EMAIL:

Paige.E.Stone@usace.army.mil . Please label your email subject line as the solicitation number: W9126G18R0018 and for whom the company or Offeror this evaluation is specifically for. Please provide your current contact information for verification purposes.

Do not send this Past Performance Questionnaire to the Offeror

End of Forms mailto:Paige.E.Stone@usace.army.mil

PHASE I DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES