Amendment_1.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 Lackland Ambulatory Care Center, Phase 4 Endstate, Lackland AFB, Texas is amended as follows:

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is changed from 23 Jan 2018, 2:00 p.m. to 31 Jan 2018, 2:00 pm Central Time.

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.

W9126G18R0022

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Nov--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

22-Jan-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:

W9126G18R0022

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 of 2 Phase Design Build Selection Procedures: Replace with the section of the same name bearing the notation W9126G18R0022-0001.

2. Section 00 22 20 Phase 2 of 2 Phase Design Build Selection Procedures and Basis of Award: Replace with the section of the same name bearing the notation W9126G18R0022-0001.

CHANGES TO THE SPECIFICATIONS

3. Replacement Sections: Replace the following section with the accompanying new section of the same number and title bearing the notation W9126G18R0022-0001:

01 00 00.00 44 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

End of Summary of Changes

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION FAR 3.104

APPENDIX C

SECTION 00 22 10 AND SECTION 00 22 20

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION

PROCEDURES

1 OVERVIEW

2 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.3 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

3 Volume 1 – TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA

SHEET

4 Volume 1 – TAB B – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.2 RELANCY DETERMINATION

4.3 CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

5 VOLUME 1 – TAB C – FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6 VOLUME 1 – TAB C – FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7 VOLUME 1 - TAB C – FACTOR 4 – EVIDENCE OF BONDING CAPCITY

8 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

1.1 The Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for the design and construction of the Lackland ACC Phase 4 Project.

1.2 Principles for high-performance and sustainable building requirements, and low impact development (LID) will be included in the design and construction of the project as appropriate.

Antiterrorism measures as identified on the ATOPSEC Cover Sheet signed by the Lackland AFB Security Forces, and Anti-Terrorism Officers. Access for individuals with disabilities will be provided.

Self-contained systems are not required.

1.3 This project is the final phase of the Lackland ACC DOD Medical Project.

1.4 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 the work identified in the RFP. The Government will evaluate the qualifications in accordance with the criteria described herein and intends to select up to five (5) of the Phase 1 Offerors to compete in Phase 2.

1.5 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 firm fixed-price contract to the firm whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2.

1.6 The selected Phase 2 Offeror will be announced by special notice or synopsis to the Federal Business Opportunities website.

2 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Firms designated or 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. 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 DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

2.3 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

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 Past Performance Factor 1 is the most important Factor

Factor 2

Vol. 1, Tab C

Organization

Factors 2 and 3 are equal in importance, but less important than Factor 1

Factor 3

Vol. 1, Tab D

Technical Approach

Factors 2 and 3 are equal in importance, but less important than Factor 1

Factor 4

Vol. 1, Tab E

Evidence of Bonding

Factor 4 will be determined as Acceptable or Unacceptable

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

3.1 Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. Include the completed proposal data sheet (See Attachment 1) and the following documents (if applicable).

3.2 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.

4 Volume 1 - TAB B – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.1.1 The Offeror, Demolition Subcontractor, Abatement Subcontractor, and Design Entities shall each demonstrate past performance through the submission relevant projects, using the following attached forms:

a. Attachment 2 – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Contractor complete)

b. Attachment 3 – Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Client complete)

4.1.2 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 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 for whom they have worked or Government, private or commercial customers. If projects were design-build, identify them as such.

4.1.3 The Offeror, Demolition Subcontractor, Abatement Subcontractor and the Design entities shall each submit three (3) projects completed within seven (7) years from the date of this solicitation. Two (2) of the three (3) projects submitted for construction past performance may be current construction projects with completed designs and at least 50% construction progress completed. All projects submitted for design must be completed designs; designers may submit design/build projects if the design portion of the project is complete, regardless of the construction progress. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and past performance cannot be provided as a JV, each partner shall submit past performance information, with no more than three (3) projects each.

4.1.4 The PPQ included in the solicitation (Attachment 3) 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 CCASS, ACASS, or 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 Contracting Officer 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.

4.1.5 Do not request PPQ’s on projects that have final CCASS or ACASS, or interim/final CPARS evaluations. If a final CCASS or ACASS or interim/final CPARS evaluation exists and a PPQ is provided for the same project, the CCASS, ACASS or 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.

4.1.6 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.

4.1.7 Offerors may submit performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) 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.

4.1.8 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), 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.

4.1.9 Projects will be considered relevant to this procurement if they are same or similar in complexity, in type, scope and magnitude. The projects submitted should include the following criteria. Projects do not have to include all of the criteria; however, projects that meet all of the criteria may be more highly rated.

a. Demolition of high-rise buildings greater than 500,000 SF

b. Project construction value of at least $20,000,000

c. Design-Build construction

d. Experience with hospital abatement and demolition

e. Experience with multi-phased projects

4.1.9 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.

4.1.10 Designers as well as subcontractors performing hazardous material abatement and demolition shall submit a Letter of Commitment (Attachment 4).

4.2 RELEVANCY DETERMINATION:

4.2.1 The Government will review the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the past performance is to the project under consideration. Past performance on the projects identified in the project forms will receive more consideration than past performance provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government will place greater value on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project past performance will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project past performance.

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

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

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

4.2.5 Based on the relevancy of the projects submitted for design and for construction, an overall relevancy determination will be assessed as an interim step prior to establishing a confidence rating.

For an overall relevancy determination of “relevant” or higher, both the construction entity and the design entity(ies) must demonstrate past performance that meets the criteria listed in Paragraph 4.1.9.

4.3 CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA:

4.3.1 The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include ACASS, CCASS, 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. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. 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.

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

Contracts which are comparatively more recent may be better predictors of likely future success than older contracts.

4.3.3 The 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 (Neutral) confidence will be assigned.

4.3.4 The Offeror’s resulting relevant/recent 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.

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

5 VOLUME 1 - TAB C – FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION

5.1 Factor 2, Organization, Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Provide a project–specific narrative that describes the Offeror’s organization that includes the information described below. Limit the information to five (5) pages or less clearly but concisely address each paragraph below. Documentation that exceeds five (5) pages will not be considered by the Government.

5.1.2 Describe the prime contractor and design firms proposed to participate in this project, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, and their roles and responsibilities on the project.

Describe any previous teaming experience between current team members. Address responsibility for Contractor Quality Control. Include an organization chart for the prime, subcontractors and designers. Project managers, construction superintendents, A/E (designer personnel) and other key personnel must meet the requirements of Section 01 45 00.00 01.

5.1.3 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 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting in Section 00 72 00, if awarded this contract.

5.1.4 Describe your capability to support this project concurrently with other projected new work or on-going work. Describe your resources available and your capabilities to manage and execute this work located on Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas. Describe why your firm is especially qualified to undertake this contract.

5.2 Factor 2, Organization, Evaluation Criteria

5.2.1 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies or uncertainties in the firm’s ability to execute the project. Additional consideration will be given to the following:

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for chain of command, lines of communication and logical management structure. In addition, the Offeror’s organizational chart will be evaluated as to the number and type of individuals that will be assigned to each phase of this project including their respective roles and responsibilities. The Offeror shall demonstrate to the Government how they plan to staff this large project with sufficient personnel to ensure a successful outcome.

5.2.2 Evidence of previous teaming experience between current team members will be evaluated and may be considered a strength.

5.2.3 Team members experience with demolition and abatement of high rise buildings, demolition of medical buildings, and significant hazardous abatement will be evaluated and may be considered a strength.

5.2.4 The Offeror will be evaluated on the percentage of contract requirements self-performed on site with its own staff per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.236-1 of this RFP.

Offerors self-performing a higher percentage of RFP requirements with own organization may receive a more favorable evaluation.

6 VOLUME 1 - TAB C – FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1 Factor 3, Technical Approach Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Provide project-specific narrative that describes the offeror’s intended technical approach to executing this design-build contract per the detailed requirements herein. Clearly, but concisely describe the technical approach to project management and execution. Limit the information to four

(4) pages or less and individually address the paragraphs below.

6.1.2 Describe the interactions within the Design-Build Team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design. Address, as a minimum, management of design reviews. Discuss how the offeror’s plans to track and control design evolution and changes during design for quality control and to facilitate Government reviews.

6.1.3 Describe the roles of construction team members and the SSHO during design and demolition planning.

6.1.4 Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during abatement, demolition and construction. Address, as a minimum, maintaining management of the design during abatement, demolition, and 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; contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

6.2 Factor 3, Technical Approach Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1 The Government will evaluate strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the Offeror’s technical approach. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of Design-Build process, planning for abatement and demolition, and the capability to execute the project.

6.2.2 The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline design, abatement and demolition, and construction considerations relevant to this project.

The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces susceptibility to inclement weather delays.

6.2.3 The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms (including the abatement and demolition subcontractors) and staff during design, planning and construction phases. Additional consideration will be given to offerors that show involvement of the construction, abatement and demolition contractors during design and planning. A Technical Approach that shows an effective process for coordinating all efforts during the design and planning phases including coordination with the Government may be considered a strength.

7 Volume 1 - TAB C – FACTOR 4 – EVIDENCE OF BONDING CAPCITY

7.1 Evidence of Single Contract and Aggregate 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 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. This information will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Proposals rated as Unacceptable for Factor 4 will NOT receive further consideration.

8 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

8.1.1 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.

8.2 EVALUATION

8.2.1 The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. 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. 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 1.

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

8.2.3 The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, intends to select up to five (5) of the Phase 1 Offerors to compete in Phase 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 one firm fixed-price contract to the firm whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2.

8.3 DISCUSSIONS (If Necessary)

8.3.1 During Phase 1, the Government intends to shortlist firms without discussions to move to Phase 2. A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated Phase 1 proposals in the event that discussions with Offerors are required in Phase 1. In such an event, the SSA will approve a competitive range of all the most highly rated Phase 1 proposals.

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

8.3.3 Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their Phase 1 proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection to move to Phase 2.

8.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

8.4.1 General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the information submitted for each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements.

8.4.2 Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

8.4.3 Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjectival rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” for Factor 2, Technical and Organizational Approach. 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.

8.5 DEFINITIONS

8.5.1 Deficiency. A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

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

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

8.5.4 Strength. Any aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

8.5.6 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.

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

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

8.5.9 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.

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

8.6.1 The relevancy determination will assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired under this solicitation.

8.6.2 The confidence rating assesses the risks associated with each Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent contracts. SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral/unknown confidence rating.

8.6.3 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.

8.6.4 Confidence Rating System

a. Unknown Confidence (Neutral). No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance 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.

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.

End of Section 00 22 10

SECTION 00 22 10

ATTACHMENT 1

PHASE 1 - TAB A

PROPOSALDATA SHEET

Solicitati on

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 mu s t also be submitted. Provide a DUNS number for each company identified in any proposed Co n tr a c to r -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.

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

Firm 1

Nature of Association

DUNS

Number

Firm 2

Association

Firm 3

Association

ATTACHMENT 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(To be completed for each project submitted)

CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT #

Offeror:

Project and Location:

Owner:

Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference: Telephone:

Awarded Construction Cost: Final Construction Cost:

Explain Cost Growth, if any:

Date of Award: Original Completion Date: Revised Completion Date:

Explain Time Growth, if any:

General Scope of Construction and Offeror’s Role:

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

Describe extent of relevancy of the project by checking all applicable boxes below and provide any additional narrative to support relevancy assessment (in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the scope of the RFP).

Higher relevancy will be assessed based on ability to meet multiple relevancy criteria listed below.

a) Demolition of high-rise buildings greater than 500,000 SF

b) Project construction value of at least $20,000,000

c) Design-Build construction

d) Experience with hospital abatement and demolition

e) Experience with multi-phased projects

Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known :

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE SECTION 00 22 10

ATTACHMENT3

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:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETESTHIS 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 HIGHLYENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRESDIRECTLYTO 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.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

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

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST

REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E N VG S M U

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E N VG S M U

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E N VG S M U

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E N VG S M U

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E

N

VG S M U

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E N

VG S M U

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E N

VG S M U

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

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E

VG

S

M

U

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E N

VG S M U

d) Overall customer satisfaction E N

VG S M U

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force? E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

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

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? E VG S M U N

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

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

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

No

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

Yes

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

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

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

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. E VG S M U N

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

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

LETTER OF COMMITMENT OF SUBCONTRACTOR

(USE SUBCONTRACTOR’S COMPANY LETTERHEAD)

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 4

TO: Contracting Officer

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Contract for

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby make the unequivocal commitment that, in the event of an award of a contract to (Fill in name323232 of Proposer), that (insert name of design firm) will fulfill the duties of (state role on a project)

Sincerely, (Authorized Official)

Date:

C-63

Section 00 22 20 - Phase 2 of 2 Design-Build Selection Procedures and Basis of Award

PHASE 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 20

PHASE 2 DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD

2 BASIS OF AWARD

3 PHASE 2, VOLUME 1, TECHNICAL FACTORS

4 PHASE 2, VOLUME 2, PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION

5 VOLUME 1, TAB A, FACTOR 1: KEY SUBCONTRACTOR, DEMOLITION PLAN,

AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN (EPP)

5.1 VOLUME 1, TAB A, FACTOR 1 SUBFACTORS

5.2 SUBFACTOR 1.1, DEMOLITION PLAN

5.3 SUBFACTOR 1.2, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN

5.4 VOLUME 1, TAB B, FACTOR 2, DESIGN TECHNICAL FACTOR

5.5 VOLUME 1, TAB C, FACTOR 3, SCHEDULE

6 PHASE 2, VOLUME 2, PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION

6.1 VOLUME 2, TAB D, SUBFACTOR 4, UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS

CONCERN

6.2 VOLUME 2, TAB A, PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE)

6.3 VOLUME 2, TAB B, BID GUARANTEE

6.4 VOLUME 2, TAB C, REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

C-64

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 THE SECTION 00 22 20 ISSUED DURING PHASE 1 IS FOR INFORMATIONAL

PURPOSES ONLY AND IS SUBJECT TO REVISION. Phase 2 requirements will be added during Phase 2. Those Offerors short-listed in Phase 1 shall be invited to submit a Phase 2 proposal, as indicated below. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria described herein, using the evaluation rating systems outlined in the Phase 1 Design-Build selection procedures. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and for material unbalancing, as described herein. The Phase 2 evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.

2. BASIS OF AWARD

2.1 The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to that responsible

Phase 2 Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described herein. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered approximately equal to cost or price. Innovations in proposals will be evaluated to determine if creative ideas of the Offeror are a better value to the Government compared to the minimum criteria.

2.2 The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. Award will be made using the Tradeoff process, which permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs will be documented in the file per FAR 15.406.

2.3 As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate betterments in proposals relative to the minimum standards in the RFP to determine if they offer additional value to the Government. In addition, innovations in proposals will be evaluated to determine if creative ideas of the Offeror are a better value to the Government compared to the minimum criteria.

2.4 Offerors’ Phase 1 Proposals will not be re-evaluated; however, the consensus rating from Phase 1 may be used as a tie breaker, if necessary, during the Phase 2 evaluation.

C-65

3. PHASE 2, VOLUME 1, TECHNICAL FACTORS

FACTORS PHASE 1, VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Vol.1, Tab A SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet N/A

Factor 1 Vol. 1, Tab B Past Performance Factor 1 is the most important Factor

Factor 2

Vol. 1, Tab C

Organization

Factor 2 and 3 are equal in importance, but less important than Factor 1

Factor 3

Vol. 1, Tab D

Technical Approach

Factor 2 and 3 are equal in importance, but less important than Factor 1

Factor 4 Vol. 1, Tab E Evidence of Bonding Factor 4 will be determined as Acceptable or Unacceptable

PHASE 2, VOLUME 1, TECHNICAL FACTORS

Factor 5 Vol. 1, Tab A Demolition Plan, and Environmental Protection Plan Most important factor

Factor 6 Vol. 1, Tab B Design Technical Less important than Factor 5

Factor 7 Vol. 1, Tab C Schedule Less important than Factor 6

Factor 8 Vol. 1, Tab D Small Business Participation Less important than Factor 7

4.…