Amendment_03.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 SSA 1 ACB at Fort Hood, is amended as follows:

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is 19 June 2018, 2:00 pm., 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.

W9126G18R0027

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-May-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

14-Jun-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:

x 1

W9126G18R0027

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Section 00 22 11 BEST VALUE TRADE OFF, each page bearing the notation W9126G18R0027-0003.

End of Summary of Changes

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

FAR 3.104

APPENDIX D

SECTION 00 22 11

Proposal Preparation

BEST VALUE TRADE OFF

Evaluation Criteria

AMENDMENT 0001

AMENDMENT 0003

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTION

3.1 PROPOSAL FORMAT

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND WEIGHTING, VOLUME 1, TECHNICAL

4.1 GENERAL

4.2 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

5.0 TAB A– FACTOR 1–PAST PERFORMANCE & EXPERIENCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 TAB B – FACTOR 2 – SUMMARY SCHEDULE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.0 TAB C - PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION, VOLUME 2, PRICE

7.1 TABLE 2 - Volume 2 – PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION

7.2 GENERAL

8.0 TAB A – FACTOR 3 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND BID SCHEDULE)

8.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

9.0 TAB B –BID GUARANTEE

9.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

W9126G18R0027, AMENDMENT 0003

9.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

10.0 TAB C –REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

10.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

10.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

11.0 TAB D –REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

11.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

11.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

12.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

12.1 GENERAL

12.2 DISCUSSIONS (IF NECESSARY)

13.0 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

13.1 GENERAL

13.2 REVIEW WRITE-UP

13.3 RATING SYSTEM

14.0 TECHNICAL FACTOR DEFINITIONS:

15.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS:

16.0 PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION RATINGS:

17.0 ATTACHMENTS:

ATTACHMENT 1- PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

ATTACHMENT 2- PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

ATTACHMENT 3- COMPANY PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE

ATTACHMENT 4- CERTIFICATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS

(APR 2010)

ATTACHMENT 5 - PRE-AWARD QUESTIONNAIRE

OVERVIEW

1.0 OVERVIEW

This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for construction of the 1ACB SSA at Fort Hood, Texas. Primary work includes construction of a standard design SSA warehouse. This solicitation is for a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract at Fort Hood, Killeen, Texas. This contract will be awarded competitively through an unrestricted competitive Small Business Set-aside solicitation process using FAR 15.101-1-Tradeoff Process.

The Tradeoff Process permits the tradeoffs among cost, price and/or non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. Offerors submit their performance and capability information for review and consideration by the Government. Relative weights among technical factors are provided in Section 4:

Evaluation Factors & Weighting. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) reviews, evaluates, and rates the proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP. A competitive range consisting of the most highly qualified technical offerors will be established prior to discussions (if held). Concurrently, the Government analyzes price proposals of Offerors utilizing the project cost proposal. Price will not be rated, but will be a factor in making the final best value determination for award. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) compares proposals and determines the best value for the government. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

The Contracting Officer (CO) will award a firm fixed-price contract to that responsible Offeror whose proposal the SSA determines offers the best overall value to the Government. Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award a contract to the Offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet our requirements. This process may result in an award being made to a firm with a higher-priced offer where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria/factors and the SSA determines that the technical or service superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher-priced offer outweighs the cost difference.

As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination. All evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price.

The SSA, using sound business judgment, bases the award decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria in the factors described below. While the entire evaluation team strives for maximum objectivity, the selection process is subjective by nature and professional judgment is implicit throughout the best value process.

Ultimately, the contract shall be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal, based upon the evaluation criteria, represents the best value to the Government. Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility.

Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Firms formally organized as a single entity firms 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.

Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which: two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer.

The Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement.

Any Offeror submitting an offer in the name of a joint venture, shall include a fully executed copy of the joint venture agreement with the offer. Joint venture agreements which require SBA approval may be submitted absent the requisite SBA Servicing Agency approving authorities’ signature; however, the Offeror shall submit evidence from the Offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel.

Offerors shall submit their proposal per the instructions provided in Section 00 21 00.

Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

3.1 PROPOSAL FORMAT:

(1) Submit only the electronic documents. Submit only the electronic files specifically requested. All files submitted shall be in PDF format. Do not submit excess information, to include audio-visual materials, electronic media, etc. All pages shall be numbered.

(2) PDF pages shall be formatted to print on 8 ½ by 11 inch paper, unless another paper size is specifically authorized for a particular submission. Do not use a font size smaller than 10, an unusual font style such as script, or condensed print for any submission. All page margins must be at least 1 inch wide, but may include headers and footers of the solicitation, project title and company. PDF drawings and summary schedule diagrams shall be sized to print on 11x17 inch paper.

(3) Hard copies shall not be submitted, with the exception of the bid guarantee.

Refer to Section 00 21 00, 1.12 Bid Guarantee for bid guarantee submission requirements.

(4) “Confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must be clearly marked in accordance with the instructions at FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”.

(5) In the case of an Offeror that is part of a large, multi-segmented business concern, provide information directly pertaining to the specific segment of the business concern (i.e., the division, group, unit, etc.) that will perform work under the prospective contract.

(6) For submissions with page limitations, the corresponding PDF pages will be counted. <AM#0001> Proposal for factor 1 <AM#0003> and 2 </AM#0003> may not be more than 15 pages </AM#0001>

(7) Proposal revisions shall be submitted as page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g., bold face print or underlining. The source of the revision or amendment, e.g., Error, Omission or Clarification shall be included and be annotated for each revision. Proposal replacement pages shall be numbered and clearly marked “REVISED”, with the date of revision.

(8) Within three (3) days of contract award, the contractor receiving the award shall electronically submit their conformed proposal.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND WEIGHTING, VOLUME 1, TECHNICAL

4.1 GENERAL:

Offerors are invited to submit a 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 selection procedures. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and for material unbalancing, as described herein. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.

4.2. PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

VOLUME 1 – Technical

Table 1 - Volume 1 – PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION

FACTORS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

TAB A Factor 1 PAST PERFORMANCE

<AM#0001>

TECHNICAL APPROACH

EXPERIENCE

</AM#0001>

Most Important

TAB B Factor 2 SUMMARY SCHEDULE Less Important than Factor 1.

5.0 TAB A – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 The Offerors shall demonstrate past performance through the submission of similar projects, using the Construction – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Attachment 2). If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, Limited Liability Corporation (LLC), Partnership, Teaming Arrangement, or Parent company/subsidiary/affiliate as identified in the offeror’s proposal, provide past performance information for 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. If projects were design-bid-build, identify them as such. Submit no more than three (3) projects completed or substantially completed within 6 years from the date of this solicitation that best represent the experience similar to the scope of work for this solicitation. One (1) of the three (3) projects submitted for past performance may be a current construction project with at least 50% construction progress completed. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV), LLC, Partnership and/or Teaming Arrangement and past performance cannot be provided as such, each partner shall submit past performance information, with no more than three (3) projects each.

5.1.2 The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment 3) is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project the Offeror included for Factor 1, Past Performance that does not have an interim or final CPARS evaluation or is a non-Federal Government project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQ 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 an opportunity to respond, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Ms. Kimberly E. D. Bass, via e-mail at: kimberly.e.bass@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

5.1.3 Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposals PPQ’s previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

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

5.1.5 For USACE or other DoD projects which are underway but do not yet have an interim or final CPARS evaluation, one PPQ per contract may be submitted; to be considered, the PPQ shall be signed by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) for the contract. Offerors are not required to submit any additional past performance information.

5.1.6 Offerors may submit information on past performance issues and corrective actions taken to prevent these issues from reoccurring.

Discuss whether these corrective actions have been implemented on contracts awarded subsequent to the performance issues, the effectiveness of the corrective actions, and POC information for the subsequent contracts.

5.1.7 In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluation of past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS number of team members

(Partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquires of owner representative(s), Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

5.1.8 Projects will be considered relevant to this procurement as it pertains to past performance information by measuring the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

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

<AM#0001>

TAB A – FACTOR 1 – CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

Demonstrate the experience of the offeror and/or proposed team, including subcontractors on projects same/similar in SIZE, SCOPE, and COMPLEXITY to that described in the solicitation. If using subcontractors as team members in demonstrating experience describe the roles the prime contractor and sub-contractors will play in the project and the percentage and type of work each will perform.

The Contractor shall complete a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5), “Construction Experience Form”, (See Attachment 1), in response to this factor. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current, and complete. All projects submitted must be at least 50% complete for current on-going projects and for projects that are 100% complete, these projects must have been completed within the last eight (8) years. At least two (2) of the projects provided must be valued at over $7,000,000 each.

If any of the information required is not included in the form then the contractor will be considered nonresponsive and evaluated as “UNACCEPTABLE”.

(SEE CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE FORM IN ATTACHMENT 1)

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA </AM#0001>

RELEVANCY DETERMINATION:

5.2.1 The Government will evaluate 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.

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

5.2.3 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.

5.2.4 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 have impact upon the past performance confidence rating.

5.2.5 Based on the relevancy of the projects submitted, an overall relevancy determination will be assessed as an interim step prior to establishing a confidence rating. An overall determination of “very relevant” can only be achieved if a single project meets both of the relevancy criteria. If both relevancy criteria are met through a combination of two or more projects, the overall relevancy determination will be no higher than “relevant”.

CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.6 The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include CPARS and other past performance information deemed relevant, to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. If the Government cannot establish the Offeror’s relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire to conduct telephone interviews on any source it deems relevant to the evaluation.

Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting 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.

5.2.7 In determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance, the degree of relevancy 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. The 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.

5.2.8 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.

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

<AM#0001>

CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE WILL BE EVALUATED BASED ON THE

FOLLOWING CRITERIA:

The Government will review the project experience of the offeror, including subcontractors, on projects provided in response to the Construction Experience Factor.

Offerors must meet all of the following minimum acceptability standards to receive an “ACCEPTABLE” on this factor:

Relevancy is established with the following items:

(1) The proposal shall describe how the construction was same/similar to that of the work found in this solicitation, AND

(2) At least two (2) of the projects submitted must be valued at over $7,000,000 each, and same/similar to the project contained in this RFP, AND

(3) All “Experience Information” forms submitted under Factor 1 must be completely filled out.

Recency is established with the following item:

All projects submitted under this Factor 1 must be at least 50% complete for current on-going projects and for projects that are 100% complete, these must have been completed within the last 8 years from the date of this RFP.

Relevancy and Recency are not separately rated. A single rating will be assigned for the submission under Factor 1.

Failure to demonstrate the minimally acceptability standards under this factor will result in an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating and possible elimination from further consideration for contract award.

</AM#0001>

6.0 TAB B – FACTOR 2 – FACTOR 2 SUMMARY SCHEDULE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1 Proposed Contract Duration: The Offeror shall propose the overall contract duration in the CLIN Schedule, not to exceed the maximum contract duration specified in Section 01 00 00.00 44.

6.1.2 Summary Schedule: Submit a summary level schedule for construction.

This schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10 – Project Schedule.

The schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved.

Offeror may use a critical path or other method of their choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented and shall include, as a minimum, Activity ID, Activity Description, Original Duration, early start and early finish dates, and total float for each activity. The proposed schedule shall include an activity that shows the proposed overall contract duration in calendar days. Give attention to the following items:

6.1.2.1 Show activities for the building, site work and utilities in sufficient detail to demonstrate an understanding of the scope of work and to substantiate the reasonableness and realism of the proposed duration.

6.1.2.2 Show submittal preparation and review/approval

activities for long lead items to demonstrate an understanding of the submittal process and minimum review times for Government approved submittals. (See Section 01 33 00 Submittal Procedures.)

6.1.2.3 Show activities for work in the secure room in sufficient detail to demonstrate your understanding of the requirements for working in this area. (See Section 01 00 00.00 44 Construction Schedule).

6.1.2.4 Show turnover of the building. The time to complete the building and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

6.1.2.5 Show closeout activities, to include the Red Zone

meeting, record drawings, O&M manuals, to demonstrate your understanding of the closeout requirements for the contract.

(See section 01 78 00 Closeout Submittals).

6.1.2.6 Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

6.1.2.7 Show activities and/or milestones for coordination with other Government agencies or contractors during construction, to demonstrate your understanding of the coordination requirements for the contract. (See Section 01 00

00.00 44 Construction Schedule).

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1 Contract Duration: The proposed duration will become the contractually binding schedule. The Government will evaluate the contract duration, as proposed by the Offeror herein, not to exceed the maximum allowed duration listed in Section 01 00 00.00 44. This duration shall also include all bid options. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the Government may take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports the proposed duration, as well as use other information, such as but not limited to independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. A proposed contract duration shorter than the maximum allowed duration will receive additional rating consideration, provided the schedule is realistic and deemed to be achievable. The Government will consider an unreasonably condensed contract duration, which places additional cost or schedule risk on the Government or which may create a risk of contract or performance failure, as a significant weakness or a deficiency, depending upon the evaluators' judgment.

6.2.2 Summary Schedule: The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, coordination and restrictions which must be considered in the schedule (see section 01 00 00.00 44), long lead items, closeout process. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the contract requirements will receive additional consideration.

7.0 TAB C – PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION, VOLUME 2, PRICE

7.1 Table 2 - Volume 2 – PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION

Factor

Location

Description

Relative Importance

FACTOR 3

Vol. 2, TAB A

PRICE and

Other Required Information

Not rated.

All evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price

Vol. 2, TAB B

BID GUARANTEE

Acceptable/Unacceptable

Vol. 2, TAB C

REQUIRED PRE-AWARD

INFORMATION

Vol. 2, TAB D

REPRESENTATION AND

CERTIFICATIONS

7.2 GENERAL

Submit the other required information in a separate envelope labeled: “Volume 2 – Price and Other Required Information.”

8.0 TAB A – FACTOR 3 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND BID SCHEDULE)

8.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

8.1.1 Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the Bid Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors”.

8.1.2 PROPOSAL DATA SHEET. Complete and submit Attachment 1.

8.1.3 Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government will request a price breakdown of the contract line items in a sealed envelope marked “Price Breakdown Information”, in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three working days after the proposal submission due date. This information is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

8.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

8.2.1 Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

8.2.2 If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

8.2.3 Award may not be made for an Offeror’s proposal for construction that exceeds the cost limitations described herein.

9.0 TAB B – BID GUARANTEE

9.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Submit the Bid Guarantee in accordance with the Instructions in Section 00 21 00, Provision 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee.

9.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

This item is not rated. The Government will review the Bid Guarantee for legal sufficiency. The Bid Guarantee must be legally sufficient. Failure to submit a bid guarantee may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

10.0 TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

10.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility, which includes, but not limited to the following:

10.1.1 A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed.

Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

10.1.2 A certified statement listing; (1) each contract award within the preceding three month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract award within the preceding three year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

10.1.3 If the prospective contractor is a Joint Venture, each Joint Venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

10.1.4 Fill in and submit ATTACHMENT 4 – FAR Provision 52.209-5, Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters (Apr 2010).

10.1.5 Fill in and submit ATTACHMENT 5 – Pre-Award Questionnaire.

10.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The Contracting Officer shall use this information in making a responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

Failure to achieve an affirmative responsibility determination will make the Offeror ineligible for award.

11.0 TAB D – REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

11.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Confirm that the Offeror’s representations and certifications have been completed in the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) within the System for Award Management (SAM) website in accordance with FAR 52.204-8.

Submit the representations and certifications not covered by ORCA that are included in Section 00 45 00 of this solicitation, under this tab.

11.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The representations and certifications submitted under this tab and online will be reviewed to ensure the Offeror’s representations are consistent, accurate and in accordance with regulation. It will not be rated.

12.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

11.1 GENERAL:

The Source Selection Evaluation Board will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each Privatized Utilities factor, utilizing the evaluation and rating system described in Section 00 22 11. Factor 3, Vol 2, Tabs B, C & D, will be reviewed and determined “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. Reference Section 17.0 for definition of the Price and Other Required Information Ratings.

11.2 Discussions (If necessary)

The Government intends to award without discussions. A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that discussions with Offerors are required. In such an event, the SSA will approve a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals. If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with each Offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it. Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

13.0 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

13.1 GENERAL:

The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals. After all proposals are rated, the Source Selection Authority will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified.

13.2 Review Write-up:

The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties.

13.3 Rating System:

After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjectival rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each technical factor. Past Performance ratings will be based on two separate ratings: relevancy and confidence. 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. Reference Section 15.0 for Definition of the adjectival ratings for the Technical factors, Section 16.0 for the Past Performance Ratings, and Section 17.0 for the Price and Other Required Information Ratings.

14.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH DEFINITIONS

14.1 Deficiency. 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.

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

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

14.4 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.

14.5 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.

14.6 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).

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

14.8 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.

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

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

14.11 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.

15.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS.

Offerors will be evaluated based on a Relevancy Determination and a Confidence Rating.

15.1 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. Relevancy Determination Definitions:

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

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

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

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

14.2 The Confidence Rating assess 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 confidence rating.

Confidence Rating Definitions:

14.2.1 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.

14.2.2 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.

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

14.2.4 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.

14.2.5 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.

16.0 PRICE and OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION RATINGS

16.1 Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

16.2 Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

17.0 ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

ATTACHMENT 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

ATTACHMENT 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTACHMENT 4 - CERTIFICATE REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (APR

2010)

ATTACHMENT 5 - PRE-AWARD QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTACHMENT 1

W9126G18R0027: PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Solicitation Number

Firm

Address

Phone

Fax

Email

Tax ID Number

DUNS Number

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the 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 Nature of Association

DUNS

Number

Firm 2 Nature of Association

DUNS

Number

Firm 3 Nature of Association

DUNS

Number

Authorized Negotiators IAW FAR 52.215-11 - The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

Name

Title

Address

Telephone

Email

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 W9126G18R0027

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:

<AM#0001>

(1) The proposal shall describe how the construction was same/similar to that of the work found in this solicitation, AND

(2) At least two (2) of the projects submitted must be valued at over $7,000,000 each, and same/similar to the project contained in this RFP, AND

(3) All “Experience Information” forms submitted under Factor 1 must be completely filled out.

</AM#0001>

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, Page 1 of 4

W9126G18R0027: 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/Task Order 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:

ATTACHMENT 3, Page 2 of 4

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.

ATTACHMENT 3, Page 3 of 4

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

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

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

E VG S M U N