Amendment_3.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 Blood Processing Center; Fort Bliss, Texas is amended as follows.

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is has been changed from 08 April 2019; at 2:00 p.m.,local time, to 15 April 2019; at 2:00 p.m. local 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.

W912619R0069

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Mar-2019

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

12 -Apr-2019

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:

W9126G19R0069

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION W9126G19R0069

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Section 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS, has been replaced in its entirety, each page bearing the notation W9126G19R0069, Amendment 0003.

2. Section 00 22 10 PHASE 1 DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES, has been replaced in its entirety, each page bearing the notation W9126G19R0069, Amendment 0003.

End of Summary of Changes

SECTION 00 21 00

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

1.2 GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMING MAIL AND PACKAGES

1.3 COPIES OF RFP DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

1.4 OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

2.0 SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE

3.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT & GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS

3.2 PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

3.3 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

4.0 SITE VISIT

5.0 JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

6.0 BID GUARANTEE (PHASE II ONLY)

7.0 CONTRACT PRICES - BIDDING SCHEDULE (PHASE II ONLY)

8.0 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS

W9126G19R0069, AMENDEMENT 0003

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

General Description of Work: Design and construct a single story, not to exceed 13,838 square feet Blood Donor Center at Fort Bliss, Texas. Project will focus on blood collection, testing, manufacturing, storage and shipping of blood products. Supporting facilities include utilities (electric, sewer, water, gas, communication, and emergency power), site improvements with storm water management, and parking for approximately 90 vehicles along with access road. All work shall conform to the UFC and Army design criteria as described in the forthcoming RFP.

The project will be design in accordance with the criteria prescribed in the Design Requirements, of Specs section 01 10 00, Statement of Work (to be released in the Phase 2 solicitation RFP), and DEPSECDEF Memorandum “Access for People with Disabilities”, Evidence Based Design principles, Executive Order 13514, DoD Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05), and other applicable codes and regulations.

The facility is required to provide blood components and patient therapeutics in support of a rapidly expanding mission. First, this facility will support the Armed Services Blood Program, which provides blood components to military medical centers and also provide increased operational support to units who use Fort Bliss as a Power Projection Platform during mobilization. Finally, this facility will provide critical support of the local community by housing the blood donor program at Fort Bliss, which is a key participant in the El Paso emergency preparedness mission and a Level II Trauma Center serving the greater El Paso area.

The target ceiling for contract award for design and construction is $$7,077,000 based on the funds made available for this project. The Government cannot guarantee that additional funds can be made available for award. Offerors are under no obligation to approach this ceiling.

1.2 GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMING MAIL AND PACKAGES

The Offeror(s) must ensure that ALL mail inquiries are sent to the Fort Worth District, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, relating to either pre-contract or post-contract award. A return mailing address is required on the outside of the envelope, package, box, etc. All mail must be addressed to the Contracting office as specified below (no exceptions):

U.S. Army Engineer District, Fort Worth ATTN: CESWF-CT-C, Contract Specialist, Kimberly Bass PO Box 17300 819 Taylor Street (Room 2A17) Fort Worth, TX, 76102-0300

All Federal Express/UPS/etc. packages are required to have Offeror’s physical address and the above contracting office address including room number, contract specialist’s name and telephone number for proper delivery.

1.3 COPIES OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) DOCUMENTS AND

AMENDMENTS

Copies of the solicitation and all amendments are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All solicitation documents and amendments will be posted on Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website at http://www.fbo.gov/ and offerors can access the solicitation documents by solicitation number without dashes (W9126G18R0069).

It is solely the Contractor’s responsibility to check the fbo.gov website for the solicitation and any amendments prior to the RFP closing date. The Offeror shall submit in its proposal all requested information as specified in Section 3.0 below of this solicitation.

There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation.

Additional information regarding this solicitation and potential Offerors (i.e., interested vendors list) and/or subcontractors will be available on the fbo.gov website under the solicitation number.

1.4 OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

a. Bidder Inquiry

Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.projnet.org/projnet.

The RFP Number is: W9126G18R0069

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: PK7DT7-FM4YCG

b. To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system. To self-register go to web page, click BID tab select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter Key for this RFP listed below, and your e-mail address, click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that information on next screen is correct and click to continue.

c. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add inquiry. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry. Only one question will be allowed per inquiry. If multiple questions are included in a single inquiry, only the first question will be answered. All others will remain unanswered until entered in a single inquiry.

http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.projnet.org/projnet

Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to monitor for inquiries and responses.

d. The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquires 7 calendar days prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the RFP, if necessary.

e. The bidder call center operates weekdays from 8am to 5pm U.S. Central

Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

2.0 SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE

As referenced in Section 00 45 00, the Small Business Size Standard is $36.5M and the NAICS Code is 236220.

3.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT & GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS

Proposals must set forth with full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP, (including attachments). The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C.1001.

3.2 PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

This Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit the Government to pay as a direct charge any costs incurred by the Offeror in the preparation and submission of its proposal or revisions. A stipend is not authorized for unsuccessful Offerors.

3.3 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS

1. Introduction. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. The Offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this section of the Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation at or before the exact time specified. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this RFP. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Copies of the RFP are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All RFP documents will made available for viewing at the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website (http://www.fbo.gov). All amendments will be made available for viewing in FBO. It shall be the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any amendments.

http://www.fbo.gov/

2. General Proposal Submission Requirements.

a. Electronic Proposals. In an effort to reduce paperwork and costs, ALL

RESPONSES TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED

ELECTRONICALLY. Hand carried delivery or USPS/UPS/Fedex delivery of hard copies and/or CD-ROMs are not authorized. Facsimile submission is not authorized. Email submission is not authorized. ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED

THROUGH THE FEDBIZOPPS (FBO.GOV) “ELECTRONIC RESPONSE” FEATURE.

The FBO vendor user guide has information & instructions on how to utilize this feature.

The FBO vendor user guide is accessible via the following web URL:

https://www.fbo.gov/downloads/FBO_Vendor_Guide.pdf.

b. File Size Limitations. Offerors are advised to follow the FBO instructions for uploading files larger than 10MB (java upload). FBO has not posted official file size limitations for its electronic response module, however it has been observed that uploads to FBO tend to be problematic when the files are sized 100MB or greater. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

c. File Names. To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention: Each filename shall begin with the solicitation number, followed by the word “RESPONSE”, followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description. EXAMPLES:

(1) “W91218R5806 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I.pdf”

(2) “W91218R5806 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I Part 1.pdf”

(3) “W91218R5806 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I Part 2.pdf”

(4) “W91218R5806 RESPONSE Firmname Volume II.pdf”

(5) “W91218R5806 RESPONSE Firmname Volume II diagrams, figures.pdf”

(6) “W91218R5806 RESPONSE Firmname Volume III.pdf”

(7) “W91218R5806 RESPONSE Firmname Volume III price data.docx”

d. File Organization, Formatting, and other instructions. Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized--larger page sizes (such as 11x17 foldouts, etc.)

will be counted as two pages. Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language.

Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented.

e. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the each section for each factor. Electronic files shall be Microsoft Windows compatible. Files shall be submitted in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall https://www.fbo.gov/downloads/FBO_Vendor_Guide.pdf be in searchable text. If the electronic files are of a size at which they must be compressed (zipped), they shall be compressed into one zipped folder.

f. Upload Completion & Deadline. Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within FBO. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process and troubleshooting. Proposal submission difficulties should be coordinated with the Federal Service Desk at https://fsd.gov and/or +1-866-606-8220 (Mon- Fri 8am-8pm Eastern Time UTC -5:00). Experience shows that if an upload doesn’t complete until after the deadline, the FBO system WILL NOT COMPLETE. The FBO system will automatically shut off the “Electronic Submission” feature at the specified deadline--once that occurs, the feature will disappear from the announcement. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions after the deadline may be emailed to Kimberly Bass, Contract Specialist (Kimberly.e.bass@usace.army.mil), but be advised they will be considered late and as such will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

g. Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to OfferorsCompetitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (e), which is found in the RFP. The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

3. Submission Requirements, Phase 1, Volume 1, Non-Price Proposal: Volume I shall include a section for each Non-Price factor, as described above under Evaluation Factors.

Volume I shall be organized as follows:

a. Tab A – Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. Include the completed proposal data sheet (See Attachment 1)

b. Tab B - Factor 1, Past Performance. Offeror Past Performance. See requirements below in Factor 1. Include completed CPARS records and/or Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Forms. A sample Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form is provided. (See Attachment 2 and Attachment 3)

c. <AM#0003> Tab C - Factor 2, Organization and Technical Approach. Provide a project– specific narrative that describes the Offeror’s organization and technical approach to executing this design-build contract. Proposal information for this Factor will be limited to 10 15 pages. </AM#0003> https://fsd.gov/ http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P179_28709 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm#P2_52

4. Submission Requirements, Phase 2, Volume 2, Non-Price Proposal: Phase 2, Volume 2 shall include a section for each Non-Price factor, as described in Phase 1, Volume I under Evaluation Factors. Phase 2, Volume 2 shall be organized as follows:

a. Tab A – Design Technical. Discuss, in general, the design and construction of the

Blood Donor Center.

b. Tab B - Summary Schedule: The Offeror shall propose the contract duration in the appropriate Contract Line Item Number in the CLIN Schedule, not to exceed the maximum contract duration specified in the RFP.

5. Submission Requirements, Phase 2, Volume 3, Price Proposal: Phase 2, Volume 3 shall include the following:

a. Tab A- A completed Standard Form (SF) 1442, using a printed copy of the SF 1442 included in this solicitation. As applicable, Offerors shall also submit a completed SF 30 for each solicitation amendment, as applicable, acknowledging the amendments.

b. Tab B- A copy of the Offeror’s completed CLIN schedule.

c. Tab C- A signed copy of the Offeror’s executed joint venture agreement or teaming arrangement, if applicable.

d. Tab D- A copy of the Offeror’s completed clause FAR 52.204-8 from Section 00 45 00 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS. Offeror’s shall also include a copy of the Offeror’s current “Entity Registration” in the System for Award Management (SAM) as recorded at www.sam.gov, showing the following sections: “core data, “assertions”, and “POCs”. Offeror’s shall also include a copy of the Offeror’s current “FAR & DFARS Report” that demonstrates all their completed representations and certifications as recorded at www.sam.gov.

e. Tab E-Financial Information (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings, and or number, bank name, and POC, etc).

4.0 SITE VISIT

Pursuant to Contract Clause "FAR 52.236-3, Site Investigation and Conditions Affecting the Work," prospective offerors will be permitted to inspect the site where services are to be performed and to satisfy themselves as to all general and local conditions that may affect the cost of performance of the Contract to the extent such information is reasonably obtainable. Offerors are urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed.

http://www.sam.gov/

(A Site Visit will be organized during Phase II)

Date:

Time:

Location:

POC:

E-Mail:

5.0 ENTITY RELATED PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

5.1 General:

All signatures shall comply with FAR 4.102 and 52.215-1.

5.2 Joint Ventures/Partnerships:

When proposing as a joint venture/partnership, all members/partners shall sign the bid bond unless a written agreement is furnished with the Phase 1, Volume I proposal designating one member/partner with the authority to bind the other member(s) or partners. In addition, a copy of the joint venture operating agreement or partnership agreement shall be submitted with the proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration. If this is an 8(a) or HUBZone joint venture/partnership, the Offeror shall ensure and certify that it complies with the applicable requirements of 13 CFR Part 124 and 13 CFR Part 126, respectively.

5.3 LLC

A copy of the operating agreement shall be submitted with the Phase 1, Volume I proposal. The operating agreement must clearly demonstrate the authority to bind the

LLC.

5.4 GOVERNMENT RIGHTS

If any owner, member, partner or executive officer of the offeror has or is currently an owner, member, partner or executive officer of any other entity or entities that have proposed on or entered into federal construction contracts within the last 5 years, offeror shall disclosed this information. The Government reserves the right to review and consider PPIRS information on the other entities.

6.0 BID GUARANTEE (PHASE II ONLY)

A Bid Guarantee will be required for this RFP. The penal sum of the bond for the contract will be required as in FAR Clause (P) 52.228-1 -- Bid Guarantee. Facsimile Bonds are not acceptable. Hard copy submission of the bid bond is required.

7.0 CONTRACT PRICES - BIDDING SCHEDULE (PHASE II ONLY)

Payment for the various items listed in the Bidding Schedule shall constitute full compensation for furnishing all plant, labor, equipment, appliances, materials and bonds (performance and payment), and for performing all operations required to complete the work in conformity with the drawings and specifications. All costs for work not specifically mentioned in the Bidding Schedule shall be included in the contract prices for the items listed.

8.0 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS

The magnitude of construction is between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000.

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE I DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENTS, EVALUATION FACTORS AND PROCEDURES

3.1 PHASE I PROPOSAL CONTENTS & EVALUATION FACTORS

3.2 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

3.3 RATING AND OTHER DEFINITIONS

3.4 DISCUSSIONS

4.0 TAB A: SIGNED OFFER

4.1 STANDARD FORM 1442

4.2 PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

4.3 BONDING CAPACITY

5.0 TAB B: FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 TAB C: FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

ATTACHMENT 1: Proposal Data Sheet

ATTACHMENT 2: Construction – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet

ATTACHMENT 3: Design – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet

ATTACHMENT 4: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

1.0 OVERVIEW

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

2.0 GENERAL

In Phase I of the 2 phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) submit specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the specific design and construction skills required for military medical facilities as described in this RFP. See the scope of work for more details. This contract will be executed as design-build.

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

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENTS, EVALUATION FACTORS AND PROCEDURES

3.1 PHASE I PROPOSAL CONTENTS & EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

TAB A Signed Offer Not rated.

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

FACTOR 2 TAB C Organization & Technical Approach

Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance.

3.2 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

3.2.1 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.

3.2.1 The Government will review the proposals and rate the information submitted for each evaluation factor. After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjectival rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to all technical factors except for Past Performance. For Past Performance factor, the SSEB will assign a rating of “Very Relevant”, “Relevant”, “Somewhat Relevant”, or “Not Relevant”. Once Relevancy has been established, the SSEB will assign an adjectival confidence rating of "Substantial Confidence", "Satisfactory Confidence", "Limited Confidence", "No Confidence", or "Unknown Confidence. Lastly, the SSEB will support the consensus rating for each evaluation factor with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

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

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

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

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

3.3 RATING AND OTHER DEFINITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.6 Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

3.3.7 Outstanding. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

3.3.8 Good. Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

3.3.9 Acceptable. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

3.3.10 Marginal. Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

3.4 PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS - Relevancy Determination Definitions:

3.4.1 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.

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

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

3.4.1.3 Somewhat Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved some of the

3.4.1.4 Not Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the

3.4.2 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/unknown confidence rating.

3.4.2.1 Unknown Confidence (Neutral). No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the Offeror or key team members/subcontractors. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

3.4.2.2 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.

3.4.2.3 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.

3.4.2.4 Limited Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully

3.4.2.5 No Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully

3.5 DISCUSSIONS (If Necessary) –

3.5.1 The Government intends to award without discussions. A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that discussions with Offerors are required. In such an event, the SSA will approve a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

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

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

4 TAB A: SIGNED OFFER

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

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

4.2 PROPOSAL DATA SHEET. Complete and submit Attachment 1.

4.3 BONDING CAPACITY

Submit a letter of commitment from a surety, signed by an officer or agent authorized to bond, that identifies the offeror’s available bonding capacity and limits that the surety will bond the Offeror, as the successful awardee for this project, taking into consideration the Construction Cost Limitation described in this Solicitation. The surety must be acceptable to the Government and must appear on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies”. If the Offeror submits evidence from an individual Surety, the individual surety must include documentation meeting the requirements of FAR 28.203 -- Acceptability of Individual Sureties and FAR Clause 52.228-11 -- Pledges of Assets.

If the joint venture involves a constructor and an A-E firm, and the AE firm intends to provide the bond, provide a complete explanation with confirmation from the surety. The Government does not require bonding from the AE in addition to the prime contractor;

however, if the AE is the prime contractor, and will be providing bonding an explanation shall be incorporated into the proposal.

5 TAB B: FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1 The Offeror’s construction and design entities shall each demonstrate past performance through the submission of recent/relevant projects, using the Construction

– Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Attachment 2) and Designer – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Attachment 3). If the Offeror is a joint venture, limited liability corporation, or integrated design-build firm, provide past performance information for design and construction projects relevant to each of the proposed roles on this project. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked for Government, private or commercial customers. If projects were design-build, identify them as such. Both the prime contractor and the design firm(s) shall each submit three (3) to five (5) projects completed within six (6) years from the closing date of Phase I. Projects submitted by the designer for design experience only must be 100% complete. Projects submitted for DB construction experience, design must be 100% complete and construction must be at least 50% construction progress completed. The projects submitted shall best represent their experience relevant to this solicitation. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and past performance cannot be provided as a JV, each partner SHALL submit three (3) to five (5) projects.

5.1.2 The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment 4) is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror included in its proposal for Factor 1, Past Performance that does not have a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), or Architect-Engineer Contract Appraisal Support System (ACASS) evaluation or is a non-Federal Government project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQ should be submitted with the offerors proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s) questionnaires. If any negative past performance information is received to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s Contract Specialist via e- mail prior to proposal closing date.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) At least one (1) example of multi-discipline vertical construction of a medical facility;

(b) At least two (2) examples of Design/Build construction; with a Construction value of at least $6 million; and

(c) Construction entity must be the Prime Contractor on at least two (2) projects submitted; Design entity(ies) must be the Designer of Record (DOR) on two

(2) projects submitted.

(d) The designer must have been the DOR on at least two (2) DB projects.

(e) All projects submitted must be at least $6M for the initial contract cost.

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

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

a. EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

i. Relevancy Determination:

1. Government will review the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the past performance is to the project under consideration. Past performance on the projects identified in the project forms will receive more consideration than past performance provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government will place greater value on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project past performance will be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project past performance.

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.

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

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

ii. Confidence Rating:

1. The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include CPARS, CCASS, ACASS, PPIRS, FAPIIS, and other past performance information deemed relevant, to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. If the Government cannot establish the Offeror’s relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire to conduct telephone interviews on any source it deems relevant to the evaluation. The Government will not release the information gathered to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

2. In determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance, the degree of relevancy/recency of all of the considered efforts; the overall performance record of the Offeror on each contract assessed; number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised);

and trend data will be considered. Contracts with higher degrees of relevance will typically have a greater influence on the final performance confidence rating. Contracts with lower degrees of relevance will typically have less influence on the final performance confidence rating however, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating.

The resulting relevance assessment conclusions will then be combined, along with the assessed quality of performance on prior contracts, to arrive at a single performance confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor.

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

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

6 TAB C: FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1 SUBMISSON REQUIREMENTS

6.1.1 <AM#0003> This information should address the Offeror’s organization and intended technical approach to executing the contract. Demonstrate an understanding of the risk management process associated with design-build process. Limit the information to ten (10) fifteen (15) pages or less clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution. </AM#0003>

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

6.1.3 Technical Approach for Design-Build: Describe the technical approach to design and construction. Include information on design and construction. Describe team members’ knowledge of and expertise in design of sustainable facilities. Describe your team’s familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions (both design and construction) within the geographic boundaries of the local area. Describe your plan for managing subcontractor performance, acquisition, execution and administration.

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

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

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

6.1.6 Quality Control: Provide information on your team’s capabilities to assure quality control. Describe your quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction. Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control, track design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate quicker Government reviews.