B3_am_2_19R0028.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The Solicitation for Building 14000 H-Frame Barracks Renovation; Fort Hood, Texas is to amend minor errors in section 00 22 10 paragraph 5.1.7 B and C .

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is 22 April 2019; at 2:00 p.m.,CST, as previously announced.

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.

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.

W9126G19R0028

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Apr-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

10 -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:

W9126G19R0028

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION W9126G19R0028

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Section 00 22 10 - Phase 1 of a 2 Phase-Design Build Selection Procedures , each page bearing the notation W9126G19R0028 0002.

End of Summary of Changes

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

PHASE 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

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

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

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2. RELEVANCY EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.3. CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 Volume 1 - TAB C – FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.2. EVALUATION

7.3. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

7.4. DEFINITIONS

7.5. PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

PHASE ONE – SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – CONSTRUCTION - PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

W9126G19R0028 0002

3 – DESIGNER - PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

4 – COMPANY PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. This is a “best value” solicitation for the design and construction of H-Frame Barracks, 14000 block, Fort Hood, Texas. This project is revitalize/renovate four H-Frame Barracks within the 14000 Block of Fort Hood, TX. This project will replace the failing HVAC system, repair interior finishes impacted by moisture/high humidity, update the living areas, renovate the building exterior, provide storage rooms, provide a Standing Seam Metal Roof (SSMR), and improve site drainage. Renovations shall increase the life expectancy of the Barracks by 25-years. The Design-Build Contract will include both Design and Construction of the required renovations. In Phase 1 of the 2 phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) submit specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute this project. The Government will evaluate the qualifications in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select no more than five (5) of the Phase 1 Offerors to compete in Phase 2. The Government reserves the right to select more than five (5) of the Phase 1 Offerors if, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, consideration of additional Offerors is warranted.

1.2. In Phase 2, the selected Phase 2 Offerors will submit proposals for evaluation in accordance with Section 00 22 20. In Phase 2, the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to the firm whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2.

1.3. The selected Phase 2 Offerors will be announced by special notice or synopsis to the Federal Business Opportunities website. Offerors may be contacted separately to request their approval to post their names to FBO.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. 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.

2.2. Submit the Phase 1 proposal in electronic format, as described in Section 00 21 00. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, in paragraph 6.1.1 below. PHASE 1

DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location

Factor Number

Description

Relative Importance

Tab A

SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet

N/A

Tab B

Factor 1

Past Performance

More Important than Factor 2

Tab C

Factor 2

Organization and Technical Approach

Less Important than Factor 1

4.0 TAB A - STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

4.1. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. Include the completed proposal data sheet (See Attachment 1, provided at the end of this Section) and Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable).

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1. The Offeror’s construction and design entities shall each demonstrate past performance through the submission of similar 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 or 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 no more than three (3) projects completed or substantially completed within 6 years from the date of this solicitation that best represent their experience similar to the scope of work for this solicitation. Two (2) of the three (3) projects submitted for construction past performance may be current construction projects with completed designs and at least 50% construction progress completed. All projects submitted for design must be 100% completed designs; designers may submit design/build projects if the design portion of the project is complete, regardless of the construction progress. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and past performance cannot be provided as a JV, each partner shall submit past performance information, with no more than three (3) projects each.

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 final CCASS, ACASS or CPARS evaluation or is a non-Federal Government project.

Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQ should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If any negative past performance information is received to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Amanda Lane, via e-mail at: Amanda.n.lane@usace.army.mil 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 final CCASS, ACASS or CPARS evaluations. If a final CCASS, ACASS or CPARS evaluation exists and a PPQ is provided for the same project, the CCASS, ACASS or CPARS evaluation will be reviewed as the official past performance record for the project, and the PPQ will not be considered by the Source Selection Board or the Source Selection Authority.

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

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

5.1.5.1. 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.

5.1.5.2. 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.

5.1.6. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluation of past mailto:Amanda.n.lane@usace.army.mil performance. Other sources within the last six (6) years may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS number of team members (Partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquires of owner representative(s), Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rest with the Offeror.

5.1.7. Projects will be considered relevant to this procurement if they are similar in complexity, in type, scope, or magnitude. Relevancy is defined as:

complexity:

(i) Design-build construction

(ii) Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection (compliant with UFC 4-010-01)

(iii) Concurrent construction in multiple buildings

(iv) Building envelope air barrier system and building air leakage testing

(v) Two of the three Construction projects must be completed designs and at least 50% construction completed

(vi) Design must be 100% complete

5.1.8. 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.

5.2. 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 impact upon the past performance confidence rating.

W9126G19R0028 0002

(a) Renovation of multi-story Barracks or their equivalent or similar commercial or institutional housing type; and

(b) Typical project size should reflect a minimum of <am#0002> 20,000 30,000 </am#0002> square feet per building;

and

(c) Construction value of at least <am#0002> $12,000,000.00 $7.5 M </am#0002>per barrack;

(d) Additional consideration will be given to projects with any of the following features in terms of m2pmjjf9 Cross-Out m2pmjjf9 Cross-Out

5.2.5. Based on the relevancy of the projects submitted for design and for construction, an overall relevancy determination will be assessed as an interim step prior to establishing a confidence rating. For an overall relevancy determination of “relevant” or higher, both the construction entity and the design entity(ies) must demonstrate past performance that meets all defined aspects of relevancy relative to their role on this project.

5.3. CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.3.1. The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include ACASS, CCASS, CPARS and other past performance information deemed relevant, to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. If the Government cannot establish the Offeror’s relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire to conduct telephone interviews on any source it deems relevant to the evaluation. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will not release the information gathered to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

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

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

5.3.4. If negative information is received, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to provide input as required by FAR

15. ACASS, CCASS, and CPARs that are part of the official record will be utilized as if the Offeror has already had an opportunity to respond.

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 - ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1. This information should address the Offeror’s organization and intended technical approach to executing the contract. Demonstrate an understanding of the fundamental design-build problem, i.e., a design and construction proposal that complies with the RFP requirements including the funding constraints of the cost limitation (CCL). Demonstrate an understanding of the risk management process associated with design-build process. Limit the information to fifteen (15) pages or less clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution.

6.1.2. Describe the team members, their resources, how their resources will be utilized, and their roles and responsibilities. Provide an organizational chart of the proposed design-build team.

6.1.3. Describe any previous teaming experience between current team members.

6.1.4. Provide a general description of the work the Offeror will self-perform to be compliant with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.236-1, Performance of Work by Contractor in Section 00 72 00.

6.1.5. Describe the technical approach to design and construction of this facility type. Include information on design and construction. Describe your firm’s familiarity with applicable codes.

6.1.6. Describe your plan for coordinating project work with privately owned utility providers at Fort Hood.

6.1.7. 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 collaboration and coordination between design and construction team members, manage Government comments, the design team’s involvement throughout construction, and how sub-contractors will be integrated into design and construction.

Discuss how the configuration management system will track and control design evolution and changes during design for quality control and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Describe the role of the construction team members during design. Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction, addressing, as a minimum, maintaining configuration management of the design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design; requests for information; shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals; progress meetings; site visits, if any; contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

6.1.8. 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 that will work with the installation’s troop movement schedule. In Phase 2, the Offeror will develop a summary schedule. In Phase 1, the Government is interested in the Offeror’s planning and scheduling capabilities.

6.1.9. Provide information on your team’s capabilities to assure quality control. Describe your quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction. Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control, track design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation. After contract award, the selected design-builder will submit their Quality Control Plan for Government Approval.

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

6.2.2. The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. The Offeror is required to select a design firms to achieve an “acceptable” rating.

Joint venture participants’ contribution to the project should be commensurate with their skills and background. Previous teaming by the construction contractor and design firm(s) will be considered a strength.

6.2.3. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability and intent to comply with the applicable requirements for self-performance of work by the prime contractor.

6.2.4. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach to design and construction of this facility type. The Government will evaluate demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes.

6.2.5. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the processes and procedures for coordinating any necessary utility work with both the Corps of Engineers local office and the privately owned utility providers.

6.2.6. The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms and the staff during design and construction. The constructor must be actively involved in the design process (see Special Contract Requirement:

“Contractor’s Role during Design Process”, Section 00 73 00). The Offeror must have an effective configuration management system to control and track revisions to the design. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record and the Government reviewers. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction. Additional consideration will be given to a team that includes as many subcontractors as possible (e.g., the key subs for electrical and mechanical, the fire protection subcontractor, fabricators, etc.) during design development, prior to release of the applicable design packages for construction, so that systems and trade coordination can reduce interferences, increase constructability and speed up construction operations.

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

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

7.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.1.1. The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

7.2. EVALUATION

7.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase 1 submission and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1.

7.2.2. The Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary, to determine the most highly qualified Offerors to short-list for Phase 2.

7.2.3. The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select no more than five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors to short-list for Phase 2. This selection will be approved by SSA. The Government reserves the right to select more than three (3) Offerors if, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, consideration of additional Offerors is warranted.

7.3. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

7.3.1. 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.

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

7.3.3. 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 factor except Past Performance.

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.

7.4. DEFINITIONS

7.4.1. 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.

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

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

7.4.4. 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.

7.4.5. Significant Strength. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

7.4.6. 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).

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

7.4.8. 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.

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

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

7.4.11. 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 unawardable.

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

7.5.1. 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.

7.5.2. 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.

7.5.3. Relevancy Determination Definitions

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

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

7.5.3.3. Somewhat Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of

7.5.3.4. Not Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of

7.5.4. Confidence Rating System

7.5.4.1. Unknown Confidence (Neutral). 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.

7.5.4.2. 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.

7.5.4.3. 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.

7.5.4.4. 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.

7.5.4.5. 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.

End of Section 00 22 10

PHASE 1 - TAB A PROPOSAL

DATA SHEET

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 1

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 ACASS or CCASS 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

Firm 2

Firm 3

Nature of Association Nature of Association Nature of Association

DUNS

Number

DUNS

Number

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

Section 00 22 10, Attachment 2

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(To be completed for each project submitted)

CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT #

Offeror:

Project and Location:

Owner:

Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference: Telephone:

Awarded Construction Cost: Final Construction Cost:

Explain Cost Growth, if any:

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

Renovation of multi-story barracks or their equivalent or similar commercial or institutional housing type Minimum < a m # 0 0 0 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 30,000 am#0001> square feet per building Construction value of at least <am#0001 $12 7.5 million am#0001> per barrack.

ADDITIONAL FEATURES OF COMPLEXITY:

Design/Build construction Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection provisions (compliant with UFC 4-010-01) Concurrent construction in multiple buildings Building envelope air barrier system and building air leakage testing Two of the three Construction projects must be completed designs and at least 50% construction completed

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 :

Section 00 22 10, Attachment 3

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(To be completed for each project submitted)

DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN PROJECT #

Offeror:

Project and Location:

Owner:

Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference: Telephone:

Estimated Construction Cost: Actual Construction Cost (if known):

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

Explain Time Growth, if any:

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

Offeror’s Role in Design (Self-Performed Work): Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out:

Describe extent of relevancy of the project by checking all applicable boxes below.

RELEVANCY:

Renovation of multi-story barracks or their equivalent or similar commercial or institutional housing type Minimum < a m # 0 0 0 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 30,000 am#0001> square feet per building Construction value of at least <am#0001 $12 7.5 million am#0001>per barrack

ADDITIONAL FEATURES OF COMPLEXITY:

Design/Build construction Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection provisions (compliant with UFC 4-010-01) Concurrent construction in multiple buildings Building envelope air barrier system and building air leakage testing Design must be 100% complete

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:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 4

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

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO

VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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

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

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

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

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

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

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

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

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

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

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

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

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

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

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

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

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

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

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

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

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

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

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

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

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

Yes No

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

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

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

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

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

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

7. GENERAL

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

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

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

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):