am 2.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 SMALL BUSINESS VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION MATOC; SWD Area of Responsibility is amended as follows.

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is 19 October 2020; at 10:00 am.,CT, as previously stated.

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 AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. 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.

W9126G20R0051

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Sept-2020

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

07 -Oct-2020

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 CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9126G20R0051

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION W9126G20R0051

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Section 00 22 10 PHASE 1 OF A 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES: Section 00 22 10 and attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4 have been updated and replaced, bearing the notation W9126G20R0051-0002.

2. Section 00 22 20 PHASE 2 DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD: Section 00 22 20 has been updated and replaced, bearing the notation W9126G20R0051-0002.

3. Section 00 72 00 CONTRACT CLAUSES: Section 00 72 20 has been updated to remove and add contract clauses, bearing the notation W9126G20R0051-0002.

CHANGES TO THE SPECIFICATIONS

4. Replacement Sections: Replace the following section with the accompanying new section of the same number and title bearing the notation W9126G20R0051-0002.

01 00 00.00 44 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE

End of Summary of Changes

W9126G20R0051

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION SF30 - CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 11 00 - STANDARD FORM (SF) 1442 AND CLIN SCHEDULE

The required response date/time has changed from 18-Oct-2020 10:00 AM to 19-Oct-2020 10:00 AM.

The Issued By organization has changed from

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORT WORTH

819 TAYLOR ST, RM 2A17

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

to

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH

SHIP TO ADDRESS - PER TASK ORDER

819 TAYLOR ST, ROOM 2A17

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

SECTION 00 72 00 - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.219-6 (Dev) Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (DEVIATION

2020-O0008).

MAR 2020

52.219-14 (Dev) Limitations on Subcontracting (DEVIATION 2020-O0008) MAR 2020

The following have been deleted:

52.219-6 Notice Of Total Small Business Set-Aside MAR 2020

52.219-14 Limitations On Subcontracting MAR 2020

(End of Summary of Changes)

W9126G20R0051-0002

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 1 <\AM0002>

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF A 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

AM0002

1. OVERVIEW:

1.1. The Fort Worth District intends to award a <AM0002>target maximum <\AM0002> of (5) five Small Business Design-Build Vertical Construction Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC) primarily for use in Fort Worth District (Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico) but also supporting Southwestern Division (SWD), consisting of Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. The estimated maximum task order limitation is $30,000,000 with a minimum task order limitation of $75,000 and an estimated overall capacity of $620,140,000 for all task orders.

1.2. The types of facilities included in the construction program include, but are not limited to, dormitories, dining facilities, classrooms, air traffic control towers, munitions training, office space, chapels, operations centers, warehouses, headquarters buildings, vehicle maintenance shops, laboratories, instructional buildings, and checkpoints. Historically, our greatest use of MATOC's has been in support of the Sustainment, Restoration and Maintenance (SRM) program for our military customers, which may account for 50% or more of the task orders issued annually with this MATOC. A high percentage of SRM renovation and repair projects are Design-Build.

1.3. This Small Business MATOC is one of a suite of Small Business FFP Vertical Construction MATOC's being solicited by Fort Worth District, to include additional Small Business MATOC solicitations for Women Owned Small Business (WOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), HubZone, and competitive 8(a). These MATOCs will have maximum task order limitations of $16M, 17M, $20M, and $30M, respectively.

Because 3 of the 5 MATOC pools have maximum task order limitations under $20M, this MATOC and the 8(a) MATOC may see more task order solicitations between $20M - $30M. <AM0002>Offerors must demonstrate an ability to bond a minimum of three concurrent task orders up to $60M aggregate total and single contract bonding at the maximum task order limit of $30M, at any given time.<\AM0002>

1.4. This solicitation will be evaluated under the Two-Phase Design Build Process. In Phase One, interested small business firms or joint venture entities (referred to as "Offerors") submit specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute a wide variety of vertical construction including new construction, maintenance, repairs and alterations utilizing Design-Build (DB) and Design-Bid-Build (DBB) processes. The Government will evaluate responsive proposals based on the Phase One evaluation criteria herein.

1.5. After evaluation of the Phase One proposals, the Government will select a <AM0002>target maximum <\AM0002> of 10 of the most highly qualified offerors to be invited to submit proposals for Phase Two of the solicitation.

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 2 <\AM0002>

1.6. It is not intended for the Offerors to complete and provide price information in Phase One.

1.7. In Phase Two, the selected Offerors will submit a technical and price proposal for a seed project task order. The Government will evaluate the Phase Two proposals in accordance with the criteria described in the Section 00 22 20.

1.8. Firms that are formally organized as design-build entities and design firms/construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Small Business Joint Ventures must be in compliance with 13

CFR 125.8.

1.9. All designs under this contract must be developed under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

2. BASIS OF AWARD: Selection for award will be determined using the Trade-off Process in accordance with FAR 15.101. This process permits trade-offs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

3. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: The Phase One proposals must be organized by the sections indicated below:

Volume 1, Tab A

Cover Letter, SF 1442 Data/Acknowledgement Sheet Representations and Certifications

Not Applicable

Volume 1, Tab B

Factor 1 - Past Performance Most Important Factor

Volume 1, Tab C

Factor 2 - Organization and Technical Approach

Factor 2 is less Important than Factor 1, but is equal to Factor 3

Volume 1, Tab D

Factor 3 - IDIQ Capability Factor 3 is less Important than Factor 1, but is equal to Factor 2

4. VOLUME 1, TAB A

4.1. Submit a Cover Letter. Indicate whether you are a Small Business under the size standard for NAICS 236220.

4.2. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized to bind the company in accordance with the instructions at FAR 4.102.

4.3. Submit the completed Proposal Data/Acknowledgement Sheet (Attachment 1) and the following documents (if applicable):

4.3.1. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, a copy of the joint venture agreement shall

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 3 <\AM0002> be submitted with the proposal. All members of the joint venture shall sign the SF 1442 and the bid bond unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

4.3.2. If the Offeror is a Limited Liability Company, include a copy of the Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement.

4.3.3. If the Offeror has teaming agreements and/or letters of commitment, include a copy.

4.3.4. The Design of Record (DOR) that is teaming with the Offeror shall provide a teaming agreement and/or letter of commitment in order to be considered as part of this evaluation.

4.4. Representations and Certifications: Submit completed provisions 52.209-7;

DFARS 252.204-7007 Alternate 1, para e.

5. TAB B – FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1. The Offeror and their designer shall each demonstrate past performance through the submission of similar projects, using the Past Performance Projects Table (Attachment 2), Construction - Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Attachment 3), Designer - Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Attachment 4), and the Construction IDIQ Experience Table (Attachment 5). If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, Partnership, Teaming Arrangement, or Parent company/subsidiary/affiliate as identified in the offeror's proposal, provide past performance information for construction projects relevant to each of the proposed roles on this project. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. 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.

5.1.1.1. Both the prime contractor and the design firm(s) shall <AM0002> each <\AM0002> submit at least six (6) and no more than ten (10) projects on the Past Performance Projects Table (Attachment 2) 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. <AM0002> Attachment 2 may be formatted to an 8.5”x14” or 11”x17” page size, and the construction projects table and design projects table may be provided on separate pages. <\AM0002>

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 4 <\AM0002>

5.1.1.2. Both the prime contractor and design firm must submit a Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Attachment 3 or 4) for each project submitted on the Past Performance Projects Table (Attachment 2). <AM0002> Limit Attachments 3 and 4 to two (2) pages for each project.<\AM0002>

5.1.1.3. No more than two (2) projects submitted for construction past performance may be a current construction project with <AM0002> design complete and at least 75% 50% construction progress completed.<\AM0002> All projects submitted for design must be completed designs; designers may submit design/build projects if the design portion of the project is complete. If offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV), Partnership and/or Teaming Arrangement and past performance cannot be provided as such, each partner shall submit past performance information, with no less than three

(3) projects each <AM0002>, relevant to their role on the submitted project and their role in this contract <\AM0002>.

5.1.1.4. The Offeror shall each demonstrate, if applicable, past performance on Construction Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, such as a MATOC, MACC, etc., through the submission of similar contracts, using the Construction IDIQ Experience Table (Attachment 5). The prime contractor shall provide any and all experience on Construction IDIQ contracts completed or substantially completed within 6 years from the date of this solicitation. The submitted contracts for Attachment 5 are in addition to the projects submitted under paragraph 5.1.1.1. In order for the experience to be considered relevant for the prime contractor, the offeror must be the IDIQ contract holder, not a subcontractor performing on the contract. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, Partnership, Teaming Arrangement, or Parent company/subsidiary/affiliate as identified in the offeror's proposal, provide a Construction IDIQ Experience Table for each member <AM0002> if applicable, relevant to the member’s role in this contract. The Construction IDIQ Experience Table is applicable only to the entity(ies) identified as the Prime Contractor, or “Offeror”.<\AM0002>. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer.

5.1.2. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation

(Attachment 6) is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each <AM0002> design project and each construction <\AM0002> project the Offeror included for Factor 1, Past Performance that does not have an interim or final CPARS evaluation or is a non-Federal Government project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQ should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 5 <\AM0002> will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If any negative past performance information is received to which the Offeror has not an opportunity to respond, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Mr. Scott Bonner, via e-mail at scott.bonner@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

5.1.2.1. 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.

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

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

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

5.1.3.1. 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.

5.1.4. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluation of past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS number of team members (Partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror's proposal, inquires of owner representative(s), Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, <AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 6 <\AM0002> current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

5.1.5. The Projects will be considered relevant to this procurement if they are similar in type, scope, complexity or magnitude. Projects anticipated under this procurement will consist of both new construction and renovation with the majority anticipated to be renovation; therefore, renovation project experience will be considered more relevant than new construction experience. <AM0002> The portfolio of projects identified on the Past Performance Projects Table (Attachment 2) and described in the Past Performance Worksheets (Attachments 3 and 4) will be utilized to evaluate relevancy for design and relevancy for construction, respectively.<\AM0002> Relevancy is defined as:

5.1.5.1. Multi-discipline project experience with at least four (4) different facility types (per Attachment 2)

5.1.5.2. Design Build experience

5.1.5.3. Experience with projects in each of the three (3) Project Value ranges ($1 million - $10 million, $10 million - $20 million, and $20 million - $30 million, per Attachment 2)

5.1.5.4. Multi-discipline new construction project with at least three (3) of the

Project Attributes (per Attachment 2)

5.1.5.5. Multi-discipline construction renovation project with at least three (3) of the Project Attributes (per Attachment 2)

5.1.6. If the offeror meets all aspects of relevancy above, 5.1.5.1. through

5.1.5.5., additional consideration may be given for the following aspects of complexity:

5.1.6.1. Multi-discipline project experience with at least seven (7) different facility types

5.1.6.2. Three (3) or more projects with a Project Value over $20 million (per Attachment 2)

5.1.6.3. Four (4) or more multi-discipline construction renovation projects with at least three (3) of the Project Attributes (per Attachment 2).

5.1.6.4. Construction IDIQ contract experience as the prime contractor (Attachment 5, only applies to the offeror)

5.1.7. 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.

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 7 <\AM0002>

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 have impact upon the past performance confidence rating.

5.2.5. Past performance with design-build renovation projects may be considered more relevant.

5.2.6. Past performance with Project Values between $20 million - $30 million may be considered more relevant.

5.2.7. Based on the relevancy of the <AM0002> portfolio of <\AM0002> projects submitted for design and for construction, an overall relevancy determination will be assessed as an interim step prior to establishing a confidence rating. In order to for the past performance of the Design firm to be considered relevant, a teaming agreement and/or a letter of commitment must be included with the proposal (Tab A).

5.2.7.1. If a prime contractor meets all five (5) of the relevancy criteria in paragraph 5.1.5, it will be considered relevant for construction.

5.2.7.2. If a prime contractor meets four (4) of the relevancy criteria in paragraph 5.1.5, it will be considered somewhat relevant for construction.

5.2.7.3. If a designer meets all five (5) of the relevancy criteria in paragraph 5.1.5, it will be considered relevant for design.

5.2.7.4. If a designer meets four (4) of the relevancy criteria in paragraph

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 8 <\AM0002>

5.1.5, it will be considered somewhat relevant for design.

5.2.7.5. For an overall relevancy determination of "relevant" or higher, both the construction entity and the design entity(ies) must demonstrate past performance that is considered relevant relative to their role on this contract.

5.3. CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.3.1. The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include CPARS and other past performance information deemed relevant, to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. If the Government cannot establish the Offerors relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire to conduct telephone interviews on any source it deems relevant to the evaluation. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government'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 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 Neutral confidence will be assigned.

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 9 <\AM0002>

5.3.4. Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSAC may recommend and the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

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

6. TAB C - FACTOR 2 - ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

This Factor should address the Offeror's organization and intended technical approach to executing the contract. Limit to fifteen (15) pages or less for this factor. Clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach as required below.

6.1.1. Organization: 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. The chart shall show both the construction and design team members <AM0002> by position, not by name <\AM0002>. If the Offeror elects to use multiple design teams, include an organization chart for each separate team. Do not submit resumes as they will not be evaluated or considered.

6.1.2. Teaming Experience: Describe any previous teaming experience between current team members.

6.1.3. Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design and construction.

6.1.3.1. 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 subcontractors will be integrated into design and construction.

Reference Section 01 33 16.00 10.

6.1.3.2. Discuss how the configuration management system (refer to 01

33 16.00 10 para 3.5) will track and control design evolution and changes during design for quality control and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Discuss how the Offeror will maintain

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 10 <\AM0002> configuration management of the design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design.

6.1.3.3. Describe the role of the construction team members during design.

6.1.3.4. Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction, addressing, at a minimum, requests for information; shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals; progress meetings; site visits, if any;

contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

6.1.4. 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. The Government is looking for ways the design-builder will streamline design and construction, manage labor and other resource constraints. 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. Reference Section 01 32 01.00 10.

6.1.5. 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 information on how the Offeror's Quality Control Organization will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-builts, and completion documentation. Describe your experience with the Resident Management System (RMS Contractor Mode and/or <AM0002>RMS Quality Control System, QCS Contractor Quality System, CQS).<\AM0002> After task order award, the selected design- builder will submit their Quality Control Plan for Government Approval. Do not submit a Quality Control Plan as part of this Factor. Reference Sections 01 45 00.00 10 and 01 45 00.15 10.

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1. In order to consider the DOR in the evaluation of this factor, the teaming arrangement and/or letter of commitment must be provided consistent with paragraph 4.3.4.

6.2.2. Organization: The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. 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

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 11 <\AM0002> considered a strength.

6.2.3. Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: 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 "Design-Build Construction Contracts, UAI Clause 5152.236- 9011" in Section 00 72 00). The Offeror must have an effective configuration management system to control and track revisions to the design (See Section 01 33 16.00 10 paragraph 3.5).

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.

6.2.4. Planning and Scheduling: The Government will evaluate the Offeror's scheduling capabilities to develop and implement an integrated 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 control costs and supports an achievable and flexible schedule.

6.2.5. Quality Control: The Government will evaluate the Offeror's capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction. The Government places value upon continued participation by the designers of record during the construction quality control process. The Government may provide additional consideration for experience with Resident Management System (RMS Contractor Mode and/or <AM0002>RMS Quality Control System, QCS Contractor Quality System, CQS).<\AM0002>

7. TAB D - FACTOR 3 - IDIQ Capability

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Limit this Factor to <AM0002>six (6) ten (10) <\AM0002> pages, including the letter from the surety.

7.1.1. Describe your understanding of task order procedures and your plan and capabilities to respond to the Government's notification of a proposed Task Order requirement. Include your plan and capabilities to estimate, prepare, and submit Task Order proposals within the range anticipated under the awarded contract.

7.1.2. Describe your plan for managing subcontract performance, acquisition, execution, and administration. With projects possible in multiple geographic regions concurrently, discuss your plan for acquiring and engaging local subcontractors and workforce. Explain any experience in developing relationships with subcontractors where you do not have

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 12 <\AM0002> previous working experience.

7.1.3. Provide a general description of the work the Offeror will self-perform to be compliant with the requirements of set-aside subcontracting limitations. Under set-aside award conditions, small businesses are required to perform minimum levels of work when they receive a federal contract. These subcontracting limitations apply to contract set-asides for small businesses when the contract amount exceeds $150,000, and all other set-aside or sole-source contracts under the 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, and WOSB programs. General construction contracts: The small business prime contractor must perform at least 15% of the cost of the contract with its own employees, not including the cost of materials.

7.1.4. Demonstrate the offeror's capability to manage multiple construction projects concurrently by submitting the Projects Table (Attachment 7) for all construction projects with a contract value over $1 million, including ongoing projects, for which the Offeror was the Prime Contractor. The table shall show projects that <AM0002> started on/after or were already <\AM0002> underway from July 2017 up to the solicitation issuance date. If the Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture, submit the completed table for each member. This table does not need to be filled out for the proposed Design firm.

7.1.5. <AM0002>Contractors are expected to be able to bond three (3) concurrent task orders with an aggregate total of $60 million at any given time, up to $30 million each to include bonding a single task order up to $30 million; describe your resources available and your capabilities to support three (3), $30 million task orders concurrently concurrent task orders with an aggregate total of $60 million, including a single $30 million task order in the Southwestern Division, primarily Fort Worth District. Describe why your firm is especially qualified to undertake this contract.<\AM0002>

7.1.6. Single Contract and Aggregate Bonding Capacity and Evidence of

Bonding Capacity: Submit a letter of commitment from a surety, signed by an officer or agent authorized to bond that identifies the offeror's current and available bonding capacity for a single project and the aggregate capacity.

7.2. Evaluation Criteria

7.2.1. Task Order Procedures and Task Order Management: The

Government will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities, and strengths of the Offeror's understanding of task order procedures, plans for responding to task order requirements, for managing subcontractors, capability and commitment to self-perform the required percentage of work. 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.

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 13 <\AM0002>

7.2.2. The Government will evaluate the offeror's ability to successfully manage multiple ongoing projects<AM0002>, including up to three (3), $30 million construction projects, up to $60 million aggregate total, including a single $30 million construction project, <\AM0002> concurrently within the Southwestern Division, primarily Fort Worth District.

7.2.3. Single Contract and Aggregate Bonding Capacity: In order for the

Offeror to have a satisfactory bonding capacity, they must show evidence of $30 million for a single project and at least <AM0002>$90 $60 million aggregate capacity <\AM0002>. Offeror will be rated unacceptable for this factor if the single and/or aggregate bonding capacities cannot be met.

8. PHASE ONE EVALUATION PROCEDURES / RATING SYSTEM

8.1. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will be established to conduct the evaluation of responsive proposals and identify strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies for each evaluation factor. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and in the case of past performance, any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

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

8.1.3. The Government reserves the right to allow proposal revisions in accordance with FAR 15.306(d) (5) Exchanges with Offerors after Receipt of Proposals, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified Offerors to shortlist for Phase 2.

8.1.4. If the Government decides to hold discussions, a Competitive Range, a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals, will be established and discussions will be held with only those offerors in the competitive range. The Government may engage in a broad give and take with each Offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

8.1.5. Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors considered the most

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 14 <\AM0002> highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit Phase One proposal revisions for final evaluation.

8.1.6. The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, intends to select up to ten (10) of the Phase 1 Offerors to compete in Phase 2. In Phase 2, the selected Phase 2 Offerors will submit proposals for evaluation in accordance with Section 00 22 20. In Phase 2, the Contracting Officer will award a<AM0002> target maximum of five (5) firm fixed price contracts to the firms whose proposals offer the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors as described in Phase 2.

8.2. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

8.2.1. 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.

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

8.2.3. 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 assessment of each Offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP.

8.3. DEFINITIONS

8.3.1. 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.

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

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

8.3.4. 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.

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

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 15 <\AM0002>

8.3.6. 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).

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

8.3.8. 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.

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

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

8.3.11. 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.

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

8.4.1. 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.

8.4.2. The confidence rating assesses the risks associated with each Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent contracts.

SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offeror's past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a <AM0002> neutral/unknown <\AM0002> confidence rating.

8.4.3. Relevancy Determination Definitions

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

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

<AM0002> Section 00 22 10, Page 16 <\AM0002>

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

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

8.4.4. Confidence Rating System

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

8.4.4.2. 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.

8.4.4.3. 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.

8.4.4.4. 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.

8.4.4.5. 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

AM0002

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 <AM0002>ACASS or CCASS databases CPARS database <\AM0002>. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted. Provide a DUNS number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide DUNS for each.

Firm 1 Nature of Association

DUNS

Number

Firm 2 Nature of Association

DUNS

Number

Firm 3 Nature of Association

DUNS

Number

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

Name

Title

Address

Telephone

Email

Pr oj ec t N um be r

Project Title Contract Number

Do rm ito ry Ba rr ac ks

Di ni ng

F ac ili ty

Cl as sr oo m In st ru ct io na l

Bl dg

La bo ra to rie s

Ch ap el

O pe ra tio ns C en te r

W ar eh ou se Su pp ly

Su pp or t F ac ili ty

H ea dq ua rt er B ui ld in g

O ffi ce B ui ld in g

Ve hi cl e M ai nt en an ce

Sh op

Ve hi cl e Ac ce ss C on tr ol

Po in t / C he ck po in t

Ch ild Yo ut h

De ve lo pm en t C en te r

O th er

$1 m ill io n $1 m ill io n

$1 m ill io n $2 m ill io n

$2 m ill io n $3 m ill io n

N ew

V er tic al

Co ns tr uc tio n

Re no va tio n

SC

IF

c on st ru ct io n ne w or re no va tio n N ew

H

VA

C

H

VA

C Re no va tio n N ew

R oo f /

Ro of R ep la ce m en t N ew in te rio r b ui ld ou t /

In te rio r R en ov at io n

Li fe S af et y

Fi re P ro te ct io n

De sig n‐ Bu ild

Pr op os al P ag e N um be r

Pr oj ec t N um be r

Project Title Contract Number

Do rm ito ry Ba rr ac ks

Di ni ng

F ac ili ty

Cl as sr oo m In st ru ct io na l

Bl dg

La bo ra to rie s

Ch ap el

O pe ra tio ns C en te r

W ar eh ou se Su pp ly S up po rt

Fa ci lit y

H ea dq ua rt er B ui ld in g

O ffi ce B ui ld in g

Ve hi cl e M ai nt en an ce S ho p

Ve hi cl e Ac ce ss C on tr ol P oi nt

/ C he ck po in t

Ch ild Yo ut h De ve lo pm en t

Ce nt er

O th er

$1 m ill io n $1 m ill io n

$1 m ill io n $2 m ill io n

$2 m ill io n $3 m ill io n

N ew

V er tic al C on st ru ct io n

Re no va tio n

SC

IF

c on st ru ct io n ne w o r re no va tio n N ew

H

VA

C

H

VA

C Re no va tio n N ew

R oo f /

Ro of R ep la ce m en t N ew in te rio r b ui ld ou t /

In te rio r R en ov at io n

Li fe S af et y

Fi re P ro te ct io n

De sig n‐ Bu ild

Pr op os al P ag e N um be r

Factor: Past Performance

AM0002

Project Value Project Type

For each construction project listed below, provide a Construction ‐ Past Performance Worksheet (Attachment 3).

Facility Type Project Value Project Type

Project Attributes (Check all that apply)

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

For each design project listed below, provide a Design ‐ Past Performance Worksheet (Attachment 5).

Project Attributes (Check all that apply)

Facility Type

Past Performance Projects Table ‐ Attachment 2W9126G20R0051-0002

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 3

AM0002

(Replaces form provided in AM0001)

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(To be completed for each construction project submitted in Attachment 2 Past Performance Projects Table)

CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT #_______

Offeror:

Is the Offeror part of a Joint Venture, Partnership, Teaming Arrangement, or Parent Company/subsidiary/affiliate?

If yes, identify the company who performed this project and their proposed role in the MATOC organization.

Project and Location:

Was this project performed by the division or unit of the company submitting the offer for this MATOC solicitation?

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…