Amendment 1.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

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

30-105-04 EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The Solicitation for 3rd Calvary Regiment (CR) Wash Rack; Fort Hood, Texas is amended as follows.

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is 12 January 2021; at 11:00 a.m.,CT, as previously announced.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 25

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.

W9126G21R0026

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Dec-2021

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-Jan-2021

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:

W9126G21R0026

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION W9126G21R0026

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Section 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS, paragraph 1.0 General Information has been replaced, each page bearing the notation W9126G21R00-0026.

2. Section 00 22 10 – PHASE 1 OF A 2 PHASE-DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES, has been replaced in its entireity, each page bearing the notation W9126G21R00-0026.

3. Section 00 72 00 CONTRACT CLAUSES, Clause 52.242-14 has been added to the Solicitation and Clauses 52.236-17 Layout of Work and 52.242-15 Stop-Work Order have been deleted from the Solicitation.

End of Summary of Changes

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

1.2 CONTRACT COST LIMITATION FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS

1.3 GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMING MAIL AND PACKAGES

1.4 COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

1.5 OFFEROR’S QUESTION AND COMMENTS

1.6 SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS/ NAICS CODE

1.7 PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

1.8 SITE VISIT

1.9 ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS

1.10 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS

1.11 PROPOSAL FORMAT & GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.12 PROPOSAL FORMAT

1.13 JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

1.14 BID GUARANTEE

1.15 CONTRACT PRICES-BIDDING SCHEDULE (PHASE 2 ONLY)

1.16 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

The scope of the project includes all work required for design and construction to make necessary repairs to Washrack, settling pond/liner, spray equipment, and controls for the 3CR Regiment at Fort Hood, TX.

1.2 CONTRACT COST CEILING LIMITATION FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS

The design and construction costs will be subject to the funds available for this project. The total contract award shall not exceed $10,274,682.49 for this contract. Offerors are notified that they are under no obligation to approach this ceiling. However, the Government may not be able to make an award, if the dollar amount set for this project is exceeded

1.3 GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMING MAIL AND PACKAGES

The Offeror(s) must ensure that ALL mail inquiries are sent to the Fort Worth District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, relating to either pre-contract or post-contract award. A return mailing address is required on the outside of the envelope, package, box, etc. All mail must be addressed to the Contracting office as specified below (no exceptions):

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District ATTN: Paige Stone, Contract Specialist 819 Taylor Street (Room 2A17) Fort Worth, TX, 76102-0300

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

1.4 COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

Copies of the solicitation and all amendments are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All solicitation documents and amendments will be posted on beta.SAM website at http://www.beta.SAM.gov/ and Offeror can access solicitation documents by the solicitation number, W9126G21R0026.

It is solely the Contractor’s responsibility to check the beta.SAM.gov website for the solicitation and any amendments prior to the RFP closing date. The Offeror shall submit in its proposal all requested information as specified in this solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation. The Offeror must be registered with the System for Award Management Database (SAM) to receive a Government contract award.

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

1.5 OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Questions and/or comments relative to these documents should be submitted via e-mail to:

Contract Specialist – Primary POC U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District ATTN: Paige Stone Phone: (817) 886-1024 Email: Paige.E.Stone@usace.army.mil Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via:

Bidder Inquiry

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

To submit and review bidder inquiries, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into the ProjNet system. To self-register go to web page at http://www.projnet.org/projnet, click the BID tab, select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter the Key for this RFP (listed above) and your e-mail address, and click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that the information on the next screen is correct and click to continue.

From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add an inquiry. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, and review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

Only one question will be allowed per inquiry. If multiple questions are included in a single inquiry, only the first question will be answered. All others will remain unanswered until entered in as a single inquiry.

Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

The Solicitation Number is: W9126G21R0026

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: B3UAWG-JF43SV

The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquires 7 calendar days prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the RFP, if necessary. If the System is not closed in a timely manner, an inquiry posted within the seven calendar days of the receipt of proposals would still be considered untimely and will not be answered.

Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

1.6 SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE

See Section 00 45 00, FAR 52.204-8 for the small business size standard/NAICS Code.

1.7 PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

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

1.8 SITE VISIT (PHASE 2)

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

Reference Section 00 21 30 for site visit details provided to select Offerors in Phase 2.

1.9 ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS

Proposals must set forth with full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP, (including attachments).

The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

1.10 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS

In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically. All submissions should be in Adobe PDF format. The Price Proposal and Technical Proposal shall be submitted as “separate” single files. Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W9126G21R0026_COMPANY NAME_TECHNICAL_PHASE 1

W9126G21R0026_COMPANY NAME_PRICE_PHASE 2

W9126G21R0026_COMPANY NAME_TECHNICAL_PHASE 2

Submit the Price and Technical proposals electronically via the DoD SAFE website at https://safe.apps.mil/.

In order for an outside user (the contractor) to submit a proposal for the solicitation, they must receive a drop-off request from an inside user (the government). When the inside user generates a drop-off request for you, you will receive an email with a link to submit your drop-off. Optionally, the Government may provide you with a request code. In that case, click the Drop-off button on the SAFE home page and enter the Request code.

To request and receive a drop-off request for this solicitation, email the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer two (2) working days before the proposal due date. The Contracting Officer for this project is: Mr. John H.

Rodgers. Email address is john.h.rodgers@usace.army.mil. The Contract Specialist for this project is: Ms. Paige Stone. Email address is paige.e.stone@usace.army.mil. Include the solicitation number in your Email Subject Line: W9126G21R0026

1.11 PROPOSAL FORMAT & GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (PHASE 1)

1) Submit only the electronic documents. Submit only the electronic files that are specifically requested in

Section 00 22 10. All files submitted shall be in PDF format. Do not submit excess information, to include audio-visual materials, electronic media, etc. All pages shall be numbered.

2) PDF pages shall be formatted to print on 8 ½ by 11 inch paper, unless another paper size is specifically authorized elsewhere in this section for a particular submission. Spreadsheets and presentation drawings must fit to 11” x 14” or 11” x 17” paper size unless specifically authorized in this section for a particular submission. Do not use a font size smaller than 10, an unusual font style such as script, or condensed print for any submission. All page margins must be at least 1 inch wide, but may include headers and footers of the solicitation, project title and company.

3) Hard copies shall not be submitted, with the exception of the bid guarantee. Refer to this section, 1.12 Bid Guarantee, for bid guarantee submission requirements.

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

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

6) For submissions with page limitations, the corresponding PDF pages will be counted.

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

1.12 JOINT VENTURE / LLC PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS <AM 01> (PHASE 1) <AM01>

Joint Venture:

When proposing as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture shall sign 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. In addition, a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration. If this is an 8(a) or HUBZone joint venture, the Offeror shall ensure that it complies with the applicable requirements of 13 CFR Part 124 and 13 CFR Part 126, respectively.

<AM01>

LLC:

When proposing as an LLC, the offeror must submit a copy of the page in the operating agreement which clearly demonstrates the authority to bind the LLC. This documentation will be submitted in Volume 1, Tab A for Phase 1 submission. <AM01>

1.13 BID GUARANTEE (PHASE 2 ONLY)

Submit the Bid Guarantee in accordance Provision 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee. One (1) copy of the bid guarantee shall be submitted electronically as part of Volume 2 and one (1) hard copy submission of the bid guarantee is due by the date and time for proposal submission. The bid guarantee shall be sent to the address in this section, 1.9 Proposal Submittals and Proposal Format & General Instructions, on or before the date indicated in Box 13 of the SF1442.

1.14 CONTRACT PRICES - BIDDING SCHEDULE(PHASE 2 ONLY)

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

1.1 AVAILIBILITY OF FUNDS

See Section 00 72 00, Clause 52.232-18, Availability of Funds.

Funds are not presently available for this contract. The Government’s obligation under this contract is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for contract purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for this contract and until the Contractor receives notice of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer.

End of Section 00 21 00

SECTION 00 22 10 - PHASE 1 OF A 2 PHASE-DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

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

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

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2 RELEVANCY EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.3 CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

8.2 EVALUATION

8.3 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

8.4 DEFINITIONS

8.5 PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

ATTACHMENTS

1 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2- CONSTRUCTION - PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

3- DESIGNER- PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

4‐ USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

1.0 OVERVIEW

This is a “best value” solicitation for the design and construction to make necessary repairs to washrack, settling pond/liner, spray equipment, and controls for the 3CR Regiment at Fort Hood, TX. The Design-Build Contract will include both Design and Construction of the required repair.

1.1. 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 Beta.Sam website. Offerors will be contacted separately to request their approval.

2.0 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST

The estimated cost of the proposed construction is between $10,000,000.00 and $25,000,000.00.

The estimated Contract Cost Limitations (CCL) is $10,274,682.49.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

a. Small Business 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. Joint-Venture offerors must be in compliance with FAR 19.5. Any legally organized Set-Aside Offeror may submit a proposal. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

b. 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, specified in each factor.

4.0 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

5.0 TAB A - STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

5.1. 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), Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable) <AM 01> and a copy of the page in the operating agreement that clearly demonstrates the authority to bind the LLC. <AM 01>

6.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.1.1 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 a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5) 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. All projects submitted for design must be completed designs; designers may submit design/build projects if the design portion of the project is complete, regardless of the construction progress. No more than one project may be less than completed or substantially completed, provided it is at least 50% construction complete. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and cannot provide the minimum of three (3) projects as a JV, each partner shall submit past performance information, with no more than five (5) projects each.

6.1.2 For USACE or other DoD projects, the government will retrieve Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

6.1.3 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 an interim or final CPARS evaluation or is a non-Federal Government project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQ should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If any negative past performance information is received to which the Offeror has not 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, Paige Stone, via e-mail at: Paige.E.Stone@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.

6.1.4 Do not request past performance questionnaires (PPQ) on projects that have interim or final CPARS evaluations. If a 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.

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

6.1.6 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.

6.1.6.1 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.

6.1.6.2 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.

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

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

6.1.8.1 Repair of Wash Rack/Station or similar commercial project type with a construction contract value of at least $6,000,000.00;

6.1.8.2 Construction Project including: (a) Upgrade to Mechanical Systems and Electrical Controls; (b) Replacement of Pumps/Piping; and (c) Upgrades to Pump Houses or Wash Stations;

6.1.8.3 Construction involving multiple trades including civil, mechanical, electrical associated with Design Build Construction

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

6.2 RELEVANCY DETERMINATION:

6.2.1 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.

6.2.2 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.

6.2.3 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.

6.2.4 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.

6.2.5 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.

6.2.6 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.

6.3 CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.3.1 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 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.

6.3.2 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.

6.3.3 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.

6.3.4 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.

7.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 - ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

7.1.1 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. Demonstrate an understanding of the risk management process associated with design- build process. Limit the information to <AM 01> ten (10) fifteen

(15) pages <AM 01> or less clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution.

7.1.2 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 <AM 01> include the name and title of each member <AM 01>.

7.1.3 Describe any previous teaming experience between current team members.

7.1.4 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.

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

7.1.6 Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design.

7.1.7 Discuss the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during design and construction.

7.1.8 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.

7.1.9 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.

7.1.10 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.

7.1.11 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.

7.1.12 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.

7.1.13 Provide a letter of commitment from the design firm. Design firms shall provide a letter of commitment to the prime contractor to indicate their commitment. The letter of commitment will not be separate from the <AM 01> ten (10) fifteen (15) page limit <AM 01> of Tab C-Factor 2- Organization and Technical Approach submission requirements.

7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

7.2.1 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.

7.2.2 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.

7.2.3 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.

7.2.4 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.

7.2.5 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.

7.2.6 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 UAI 5152.236-9011, Section 00 72 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.

7.2.7 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.

7.2.8 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.

8.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1 SOUCRE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

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

8.2 EVALUATION

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

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

8.2.3 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 five (5) Offerors if, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, consideration of additional Offerors is warranted.

8.3 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

8.3.1 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.

8.3.2 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.

8.3.3 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.

8.4 DEFINITIONS

8.4.1 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.

8.4.2 Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

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

8.4.4 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.

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

8.4.6 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).

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

8.4.8 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.

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

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

8.4.11 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 un-awardable.

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

8.5.1 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.

8.5.2 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.

8.5.3 Relevancy Determination Definitions

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

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

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

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

8.5.4 Confidence Rating System

8.5.4.1.1 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.

8.5.4.1.2 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.

8.5.4.1.3 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.

8.5.4.1.4 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.

8.5.4.1.5 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

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 1

PHASE 1 - TAB A PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Solicitation Number

Firm

Address

Phone

Fax

Email

Tax ID Number

DUNS Number

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the 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 ________________ 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

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:

Repair of Wash Rack/Station or similar commercial project type with a construction contract value of at least

$6,000,000.00;

Construction Project including: (a) Upgrade to…