W9126G21R0037 Amendment 2.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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION 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 Fuel Facility Replacement RGAAF; Fort Hood, Texas is amended as follows.

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date has been changed to 20 September 2021; at 11:00 a.m.,CT.

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.

W9126G21R0037

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

5-Aug-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

10 -Sept-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 CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9126G21R0037

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION W9126G21R0037

CHANGES TO PROPOSAL RECEIPT DATE

1. Proposal Receipt Date: Change the proposal receipt date from "17 September 2021, 11:00 a.m. local time" to "20 September 2021, 11:00 a.m. local time ".

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

2. Section 00 22 11 Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Criteria, and Basis of Award One Step – Best Value, Design-Build (Single Award): Section 00 22 11 has been updated and replaced, bearing the notation W9126G21R0037-0002.

CHANGES TO THE SPECIFICATIONS

3. Replacement Sections: Replace the following section with the accompanying new section of the same number and title bearing the notation W9126G21R0037-0002:

32 17 23 PAVEMENT MARKINGS

33 40 00 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES

CHANGES TO THE DRAWINGS

4. Replacement Drawings - Replace the drawings listed below with the attached new drawings(s) of the same number, bearing the notation W9126G21R0037-0002:

GC004 AIRFIELD PIPE ABANDONMENT PLAN (1 OF 3)

CD101 AIRFIELD PIPE ABANDONMENT PLAN (2 OF 3)

CD406 AIRFIELD PIPE ABANDONMENT PLAN (1 OF 3)

CD407 AIRFIELD PIPE ABANDONMENT PLAN (2 OF 3)

CD408 AIRFIELD PIPE ABANDONMENT PLAN (3 OF 3)

CD501 DEMOLITION DETAILS

CS401 FUEL FARM AREA SITE PLAN

CS403 FUEL TANKS CONTAINMENT AREA SITE PLAN

CS417 AIRCRAFT APRON SITE AND JOINT PLAN

CS502 TRUCK PAVEMENT SECTIONS AND DETAILS

CS504 CONTAINMENT DIKE STAIRS PLAN AND SECTION

CS505 MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL DETAILS

CG402 FUEL TANKS CONTAINMENT AREA SPOT ELEVATION PLAN

CP101 AIRFIELD MARKING PLAN

ES401 ENLARGED ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN

ES402 ENLARGED ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN

ES403 ENLARGED ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN

EC101 OVERALL CATHODIC PROTECTION PLAN

End of Summary of Changes

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Criteria, and Basis of Award One Step - Best Value, Design-Build (Single Award)

EVALUATION CRITERIA

DESIGN BID BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 EVLAUATION FACTORS AND WEIGHTING, VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL

4.1 GENERAL

4.1.1 PROPOSAL CONTENTS & RELATED FACTORS

5.0 TAB A FACTOR 1 PAST PERFORMANCE, CONSTRUCTION

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2 RELEVANCY DETERMINATION

5.3 CONFIDENCE EVALUATION

6.0 TAB B FACTOR 2 SUMMARY SCHEDULE & NARRATIVE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.0 TAB C FACTOR3 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICPATION PLAN

7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.0 PRICE AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION

8.1 GENERAL

8.2 FACTOR 4 VOLUME 2 TAB A - PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT LINE

ITEM SCHEDULE)

8.2.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.3 VOLUME 2 TAB B - BID GUARANTEE

8.3.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.3.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.4 VOLUME 2 TAB C - REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

8.4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.5 VOLUME 2 TAB D SUB-CONTRACTING PLAN

8.5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.6 VOLUME 2 TAB E REPRESENTATION & CERTIFICATIONS

8.6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

9.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1 GENERAL

9.2 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

9.3 DEFINITIONS

9.4 PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

9.5 DISCUSSIONS

ATTACHMENTS 1-4

W9126G21R0037-0002

1.0 OVERVIEW

This is a “best value” solicitation for the construction of DESC2003 FUELS FACILITY REPLACEMENT RGAAF project, at Fort Hood, TX. The work will include all work in accordance with the plans and specification to construct a new Type III Hydrant system and associated site work near the flight line at the Robert Gray Army Airfield at Fort Hood, Texas. The Type III hydrant system will consist of two-6,000-barrel tanks, an 1800 GPM capacity pump shelter with issue pumps, issue filter/separators and receipt filter/separators, two truck fill stands, one HHT checkout stand, two off-load positions and six hydrant outlet pits in accordance with the DoD Type III Standard design. The project will also provide supporting facilities to include roadway improvements, utilities and connections, site lighting, paving, parking, walks, fire protection, storm drainage / Low Impact Development (LID), information systems, site development, landscaping, fencing and signage.

The Tradeoff Process permits the tradeoffs among cost, price and/or non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. Offerors submit their performance and capability information for review and consideration by the Government. Relative weights among technical factors are provided in Section 4: Evaluation Factors & Weighting. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) reviews, evaluates, and rates the proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP. A competitive range consisting of the most highly qualified technical Offerors will be established prior to discussions (if held). Concurrently, the Government analyzes price proposals of Offerors utilizing the project cost proposal. Price will not be rated but will be a factor in making the final best value determination for award. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) compares proposals and determines the best value for the government. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

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

The SSA, using sound business judgment, bases the award decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria in the factors described below. While the entire evaluation team strives for maximum objectivity, the selection process is subjective by nature and professional judgment is implicit throughout the best value process. Ultimately, the contract shall be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal, based upon the evaluation criteria, represents the best value to the Government. Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility.

In order to determine which proposal(s) represent the best value, the Government will be determined by a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP. As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination. All evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price.

The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer(s). The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers.

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

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Firms formally organized as a single entity firms that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal.

Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which: two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. The Offeror shall identify the team member that will perform each of the major or critical aspects of the requirement. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement.

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

Offerors shall submit their proposal per the instructions provided in Section 00 21 00. Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND WEIGHTING, VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL

4.1 GENERAL

Offerors are invited to submit a proposal, as indicated below. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria described herein, using the evaluation rating systems outlined in the RFP selection procedures.

Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and for material unbalancing, as described herein. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.

4.1.1 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

VOLUME 1 – Technical

Format and Contents of the Technical Proposal and List of Tabs. The original and all copies of the technical proposal will be appropriately labeled as such. Each set shall be organized using the tabs specified in the Table 1 Volume 1 below.

Table 1 - Volume 1 – PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

TAB

Factor Descending Order of Importance

A Factor 1- Past Performance, Construction Most Important Factor

B Factor 2-Summary Schedule & Narrative Less Important than Factor 1, More Important than Factor 3

C Factor 3-Small Business Participation Plan Least Important Factor

(3) Page Limitations. The following page limitations are established for each factor described above:

Factor # 1, Past Performance - No Page Limitation (Supplemental Narrative: 2 Page Limit) Factor #2, Summary Schedule - No Page Limitation.

Factor # 3, Small Business Participation: No Page Limitation.

Tables of content, proposal cover letters, and tabs between proposal information do not count toward any page limitations in the proposal.

All pages after the page limitations described above will be deleted from the proposal for evaluation purposes!

5.0 TAB A: FACTOR 1: Past Performance

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 For purposes of section 5, past performance only, the term “Offeror” will be defined as the Prime Contractor OR as the Prime Contractor and an identified Subcontractor forming a Teaming Arrangement to meet the relevancy and confidence criteria below. If the Prime Contractor chooses a teaming arrangement, then both the Prime and the identified Subcontractor should submit the past performance information listed below for both the relevancy and confidence sections for the SSEB to review and evaluate. Provide a “Letter of Commitment” from the Subcontractor for the Teaming Arrangement. A Letter of Commitment is required for in order for the Subcontractor’s past performance to be evaluated within factor 1.

The Offeror’s shall each demonstrate past performance through the submission of similar projects, using the Construction – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet – ATTACHMENT 1 FOR VOLUME 1, TAB A FACTOR 1. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, Partnership, Parent company/subsidiary/affiliate, limited liability corporation or Teaming Arrangement, offeror shall clearly state such in the proposal and provide past performance information for construction projects relevant to each of the proposed roles on this project. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. If projects were design-bid-build, identify them as such. Submit 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. Projects submitted must have been completed within the last six (6) years of this solicitation. Two (2) of the three (3) projects submitted for construction past performance must be 100% complete and the third project may be a current construction project with a completed design and at least 50% complete. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) or Teaming Arrangement and past performance cannot be provided as a JV and Teaming Arrangement, each entity shall submit past performance information, with no more than five (5) projects each. Offerors proposing as a JV should also submit their JV agreement. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation as A TTACHMENT 2 FOR VOLUME 1, TAB A FACTOR 1 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (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.

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

5.1.3 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.

5.1.4 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.

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

5.1.4.2 Offerors may submit information on past performance issues and corrective actions taken to prevent these issues from reoccurring. Discuss whether these corrective actions have been implemented on contracts awarded subsequent to the performance issues, the effectiveness of the corrective actions, and POC information for the subsequent contracts.

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

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

A. Prime Contractor of a construction project with construction value $15,000,000 or higher.

B. Experience (Prime and/or Sub Contractor) performing Hydrant Fuel System Type III Replacement construction of $5,000,000 or higher

C. Experience (Prime and/or Sub Contractor) demonstrating successful start-up of a military or civilian Type III hydrant fuel pipeline system with features to include <AM 01> (we are looking for the experience of the entity that actually performed the work that self-performed the installation and startup of the system):

i. 6000 5000 </AM 01> Barrel or larger above ground Fuel Storage Tanks

ii. Pump shelter with Control Room and POL Pumps and Filters with piping to/from Tanks

iii. 10-inch or larger Fuel Hydrant Loop

iv. Multiple 600 GPM Pumps and Filter/Separators

v. Product Recovery Tank

W9126G21R0037-0002 m2ecdcwn Cross-Out m2ecdcwn Cross-Out

D. Additional Experience (Prime and/or Sub Contractor) demonstrating successful start-up of a military or civilian Type III hydrant fuel pipeline system with features to include (we are looking for the experience of the entity that actually performed the work):

i. Truck Off-Loading and Truck Fillstands

5.1.7 To be considered “Relevant” Offerors must meet A, B, and all elements of C (i-v) through a combination of projects. To be considered “Very Relevant” Offerors must meet A, B, C (i-v), and D through a combination of projects.

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

5.2 RELEVANCY DETERMINATION

5.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the past performance is to the project under consideration. Past performance on the projects identified in the project forms will receive more consideration than past performance provided in the supplemental narrative. Federal Government project past performance will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project past performance.

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

5.2.3 Contracts with lower degrees of relevance will not be as strong of predictors of likely future contract performance success and will typically have less influence on the final past performance confidence rating.

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

5.2.5 Based on the relevancy of the projects submitted 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, the offeror must demonstrate past performance that meets all defined aspects of relevancy relative to their role on this project as listed in paragraphs 5.1.6, 5.1.7, and 5.1.8 above.

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 Offeror’s relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire to conduct telephone interviews on any source it deems relevant to the evaluation. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc.

The Government will not release the information gathered to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

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

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

5.3.4 Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, 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.

6.0 TAB B: FACTOR 2: Summary Schedule and Narrative

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.1.1 Summary Schedule and Phasing: Submit a summary level schedule for construction.

This schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10 – Project Schedule. The Schedule shall fully demonstrate how the Offeror plans to complete all contract work, within the specified period of performance from the receipt of contract Notice-to Proceed (NTP) in accordance with Section 01 00

00.00 44 Construction Schedule. The schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of their choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented and shall include, as a minimum, Activity ID, Activity Description, Original Duration, early start and early finish dates, and total float for each activity. The proposed schedule shall include an activity that shows the proposed overall contract duration in calendar days. Give attention to the following items:

6.1.2 Provide a narrative describing the offerors plan and describe the technical approach you will take to address the unique challenges, opportunities, and constraints inherent to this project (i.e. work delays, scheduling, phasing, coordination with Airfield Manager, Privatized Utility COR, subcontractors and system suppliers) This portion of the tab shall also address mitigation of delays due to unforeseen conditions or events and methods to recover time to complete the scheduled work with the contract duration.

6.1.3 Show activities to include sequencing of work for demolition, construction activities, phasing, and coordination with Airfield Manager, mandatory tasks, site work and privatized utilities coordination with Contracting Officer Representative (COR) in sufficient detail to demonstrate an understanding of the scope of work and to substantiate the reasonableness and realism of the proposed duration.

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

6.1.5 Show the phased turnover of the project. The time to complete the project and phased turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection at each phase.

6.1.6 Show closeout activities, to include the Red Zone meeting, record drawings, to demonstrate your understanding of the closeout requirements for the contract. (See section 01 78 00 - Closeout Submittals).

6.1.7 Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

6.1.7.1 Show activities and/or milestones for coordination with other Government agencies, Privatized Utilities and their Contracting Officer Representative (COR) or contractors during construction, to demonstrate your understanding of the coordination requirements for the contract.

(See Section 01 00 00.00 44 - Construction Schedule).

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.2.1 Summary Schedule and Phasing: The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, phasing, coordination and restrictions which must be considered in the schedule (see section 01 00 00.00 44), closeout process.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the contract requirements will receive additional consideration.

7.0 TAB C: FACTOR 3: Small Business Participation Plan:

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of participation of small business concerns in performance of this contract opportunity. Offeror’s proposal must meet the <AM02> minimum mandatory Total Small Business participation goal of 40% (through collective small business participation from any type of small business or sub-category small business) <AM02> The subcategory small business goals are NOT mandatory. However, the Government will evaluate the proposal to determine which Offeror(s) propose the best value in terms of meeting all the Small Business Participation goals herein. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime Offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation.

7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

7.1.1 Offerors must complete and submit the Small Business Participation Plan form. The form is attached at the end of this section and is labeled “ATTACHMENT 3 FOR VOLUME

1, TAB C – FACTOR 3: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN”.

7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.2.1 Small Business Participation Plans (from large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the basis of:

7.2.1.1 The extent to which Small Business (SB) firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in the proposal;

7.2.1.2 The extent of commitment to Small Business firms (for example, enforceable commitments will be given additional consideration than non-enforceable commitments);

7.2.1.3 The complexity and variety of the work small business firms are to perform;

7.2.1.4 Past performance of the Offerors in complying with the requirement of the clauses 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (large business only)

7.2.1.5 The extent of participation of SB firms in terms of value of the total acquisition and the extent of which the proposal meets or exceeds the small business participation goals for this acquisition.

7.2.1.6 Small Business Participation Plans (from large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the basis of:

7.2.1.7 The following ratings will apply for the Small Business Participation

Plan:

7.2.1.7.1.1 Outstanding. Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal;

demonstrates substantive commitment to SB firm(s), for example, enforceable commitment with one (1) or more firms; identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; demonstrates commitment to exceed a SB Participation goal. For prime contractors that are large business, the proposal displays past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9.

7.2.1.7.1.2 Good. Proposal indicates a thorough approach and

understanding of the small business objectives. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates substantive commitment to SB firm(s), for example, enforceable commitment with one (1) or more firms;

identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; demonstrates commitment to exceed the SB Participation goal. For prime contractors that are large business, the proposal displays past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219- 9.

7.2.1.7.1.3 Acceptable. Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates a commitment to SB firm(s); identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform;

demonstrates commitment to meet the SB Participation goal. For prime contractors that are large business, the proposal displays past performance in complying with

FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9.

7.2.1.7.1.4 Marginal. Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal, but the Offeror does not fully demonstrate a commitment to SB firm(s); or does not fully identify a commitment to use firms or does not fully identify the work small businesses are to perform; or for prime contractors that are large business, the proposal does not fully display past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 and/or does not explain or provide justification for the lack of substantive effort. The Offeror does not demonstrate a commitment to SB Participation goal.

7.2.1.7.1.5 Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet small business objectives and demonstrates commitment to meet less than SB Participation goal or does not identify SBs in the proposal; or does not fully identify a commitment to use SB firms; or does not identify the work small businesses are to perform; or for prime contractors that are large business, the proposal does not display past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219- 9 and/or does not explain or provide justification for the lack of substantive effort.

8.0 VOLUME 2- PRICE AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION

8.1 GENERAL Submit the other required information in a separate Tab labeled: Volume 2 - “Price and

Other Related Information”

TABLE 2

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 4 Vol. 2, TAB A

PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL

DATA SHEET AND CONTACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULES)

Not rated. Significantly less important than all technical factors combined.

N/A Vol. 2, TAB B

BID GUARANTEE (BID BOND) REQUIRED Acceptable /Unacceptable N/A Vol. 2, TAB C

REQUIRED PRE - AWARD INFORMATION Acceptable

/Unacceptable

N/A Vol. 2, TAB D

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (not applicable to small businesses)

Acceptable /Unacceptable

N/A Vol. 2, TAB E

REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS Acceptable /Unacceptable

Detailed Submission Instructions for the Price Proposal

8.2 FACTOR 4 VOLUME 2 TAB A - PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT

LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

8.2.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

8.2.1.1 Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the

CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors”. Include the completed Proposal Data Sheet (SEE ATTACHMENT 4) and Joint Venture Agreement (if Applicable).

8.2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

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

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

8.3 VOLUME 2 TAB B - BID GUARANTEE

8.3.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.3.1.1 Submit the Bid Bond in accordance with the Instructions in Section 00

21 00, Provision 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee. One (1) copy of the bid guarantee shall be submitted electronically as part of Volume 3 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

U.S. Army Engineer District, Fort Worth ATTN: CESWF-CT, Paige Stone 819 Taylor Street (Room 2A17) Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300

8.3.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA This item is not rated. The Government will review the Bid

Bond for legal sufficiency. The Bond must be legally sufficient. Failure to submit a bid bond may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

8.4 VOLUME 2 TAB C REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION:

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

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

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

b. A certified statement listing; (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three month period exceeding $10,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three year period not already physically completed and exceeding $15,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

c. If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification

8.4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA In addition to the other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9. Failure to achieve an affirmative responsibility determination will make the Offeror ineligible for award.

8.5 TAB D SUB-CONTRACTING PLAN:

8.5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (NOTE: This Requirement only applies to the

Offeror who are “Other Than Small Business”)

8.5.1.1 If the Offeror proposing on this solicitation is a large business concern, in accordance with the definition as identified in FAR Clause 52.219-1, “SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REPRESENTATION”, the firm must submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (Jan 2002).

8.5.1.2 Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan. In accordance with DFARS 215.304 (c), when an evaluation assesses the extent that small businesses and HBCUs are specifically identified in proposals, the small businesses and HBCUs considered in the evaluation shall be listed in any subcontracting plan submitted.

8.5.1.3 Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan. In accordance with DFARS 215.304 (c), any small business and HBCUs identified in Factor 5, Small Business Participation Plan, must be included in the subcontracting plan.

8.5.1.4 Submit the firm’s subcontracting compliance on previous projects completed or underway within the past three years of the date of this solicitation. This requirement may be supported by using copies of the Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) from the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS).

8.5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.5.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Plan in accordance with AFARS

Appendix DD (http://farsite.hill.af.mil/VFAFARA.HTM) and with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9.Offerors are encouraged to review AFARS Appendix DD for how the subcontracting plan will be reviewed.

To be acceptable, subcontracting plans must address all requirements in AFARS Appendix DD, DD-301.

8.5.2.2 Only the selected Offeror’s plan will be reviewed and must be approved prior to award of the contract.

8.6 TAB E REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

8.6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Confirm that the Offeror’s representations and certifications have been completed in the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) in accordance with FAR 52.204-8. Submit the representations and certifications not covered by ORCA that are included in Section 00 45 00 of this solicitation, under this tab.

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

9.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1 GENERAL

9.1.1 The Source Selection Evaluation Board will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each technical evaluation factor, utilizing the evaluation and rating system described in Section 00 22 11.

9.1.2 The Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary, to determine the most highly qualified Offerors. The following definitions apply:

9.2 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

9.2.1 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.

9.2.2 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.

9.2.3 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 confidence in each Offeror’s technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP.

9.3 DEFINITIONS

9.3.1 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.

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

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

9.3.4 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.

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

9.3.6 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).

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

9.3.8 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.

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

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

9.3.11 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 un-awardable.

9.4 PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS.

9.4.1 A single confidence rating shall be assigned to Past Performance.

9.4.1.1 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.

9.4.1.2 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.

9.4.2 Relevancy Determination Definitions

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

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

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

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

9.4.3 Confidence Rating System

9.4.3.1 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

9.4.3.2 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.

9.4.3.3 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.

9.4.3.4 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.

9.4.3.5 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.

9.5 DISCUSSIONS (IF NECESSARY)

9.5.1 The Government intends to award without…