W9126G21R00051 0003.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 Lackland Aquatics Tanks; Lackland AFB, Texas is amended as follows.

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date has been changed to 6 May 2021; at 2:00 p.m.,CT., as previously announced.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15C. DATE SIGNED 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer) (Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

W912621R0051

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23 MAR 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

22 APR 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:

W9126G21R0051

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION W9126G21R0051

CHANGES TO THE CONTRACT LINE ITEMS

2. Revised Sections: Replace the sections listed below with the attached revised sections of the same numbers, bearing the notation W9126G21R0051, AMENDMENT 0003.

05 50 13 MISCELLANEOUS METAL FABRICATIONS

09 06 00 SCHEDULES FOR FINISHES

10 22 39 FOLDING PANEL PARTITIONS

14 21 23 ELECTRIC TRACTION PASSENGER ELEVATORS

22 00 00 PLUMBING, GENERAL PURPOSE

26 20 00 INTERIOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

31 63 29 DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS

CHANGES TO THE DRAWINGS

3. Revised Drawings: Replace the drawings listed below with the attached revised drawings of the same numbers, bearing the notation W9126G21R0051, AMENDMENT 0003.

L-101 S-002 S-301 S-306 S-505 S-506 A-307 A-401 A-403 A-404 A-202 A-404 A-408 I-130 I-601 P-601 E-001 E-110

LANDSCAPE PLAN

GENERAL NOTES - STRUCTURAL

SECTIONS - CONCRETE

SECTIONS - CATWALK

STANDARD DETAILS - GIRDER TRUSS

STANDARD DETAILS – STRUCTURAL STEEL

SECTION DETAILS

ENLARGED PLANS AND INTERIOR ELEVATIONS

INTERIOR ELEVATIONS

INTERIOR ELEVATIONS

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

INTERIOR ELEVATIONS

ELEVATORS AND STAIR DETAILS

LEVEL 2 (MEZZANINE) – COMPOSITE ACOUSTICS

FINISH LEGENDS & SCHEDULES

PLUMBING SCHEDULES

LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTES

COMPOSITE LOWER LEVEL LIGHTING PLAN

E-111 LOWER LEVEL LIGHTING PLAN – AREA 1

E-112 LOWER LEVEL LIGHTING PLAN – AREA 2

E-113 LOWER LEVEL LIGHTING PLAN – AREA 3

E-122 MEZZANINE LIGHTING PLAN – AREA 2

E-152 LOWER LEVEL POWER PLAN – AREA 2

E-501 E-503 E-605 T-112

XP002

XP502

ELECTRICAL DETAILS

ELECTRICAL DETAILS

ELECTRICAL PANEL SCHEDULES

LOWER LEVEL TELECOM PLAN – AREA 2

TANK STRUCTURAL NOTES

TANK DETAILS

End of Summary of Changes

CHANGES TO THE SPECIFICATIONS

1. Revised CLIN Schedule: Replace the CLIN schedule with the attached revised CLIN schedule, bearing the notation W9126G21R0051, AMENDMENT 0003.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 00 22 11

Item Unit Line Item No. Description Quantity Unit Price Amount

1 JOB $ ___ $

5,112 VLF $ ___ $

4,950 VLF $ ___ $

1 JOB $ ___ $

$TOTAL BASE OFFER

BASE OFFER: All work required by the plans and specifications.

DAYS

Section: 00 11 00 W9126G21R0051

Contract Duration in Calendar Days

After the Notice to Proceed is received.*

1 JOB

1 JOB

1 JOB

All work required to Construct New Aquatics Tank within the 5' demarcation line, exclusive of work listed separately.

Type I (24") Concrete Piles Piers for Aquatics Tank Building.

Type I (24") Concrete Piles Piers for Aquatics Tanks.

All work to Complete Site Improvements outside the 5' demarcation line, exclusive of work listed separately.

Costs associated with Electrical utility provider's Connection Fees.

Costs associated with Gas utility provider's Connection Fees.

Costs associated with Water utility provider's Connection Fees.

Costs associated with Sewer utility provider's Connection Fees. 1 JOB

58,000.00

65,000.00

195,000.00

640,000.00

*Note: Contract duration for all work shall NOT exceed the duration specified in Section 01 00 00.00 44 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. See Note No. 9.

(AM#0003)>

<(AM#0003)

W9126G21R0051, AMENDMENT 0003

Design-Bid-Build Request for Proposal

AQUATICS TANKS

JBSA, Lackland AFB, Texas

CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE

(AM#0002)> <(AM#0002)

(AM#0002)> <(AM#0002)

W9126G21R0051, AMENDMENT 0002

M2ECAJMC

Cross-Out

M2ECAJMC

Cross-Out

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION FAR 3.104

SECTION 00 22 11

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 VOLUME 1, TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION

FACTORS

4.0 FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.2 RELEVANCY DETERMINATION

4.3 CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.0 FACTOR 2 – SUMMARY SCHEDULE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.0 DEFINITIONS

7.1 DEFINITIONS

7.2 FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

7.3 FACTOR 2 – SUMMARY SCHEDULE

7.4 FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

8.0 VOLUME 2, FACTOR 4 - PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION

8.1 GENERAL

W9126G21R0051, AMENDMENT 0003

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

8.2 TAB A – PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

8.3 TAB B – FACTOR 4 – SECTION 00 11 00, CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE

8.4 TAB C – SF 1442 AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENTS

8.5 TAB D – BID GUARANTEE (BID BOND) REQUIRED

8.6 TAB E – JOINT VENTURE (JV) AGREEMENT AND/OR ARTICLES OF

ORGANIZATION FOR LLC, IF APPLICABLE

8.7 TAB F – SECTION 00 45 00, REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

8.8 TAB G – RESPONSIBILITY INFORMATION

9.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

SECTION 00 22 11 ATTACHMENTS

1 – PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

2 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

4 – PRE-AWARD QUESTIONNAIRE

W9126G21R0051, AMENDMENT 0003

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND BASIS OF

AWARD

1.0 OVERVIEW

The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria described herein, using the evaluation rating systems outlined for 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.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering non-price factors described herein and price as determined by the Source Selection Authority. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best value proposal. After the Government individually evaluates each proposal, the SSA will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value.

The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the SSA must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify award to that Offeror.

3.0 VOLUME 1-PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Submit the Technical proposal as one separate, searchable, unsecured PDF file titled:

“W9126G21R0051_Firmname_Vol 1_Technical.pdf”

*Enter your firm’s name for Firmname.

Location Factor Description Relative Importance

Vol. 1 Factor 1 Past Performance Most Important Factor

Vol. 1 Factor 2 Summary Schedule 2nd Most Important Factor. Less Important than Factor 1, more important than Factor 3

Vol. 1 Factor 3 Small Business Participation 3rd Most Important Factor. Less important than Factor 1 and Factor 2.

4.0 FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Offeror’s construction entities shall each demonstrate past performance through the submission of similar projects, using the Past Performance Assessment Worksheet – (Attachment 1). If the Offeror is a joint venture, 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. Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) and no more than five (5) projects completed or substantially completed within 6 years from the date of this solicitation that best represents their experience similar to the scope of work for this solicitation. At least three (3) projects submitted must be 100% completed. No more than one (1) project may be under construction and must be at least 50% complete. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and past performance cannot be provided as a JV, each partner shall submit past performance information, with no more than five (5) projects total. Limit Worksheets to two pages per project.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment 2) is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project the Offeror included in its proposal for Factor 1, Past Performance that does not have a final 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, Natasha Kennedy, via e-mail at: Natasha.P.Kennedy@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.

Do not request past performance questionnaires (PPQ) on projects that have final 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.

For USACE or other DoD projects which are underway but do not yet have an interim 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.

mailto:Natasha.P.Kennedy@usace.army.mil

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.

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.

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 rests with the Offeror.

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

(a) Prime Contractor Management of a Construction value of at least one project $65,000,000.00 or more.

(b) Prime shall have experience in the management of the construction of Olympic size swimming pools (50-Meter by 25-Meter course dimensions with a graded increase of approximately 4’-0 to a maximum depth 12'-0" or more

(c) Built indoors in a covered/enclosed, climate-controlled, chemically balanced, temperate, ventilated, observable at varying depths body of water to train the elite warriors.

The more elements listed above a contractor can demonstrate in a single project the more relevant that project will be evaluated.

Relevancy may be achieved through a combination of projects.

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.

4.2. RELEVANCY DETERMINATION:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the past performance is to the project under consideration. Past performance on the projects identified in the project forms will receive more consideration than past performance provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government will place greater value on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project past performance will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project past performance.

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.

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.

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.

Based on the relevancy of the projects submitted, 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 on this project.

4.3. CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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.

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.

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.

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.

5.0 FACTOR 2 – SCHEDULE SUMMARY

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Proposed Contract Duration and Phasing: The Offeror shall propose the overall contract duration in the CLIN Schedule, not to exceed the maximum contract duration specified in Section 01 00 00.00 44.

Summary Schedule: 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 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 his 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 features:

(a) Show the overall construction phase for each critical work breakdown structure, (i.e.

mobilization, demolition, etc.).

(b) show turnover phase along with the CQC punchlist, pre-final, and final inspection, and the submittal preparation activities.

(c) Show as-built submissions and close-out processes.

(d) Constraints: Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedule presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.).

Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

(e) Limit schedule to no more than four (4) pages (11x17).

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Contract Duration and Phasing: The proposed duration and phasing will become the contractually binding schedule. The Government will evaluate the contract duration, as proposed by the Offeror herein, not to exceed the maximum allowed duration listed in Section 01 00 00.00 44. This duration shall also include all bid option. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the Government may take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports the proposed duration, as well as use other information, such as but not limited to independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. A proposed contract duration shorter than the maximum allowed duration, or proposed phasing providing for early turnover of facility, will not be considered. The Government will consider an unreasonably condensed contract duration, which places additional cost or schedule risk on the Government or which may create a risk of contract or performance failure, as a significant weakness or a deficiency, depending upon the evaluators' judgment.

Summary Schedule: The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, coordination and restrictions which must be considered in the schedule (see Section 01 00 00.00 44), e.g., sequencing of work, long lead items, 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. The Government will evaluate for logic, reasonableness, how it facilitates meeting the proposed contract duration. The packaging plan should minimize risk to the Contractor and to the Government for tear-out and coordination.

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.

6.0 FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

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 minimum mandatory Total Small Business participation goal of 25% (through collective small business participation from any type of small business or sub-category small business). 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.

6.1. Submission Requirements:

Offerors must complete and submit the Small Business Participation Plan form (Attachment 3).

6.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

a. The extent to which Small Business firms are specifically identified in the proposal;

b. The extent of commitment to Small Business firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighed more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

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

d. Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirement of the clauses at FAR

52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (large businesses only); and

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

7.0 DEFINTIONS

7.1 DEFINITIONS

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

7.2 Rating System for FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS. Offerors will be evaluated based on a Relevancy Determination and a Confidence Rating.

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. Relevancy Determination Definitions:

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

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

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

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

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. Confidence Rating Definitions:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

7.3 Rating System for FACTOR 2 – SUMMARY SCHEDULE.

Outstanding. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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

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

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

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

7.4 Rating System for FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

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 meet 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.

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.

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.

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 SB 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 demonstrates a commitment to SB Participation goal.

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, FACTOR 4 - PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION

Submit the price proposal as one separate, searchable, unsecured PDF file titled:

“W9126G21R0051 Firmname_Vol 2_Price.pdf”

*Enter your firm’s name for Firmname.

Location Description Vol. 2 TAB A Proposal Cover Sheet Vol. 2 TAB B FACTOR 4 PRICE– Section 00 11 00, Contract Line Item Schedule

Vol. 2 TAB C SF 1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments

Vol. 2 TAB D Bid Guarantee (Bid Bond) Required.

Vol. 2 TAB E Joint Venture (JV) Agreement and/or Articles of Organization for LLC, if applicable.

Vol. 2 TAB F Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors or Clause 52.204-8 if Offeror has electronic certifications in SAM Vol. 2 TAB G Responsibility Information

<AM3> Vol. 2

TAB H

Factor 3-Subcontracting Plan (large business only) <AM3>

Offeror proposal will be reviewed to ensure documentation is provided, as required.

8.1 GENERAL

Size Restrictions and Page Limits. Use only 8 ½” x 11” pages in PDF format. There are no page limits set for the price proposal. However, limit your response to information required by this solicitation. Excess information will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation.

Format and Contents of the Price Proposal and List of Tabs. The Price Proposal shall be appropriately labeled as such and shall be organized as indicated in the above chart. Note: If the Offeror is not required to submit any information under a listed Tab in accordance with the instructions below, that tab can be omitted. However, do not renumber the subsequent tabs.

8.2 TAB A – Proposal Cover Sheet

The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1(2)(c)(i)-(v) and must be submitted by all Offerors. This provision, titled “Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition,” and the format for the proposal cover sheet is shown here:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number: W9126G21R0051

2. The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror (and electronic address if available):

3. Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation:

4. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

8.3 TAB B – FACTOR 4 – Section 00 11 00, Contract Line Item Schedule

a. Submission Requirements:

Submit the properly completed and executed Contract Line Items Schedule containing proposed line items and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, Instructions to Offerors.

Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government will request a price breakdown of the Contract Line items in a sealed envelope marked “Price Breakdown Information”, in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

b. Evaluation Criteria:

Price will not be rated, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of 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 item(s). Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

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

8.4 TAB C – SF 1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments

The SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award is to be completed by all Offerors and duly executed with an electronic or PDF scanned signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with FAR 4.102. All amendments must be acknowledged by all Offerors in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 or 1442, Amendment of Solicitation.

a. Submission Requirements:

Submit a fully executed Bid Guarantee in accordance with the Instructions in Section 00 21 00, FAR Provision 52.228- 1 Bid Guarantee.

Submit a scanned copy of the completed bid bond, Standard Form 24, electronically with the proposal. Original bid bond must be received by this office within five days of proposal due date.

b. Evaluation requirement

This item is not rated. The Government will review the Bid Bond for legal sufficiency. The Bid Bond must be legally sufficient. Failure to submit a bid bond may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

8.6 TAB E – Joint Venture (JV) Agreement and/or Articles of Organization for LLC, if applicable.

If the offeror is a joint venture, include a copy of the JV Agreement. If a JV Agreement has not yet been finalized/approved, indicate its status. JV Agreements must clearly indicate the percentages of the JV participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party, and a clear delineation of responsibilities and authorities between the JV parties. If the Offeror or any member of the JV is a Limited Liability Company (LLC), include a copy of the Articles of Organization. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

8.7 TAB F – Section 00 45 00, REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

Confirm that the Offeror’s annual representations and certifications have been electronically completed the in the “System for Award Management” (SAM) website in accordance with FAR 52.204-8. The Offerors are responsible for ensuring that these on-line representations and certifications are updated as necessary to reflect changes, but at least annually to ensure they are kept current, accurate, and complete.

Additionally, the Offeror must also complete and return the “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” included in the solicitation.

If Offeror is a Joint Venture, all participants must separately provide each.

8.8 TAB G – RESPONSIBILITY INFORMATION

a. Submission Requirements:

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

(1) 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.

(2) A certified statement listing; (1) each contract award within the preceding three month

8.5 TAB D – BID GUARANTEE (Bid Bond) Required

period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract award within the preceding three year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

(3) If the prospective contractor is a Joint Venture, each Joint Venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

(4) Fill in and submit Attachment 4 – Pre-Award Questionnaire.

b. Evaluation requirement:

The Contracting Officer shall use this information in making a 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.

<AM3> 8.9 TAB H – SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (LARGE BUSINESS ONLY)

8.9.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (NOTE: This Requirement only applies to the Offeror who are “Other Than Small Business”)

8.9.1.1 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).

8.9.1.2 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.

8.9.1.3 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.

8.9.1.4 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).

8.9.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.9.2.1 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.

8.9.2.2 Only the selected Offeror’s plan will be reviewed and must be approved prior to award of the contract. <AM3>

9.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The Source Selection Evaluation Board will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor, utilizing the evaluation and rating system described.

9.1. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

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. They will not compare proposals. After all proposals are rated, the Source Selection Authority will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified.

Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties.

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 technical factor. Past Performance ratings will be based on two separate ratings: relevancy and confidence. 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(To be completed for each project submitted)

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:

Prime Contractor Management of a Construction value of at least one project $65,000,000.00 or more.

Prime shall have experience in the management of the construction of Olympic size swimming pools (50-Meter by 25-Meter course dimensions with a graded increase of approximately 4’-0 to a maximum depth 12'-0" or more

Built indoors in a covered/enclosed, climate-controlled, chemically balanced, temperate, ventilated, observable at varying depths body of water to train the elite warriors.

ADDITIONAL FEATURES OF COMPLEXITY:

Provide any additional narrative to support relevancy assessment (in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the scope of the RFP).

ATTACHMENT 2

USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE

ATTACHMENT 2

Continued

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

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

VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

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

Also, there should have been NO

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

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

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

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

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

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had…