Amendment 05.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 Air Traffic Control Tower Kelly Field; Lackland Air Force Base, Texas is amended as follows.

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is 17 February 2022 at to 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.

W9126G22R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Dec-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour 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

31 -Jan-2022

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:

W9126G22R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION W9126G22R0002

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Section 00 22 11 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIAN, AND BASIS OF AWARD ONE STEP -BEST VALUE, DESIGN-BUILD (SINGLE AWARD) each page bearing the notation W9126G22R0002-0005.

CHANGES TO THE SPECIFICATIONS

1. Replacement Sections - Replace the following sections with the accompanying new sections of the same numberand title, bearing the notation W9126G22R0002-0005.

02 41 00 DEMOLITION

05 50 13 MISCELLANEOUS METAL FABRICATIONS

08 91 00 METAL WALL LOUVERS

CHANGES TO THE DRAWINGS

2. Replacement Drawings.- Replace the drawings listed below with the attached new drawings(s) of the same number, bearing the notation W9126G22R0002-0005.

E-502 ELECTRICAL DETAILS

E-600 ELECTRICAL ONE LINE DIAGRAM

ES-102 COMMUNICATIONS SITE 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

GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS & REQUIREMENTS

W9126G22R0002

Air Traffic Control Tower Kelly Field Annex Joint Base San Antonio - Lackland AFB, Bexar County, Texas

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits construction of Air Traffic Control Tower Kelly Field Annex.

Work location is Joint Base San Antonio - Lackland AFB, Bexar County, Texas. Antiterrorism/Force protection measures and sustainment mandates will be incorporated. The resultant contract will be Firm Fixed-Price

(FFP).

1.2 The instructions and requirements contained herein establish uniform evaluation procedures for the technical evaluation of proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-2). Proposals should be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract.

1.3 Each offeror must submit both a Price Proposal (volume 1) and Technical Proposal (volume 2), in addition to Past Performance Questionnaires. The Price Proposal and Technical Proposal must be submitted as separate volumes/files as outlined in paragraph 3.5 below. All information intended to be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal must be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal. Do not cross-reference similar material in the Price Proposal, or vice versa.

The Price and the Technical Proposals in addition to the Past Performance Questionnaires must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals. No dollar amounts from the Price Proposal are to be included in the Technical Proposal.

Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal. Should the offer include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may be determined “unacceptable” and thus ineligible for award. Should the offeror have any questions related to specific terms and conditions, these should be resolved prior to the submission of the offer.

The technical data criteria specified for each factor identified herein, shall be submitted as part of the proposal.

The offeror is responsible for including sufficient details in its proposal to permit a complete and accurate evaluation. Accordingly, the offeror shall be clear and concise in its proposal. The Government will not make assumptions concerning the offeror’s intent.

Failure to submit all the data required by the RFP and its attachments, may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and therefore may not be considered for award.

1.4 All questions and/or comments are to be submitted via ProjNet at http://www.projnet.org/projnet. To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system. To self-register go to web page, click BID tab select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter Key for this solicitation listed below, and your e-mail address, click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that information on next screen is correct and click continue. From this page you may view

W9126G22R0002-0003 W9126G22R0002-0004 W9126G22R0002-0005 http://www.projnet.org/projnet all bidder inquiries or add inquiry. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

The Solicitation Number is: W9126G22R0002 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: NHZ7TV-3QVE9C

Last day to submit ProjNet questions is seven (7) calendar days prior to bid closure date in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry. The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S.

Central Standard Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.

In accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions, the Government reserves the right to make award without discussions. Therefore, offerors should submit their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interests of the Government.

In accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1) and FAR Clause 52.215-1(f)(4), Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.1 Contractor Team Arrangements. The Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor teaming arrangements, provided the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. As further described in paragraph 2.3 below, the Government will only evaluate the information submitted by the legal entity with whom the Government would enter into a contract. This is the legal entity represented in Tab E, as registered in System for Award Management (SAM) and identified by its specifically assigned CAGE Code.

2.2 If applicable, a 8(a) Joint Venture or SBA/DoD approved Mentor-Protégé must submit all required documentation with their offer to be considered responsive, in accordance with (IAW) the requirements set forth in Title 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 125.8.

2.3 The Government will only evaluate the information submitted by the legal entity with whom the Government would enter a contract. This is the legal entity represented in Tab E, as registered in System for Award Management (SAM) and identified by its specifically assigned CAGE Code. However, IAW CFR 125.8(e), the Government will also evaluate experience and past performance submitted by the individual firms that make up a joint venture.

2.4 Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, information submitted about any company other than the offeror, whether an affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractor, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor. Successor entities shall clearly demonstrate in Volume I, Tab A of their proposal the official legal means performed to transform the former Predecessor Company to its current Successor, legal business entity. Examples of substantive documentation may include but is not limited to Articles of Incorporation, Joint Venture Agreements, Novation Agreements, and Merger Documentation.

W9126G22R0002-0003 W9126G22R0002-0004

"Successor" means an entity that has replaced a predecessor by acquiring the assets and carrying out the affairs of the predecessor under a new name (often through acquisition or merger).

Note: The term ''successor'' does not include new offices/ divisions of the same company or a company that only changes its name.

2.5 Offerors shall submit their proposal in accordance with the Section 3. General Proposal Format, paragraph 3.5.

2.6 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

2.7 Basis for Award: Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of technically acceptable proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors, after appropriate consideration is given to the two (2) evaluation factors: (1) Price, (2) Past Performance. The Source Selection Board shall review all proposals for acceptability and provide the Contracting Officer with a written technical analysis of each Offeror’s proposal. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. Tradeoffs are NOT permitted. The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT.

3.1 Cover Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, offeror name and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. If more than one Adobe PDF file is used for a volume, the complete table of contents shall be included in each. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.3 All information intended to be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal must be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal. Do not cross-reference similar material in the Price Proposal, or vice versa. No dollar amounts from the Price Proposal are to be included in the Technical proposal.

3.4 Offerors are advised to follow the DoD SAFE Offeror’s Certifications and Price instructions for uploading files. DoD SAFE has posted official file size limitations of 8.0 GB per file, or 8.0 GB total for the entire drop-off.

Additional instructions/guidance can be found at https://safe.apps.mil/about.php.

3.5 Each offeror must submit both a <AM5> Offeror’s Certifications and Price Price Proposal (Volume1) </AM5> and a Technical Proposal (Volume 2). Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the delivery time & date recorded within DoD SAFE. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files may take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process and troubleshooting. Proposal submission difficulties should be coordinated with the DoD SAFE Service Desk at 1-844-347-2457. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions received after the deadline will be considered late and as such will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, ALL proposals shall be submitted electronically via the DoD SAFE website at https://safe.apps.mil/ In order for an outside user (the offeror) to submit a proposal for the solicitation, they must receive a drop-off request from an inside user (the government). When the inside user generates a drop-off request for you, you will receive an email with a link to submit your drop-off. Optionally, the Government may provide you with a request code. In that case, click the Drop-off button on the SAFE home page and enter the Request code.

W9126G22R0002-0003 W9126G22R0002-0004 https://safe.apps.mil/

To request and receive a drop-off for this solicitation, the offeror must email the following at least two (2) business days before the proposal due date. It is the offeror’s responsibility to make the request within the appropriate timeframe. Include the solicitation number, in your Email Subject Line.

Contracting Officer: Nicholas I. Johnston, Nicholas.l.johnston@usace.army.mil Contract Specialist: Alfredo Avila, alfredo.avila@usace.army.mil

Offers received by email, modifications thereto, or cancellations of offers will or will not be accepted. Only the DoD SAFE submitted proposal will be accepted and evaluated by the Government.

No hard paper copies will be accepted or evaluated. Both the Price Proposal and the Technical Proposal must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals. In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format and shall be on 8 ½ x 11 size pages in no less than a 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W9126G22R0002_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I

W9126G22R0002_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

Offerors shall submit bid bonds (Standard Form 24) in electronic format. Electronic copies of bid bonds shall be included in Volume 1: Offerors Certifications and Price under Tab <AM5> H I </AM5>. Hard copies of bid bonds with the raised seal are no longer required to be mailed in at this time and do not need to be sent to the contracting office. Verification of Bid Bonds with sureties will be completed during the evaluation process and before award. Bid bond submissions shall be due by the proposal due date and time. Offerors are responsible for the accurate submission of the Bid Bonds with all signatures and seals applied.

The date and time of delivery will be established by the time of receipt by the email server (time stamped by the system), not by the date and time the offeror sent the proposal into their email account. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous – in fact, it can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal. If an electronic submission is sent minutes before the deadline but notification is not actually received in the recipients’ email inboxes until after the deadline, the submission will be considered late. The Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient of proposals. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

3.6 The offeror is responsible for including sufficient details in its proposal to permit a complete and accurate evaluation. Accordingly, the offeror shall be clear and concise in its proposal. The Government will not make assumptions concerning the offeror’s intent.

3.7 The technical data criteria specified for each factor identified herein and as described in these instructions shall be submitted as part of the proposal. Failure to submit all the data required by the RFP, and these instructions may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for award.

3.8 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

3.8.1 VOLUME I: OFFEROR’S CERTIFICATIONS AND PRICE (FACTOR 1)

One (1) electronic copy Adobe PDF file as tabbed per the table below shall be submitted.

W9126G22R0002-0003

TAB CONTENTS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

A The Proposal Cover Sheet B Standard Form 1442 & Acknowledgement of Amendments (If

Applicable)

C FACTOR 1: PRICE

D Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications E Teaming Arrangement (If Applicable) F Bid Guarantee (Bid Bond) G Financial Information and Bonding Capability H Supplier Performance Risk Score

TAB A – The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1 (c)(2) and must be submitted by all offerors.

The format for the proposal cover sheet is as follows:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

Offerors should ensure, DUNS number and CAGE Code are all included. DUNS number will be used to access Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) data. Offerors should also provide any other assigned number that identifies them in the PPIRS database. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must be submitted. The offeror should also submit their Tax ID number on the Proposal Cover Sheet.

TAB B - Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

If applicable - All amendments must be acknowledged by all offerors and duly executed with an original

1. The solicitation number.

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

3. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

4. 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; and

5. 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.

W9126G22R0002-0003 signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with FAR 4.102.

TAB C – Factor 1 - Price. Proposed price schedule is to be completed in its entirety by all offerors to include the Subtotals and Totals section as found in Section 00 11 00 - Solicitation, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule.

TAB D - Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications.

TAB E - Teaming Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 2.1 and 2.2 Note to 8(a)—SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture.

Offerors shall include any narratives as it pertains to the requirement at 2.2 to document any teaming arrangement the offeror has or will enter into.

TAB F - Offerors shall provide a fully executed Bid Bond as required by FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee electronically in Tab F. This requirement is to be completed regardless of Bid Bond requirement submission located in other parts of these instructions.

For the purposes of this Request for Proposal, please note that IAW FAR 28.001:

“Bond means a written instrument executed by a bidder or contractor (the “principal”), and a second party (the “surety” or “sureties”) (except as provided in FAR 28.204), to assure fulfillment of the principal’s obligations to a third party (the “obligee” or “Government”), identified in the bond. If the principal’s obligations are not met, the bond assures payment, to the extent stipulated, of any loss sustained by the obligee.”

Bonds shall therefore be executed in the name of the legal entity, whether a joint venture, partnership or the Prime Contractor of an informal teaming arrangement, with whom the government would enter into a contract for a successful offeror. The entity named on the bond must be able to acquire bonding capacity on its own merits, and not as the result of indemnification from a subcontractor or third party.

TAB G - Financial Information & Bonding Capability (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings and/or number, etc.) Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount.

<AM4>TAB H - Supplier Performance Risk Score- Provide a screen shot of your score showing that you have complied with DFARS 252.204-2019 and 252.204-2020. Please NOTE this solicitation requires offerors to enter a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) score in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) prior to responding to this solicitation. The NIST score is a responsiveness item. Bids/offers from contractors with a NIST score in SPRS will be considered responsive and evaluated/considered for award.

Those without a NIST score in SPRS will be deemed NON-RESPONSIVE and thus not evaluated/considered for award.</AM4>

3.8.2 VOLUME II: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (Volume 2)

One (1) electronic copy Adobe PDF file as tabbed per the table below shall be submitted.

TAB CONTENTS OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

A Volume 2: Past Performance

Page Limitations: The following page limitations are established for the Volume described above:

W9126G22R0002-0003

Tab A Volume 2: Past Performance – Individual Past Performance Assessment Worksheets will not exceed one (1) page per project. Individual project Past Performance Questionnaires shall only have additional information required to make assessment on past performance; Government evaluators will review and evaluate only the information contained within these limits.

Project Limitation: The following project limitations are established for the factor described above:

Tab A Volume 2: Past Performance – Limited to no more than five (5) projects

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

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

Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

4. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS & EVALUATION FACTORS

VOLUME II: TAB A — VOLUME 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 SUBMISSION/MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:

4.1.1 Past performance refers to the quality of recent and relevant project experience from the owner’s perspective. The offeror shall complete and provide a Past Performance Assessment worksheet (Attachment

2) on no more than five (5) projects. Projects submitted under this factor must first be deemed recent and relevant. For any project without a CPARS the offeror will need to complete the Past Performance questionnaire. (Attachment 1)

<AM3>

4.1.1.1 Relevant: The minimum requirement for each project to be considered of similar size, scope, or complexity is to have a meet either criteria both criterial “a” or and criteria “b” below:

a. The project must be of a dollar value equal to or greater than $10,000,000.00 or and

b. It must be for the construction of a DoD or Commercial Air Traffic Control Tower be for a DoD construction project.

</AM3)

4.1.1.2 Recent: Projects of similar size, scope, and complexity that must have been completed (fully designed and constructed) within the past 6 years from the date of the solicitation, except one project may be submitted that is currently under construction and at least 50% completed.

4.1.2 Individual project Past Performance Questionnaires shall only include information relevant to the past performance evaluation. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. The Government may call and confirm information provided by the offeror on the Past Performance Questionnaire with the points of contact, to the extent necessary to conduct a meaningful evaluation. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available.

4.1.3 The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the offeror for information with respect to past performance. These other sources may include but are not limited to: Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other Government sources, and interviews with organizations or individuals familiar

W9126G22R0002-0003 with the offeror’s performance.

4.1.4 Offerors shall utilize the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire in Attachment 1.

4.1.5 If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity, or the individual firms that make up the Joint Venture. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects. Experience of proposed subcontractors to be utilized on this project will not be considered.

4.1.6 That Government is not limited in evaluation of past performance to only the projects submitted by the offeror but may review/evaluate other recent and relevant projects also.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

4.2.1 The Government will consider past performance of the prime construction contractor. If a firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate the past performance of the unit or division submitting the offer. Where the Government views an offeror’s role, or that of its team members, if any, as not significant or as not clearly defined, the Government reserves the right to view this lack of involvement, or clarity, as a risk which may impact an offeror’s rating for this factor despite the quality of recent, relevant past performance information.

4.2.2 Past performance shall be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant to the effort to be acquired.

See paragraph 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2

4.2.3 The Government will evaluate ONLY recent and relevant past performance based on the elements listed below to assign an overall past performance rating of acceptable/unacceptable. Offerors without a record of recent and relevant past performance will be rated “acceptable.”See note under “DEFINITIONS OF KEY EVALUATION TERMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACQUISITION” below.

4.2.4 Second, the past performance evaluation shall determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts. The contractor shall have no “unsatisfactory” in criteria 1-6, and no “marginal” ratings in criteria 1-3 (below) in the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS): quality, schedule, management, utilization of small business, regulatory compliance, and safety.

(1) Quality of Construction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the quality of the actual construction undertaken and the offeror’s ability to maintain quality control and accuracy of quality control documentation.

(2) Schedule. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the completion of projects within the scheduled completion times.

(3) Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the offeror’s ability to manage resources and key personnel.

(4) Utilization of Small Business. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the offeror’s ability to meet small business subcontracting plan goals.

(5) Regulatory Compliance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect the offeror’s ability to enforce laws and regulations, correct deficiencies when non-compliant, and communicate laws and regulations to subcontractors.

(6) Safety. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the contractor’s safety program or efforts.

4.2.5 Past Performance submitted by an offeror using the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) should be rated at a minimum “Satisfactory” for all sections cover in section1-7 of the PPQ.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment 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, Alfredo Avila, via e-mail at:

alfredo.avila@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.

4.2.6 Failure to demonstrate the minimum acceptability standards under this factor will result in an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating and possible elimination from further consideration for contract award.

------------------------------------------------- (end of instruction) --------------------------------------mailto:alfredo.avila@usace.army.mil

DEFINITIONS OF KEY EVALUATION TERMS

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACQUISITION

CLASSIFICATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES:

Technical representatives shall review all proposals and provide the Source Selection Authority with a written technical analysis of each Offeror’s proposal. The proposals will be evaluated for each factor in accordance with the following definitions.

The Source Selection Authority, in conjunction with the Source Selection Team (SST), will review these analyses for correctness and completeness. Upon conclusion of this review, proposals and factors will be rated by the Source Selection Authority using the adjectival descriptions shown in paragraph 2 below.

Board members will classify any failure to meet a Government requirement as an unacceptable. The determination that a failure is immaterial (e.g., its effect on price, quantity, quality, or delivery is negligible when contrasted with the total cost or scope of the supplies or services being acquired) is reserved solely for the Source Selection Authority. Additionally, the Source Selection Authority may waive minor informalities or irregularities in proposals. Generally, these are merely a matter of form and not of substance.

Upon assessment of past performance information, the appropriate overall rating for past performance will be assigned using these acceptable and unacceptable (pass/fail) ratings as defined below:

Color Rating Description Green Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

To be considered technically acceptable, no technical factor in the proposal may be determined to be unacceptable. The failure of a proposal to meet any of the acceptability standards for non-cost factors will result in a technically unacceptable rating and preclude award.

2. CONSENSUS

The primary purpose of the consensus process is to reconcile opinions by focusing on the reasons for the

Red Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

W9126G22R0002-0003 disparities. The Board’s rating for each factor must be reached by consensus, not by “averaging” or by vote. Each proposal will be analyzed by the Board in terms of the appropriate adjectival rating, the rationale supporting that rating, and questions that still need to be resolved.. The supporting rationale for the resulting consensus rating will be thoroughly documented on the worksheets provided, as these will serve as the foundation of the technical report and the best value, lowest price technically acceptable decision by the Source Selection Authority.

3. EXCHANGES WITH OFFERORS

There are three types of exchanges that may occur between the Government and Offerors: clarifications, communications, and discussions. They differ on when they occur, their purpose and scopes, and whether Offerors are allowed to revise their proposal as a result of these exchanges. The following chart provides a side-by-side comparison of the three types of exchanges:

ADAPTED FROM FAR 15.306 EXCHANGES WITH OFFERORS AFTER RECEIPT OF ROPOSALS

Clarifications Communications Negotiations/Discussions

When They Occur

When award

WITHOUT

discussions is contemplated

When award WITH discussions is contemplated—prior to establishing the competitive range

After establishing the competitive range Note: The term “negotiations” applies to both competitive and non-competitive acquisitions. In a competitive acquisition, negotiations are also called discussions.

Scope of the Exchanges

Most limited of the three types of exchanges

Limited; similar to fact finding

Most detailed and extensive

Purpose To clarify certain aspects of Proposals

To enhance the Government’s understanding of the proposal by addressing issues that must be explored to determine whether a proposal should be placed in the

To allow the offeror an opportunity to revise its proposal so that the Government obtains the best value, based on the requirement and applicable evaluation factors.

competitive range

Examples of Topics of Exchanges

*Relevance of an offeror’s past performance

*Adverse past information

*Resolution of minor or clerical errors

*Ambiguities or other concerns (e.g., perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes)

*Relevance of an offeror’s past

*Adverse past information

See examples of potential discussion topics at Figure 7-3.

Are Resultant Proposal Revisions Allowed?

No No Yes

SSP ATTACHMENT #1

Performance Assessment Questionnaire – Cover Letter

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, FORT WORTH DISTRICT

P.O. BOX 17300

FORT WORTH, TX 76102-0300

SUBJECT: Offeror Past Performance Assessment in Support of Request for Proposal

(RFP) W9126G22R0002

Dear Sir/Ma’am, The US Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District is currently conducting a competitive source selection to evaluate offerors on the subject RFP. As part of this evaluation, we have requested that the offerors provide information about their past performance on same or similar federal, state, or local government or commercial contracts as compared to the North American Industry Classification System [NAICS] 236220. You have been identified as the point of contact cited on the enclosure.

Your assessment of their performance is extremely valuable to our evaluation.

Please complete the enclosure and return to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Federal Building, 819 Taylor Street, Rm 2A17, Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300, no later than 15 days after receipt of request or (insert date), whichever occurs first. Submit your completed questionnaire to Alfredo Avila at alfredo.avila@usace.army.mil

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Questions may be directed to the undersigned at Nicholas.I.Johnston@usace.army.mil or (817) 886-1006.

Sincerely, Nicholas I. Johnston Contracting Officer

W9126G22R0002-0003 W9126G22R0002-0004 mailto:Nicholas.I.Johnston@usace.army.mil

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

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name : Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

W9126G22R0002-0003

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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

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

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

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

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

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

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

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

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

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO

BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE

TO BE COMPLETED BY

CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST

REFLECTS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S

PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E

VG

S

M

U

N

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

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

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

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

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

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

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

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

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

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

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

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

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

Yes

No

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

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

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

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

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

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

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

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

PART III. RETURN INFORMATION

Please return this completed Questionnaire to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter.

Thank you for your assistance.

ATTACHMENT 2

Past Performance Assessment Worksheet

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(To be completed for each project submitted)

CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT #

Offeror:

Project and Location:

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

Owner:

Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference: Telephone:

Awarded Construction Cost: Final Construction Cost:

Explain Cost Growth, if any:

Date of Award: Original Completion Date: Revised Completion Date: Percent Complete:

Explain Time Growth, if any:

General 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

RELEVANCY:

Complex construction projects of similar size, scope and complexity on three (3) recent projects equal to or greater than $10,000,000.00 in value.

<AM4>DoD or Commercial Air Traffic Control Tower DOD Construction</AM4>

Provide…