am_2_30NOV21.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

This Solicitation is for the Construction of Fort Hood Central Chilled Water Plant.

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is 08 December 2021; at 1:00 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.

W9126G22R0043

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Nov-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

30-Nov-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:

W9126G22R0043

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION W9126G22R0043

CHANGES TO THE SPECIFICATIONS

1. Replacement Sections - Replace the sections noted below with the attached sections of the same number, W9126G22R0043, AMENDMENT 0002.

00 11 00 CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE

00 22 11 SELECTION PROCEDURES

03 45 00 PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE

2. Deleted Section - Delete in its entirety the section noted below.

03 47 13 TILT-UP CONCRETE

CHANGES TO THE DRAWINGS

1. Replacement Drawing Sheets - Replace the sheets noted below with the attached sheets of the same number, W9126G22R0043, AMENDMENT 0002.

CD-100 OVERALL CHILLED WATER LAYOUT PLAN

CD-102 DEMOLITION PLAN 2

CD-103 DEMOLITION PLAN 3

CD-104 DEMOLITION PLAN 4

CD-105 DEMOLITION PLAN 5

CU-102 UTILITY PLAN (BASE BID)

CU-102A UTILITY PLAN (BASE BID & OPTION 1)

CU-103 UTILITY PLAN 3 (BASE BID & OPTION 6)

CU-104 UTILITY PLAN 4 (BASE BID & OPTION 6)

CU-104A UTILITY PLAN 4 (BASE BID & OPTION 1 AND 6)

ES101 EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL PLAN 1

PP101 OVERALL DOMESTIC WATER PLAN

End of Summary of Changes

Section: 00 11 00 W9126G22R0043

Item Unit Line Item No. Description Quantity Unit Price Amount

0001 1 JOB $ ___ $

0002 1 JOB $ ___ $

0003 1 JOB $ ___ $

All work for the Central Energy Plant, within the 5 foot line, including two Cooling Towers and cooling tower above-ground steel pipes and two Chiller pad foundations.

All work for Chilled Water Distribution System, inlcuding Hydro-mulch to twenty-four (24) buildings.

All work for the Energy Monitoring and Control System Connection.

Site work outside the 5' line, including Cooling Tower yard gravel, hardstand driveway gravel, removal of eighteen

(18) Chillers at existing buildings, and associated demolition (sidewalk, curb & gutter).

All work for the Caisson Piers.

1 JOB $ ___ $

Fort Hood, Texas

CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE

Install a Central Energy Plant

FY 20, PN 080874

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

$TOTAL BASE OFFER

0005 350 LF $ ___ $

W9126G22R0043, AMENDMENT 0002

Section: 00 11 00 W9126G22R0043

Item Unit Line Item No. Description Quantity Unit Price Amount

0006 1 JOB $ ___ $

0007 1 JOB $ ___ $

0008 1 JOB $ ___ $

Option 1: All work for Chilled Water Distribution System, including sod to six

(6) existing buildings (16010, 12002, 12005, 12007, 12010 & 12018).

Option 2: Additional cost for concrete site work for Cooling Tower yard in lieu of gravel.

Option 3: Additional cost for concrete site work for Hardstand Driveway in lieu of gravel.

Option 4: All work for one additional (AM#02)> Chiller pad Cooling Tower <(AM#02) foundation.

Option 5: Architectural Concrete Tilt Wall for Building Exterior with Liner Panel Brick Pattern including Metal Canopies at Personnel Doors and (AM#02)> removal addition <(AM#02) of transoms from Personnel Doors frames.

Option 6: Removal of six (6) Chillers at existing buildings (14019, 14020, 14022, 14023, 12008 & 12009)

1 JOB $ ___ $

Install a Central Energy Plant

FY 20, PN 080874

Fort Hood, Texas

CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE

CONTINUED

OPTIONS:

$TOTAL OPTION OFFER

DAYS

Contract Duration in Calendar Days After the Notice to Proceed is received.*

*Note: Contract duration for all work shall NOT exceed the duration specified in Section 01 00 00.00 44 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. See Note No. 8.

0010 1 JOB $ ___ $

0011 1 JOB $ ___ $

$TOTAL OFFER (BASE + OPTION )

W9126G22R0043, AMENDMENT 0002

M2ECAJMC

Cross-Out

M2ECAJMC

Cross-Out

CONTRACT LINE ITEM NOTES

NOTES:

NOTE NO. 1. To better facilitate the receipt and proposal process, all modifications to proposals are to be submitted on copies of the latest Contract Line Item (CLIN) schedules as published in the solicitation or the latest amendment thereto. In lieu of indicating additions/deductions to line items, all Offerors should state their revised prices for each item.

NOTE NO. 2. Offerors must insert a price on all numbered items of the CLIN Schedule. Failure to do so may result in the offer being unacceptable

NOTE NO. 3. CONDITIONS GOVERNING EVALUATION OF OFFERS AND AWARD OF CONTRACTS:

The Government may require the delivery of the numbered line items, identified in the schedule as option items, in the quantity and at the price stated in the schedule. Subject to the availability of funds, the Contracting Officer may exercise the option by written notice to the Contractor within the time indicated below from the Notice to Proceed.

NOTE NO. 4. All the extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the Government. In case of variation between the unit price and the extension, the unit price will be considered to be the offer.

NOTE NO. 5. Responders are advised that this requirement may be delayed, cancelled or revised at any time during the solicitation, selection, evaluation, negotiation and/or final award process based on decisions related to DOD changes in force structure and disposition of the Armed Forces.

NOTE NO. 6. Any proposal that is materially unbalanced as to prices for the Base Schedule may be rejected. An unbalanced proposal is one that is based on prices significantly less than the cost for some work and prices that are significantly overstated for other work and can also exist where only overpricing or underpricing exists.

NOTE NO. 7. The Government will not pay profit on bonds/insurance.

NOTE NO. 8. The Offeror shall propose a total integrated contract duration in number of calendar days after the Notice to Proceed (NTP) is received by the Contractor. The total number of proposed calendar days for construction through completion, ready for turnover shall not exceed the number of calendar days specified in Section 01 00 00.00 44 Design and Construction Schedule. The proposed duration shall become the required contract duration. The Government may issue the NTP via e-mail or Facsimile (FAX) or by other means. Day number 1 is the day after the date of receipt of the NTP. See also Sections 00 73 00 Special Contract Requirements, and 01 00 00.00 44 Construction Schedule.

NOTE NO. 9. OPTION ACCEPTANCE PERIOD

Refer to Section 00 72 00, Clause 52.217-7 for the option acceptance period.

NOTE NO. 10. ABBREVIATIONS

For the purpose of this solicitation, the units of measure are represented as follows:

a. JOB

b. LF (LINEAR FEET)

END OF CLIN SCHEDULE

Section: 00 11 00

Install a Central Energy Plant

FY 20, PN 080874

Fort Hood, Texas

W9126G22R0043

SECTION 00 22 11

SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND WEIGHTING, VOLUME 1, TECHNICAL

3.1. GENERAL

3.2. PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

4.0 TAB A– FACTOR 1–PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.2. RELEVANCY DETERMINATION

4.3. CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 2 – SUMMARY SCHEDULE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION, VOLUME 2, PRICE

6.1. TABLE 2 – Volume 2 – PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION

6.2. GENERAL

7.0 TAB 1 – PROPOSAL COVER/DATA SHEET

6.3.7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTSTAB A – FACTOR 3 – PRICE

6.4.7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIATAB B – BID GUARANTEE

6.5. TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

7.08.0 TAB 2 – SIGNED OFFER AND AMENDMENTS EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1.8.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTSGENERAL

7.2.8.2. EVALUATION CRITERIADISCUSSIONS (IF NECESSARY)

8.09.0 TAB 3 – PRICING SCHEDULEEVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

8.1.9.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTSGENERAL

8.2.9.2. EVALUATION CRITERIAREVIEW WRITE-UP

8.3. RATING SYSTEM

8.4. GENERAL DEFINITIONS

8.5. PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

8.6. RELEVANCY DETERMINATION DEFINITIONS

8.7. CONFIDENCE RATING DEFINITIONS

10.0 TAB 4 - REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

10.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

10.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

11.0 TAB 6 – BID GUARANTEE

11.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

11.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

12.0 TAB 7 – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

12.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

12.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

13.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

14.0 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

15.0 TECHNICAL FACTOR DEFINITIONS

16.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

17.0 RELEVENCY DETERMINATION DEFINITIONS

18.0 CONFIDENCE RATING DEFINITIONS

9.019.0ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1- PROPOSAL COVER/DATA SHEETS <(AM0002)

ATTACHMENT 2- CONSTRUCTION PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

ATTACHMENT 3- CONSTRUCTION PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTACHMENT 4- FAR PROVISION 52.209-5, CERTIFICATION REGARDING

RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (APR 2020)

(AM0002)>

1.0 OVERVIEW

This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for the design-bid build to Install a Central Energy Plant, Fort Hood, Texas. The work shall be in accordance with the Request for Proposal documents. The proposed project will be a Total Small Business set-aside using the “Tradeoff Process”.

This 100% total small business set-aside (FAR 19.502-2) award will be a Design-Bid Build, Firm-Fixed Price contract at Fort Hood, Texas. This will be awarded competitively through tradeoff process.

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

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

The Contracting Officer (KO) will award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the SSA determines the best overall value to the Government. Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. This process may result in an award being made to a firm with a higher-priced offer where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria/factors and the SSA determines that the superior past performance, and/or summary schedule of the higher-priced offer outweighs the cost difference.

The SSA, using sound business judgment, bases the award decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria in the factors described below. While the entire evaluation team strives for maximum objectivity, the selection process is subjective by nature and professional judgment is implicit throughout the best value process.

Ultimately, the contract shall be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal, based upon the evaluation criteria, represents the best value to the Government.

Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility.

To determine which proposal(s) represent the best value, the Government will conduct a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP.

As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination. All evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price.

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

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

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND WEIGHTING, VOLUME 1, TECHNICAL

3.1. GENERAL

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

3.2. PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

VOLUME 1 – Technical

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

TAB A Factor 1 PAST PERFORMANCE Most important Factor

TAB B Factor 2 SUMMARY SCHEDULE Least important Factor

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

4.0 TAB A – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

4.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate past performance through the submission of same or similar projects, using the Construction – Past Performance Assessment Worksheet (Attachment 2). If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, Partnership, Teaming Arrangement, or Parent company/subsidiary/affiliate as identified in the offeror’s proposal, provide past performance information for construction projects relevant to each of the proposed roles on this project. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Offerors shall submit at least three (3) and no more than five (5) projects (one Past Performance Assessment Worksheet per project) completed or substantially completed within 6 years from the date of this solicitation that best represent their experience similar to the scope of work for this solicitation. One (1) of the projects submitted for construction past performance may be a current construction project with at least 50% construction progress completed. If offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV), Partnership and/or Teaming Arrangement and past performance cannot be provided as such, each partner shall submit past performance information, with no more than three (3) projects each.

4.1.2 The Past Per formance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment 3) is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project the Offeror included 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 PPQs 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). Note, to be completed, a PPQ must be signed by the client. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If any negative past performance information is received to which the Offeror has not an opportunity to respond, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Elmer Howard, via e-mail at elmer.howard@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

4.1.3 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.

(AM0002)> 4.1.4 Do not request PPQ on projects that have interim or final CPARS evaluations. Do not submit CPARS.

<(AM0002) If an interim or final CPARS evaluation exists and a PPQ is provided for the same project, the CPARS evaluation will be reviewed as the official past performance record for the project, and the PPQ will not be considered by the SSEB or the SSA.

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

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

4.1.7 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.

4.1.8 In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluation of past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including 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, inquiries 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.

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

(a) Construction of a Central Energy Plant project that includes distribution piping and connections to multiple supported facilities.

(b) Construction value of at least $14,000,000

4.1.10 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:

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

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

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

4.2.4. Contracts that have little or no relevance typically do not influence the performance confidence rating;

however, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may have impact upon the past performance confidence rating.

4.2.5 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. Offerors submitting a single construction project that demonstrates past performance for both relevancy factors will be rated as very relevant. Offerors submitting a combination of construction projects that demonstrate past performance, to meet relevancy factor (a), will be rated as relevant. Offerors submitting a combination of construction projects to demonstrate past performance may not be combined to meet relevancy factor (b).

4.3. CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

The Government 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.

4.3.2 The following will be considered in determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance:

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

4.3.2. 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.

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

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

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 2 – Schedule Summary

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 Proposed Contract Duration: 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.

5.1.2 Summary Schedule: Submit a summary level schedule for construction, not to exceed ten (10) pages. The schedule should be provided on 11x17 sheets. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule. The summary 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) Provide a narrative, not to exceed two (2) pages, describing the overall construction sequence for the project. Also, describe the site communication requirements for working near on-going construction project, and coordination with the privatized utility providers.

(b) Shows construction activities for the work in sufficient detail to demonstrate an understanding of the scope of work and to substantiate the reasonableness and realism of the proposed duration.

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

(d) Show activities and milestones for construction of privatized utilities in sufficient detail to demonstrate your understanding of the scope of work and the coordination requirements with the privately owned utility providers. (See Section 01 35 10.00 44 Special Project Procedures for Fort Hood.)

(e) Show turnover of the project. The time to complete the project and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s Quality Control (CQC) completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

(b) Show closeout activities, to include the Red Zone meeting, record drawings, and O&M manuals to demonstrate your understanding of the closeout requirements of the contract. (See section 01 78 00 Closeout Submittals).

(c) 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 schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.).

(d) Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 Contract Duration: The proposed duration will become the contractually binding duration for the project at award. 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. 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 may receive additional rating consideration, provided the schedule is realistic and deemed to be achievable. 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.

5.2.2 Summary Schedule: The Government will evaluate the summary schedule for construction. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, coordination requirements with on-going construction contractor in proximity, privately owned utility providers (see Section 01 35 10.00 44), long lead items, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule, and closeout process. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with coordinating submittals, reviews and incorporating review comments, the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule.

6.0 PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION, VOLUMN 2, PRICE

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Vol. 2, TAB 1A

Factor 3 PRICE and Other Required Information

Not rated

All evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price

Vol. 2, TAB 2 Signed Offer and Amendments

Not rated.

Failure to include may result in Offeror being ineligible for award.

Vol. 2, TAB 3 Pricing

Not rated.

All evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price.

Vol. 2, TAB 4

Far provision 52.209‐5, Representations, Certifications, and other Statement

Not rated.

Failure to include may result in Offeror being ineligible for award.

Vol. 2, TAB 5 JV Agreement or Articles of Organization

Not rated.

Failure to include may result in Offeror being ineligible for award.

Vol. 2, TAB 6B BID GUARANTEE Not Rated Failure to include may result in Offeror being ineligible for award.

Vol. 2, TAB 7C

REQUIRED PRE‐AWARD

INFORMATION

Not Rated Failure to include may result in Offeror being ineligible for award. <(AM0002)

Table 2 - Volume 2 – PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION

6.1. Volume 2 – PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATIONGENERAL

Submit the other required information in a separate envelope labeled: “Volume 2 – Price and Other Required Information.”

6.1.1 TAB A – FACTOR 3 – PRICE

6.2. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2.1 Submit a signed SF1442 and all acknowledgements of amendments in block 19 of the SF1442 and a properly filled out Bid Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors”.

6.2.2 Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government will request a price breakdown of the task order 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 is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

(AM0002)>

<(AM0002)

6.3. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.3.1 Price will not be rated or scored but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for the 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 line items in the CLIN schedule. Both parties shall presume the field overhead costs through the proposed period of performance duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract proposal.

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

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

6.4. TAB B – BID GUARANTEE

6.4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.4.2 Submit the Bid Guarantee in accordance with the Instructions in Section 00 21 00, Provision 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee.

6.4.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

6.5. TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

6.5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility, which includes, the following:

(a) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

(b) A certified statement listing: (1) each contract award within the preceding three-month period exceeding $14,000,000.00 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 $16,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

6.5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.0

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.

VOLUME 2, TAB 1 – PROPOSAL COVER/DATA SHEET

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

(AM0002)>

The proposal cover/data 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 as shown in Attachment 1.

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

This item is not rated. The Government will review the Proposal Cover Sheet for accuracy. Failure to submit the Proposal Cover Sheet may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

8.0 Volume 2, TAB 2 – SIGNED OFFER AND AMENDMENTS

8.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.2.

9.0

Submit a signed SF1442 and all acknowledgements of Amendments in block 19 of the SF1442 and a properly filled out Bid Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors”.

Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government will request a price breakdown of the task order 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 is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Price will not be rated or scored but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for the 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 line items in the CLIN schedule. Both parties shall presume the field overhead costs through the proposed period of performance duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract proposal.

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

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

Volume 2, TAB 3 – PRICING SCHEDULE

9.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Section 00 11 00, Pricing Schedule is to be completed in its entirety by all Offerors. See Section 00 11 00 with attached notes, for further instructions.

9.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

(AM0002)>

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

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

10.0 Volume 2, TAB 4 – REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

10.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

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

10.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

Failure to submit the required Representations and Certifications may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

11.0 Volume 2, TAB 6 – BID GUARANTEE

11. 1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

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

11.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

12.0 Volume 2, TAB 7 – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

12.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility, which includes, the following:

(a) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

(b) A certified statement listing: (1) each contract award within the preceding three-month period exceeding $14,000,000.00 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 $16,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

12.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

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. <(AM0002)

7.0 13.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 13.1. GENERAL

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

7.2. 13.2. DISCUSSIONS (If necessary)

The Government intends to award with discussions (if necessary). A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that discussions with Offerors are required. In such an event, the SSA will approve a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with each Offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

8.0 14.0 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

8.1. 14.1. GENERAL

The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. 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.

8.2. 14.2. REVIEW WRITE-UP

The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

8.3. 14.3. RATING SYSTEM

After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign adjectival rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable”, except for Past Performance Factor.

Past Performance will have a Confidence Rating of “Substantial”, “Satisfactory”, “Neutral”, ‘Limited” or “No Confidence” and a Relevancy Rating of “Very Relevant”, “Relevant”, “Somewhat Relevant” or “Not Relevant”. Reference Paragraph 12 15.0 for Definitions of the adjectival ratings for the Technical factors, Paragraph 1316.0 for the Past Performance Ratings.

8.4. 15.0 GENERAL TECHNICAL FACTOR 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.

(AM0002)>

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.

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

Good. Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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

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

Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is un- awardable.

8.5.16.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

A single confidence rating shall be assigned to Past Performance.

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.

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

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

8.6 17.0 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.

8.7 18.0 CONFIDENCE RATING DEFINITIONS

Unknown Confidence (Neutral). No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

(AM0002)>

Substantial Confidence. Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence. Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence. Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence. Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

9.0 19.0 ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1- PROPOSAL COVER/DATA SHEETS

ATTACHMENT 2- CONSTRUCTION - PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

ATTACHMENT 3- PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTACHMENT 4- FAR PROVISION 52.209-5, CERTIFICATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY

MATTERS (AUG 2020)

(AM0002)>

ATTACHMENT 1

(AM0002)>PROPOSAL COVER/DATA SHEET<(AM0002)

Solicitation Number

Firm

Address

Phone

Fax

Email

Tax ID Number

DUNS Number

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the CPARs databases. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted. Provide a DUNS number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms.