am_4.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 f or CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER (CDC); Randolph AFB, Texas is amended as follows.

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

This is a Re-Solicitation of Phase 1, Proposal Receipt date is 7 April 2025, at 2:00 p.m. CT.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF 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.

W9126G24R0126

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Apr-2024

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

7-Mar-2025

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:

W9126G24R0126

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION 24R0126 – Attached files will bear the notation: ”W9126G24R0126-0004”

DIVISION 00 PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

FOLLOWING ARE REPLACEMENT SECTIONS – THESE WERE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED WITH

PHASE 1 AND ARE REVISED

REPLACEMENT SECTIONS

00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS

00 22 00 SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

00 22 16 SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

00 72 00 GENERAL CONDITIONS

00 73 00 SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS

End of Summary of Changes

The Issued By organization has changed from

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH

SHIP TO ADDRESS - PER TASK ORDER

819 TAYLOR ST, ROOM 2A17

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

to

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORT WORTH

819 TAYLOR ST, CT OFC RM 2A17

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

RE-SOLICITATION, PHASE 1 NOTE

ONLY READVERTISING TO REMOVE THE PLA REQUIREMENTS AND ASSOCIATED CLAUSES,

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED

At your discretion, USACE is willing to accept your proposal as previously submitted if there is no change with acknowledgment of this amendment.

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

SECTION 00 21 00

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors

PART I – GENERAL INFORMATION

A. INQUIRIES

OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

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

Contract Specialist – Primary POC U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District ATTN: Jesus J. Floriano Federal Building 819 Taylor Street, Rm 2A17 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300

W9126G24R0126-0004 m2ecold9 Cross-Out

Phone: (817) 228-6845 Fax: (817) 886-6403 Email: Jesus.J.Floriano@usace.army.mil

Alternate POC - Contract Officer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District ATTN: Linda D. Eadie Federal Building 819 Taylor Street, Rm 2A17 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300 Phone: (817) 886-1085, Fax: (817) 886-6403 Email: Linda.D.Eadie@usace.army.mil

Bidder Inquiry Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via:

☒Bidder Inquiry in 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 adfdress, 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 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: W9126G24R0126 The Bidder Inquiry Key (Phase 1): GRKVW3-884H7P The Bidder Inquiry Key (Phase 2): YXD57S-97AY3R (Closed until Phase 2)

Last day to submit ProjNet questions is seven (7) calendar days prior to proposal due date in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary. If the system is not closed in a timely manner, an inquiry posted within seven calendar days of the receipt of proposals will still be regarded as untimely and will not be afforded a substantive response.

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.

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

W9126G24R0126-0004

Oral explanations or instructions are not binding. Any information given to an Offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.

As this is a competitive negotiation acquisition, there is no public bid opening, and no information will be given out as to the number of Offerors or the results of the competition until all awards are made.

B. DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS

1. Electronic copies of each volume shall be submitted through the Solicitation Module of the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) suite at https://piee.eb.mil/. Proposals submitted by mail or hand carried will not be evaluated.

Proposals sent through proprietary or third-party File Transfer Protocol (FTP) sites or DoD SAFE will not be retrieved. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to confirm receipt of proposals. All proposals received after the exact time specified for receipt shall be treated as late submissions and will not be considered except under facts and circumstances allowed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

There are 10 general steps a vendor must follow in order to use PIEE application modules. A complete list can be viewed at the following site:

https://piee.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/web/homepage/vendorGettingStartedHelp.xhtml#step5

For instructions on how to post an offer, please refer to the Posting Offer demo:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to obtain written confirmation of receipt of all electronic files of the full proposal by the Fort Worth District Contracting office. In the event that the Solicitation Module is down, the alternate method for proposal submission is via email to: Jesus.J.Floriano@usace.army.mil or the PCO, Linda.D.Eadie@usace.army.mil. The Offeror must obtain prior approval from the Contracting Officer: Linda.D.Eadie@usace.army.mil to use the alternate submission method. Offerors are responsible for ensuring electronic copies are virus-free and shall run an anti-virus scan before submission.

Electronic copies of each volume shall be compatible with the following software products: Adobe Acrobat Reader 11 and Microsoft Office Suite 2016. Narrative portions of the proposal shall be in Adobe Acrobat portable document file (pdf) searchable text format. The Offeror shall not embed sound or video (e.g., MPEG) files into the proposal files. Electronic files shall be clearly identified for each volume, section, and item.

2. DELIVERY of hard copies and/or CD-ROMs of offers, modifications thereto, or cancellations of offers will not be accepted.

3. FACSIMILE OFFERS. Facsimile offers, modifications thereto, or cancellations of offers will NOT be accepted. Only the PIEE submitted proposal will be accepted and evaluated by the Government.

C. NIST GUIDANCE: 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 award of this solicitation.

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

E. SITE VISIT (PHASE 2): Pursuant to Contract Clause "FAR 52.236-3, Site Investigation and Conditions Affecting the Work," prospective offerors will be permitted to inspect the site where services are to be performed and to satisfy themselves as to all general and local conditions that may affect the cost of performance of the Contract to the extent such information is reasonably obtainable. Offerors are urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed. Reference Section 00 21 30 for site visit details provided to selected Offerors in Phase 2.

PART II – PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. PROPOSAL FORMAT & GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

a. Submit only the electronic files specifically authorized and/or required elsewhere in this section. Do not submit excess information, to include audio-visual materials, electronic media, etc. All pages shall be numbered.

b. Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 12 or larger. An unusual font style, such as script or condensed print, shall not be used for any submission. All page margins shall be at least one (1) inch wide, but may include headers and footers of the solicitation, project title, and company. All narratives shall be in Adobe PDF format and shall be on 8 ½ x 11 size pages and a standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Schedule Diagram, Drawings and Organizational Chart shall be in Adobe PDF format and shall be on 11 x 17 size pages. Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented.

Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in each section for each applicable factor. Electronic files shall be Microsoft Windows compatible. Files shall be submitted in their native format (i.e., doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. If the electronic files are of a size at which they must be compressed (zipped), they shall be compressed into one zipped folder.

c. 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 PIEE. 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 PIEE Service Desk at 1-866-618-5988. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions received after the deadline will be considered late.

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

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

f. All offerors are required to bookmark their proposal in order to assist with the evaluation of proposals

g. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Title Digital Copies Maximum Pages

I PAST PERFORMANCE (Phase 1) 1 See below factors

II TECHNICAL (Phase 2) 1 See below factors

III OFFEROR’S CERTIFICATIONS

AND PRICE (Phase 2)

1 No page limit

NOTE: Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. 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.

h. Proposal Formats/sections

i) Cover Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, offeror name and date of the submittal for each Phase (Phase 1 & Phase 2).

ii) 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.

iii) All information intended to be evaluated as part of the Past Performance

Proposal must be submitted as part of the Past Performance Proposal volume. Do not cross-reference similar material in the Technical & Price Proposal, or vice versa. During Phase 1: Ensure no dollar amounts from the Technical & Price Proposal are to be included in the Past Performance Proposal. During Phase 2: Ensure no dollar amounts from the price proposal are included in the technical proposal.

iv) Offerors are advised to follow the PIEE instructions for uploading files.

Additional instructions/guidance can be found at https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf

v) Each offeror must submit Past Performance (Volume 1) during Phase 1 of the RFP. 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 PIEE suite at https://piee.eb.mil/.

Offerors selected to move into Phase 2 of the RFP will submit a Technical Proposal (Volume II) and Price Proposal (Volume III).

i. Joint Venture and LLC Proposal Requirements (Phase 2 only):

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

ii) A small business joint venture offeror must submit, with its offer, the representation required in Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications, and paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, in accordance with 52.204-8(d) for the following categories:

(A) Small business;

(B) Service-disabled veteran-owned small business;

(C) Women-owned small business (WOSB) under the WOSB Program;

(D) Economically disadvantaged women-owned small business under the WOSB Program; or

(E) Historically underutilized business zone small business

iii) When proposing as an LLC, the offeror must submit a copy of the operating agreement which clearly demonstrates the authority to bind the

LLC.

j. Bonds format (Phase 2 only)

i) Offerors shall submit bid bonds (Standard Form 24) in electronic format.

Electronic copies of bid bonds shall be included in Volume 3: Offerors Certifications and Price under Tab F. Hard copies of bid bonds with the raised seal are no longer required to be mailed in at this time and are not 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.

2. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format: The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer.

b. The following additional restrictions apply:

File Packaging: Files submitted to PIEE shall be named as follows:

W9126G24R0126_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I

W9126G24R0126_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

W9126G24R0126_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME III

c. Content Requirement.

I. Each offeror must submit a PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume I) for Phase 1 only. Offerors selected for Phase 2 will submit both a TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

(Volume II) and PRICE PROPOSAL (Volume III). All volumes must be submitted as separate volumes/files as outlined in paragraph 2b above. Do not cross-reference similar material in the Technical and Price Proposals, or vice versa.

II. The Past Performance (Phase 1) and Technical (Phase 2) and Price Proposals

(Phase 2) 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 Past Performance Proposal or Technical Proposal.

III. Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the Past Performance, Technical, or Price Proposals. 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.

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

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

PH 1 OF 2 SELECTION PROCEDURES

PH 1 OF 2 SELECTION PROCEDURES

SECTION 00 22 00

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

In Phase 1 of the 2 Phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) submit specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute this project. The Government will evaluate the qualifications in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select no more than five (5) of the Phase 1 Offerors to compete in Phase 2.

In Phase 2, the selected Phase 2 Offerors will submit proposals for evaluation in accordance with Section 00 22 16. In Phase 2, the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to the firm whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2.

The selected Phase 2 Offerors will be announced by special notice or synopsis to the sam.gov website. Offerors may be contacted separately to request their approval to post their names to sam.gov.

Submit the Phase 1 proposal in electronic format, as described in Section 00 21 00, PART II-Paragraph A.1. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits described herein. PHASE 1 DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

Vol. 1, TAB A PROPOSAL COVER SHEET N/A

TAB B

SIGNED STANDARD FORM 1442 &

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF

AMENDMENTS

N/A

TAB C

LETTERS OF COMMITMENT

N/A

FACTOR 1

TAB D

PAST PERFORMANCE

Phase 1 - N/A

<AMD04>Phase 2 – Factor 1, 2nd Most Important Factor, less important than Factor 2, and more important than Factors 3, Factor 4, Factor 5, and Factor 6<AMD04>

TAB A – The proposal cover sheet (Attachment 1) 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:

1. Solicitation Number;

2. The name, mailing address, telephone and e-mail address;

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, telephone and email address 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.

VOLUME I: PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 1)

Offerors should ensure UEI number and CAGE Code are all included for both the Contractor and Designer. UEI number will be used to access CPARS data. Offerors should also provide any other assigned number that identifies them in the CPARS database. If a separate UEI has been created for a Joint Venture (JV) UEI must also be submitted. Also provide any other UEI that identify individual member firms in the JV.

TAB B - Standard Form 1442 and acknowledgement of all amendments (Block 19), 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.

TAB C – LETTERS OF COMMITMENT - Provide letters of commitment signed by both parties for all firms included on the organizational chart. Information provided on firms without signed letters of commitment will not be considered in the evaluation of this factor.

TAB D – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE refers to the quality of relevant and recent project experience. This tab shall contain past performance information regarding same/similar projects that demonstrate the experience of the offeror and/or proposed team. The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence The Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. In this factor, the Government will consider recent and relevant project performance, team organization, and team experience to determine the confidence rating.

1. Offerors shall submit no more than five (5) Government and/or commercial projects for Design and no more than five (5) Government and/or commercial projects for Construction which are recent and relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation as defined below.

Use the attached Design – Past Performance Worksheet (Attachment

2) to submit design experience. Use the attached Construction Past Performance Worksheet (Attachment 3) to submit construction experience. Limit each worksheet to no more than three (3) pages.

Relevant: Demonstrate the experience of the offeror and/or proposed team on projects same/similar in SIZE, SCOPE, and COMPLEXITY to that described in the solicitation. Offerors shall identify and describe the relevancies for each of the projects submitted compared to the scope of this project. The Government will evaluate the information provided in making the relevancy determination. Same/similar experience is defined as construction of a <AMD02> design build <AMD02> childcare pre-school center similar commercial or military type. Projects which contain similar features of work such as Child Care Centers, <AMD02> Design/Build, and/or <AMD02> Anti-Terrorism and Force Protective compliance with UFC 4-010.01 <AMD02> may be considered more relevant<AMD02>.

Recent: All projects submitted for construction experience must have been completed within six

(6) years from the date of the solicitation, except one project may be submitted that is currently under construction and at least 50% completed.

1) All projects submitted for design experience must have completed designs, with the designs completed within six (6) years from the date of the solicitation. For Design Build (DB) projects submitted for design experience, either the DB contract must have been completed within six (6) years from the date of the solicitation, or the design must have been completed within six (6) years of the date of the solicitation.

2) If the Offeror is a joint venture, limited liability corporation, or integrated design-build firm, provide past performance information for design and construction projects relevant to each of the proposed roles on this project. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked for or Government, private or commercial customers. If projects were design-build, identify them as such. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and past performance cannot be provided as a JV, each partner shall submit past performance information. Combined number of projects submitted shall be no more than the number allowed in TAB D, paragraph 1.

3) Provide an organizational chart of the proposed design-build team. Describe the team members, their resources, how their resources will be utilized, and their roles and responsibilities. Identify team members by firm, not by individual. Limit to no more than five

(5) pages.

4) Describe teaming experience of the proposed design-build team (by firm, not by individual) for projects not submitted on the past performance worksheet. Explain how the experience is relevant to this solicitation and how the Government will benefit. Limit to no more than two

(2) pages.

5) Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 4) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes 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 Past Performance Questionnaires 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 the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Jesus Floriano via email at Jesus.J.Floriano@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

a. Do not request PPQs on projects that have an interim or final CPARS evaluation. If an interim or final CPARS evaluation exists and a PPQ is provided for the same project, CPARS evaluation will be reviewed as the official past performance record for the project, and the PPQ will not be considered by the Source Selection Board or the Source Selection Authority.

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

6) 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. Offerors are not to include CPARS evaluations in their proposal. The Government will pull CPARS information for the Source Selection Board’s use.

a. Offerors may submit performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) years, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

b. 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 projects awarded subsequent to the performance issues, the effectiveness of the corrective actions, and POC information for the subsequent projects.

7) In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/UEI numbers 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 Awardee 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.

FACTOR 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. Relevancy Determination

i) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the past performance is to the project under consideration. 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.

ii) Projects completed outside the defined time period for recency will not be considered relevant to this solicitation.

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

iv) Projects 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.

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

<AMD02> vi) Based on the relevancy of the projects submitted for design and for construction, an overall relevancy determination will be assessed as an interim step prior to establishing a confidence rating. <AMD02>

B. Confidence Determination

i) The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include CPARS and other past performance information deemed relevant, to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. If the Government cannot establish the Offeror’s relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire to conduct telephone interviews on any source it deems relevant to the evaluation. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. <AMD03>The Government will not release personal information gathered to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments.<AMD03> The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

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

iii) 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 “Neutral Confidence” will be assigned.

iv) 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.

v) 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.

PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

A. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

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

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

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

iv) The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select no more than five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors to short-list for Phase 2.

B. Evaluation and Rating System

i) A single confidence rating shall be assigned to Past Performance.

ii) 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.

iii) The confidence rating assesses the risks associated with each Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent projects. SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP. Offerors that have no recent/relevant performance record or its performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will be given a neutral confidence rating.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

Solicitation Number

Firm

Address

Phone

Fax

Email

UEI Number

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the CPARS database. If a separate UEI has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted. Provide a UEI number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor- subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor- subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide UEI for each.

Firm 1 ____________________________________ Nature of Association UEI Firm 2 ____________________________________ Nature of Association UEI Firm 3 ____________________________________ Nature of Association UEI

Authorized Negotiators IAW FAR 52.215-11 - The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

Name:____________________________

Title: _____________________________

Email:_____________________________

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(Limit each worksheet to no more than 3 pages)

DESIGN PROJECT #

Design Firm:

Project and Location:

Was this design performed by the division or unit of the company submitting as the design firm for this solicitation?

Owner:

Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference: Telephone:

Estimated Construction Cost: Actual Construction Cost (if known):

Date of Award: Original Design Completion

Date:

Revised Design Completion Date:

For DB Projects only – Provide DB Contract Completion Date:

Explain Time Growth, if any:

General Scope of Construction:

Offeror’s Role in Design (Self-Performed Work): Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out:

Identify and describe the relevancies for this project compared to the scope of the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the information provided in making the relevancy determination.

Did any members of the proposed Design/Build team (firms, not individuals) have a role in this project?

Identify the team members (by firm), their role in this project, and their proposed role in this solicitation.

ATTACHMENT 3

CONSTRUCTION PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(Limit each worksheet to no more than 3 pages)

CONSTRUCTION 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:

Identify and describe the relevancies for this project compared to the scope of the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the information provided in making the relevancy determination.

Did any members of the proposed Design/Build team (firms, not individuals) have a role in this project?

Identify the team members (by firm), their role in this project, and their proposed role in this solicitation.

ATTACHMENT 4

USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: UEI Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

Joint

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

4. Project Description:

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

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE

Continued

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number: Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS

DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED

QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY

ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER,

QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE

OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO

VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

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

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

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

effective or were not fully implemented.

(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

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

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

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: