W9127821R0041 PHASE ONE SPECS.PDF

PHASE ONE

THIS IS A TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS (SB) SET-ASIDE

SOLICITATION NO: W9127821R0041

CADD CODES: MBF20020, MBF20021

SPECIFICATIONS

FOR

TWO-PHASE DESIGN BUILD ZONE 9

MWR POOL (MBF20021)

AND

RECREATION FACILITIES (MBF20020)

TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA

(BAY COUNTY)

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, MOBILE

109 St. Joseph St Mobile, Alabama 36602

“BUILDING STRONG®”

Note: THERE ARE NO SPECIFICATIONS OR DRAWINGS IN THIS PHASE.

One solicitation will be issued covering both phases. Proposals will be evaluated in Phase One to determine which offerors will submit proposals for Phase Two, and an amendment will be issued to those selected offerors. Selection of offerors for involvement in Phase Two will be based on requirements stated in Section 00 11 00.

Detailed project design requirements will then be added by amendment to the solicitation at the start of the Phase Two stage of the Request For Proposals. A maximum of five (5) firms will be invited to participate in Phase Two.

TWO-PHASE DESIGN BUILD ZONE 9 MWR POOL AND RECREATION W9127821R0041

FACILITIES, TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA MBF20020, MBF20021

CHECKLIST FOR PREPARATION OF OFFERS (PHASE ONE)

Before sending your offer to us, review it for the following documents--without these, your offer could be rejected.

Any questions about this solicitation, including technical questions about plans and specifications, shall be submitted via the Bidder Inquiry Portal in ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org. Please refer to Section 01 00 01 paragraph “REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION”.

This checklist is designed for your convenience to assist you in completing your offer. Its completion does not guarantee that your offer will be acceptable. A complete and acceptable offer is solely the responsibility of the Contractor.

1. Your attention is directed to the following clause:

Section 00 45 00, FARS Clause 52.204-7, “System for Award Management (Oct 2018)”. LACK OF

REGISTRATION IN THE SAM DATABASE WILL RENDER OFFEROR INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD.

Information on how to register and the time it takes is detailed in the clause.

2. Standard Form 1442 Titled “SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD”

a. Is it signed in Block 20B? Yes (Y)___Not Applicable(NA) ___

b. Have you verified with the Project Office that you have received all Amendments? Have you acknowledged all Amendments using block 19? Y__ NA__

c. Is the complete, correct address of the company printed in Block 14? Y__ NA__

(ALSO INCLUDE YOUR TIN, DUNS, AND CAGE NUMBERS IN THIS BLOCK)

d. Are the correct phone numbers, and fax numbers including country codes, included in Block 15? Y__

NA__

e. If the mailing address of the company is different from the address in Block 14, is the mailing address written in Block 16? Y__ NA__

f. If you are a Partnership or Joint Venture, have all partners or joint ventures signed in Block 20; or has authority properly been delegated pursuant to the Joint Venture Agreement? Y__ NA__

g. . If you are a Joint Venture have you submitted your Joint Venture Agreement? Y__ NA__ h.. Is the time you are allowing for acceptance of the offer, the same or longer than the time set out in block 13?. Y__ NA__

3. Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of the Offeror

Are all of the clauses in this section completed and signed in the appropriate places and returned attached to the offer? Y__ NA__

4. Technical Documents that Pertain to Evaluation Factors, Award will be based on the specific factors set out in the Section 00 11 00, “PHASE ONE - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA.”

a. Have you responded to all the evaluation factors (if required by the solicitation)? Y__ NA__

b. Is a summary of the experience and special qualifications of your Administration staff included (if required by the solicitation)? Y__ NA__

c. Is a quality control plan included (if required by the solicitation)? Y__ NA__

d. Are time tables and schedules included (if required by the solicitation)? Y__ NA__

e. Is a current audit of your company’s financial status included or a certificate attached to a past audit stating the financial status has not changed since the time of the past audit (if required by the solicitation)? Y__

NA__

f. Is a list of the contracts you are currently working on attached (if required by the solicitation)? Y__

NA__

g. Have you included a list of the names and phone numbers of references for whom you have done past contracts (if required by the solicitation)? Y__ NA__

All your documents must be in English

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHECKLIST FOR PREPARATION OF OFFERS

BIDDING REQUIREMENTS

CONTRACT CLAUSES

STANDARD FORM 1442 - SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD

00 11 00 PHASE ONE – PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

00 12 00 PHASE TWO - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION

CRITERIA, SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD

00 21 16 INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

00 45 00 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

00 70 00 CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT

01 00 01 GENERAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

CESAM FORM 1151, PROMPT PAYMENT CERTIFICATION

SPECIFICATIONS

TO BE ADDED IN PHASE TWO

End of Project Table of Contents

This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing.

SOLICITATION, OFFER

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

W9127821R0041

2. TYPE OF

SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

3. DATE ISSUED

7 JUNE 2021

PAGES OF PAGES

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO. 5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO.

6. PROJECT NO.

MBF20020, MBF20021

7. ISSUED BY CODE CT 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, MOBILE

CONTRACTING DIVISION (CESAM-CT)

109 SAINT JOSEPH STREET

MOBILE, AL 36628-0001

SAME AS BLOCK 7

9. FOR INFORMATION

CALL : Amanda Milheiser Richard Bonnell Carl Wade

A. NAME

Amanda.M.Milheiser@usace.army.mil Richard.Bonnell@usace.army.mil Carl.M.Wade@usace.army.mil

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

(251) 694-3858

(251) 694-3607

(251) 690-2348

SOLICITATION

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS (Title, identifying no., date):

TWO-PHASE DESIGN BUILD ZONE 9 MWR POOL AND RECREATION FACILITIES, TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA

* See Section 01 00 00, Paragraph “COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION AND COMPLETION OF WORK”. (TO BE PROVIDED IN PHASE TWO) **Block 13A. : Refer to Section 00 11 00 for the number of copies to submit with the original offer.

11. The Contractor shall begin performance within _8____ calendar days and complete it within __*__ calendar days after receiving award, notice to proceed.

This performance period is mandatory, negotiable. (See _ __ .)

12A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

YES NO

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and ___**___ copies to perform the work required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by _1400_ (hour) local time 8 JULY 2021 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time. Sealed envelopes containing offers shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee is, is not required for the Phase Two proposal submission.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) work requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than __120__ calendar days for Government acceptance after the date Phase Two offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101

STANDARD FORM 1442(REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA FAR(48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR (Include ZIP Code) 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS (Include only if different than Item 14)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the work required at the prices specified below in strict accordance with the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in writing within _________ calendar days after the date offers are due. (Insert any number equal to or greater than the minimum requirement

AMOUNTS

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation - give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OFFER

(Type or print)

20B. SIGNATURE 20C. OFFER DATE

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT

23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

ITEM

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) ( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c) ( )

26. ADMINISTERED BY CODE 27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT (contractor is required to sign this document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees to furnish and deliver all items or perform all work, requisitions identified on this form and any continuation sheets for the consideration stated in this contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be governed by (a) this contract award,

(b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certifications, and specifications incorporated by reference in or attached to this contract.

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.) Your offer on this solicitation is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award consummates the contract, which consists of (a) the Government solicitation and your offer, and (b) this contract award. No further contractual document is necessary.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED

TO SIGN (Type or print)

31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30B. SIGNATURE

30C. DATE 31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY

31C. AWARD

DATE

STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK (REV. 4-85)

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 1

SECTION 00 11 00

PHASE ONE - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

1.1 This is a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 15 and 36, small business, two-phase, design-build source selection. This solicitation requires the Design/Build Construction of Zone 9 Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Pool and Recreation Facilities at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. A competing prime construction contractor, hereinafter referred to as the “Offeror”, shall submit a proposal that includes the required submission information for Phase One as indicated below that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to perform the work described in this solicitation. By submission of a proposal, the Offeror accedes to all the terms of this RFP.

1.2 The period of performance is as indicated in this solicitation. The approximate construction cost range for this contract is $25,000,000- $100,000,000. It is the intent of the Government to award a single Firm Fixed-Price contract.

1.3 In Phase One, price is not a submission requirement. Proposals will be evaluated in Phase One to determine which Offerors will submit proposals for Phase Two. In Phase One, an Offeror must submit information regarding past performance information of the prime contractor, past performance information of the lead design firm, and a narrative discussing an overall management approach. Based on the results of Phase One, the Government intends to select a maximum of five (5) of the most highly rated Offerors to participate in the Phase Two competition. However, the Government reserves the right to reject any and/all offers.

1.4 In Phase Two, Offerors will compete to determine which Offeror will be awarded the Firm Fixed-Price contract. For Phase Two, Offerors must submit information for a technical design and construction approach and key personnel. Offerors will also be required to provide pricing for the project.

The Government reserves the right to reject any and/all offers in Phase Two.

2.0 WHO MAY SUBMIT.

2.1 In Phase One, any responsible, interested, self-certified small business construction contractors may submit a proposal. For Phase-Two, only the Offerors that are selected in Phase-One to participate in Phase-Two will be allowed to submit a proposal.

2.2 Any design firm that participated in preparation of this solicitation, whether as a Government contractor or as a subcontractor to a Government contractor, is not eligible to participate in this solicitation as a prime contractor or subcontractor due to a conflict of interest. The Government considers such firms to have an unfair competitive advantage, and therefore will not consider such firms.

3.0 PHASE ONE - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

3.1 Submit the electronic proposal package to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers via DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil/) as indicated on the Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442) in this solicitation. Emailed submissions of proposals are not permitted and will not be accepted under any circumstances. DoD SAFE provides a time stamped notification to the Government when a file is

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 2

uploaded. The Government must receive your proposal no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of SF 1442. The DoD SAFE system notification must show the proposal “Drop-Off” or submission was prior to the specified time. DoD SAFE requires a unique “Request for Drop-Off” code in order to upload proposal files. Offerors must contact the Point of Contact listed on the SF1442 to obtain a unique “Request for Drop-Off” code. Any and all amendments to the solicitation shall be acknowledged by signing on each amendment (SF30) and by completing Block 19 of the SF 1442. Offerors shall confirm proposal receipt by emailing the Point of Contact listed on the

SF1442.

3.2 Submit your proposal as follows:

Submit one (1) electronic copy of the entire proposal (“Volume I and II”) in Portable Document File (PDF) format. Label the pdf “Volumes I and II”.

Submit one (1) electronic copy of Volume II in Portable Document File (PDF) format. Label the pdf “Volume II”.

Hard copies of Volumes I and II are not required to be submitted and will not be accepted or evaluated. However, when formatting the PDF files the page size should be 8-1/2” x 11” for all pages except schedules and organizational charts, as applicable, which should be 11” x 17” (counts as one sheet toward page limitation).

3.3 To effectively and equitably evaluate proposals, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) must receive information, in the order described below, that clearly describes an Offeror's capabilities to successfully execute design and construction in support of this project. It is therefore an Offeror’s responsibility to submit proposal information that is fully responsive to the submission requirements of this section. Offerors are responsible for organizing material sequentially by factor to facilitate evaluation. Materials that are not properly organized may easily be overlooked during evaluations, possibly affecting an Offeror’s rating. Offers should be concise, addressing only the information outlined in this section.

3.4 Volume I, Administrative Requirements. The information submitted under this Volume is not rated but checked for compliance.

(a) Submit a Standard Form (SF) 1442, completed and signed by an authorized representative of the Offeror. Also include a completed and signed Proposal Data Sheet (See Attachment 1).

(b) Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV) shall obtain a DUNS number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a JV. Include a fully executed Joint Venture Agreement.

(c) Submit an Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Disclosure:

The Offeror shall provide a disclosure statement with its proposal that concisely describes all the relevant facts concerning any past or present OCIs relating to this solicitation. If applicable, in the same statement, the Offeror shall provide information to assure the government that the conflicts of interest have been mitigated and/or neutralized to the maximum extent possible. If a conflict of interest is discovered after award of this contract, the Contracting Officer will make a decision on whether or not to terminate the contract. If no conflicts of interest exist, the Offeror shall provide a statement stating no Conflicts of Interest exist.

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 3

(d) All other documentation as identified in the Contract Clauses specifications sections within this solicitation.

4.0 PHASE ONE – EVALUATION CRITERIA.

4.1 There are two volumes required for Phase One. Volume I includes certain administrative requirements that are not rated. Volume II has three rated non-priced evaluation factors. Factor ratings assigned in Phase One for Factors 1 and 2 will roll over to Phase Two. Offerors are not required to resubmit Phase One information for Phase Two.

PHASE ONE - EVALUATION FACTORS AND ORDER OF RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

Volume Factor - Description Relative Importance

Volume I Administrative Requirements Not Rated

Volume II Factor 1 – Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor

1st in relative importance;

more important than Factor 2

Volume II Factor 2 – Past Performance Information of the Lead Design Firm

2nd in relative importance;

less important than Factor 1

Volume II Factor 3 – Overall Management Approach

3rd in relative importance;

less important than Factor 2

4.2 Volume II - Factor 1 – Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor. The Past Performance of the Prime Contractor (Offeror) consists of (a) Relevant Company Effort and (b) Quality of Past Performance. The Government will review recent, relevant company efforts and quality information provided by the owners of those efforts to assess the Offeror’s past experience and probability of successfully performing the work described in this solicitation. For this factor, a recent, relevant project is a construction project:

(a) Performed under a contract or task order, as those terms are defined in FAR 2.101, for the Federal Government, or similar contractual agreements for State or Local Governments, or the commercial or private sector. (Multiple projects under a single contract or task order are considered one project. However, do not combine multiple projects under separate contracts or task orders to create a single project.);

(b) That is “recent”; one that has been completed within eight (8) years of the solicitation issue date, or one where the construction is at least 50% complete (measured by performance period days) as of the solicitation issue date. (Offerors are responsible for providing start and completion dates for each completed project, or the start and scheduled completion dates for projects currently under construction.);

(c) That is “relevant”; one that is similar in scope (type, size, complexity and dollar value) to the project types described in this solicitation. In terms of dollar value, a relevant project is one ranging from $25M to $100M; however, projects outside of this dollar range may be considered when similar in scope and complexity. For a project to be assessed any degree of “relevancy” it must reflect performance of requirements as described by this solicitation.

This project is for the design and construction of a MWR Pool and Recreation Facilities that will consist of four (4) ballfields comprising three (3)

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 4

softball fields and one (1) multipurpose field. The project scope also includes design and construction of a pool complex with splash pad and other supporting utilities. The project scope also includes fencing to comply with applicable UFC. Each pavilion facility includes split masonry construction with standing seam metal roof. Construction shall avoid existing Buildings 1360 and 1361 in the same area. Safe access to Buildings 1360 and 1361 shall be maintained through construction. The project includes all utilities, site improvements, and other supporting work to make complete and usable facilities.

4.2.1 (a) Relevant Company Effort: The Offeror shall provide no more than five (5) examples of recent, relevant construction projects that demonstrate the company’s ability to perform work similar in scope and magnitude to that required by this solicitation. For each project, the Offeror shall furnish the information specified below. Attachment 2, at the end of this section, may be used to present the information. The construction effort shown does not have to be a task order under an IDIQ contract, but where it is, clearly indicate so. If more than five (5) projects are submitted for evaluation, only the first five (5) projects presented will be evaluated. Offerors who submit less than (5) projects to demonstrate the company’s ability to perform may be rated lower. The Relevant Company Effort portion of Factor 1 shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

(1) Company Name

(2) Name of Project

(3) Location of Project

(4) Project Owner

(5) General Scope of Project

(6) Your Role and Construction Type Work Your Company Self-Performed on site other than Construction Management Services

(7) Construction Cost of the single project

(8) Extent and Type of Work Subcontracted Out

(9) Construction Period - Start and Completion/Scheduled Completion Dates (Provide Month/Year)

(10) Termination or Liquidated Damages Information; Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

(b) Quality of Past Performance. Does not count against Factor 1 page limitation.

(1) The Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of their past performance for each project. For Federal Government projects, the Offeror shall provide a completed contractor performance evaluation, whether interim or final, found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (www.cpars.gov/). If a proper evaluation does not exist in CPARS, because it has not been completed or the project is a non-Federal Government project, the Offeror shall provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).

(See Attachment 3). If, at time of evaluation, a final contractor performance evaluation exists in CPARS, and yet the Offeror submits a PPQ, only the evaluation in CPARS will be considered.

(2) Past performance surveys/assessment/evaluation forms other than CPARS or PPQs are unacceptable and will not be considered or evaluated.

(3) Completed PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection. However, Offerors shall

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 5

not incorporate such PPQs by reference. The Offeror must resubmit PPQs for each submitted project within their proposal as evidence of quality of past performance. This does not, however, preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the Past Performance evaluation.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing current, detailed and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

(4) If the CPARS or PPQs for each submitted project within the proposal indicate that the Offeror was required to take corrective action for any substandard performance or experienced other performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc., the Offeror should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken within their proposal.

(5) If an Offeror’s client/customer will only provide completed PPQs directly to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Offerors must ensure the client/customer submits the PPQ by the proposal due date to the Points of Contact indicated on the SF1442. The solicitation number shall be included on the PPQ form. PPQs received after the proposal due date will be considered untimely and will not be considered during the evaluation.

4.2.2 Joint Venture Submission Requirements.

4.2.2.1 Like other Offerors, a JV Offeror shall provide no more than five (5) examples of recent, relevant projects performed by the JV that reflect the JV’s ability to perform the work required in this solicitation.

4.2.2.2 If the JV Offeror does not have five (5) projects performed as a JV, the Offeror may supplement those projects with recent, relevant projects performed by either member of the JV in their individual capacity. JV Offerors are not required to submit projects of both partners but more consideration may be given for projects that were performed as a JV.

Regardless, the total number of projects submitted by the JV shall be no more than five (5).

4.2.3 All Business Entities: To satisfy Paragraph 4.2.1 subparagraphs (a) and (b), only information pertaining to the corporate entity listed on the SF 1442 will be considered in the evaluation. Information related to a parent company, affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries, other related entities, subcontractors, or the individual experience of key personnel will not be considered.

4.2.4 Verification: The Government reserves the right to verify the information on projects submitted for evaluation, and to review CPARS, or other Government project appraisal systems, for information on other projects performed by the Offeror whether submitted as part of a proposal or not. The Government also reserves the right to contact project clients/customer, or other references. For any adverse performance information found for which the Offeror has not had an opportunity to address, the Offeror will be afforded an opportunity to explain.

4.3 Volume II - Factor 2 – Past Performance Information of the Lead Design Firm. The Past Performance of the Lead Design Firm consists of (a) Relevant Company Effort and (b) Quality of Past Performance. The Government will review recent, relevant company efforts and quality information provided by the owners of those efforts to assess the Lead Design Firm’s past experience

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 6

and probability of successfully performing the work described in this solicitation. For this factor, a recent, relevant project is a design project:

(a) Performed under a contract or task order, as those terms are defined in FAR 2.101, for Federal Government, or similar contractual agreements for State or Local Governments, or the commercial or private sector. (Multiple projects under a single contract or task order are considered one project. However, do not combine multiple projects under separate contracts or task orders to create a single project.);

(b) That is “recent”; one that has been completed within eight (8) years of the issue date. (Lead Design Firm’s are responsible for providing start and completion dates for each completed project);

(c) That is “relevant”; one that is similar in scope (type, size, complexity and dollar value) to the project types described in this solicitation. In terms of dollar value, a relevant project is one ranging from $25M to $100M; however, projects outside of this dollar range may be considered when similar in scope and complexity. For a project to be assessed any degree of “relevancy” it must reflect performance of design and construction requirements as described by this solicitation. The description of the project is as stated in paragraph 4.2 above.

4.3.1 (a) Relevant Company Effort of Lead Design Firm: The Lead Design Firm shall provide no more than five (5) examples of recent, relevant design projects performed as the Lead Design Firm that demonstrate the company’s ability to perform work similar in scope and magnitude to that required by this solicitation. For each project, the Lead Design Firm shall furnish the information specified below. Attachment 4, at the end of this section, may be used to present the information. The design-build construction effort shown does not have to be a task order under an IDIQ contract, but where it is, clearly indicate so. If more than five (5) projects are submitted for evaluation, only the first five (5) projects presented will be evaluated.

Lead Design Firms who submit less than (5) projects to demonstrate the company’s ability to perform may be rated lower. The Relevant Company Effort portion of Factor 2 shall not exceed ten (10) pages

(1) Lead Design Firm Name

(2) Name of Project (Type of Project)

(3) Location of Project

(4) Project Owner

(5) General Scope of Project

(6) Summary of Role in Design the Project

(7) Construction Cost of the single project

(8) Extent and Type of Work Subcontracted Out

(9) Design Period – Start and Completion Dates (Provide Month/Year)

(10) Construction Period - Start and Completion/Scheduled Completion Dates (Provide Month/Year)

(11) Performance Evaluation

(12) Owner POC and telephone number

(13) LEED Rating, if applicable

(b) Quality of Past Performance for the Lead Design Firm. Does not count against Factor 2 page limitation.

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 7

(1) The Lead Design Firm shall submit evidence of the quality of their past performance for each project. For Federal Government projects, the Lead Design Firm shall provide a completed contractor performance evaluation, whether interim or final, found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (www.cpars.gov/). If a proper evaluation does not exist in CPARS, because it has not been completed or the project is a non-Federal Government project, the Lead Design Firm shall provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (See Attachment 5). If, at time of evaluation, a final contractor performance evaluation exists in CPARS, and yet the Lead Design Firm submits a PPQ, only the evaluation in CPARS will be considered.

(2) Past performance surveys/assessment/evaluation forms other than CPARS or PPQs are unacceptable and will not be considered or evaluated.

(3) Completed PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection. However, Lead Design Firm shall not incorporate such PPQs by reference. The Lead Design Firm must resubmit PPQs for each submitted project within their proposal as evidence of quality of past performance. This does not, however, preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the Past Performance evaluation. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing current, detailed and complete past performance information rests with the Lead Design Firm.

(4) If the CPARS or PPQs for each submitted project within the proposal indicate that the Lead Design Firm was required to take corrective action for any substandard performance or experienced other performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc., the Lead Design Firm should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken within their proposal.

(5) If an Lead Design Firm’s client/customer will only provide completed PPQs directly to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Lead Design Firm must ensure the client/customer submits the PPQ by the proposal due date to the Points of Contact indicated on the SF1442. The solicitation number shall be included on the PPQ form. PPQs received after the proposal due date will be considered untimely and will not be considered during the evaluation.

4.3.2 Joint Venture Submission Requirements for the Lead Design Firm.

4.3.2.1 Like other Lead Design Firms, a JV Lead Design Firm shall provide no more than five (5) examples of recent, relevant projects performed by the JV that reflect the JV’s ability to perform the work required in this solicitation.

4.3.2.2 If the JV Lead Design Firm does not have five (5) projects performed as a JV, the Lead Design Firm may supplement those projects with recent, relevant projects performed by either member of the JV in their individual capacity. JV Lead Design Firms are not required to submit projects of both partners but more consideration may be given for projects that were performed as a JV. Regardless, the total number of projects submitted by the JV shall be no more than five (5).

4.3.3 All Business Entities for the Lead Design Firm: To satisfy Paragraph

4.3.1 subparagraphs (a) and (b), only information pertaining to the corporate

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 8

entity’s lead design firm as demonstrated on the Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 1) will be considered in the evaluation. Information related to a parent company, affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries, other related entities, subcontractors, or the individual experience of key personnel will not be considered.

4.3.4 Verification for the Lead Design Firm: The Government reserves the right to verify the information on projects submitted for evaluation, and to review CPARS, or other Government project appraisal systems, for information on other projects performed by the Lead Design Firm whether submitted as part of a proposal or not. The Government also reserves the right to contact project clients/customer, or other references. For any adverse performance information found for which the Lead Design Firm has not had an opportunity to address, the Lead Design Firm will be afforded an opportunity to explain.

4.4 Volume II - Factor 3 – Overall Management Approach.

4.4.1 In Factor 3, the Offeror must submit an overall management approach narrative to explain their company’s ability to execute the contract. The response to Factor 3 shall be limited to twenty (20) pages. Address each of the following items in the narrative:

(a) Describe the home office organizational structure, allocation of responsibilities, and show the lines of authority to support the execution of this design-build contract. At a minimum, discuss key management positions and departments, project team composition for both design and construction, to include subcontractors, etc. Include an organizational chart and ensure the information fully supports the narrative.

(b) List the type(s) of work the Offeror intends to self-perform other than construction management services.

(c) Describe the Offeror’s business method for selecting subcontractors and for managing subcontract acquisition, execution and administration, including the technical approach to correcting deficient work performed by subcontractors.

5.0 PHASE ONE - EVALUATION PROCESS.

5.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) composed of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers personnel, Using Activity representative, and, as necessary, technical advisors will conduct the evaluation. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors. The SSEB will evaluate proposals, using the factors and evaluation criteria described in this section.

5.2 The evaluation process for Phase One consists of two parts: Proposal Compliance Review, and Non-Price Factor Evaluation.

5.2.1 Proposal Compliance Review. This is an initial check by Contracting Division to ensure that all required forms are complete, and in compliance with all administrative and submission criteria.

5.2.2 Non-Price Factor Evaluation. In accordance with the solicitation, each member of the SSEB will conduct an independent review of the proposals. The review will be an in-depth, systematic evaluation of the proposal against the submission criteria and evaluation factors. After these reviews, the SSEB, by

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 9

consensus, will provide a rating for each evaluation factor supported by a justifying narrative. The Offeror’s ratings are confidential and will remain in the Contracting Officer’s files. Upon completion of the evaluations, the results will be provided to the Contracting Officer in the form of a Proposal Analysis Report with a recommendation of the offerors who are most qualified to proceed to Phase Two.

5.3 Evaluation of Factor 1 – Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor and Factor 2 – Past Performance Information of the Lead Design Firm. Factor 1 and Factor 2 will be rated individually, each with relevancy ratings and a confidence rating applied as described below.

(1) An Offeror’s “Relevant Company Effort” information will be evaluated to determine if the construction and design projects submitted are “recent”, and “relevant”. For this solicitation, the Government will give more consideration for: design-build construction projects similar to that described by this solicitation, projects on military installations; for dollar value similar to those anticipated under this solicitation; and projects where the Offeror performed as the prime contractor, as opposed to a subcontractor. Additionally, more consideration will be given to projects in which the Offeror and Lead Design Firm previously performed together.

Offerors demonstrating a project portfolio with more “relevant” projects may be given more consideration; and therefore, a higher confidence rating as identified below.

(2) The Government will then assess how well an Offeror and their Lead Design Firm performed on their projects. The Government will, as necessary, confirm quality of past performance data provided by the Offeror and, at its discretion, obtain additional past performance information, if available, from other sources. When the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective action taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

(3) Upon completion of its evaluation of each project, the SSEB, by consensus, will assign each project one of the following ratings:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Very Relevant - Present/Past effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude, effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant - Present/Past effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant - Present/Past effort involved some scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

No overall relevancy rating is assigned to an Offeror’s or Lead Design Firm’s portfolio of projects. Rather, after checking compliance and assigning each project a relevancy rating, the SSEB will then determine an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating takes into consideration the degree of relevancy of each project, and the quality ratings of those projects.

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 10

(4) If the Offeror or Lead Design Firm is submitting as a Joint Venture (JV), the SSEB will utilize the information submitted to conduct the relevancy and performance confidence assessment ratings of the JV, as previously indicated. Based on the information submitted by the JV Offeror, the SSEB will evaluate and assess:

(i) The JV’s “Past Performance Information”, and/or

(ii) Either JV partners’ “Past Performance Information”

(5) The overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating reflects the degree of probability that the Offeror and Lead Design Firm will be able to meet the solicitation’s requirements. Upon completion of the evaluation, one of the following ratings will be assigned:

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings and Description 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 reasonable 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 successfully perform the required effort.

(6) Offerors and Lead Design Firms with little or no relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for Factor 1 or 2.

However, such a proposal will be rated neutral confidence, and thus may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government when compared to the proposals of other Offerors and Lead Design Firms with recent/relevant past performance.

5.4 Evaluation of Factor 3 – Overall Management Approach. The SSEB will evaluate the management approach narrative to assess the Offeror’s overall organizational structure, self-performance, and management of subcontractors to ensure it reflects an understanding of the requirements of the solicitation. The overall management approach will be assessed for understanding, logic, and reasonableness. More consideration will be given to an approach that demonstrates an effective management plan with an emphasis on design and construction in all major aspects of the design-build project execution. The SSEB will determine the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, if any, in the approach presented, and then assign an overall combined technical/risk ratings as listed below.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating and Definitions OUTSTANDING Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 11

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 unawardable.

The technical risk rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum technical requirements. The technical risk rating definitions in support of the above referenced table are as follows:

a) Low – Low risk means the proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

b) Moderate – Moderate risk means the proposal contains a significant weakness of combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

c) High – High risk means the proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

d) Unacceptable – Unacceptable risk means the proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

5.5 Additional definitions used in all factors.

5.5.1 Deficiency.

(a) A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (FAR 15.001). An Offeror with a deficiency as defined by FAR 15.0001 will not be short-listed for participation in Phase-Two.

(b) The evaluators will identify the RFP requirement, and describe why a deficiency or deficiencies exist in the proposal. All deficiencies discovered will be identified to the Offeror during discussions, if conducted, and in the debriefing. Failure by an Offeror to rectify deficiencies will preclude award action to that Offeror.

(c) The Contract requirements take precedence over deficiencies (or deviations) discovered after award.

(d) Deviation. Proposal implies or specifically offers something below specified criteria. The Offeror may or may not have called the deviation to

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 12

the Government's attention. A deviation is a deficiency. The technical reviewers will identify any deviations.

5.5.2 Clarification. Means limited exchanges, between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposals (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Clarification does not give the Offeror an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal, except to the extent that corrections of apparent clerical mistakes results in a revision. Clarifications do not require "discussions" or submission of another proposal.

5.5.3 Weakness.

(a) Means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(b) All significant weaknesses discovered will be identified to the

Offeror during discussions, if conducted, and in the debriefing. Failure by an Offeror to rectify multiple significant weaknesses deemed essential will preclude award action to that Offeror.

5.5.4 Strength. Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increase the probability of successful performance of the contract. A “significant strength” appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

6.0 PHASE ONE - DISCUSSIONS.

6.1 The Government intends to make a determination of Offerors for participation in Phase Two based on initial Phase One proposals without holding discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, and allow proposal revisions, if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are in the Government's best interest. Offerors are cautioned that discussions may not be conducted and Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to revise their proposals after submission.

6.2 If discussions are deemed necessary, the Contracting Officer will include only those firms determined to be the most highly rated; those whose proposals are reasonably susceptible to being made acceptable; but not those that are so deficient as to essentially require major revisions or a total re-write of their proposal. In certain circumstances, the Government may limit offers in the competitive range to a number that will permit an efficient competition. If discussions are required, the SSEB will follow the evaluation process herein until discussions are closed. Upon the conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still within the competitive range will be afforded an opportunity to revise their proposals and submit a Phase One, Final Proposal Revision for evaluation.

If discussions are held, Offerors are required to submit their responses to comments electronically. If discussions are held, detailed instructions on

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 13

responses will be provided. Electronic submissions shall meet the submission deadline set forth by the SSA during discussions or indicated in the Amendment requesting the Final Proposal Revisions. The SSA/CO will notify all the Offerors in the competitive range, in writing, how and when interim revisions and final proposals revisions are to be submitted.

6.3 Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still within the competitive range will be afforded an opportunity to revise their proposal and to submit their final proposal revisions for evaluation.

7.0 THE SELECTION PROCESS.

7.1 The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will make the Source Selection Decision as to which Offerors will be invited to submit a proposal in Phase Two. Phase One factor ratings will be used to determine the Offerors participating in Phase Two. An Offeror’s Phase One factor ratings for Factors 1 and 2 will be rolled over to Phase Two. Offerors are not required to resubmit Phase One information for Phase Two. Phase One and Phase Two factor ratings will be used during the non-price/price tradeoff analysis. For all Offerors participating in the Phase- Two source selection process, the Government will not allow or consider any revisions to an Offeror’s Phase One proposal during Phase Two.

SECTION 00 11 00 – PAGE 14

(Attachment 1)

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Also include the required, completed and signed SF 1442 in addition to this Proposal Data Sheet. Place a copy of this Proposal Data Sheet at the beginning of both Volumes I and II.

1. Name of Solicitation:

2. Offering Firm’s Name As Appears on the SF 1442:

Offering Firm’s DUNS number as it appears on the SF 1442:

Offering Firm’s Lead Design Firm Name and DUNS number:

2.a. If applicable, Offering Firm’s Joint Venture (JV) Individual Member Information (applies for Offeror and/or Lead Design Firm):

JV Member 1 Name & DUNS:

JV Member 2 Name & DUNS:

3.…