W9127826RA089_Amendment 01.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 2

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

W9127826RA089-0001 27 OCT 2026

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY(If other than item 6)

CODE

Corps of Engineers 100 Canal Street Mobile, AL 36602

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP code) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

NO.

W9127826RA089

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05 OCTOBER 2026

10A. MODIFICATION OF

CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended. Offers 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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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 ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO 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)

The subject solicitation for: Two-Phase Vertical Construction MATOC - Mobile District (AOR)

Is modified in the following: REFER TO THE ENCLOSED SPECIFICATIONS FOR AMENDMENT NO. 0001.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document reference 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) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICE (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY

(Signature of contracting officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA

TWO-PHASE VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION MATOC W9127826RA089

MOBILE DISTRICT AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY

SF 30 Page 2

AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

PART I-REVISIONS MADE BY ADDED AND/OR REPLACEMENT PARAGRAPHS/PAGES/SECTIONS

The items listed below are to be replaced by the corresponding added and/or revised paragraphs/pages or sections. Added and/or revised paragraphs/pages or sections are indicated by a note in bottom right hand corner of each paragraph or page. Added sections are hereby made a part of the contract and are to be inserted in the specification in the proper numerical/alphabetical sequence.

Within the specifications, deletions from the specifications are indicated by strikethrough, e.g.: deletions are marked with strikethrough and additions to the specifications including revisions/substitutions are indicated in bold, italic and underlined, e.g.: additions are indicated thus.

Corresponding Added or Revised Paragraph SECTION Page, and/or Section

SF 1442 Revised Blocks 9.a, and 9.b as indicated herein.

00 11 00 Revised paragraphs 1.4, 3.2, 4.1.1.e), 5.4, and

Attachment 5 as indicated herein.

Encl as stated Revised pages of the specifications as indicated in Part I.

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

SOLICITATION, OFFER

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NUMBER

W9127826RA089

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

INVITATION FOR BID

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

3. DATE ISSUED

05 OCT 2026

PAGE OF PAGES

1 2

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

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

6. PROJECT NUMBER

7. ISSUED BY CODE

CT 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, MOBILE

CONTRACTING DIVISION (CESAM-CT)

(100 CANAL STREET 36602) P.O. BOX 2288

MOBILE, AL 36628-0001

SAME AS BLOCK 7

9. FOR

INFORMATION CALL :

a. NAME

Jennifer Suit Valerie Murphy Valerie.E.Murphy@usace.army.mil / Lisa Trimble Jillian Saffle Jillian.E.Saffle@usace.army.mil

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

(251) 441-6466 (251) 895-1133 / (251) 690- 3329 (251) 441-5584

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 VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION MATOC, MOBILE DISTRICT AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY (AOR)

* See Section 01 00 00, Paragraph “COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION AND COMPLETION OF WORK”.

**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 05 NOVEMBER 2026 (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. (in Phase Two only)

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 offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.

STANDARD FORM 1442 (12/2022)

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

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror)

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 stated in Item 13d. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13d.)

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

NUMBER

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. 3204(a) ( ) 41 U.S.C. 3304(a) ( )

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 (REV12/2022) BACK

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 1

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

SECTION 00 11 00

PHASE ONE - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

1.1 This is a small business set-aside, two-phase, design-build, construction solicitation for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for use in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Georgia. Phase One will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 36. 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 agrees to all the terms of this RFP.

1.2 Task orders issued against this contract may include design/build and/or design-bid-build construction to provide for a quick, cost-effective response to requirements for a full range of vertical repairs, renovations, and new construction efforts in support of Operations Division primarily in 12 locations within Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Georgia.

1.3 The term of this contract is for five (5) years from the date of contract award. The total contract capacity is $1.9 million over the life of the contract. The guaranteed minimum payment is $1,000. Firm-fixed price task orders will be issued against the contracts.

Amendment 0001

1.4 In Phase One, price is not a submission requirement. Non-priced proposals will be evaluated in Phase One to determine which Offerors will submit proposals for Phase Two. Phase One information will consider the past performance information of the prime contractor, past performance information of the lead design firm, and overall management approach, and quality control approach. Based on the results of Phase One, the Government intends to select a target of five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors to participate in the Phase Two competition. However, the Government reserves the right to reject any and/all offers.

1.5 In Phase Two, Offerors will compete to determine which Offerors will be awarded an IDIQ contract and which Offeror will be awarded the Seed task order. For Phase Two, Offerors must submit information for a technical design and construction approach. Offerors will also be required to provide pricing for a Seed project. The Government reserves the right to reject any/all offers in Phase Two.

1.6 Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details in their Phase One proposals, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of Phase One proposals. 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 One. The Government will evaluate Phase One proposals as submitted, without seeking further information from

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 2

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

offerors.

2.0 WHO MAY SUBMIT.

2.1 In Phase One, any responsible, interested, self-certified small business contractor 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.

3.0 PHASE ONE - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

3.1 Submit the electronic proposal package to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers via Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website (https://piee.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/home/login.xhtml OR- https://wawf.eb.mil - OR- https://piee.eb.mil). Emailed submissions of proposals are not permitted and will not be accepted under any circumstances. The Government must receive your proposal no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of SF 1442. The PIEE system notification must show the proposal submission prior to the specified time. All amendments to the solicitation shall be acknowledged by signing on each amendment (SF30) and by completing Block 19 of the SF1442.

Offerors may confirm proposal receipt by emailing the Points of Contact listed on the SF1442.

3.2 Submit your proposal as follows:

Submit one (1) electronic copy of the entire proposal (Volumes I and II) in Portable Document File (PDF) format. Label the pdf “26RA089- OfferorName-Vol I-II”.

Submit one (1) electronic copy of Volume II in Portable Document File (PDF) format. Label the pdf “25RA08926RA089-OfferorName-Vol II”.

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

Preliminary pages, such as Table of Contents and Cover Pages, are excluded from page counts.

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 MATOC. 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 under tabs and numbered pages as set out below 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.

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 3

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

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 (3) rated non-priced evaluation factors.

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;

more important than Factor 3

Volume

II

Factor 3 – Overall Management Approach

3rd in relative importance;

least important factor

4.1.1 Volume I, Administrative Requirements. The information submitted under this tab 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 UEI number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a JV. Include a fully executed Joint Venture Agreement if available. For a newly formed JV, a fully executed Joint Venture Agreement will be required prior to award.

c) Representations and Certifications as required.

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

e) Affiliated Bidders

(1) Business concerns are affiliates of each other when, either directly or indirectly, (1) one concern controls or has the power to control the other, or (2) a third party controls or has the power to control both.

(2) Each bidder shall submit with its bid an affidavit stating that it has no affiliates or containing the following information.

i) The names and addresses of all affiliates of the bidder

ii) The names and addresses of all persons and concerns exercising control or ownership of the bidder and any or all of its affiliates, and whether they exercise such control or ownership as common

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 4

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

officers, directors, stockholders, holding controlling interest, or otherwise.

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 items of work performed 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. For example, individual task orders completed under an IDIQ contract should be submitted as single, separate project(s); an IDIQ contract will not be accepted or evaluated as a project.

b) That is “recent”; one that has been completed within six (6) 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, and dollar value) to the project types described in this solicitation. For a project to be assessed any degree of “relevancy” it must reflect performance of a full range of vertical construction, renovation, repair, or incidental design task orders. In terms of location, a relevant project is one that is located in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, or Georgia; however, projects located in the continental United States (CONUS) may be considered when similar in scope. In terms of dollar value, a relevant project is one that has a construction value of $100K-$1M; however, projects less than $100K may be considered when similar in scope.

4.2.1 Relevant Company Effort and Quality of Past Performance of the Prime

Contractor.

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. Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple, relevant projects up to the stated maximum of five (5).

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, but is not required. If more than five (5) projects are submitted for evaluation, only the first five (5) projects presented will be evaluated. Offerors who submit fewer than five (5) projects to demonstrate the company’s ability to perform may be rated lower as the Government may

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 5

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

have a higher level of confidence in the abilities of Offerors that provide multiple examples of successful performance of recent, relevant projects. The Relevant Company Effort portion of Factor 1 shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

Pages exceeding this limitation for the Relevant Company Effort portion of Factor 1 will not be evaluated.

(1) Company Name

(2) Name of Project / Type 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 the limitation for the Relevant Company Effort portion of Factor 1.

(3) 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 found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (www.cpars.gov/). Whether interim or final assessment, the report provided shall be the latest report available in the system at the time of the proposal due date. 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 contractor performance evaluation exists in CPARS, and yet the Offeror submits a PPQ, only the evaluation in CPARS will be considered. If, at time of evaluation, a final contractor performance evaluation exists in CPARS, and yet the Offeror submits an interim evaluation, the final evaluation in CPARS will be considered.

(4) Past performance surveys/assessment/evaluation forms other than CPARS or PPQs, or that do not contain the entirety of the information required in the PPQ provided (Attachment 3), are unacceptable and will not be considered or evaluated.

(5) Completed PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection. However, Offerors shall 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. The burden of providing current, detailed and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

(6) 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 extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc., the Offeror should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken within

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 6 their proposal.

(7) 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 Offeror that reflect the JV Offeror’s ability to perform the work required in this solicitation.

4.2.2.2 If the JV Offeror does not have five (5) recent, relevant projects performed as the JV Offeror itself, the JV Offeror may supplement those projects with recent, relevant projects performed by the members of the JV Offeror in their individual capacities. If the JV Offeror does not have any examples of recent, relevant projects performed by the JV Offeror itself, then each partner may submit at least one (1) project demonstrating recent, relevant experience performed by the JV partner in their individual capacity.

Offerors failing to demonstrate project experience of the JV Offeror itself or of both JV partners may be rated lower as the Government may have a higher level of confidence in Offerors demonstrating past experience of the JV Offeror itself or of both JV partners in their individual capacities. For information pertaining to small business JV partner submission requirements, refer to Paragraph 4.2.3 Small Business Submission Requirements. The total number of projects submitted by the JV Offeror, whether demonstrating experience as the JV Offeror itself or in the JV partner’s individual capacities, may not exceed five (5).

4.2.3 Small Business Submission Requirements.

4.2.3.1 For a small business Offeror (or a small business JV partner), if the small business’ capabilities, past performance, and experience do not independently demonstrate capabilities and past performance necessary for award, then the Government may also consider the past performance experience performed as a member of a JV or by a first-tier subcontractor, when specifically identified in the proposal. Offerors are advised that the Government may assign a higher confidence rating to Offerors that submit projects performed by the Offeror itself (i.e., the corporate entity listed on the SF 1442), rather than projects performed as a member of a JV or by a first-tier subcontractor. Further, if a small business Offeror (or small business JV partner) elects to submit past performance experience performed as a member of a JV or by a first-tier subcontractor, the total number of projects may not exceed five (5).

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 7

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

4.2.3.1.1 For a project performed as a member of a JV to be considered as past performance experience of the small business Offeror (or small business JV partner), the Offeror must identify what duties and responsibilities the small business Offeror (or small business JV partner) carried out as part of the JV. This information shall be included within the project narrative.

Failure to provide this information may result in a rating of “Not Relevant” as the Government may not have sufficient information to determine whether the JV partner’s effort involved any of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.2.3.1.2 For a first-tier subcontractor’s experience to be considered as past performance experience of the small business Offeror (or small business JV partner), the Offeror must include within Volume II of the proposal (1) a letter of intent for this project from the first-tier subcontractor, and (2) demonstrate how such entity or entities will contribute to work of the project. This information does not count against the page limitation for the Relevant Company Effort portion of Factor 1. Failure to provide this information will result in the project not being evaluated.

4.2.3.2 For a small business Offeror (or a small business JV partner), the Government may also consider the past performance experience performed by an affiliate when specifically identified in the proposal. Offerors are advised that the Government may assign a higher confidence rating to Offerors that submit projects performed by the Offeror itself (i.e., the corporate entity listed on the SF 1442), rather than projects performed by an affiliate. Further, if a small business Offeror (or small business JV partner) elects to submit past performance experience performed by an affiliate, the total number of projects may not exceed five (5).

4.2.3.2.1 For an affiliate’s experience to be considered as past performance of the small business Offeror, the Offeror must include (1) a description of their relationship with the affiliate, and (2) demonstrate how such entity or entities will contribute to work of the project. This information does not count against the page limitation for the Relevant Company Effort portion of Factor 1. Failure to provide this information will result in the project not being evaluated.

4.2.4 All Business Entities: Unless otherwise specified in Paragraphs 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, 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, divisions, other related entities, subcontractors, or the individual experience of key personnel will not be considered.

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 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

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 8

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

separate contracts or task orders to create a single project. For example, individual task orders completed under an IDIQ contract should be submitted as single, separate project(s); an IDIQ contract will not be accepted or evaluated as a project.

b) That is “recent”; one that has been completed within six (6) years of the solicitation issue date. If the project is Design-Build, the construction must be complete by the issue date (i.e. the entire project must be complete and ready for use by the solicitation issue date). If the project is Design-Bid-Build, the design must be complete by the solicitation issue date (i.e. the full design effort must be complete by the solicitation issue date). Lead Design Firms are responsible for providing start and completion dates for each completed project.

c) That is “relevant”; one that is similar in scope (type, size, and dollar value) to the project types described in this solicitation. For a project to be assessed any degree of “relevancy” it must reflect performance of a full range of vertical construction, renovation, repair, or incidental design task orders. In terms of location, a relevant project is one that is located in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, or Georgia; however, projects located in the continental United States (CONUS) may be considered when similar in scope. In terms of dollar value, a relevant project is one that has a construction value of $100K-$1M; however, projects less than $100K may be considered when similar in scope.

4.3.1 Relevant Company Effort and Quality of Past Performance of the Lead

Design Firm.

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 by the Lead Design Firm that demonstrate the company’s ability to perform work similar in scope and magnitude to that required by this solicitation. Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple, relevant projects up to the stated maximum of five (5).

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, but is not required. 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 fewer than (5) projects to demonstrate the company’s ability to perform may be rated lower as the Government may have a higher level of confidence in the abilities of Offerors that provide multiple examples of successful performance of recent, relevant projects. Offerors may submit information for any number of Lead Design Firms under Factor 2, provided that all required details from the Proposal Data Sheet are included for each firm submitted. Regardless of the number of lead design firms submitted, the maximum of five (5) projects for Factor 2 still applies. The Lead Design Firm(s) proposed under Factor 2 must be assigned to the task orders/projects for which they were identified, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer (substitutions will be reviewed for equivalency of experience and performance confidence). The Relevant Company Effort portion of Factor 2 shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

Pages exceeding this limitation for the Relevant Company Effort portion of Factor 2 will not be evaluated.

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 9

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

(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 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) LEED Rating, if applicable

b) Quality of Past Performance for the Lead Design Firm. Does not count against the limitation for the Relevant Company Effort portion of Factor 2.

(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 found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (www.cpars.gov/). Whether interim or final assessment, the report provided shall be the latest report available in the system at the time of the proposal due date. For the CPARS to be considered, there must be an "other" or "design" element added to clearly distinguish the rating is for the DOR and not the Prime Contractor for a Design-Build project. 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 contractor performance evaluation exists in CPARS, and yet the Lead Design Firm submits a PPQ, only the evaluation in CPARS will be considered. If, at time of evaluation, a final contractor performance evaluation exists in CPARS, and yet the Lead Design Firm submits an interim evaluation, the final evaluation in CPARS will be considered.

(2) Past performance surveys/assessment/evaluation forms other than CPARS or PPQs, or that do not contain the entirety of the information required in the PPQ provided (Attachment 5), 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. 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 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 a Lead Design Firm’s client/customer will only provide

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 10

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

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) recent, relevant projects performed as the JV Lead Design Firm itself, the JV Lead Design Firm may supplement those projects with recent, relevant projects performed by the members of the JV Lead Design Firm in their individual capacities. If the JV Lead Design Firm does not have any examples of recent, relevant projects performed by the JV Offeror itself, then each partner may submit at least one (1) project demonstrating recent, relevant experience performed by the JV partner in their individual capacity. Lead Design Firms failing to demonstrate project experience of the JV Offeror itself or of both JV partners may be rated lower as the Government may have a higher level of confidence in Lead Design Firms demonstrating past experience of the JV Offeror itself or of both JV partners in their individual capacities. The total number of projects submitted by the JV Lead Design Firm, whether demonstrating experience as the JV Lead Design Firm itself or in the JV partner’s individual capacities, may not exceed five (5).

4.3.3 All Business Entities for the Lead Design Firm: Unless otherwise specified in Paragraph 4.3.2, to satisfy Paragraph 4.3.1 subparagraphs (a) and (b), only information pertaining to the corporate entity/entities listed on the Proposal Data Sheet will be considered in the evaluation. Information related to a parent company, affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries, other related entities, subcontractors, projects performed as a member of a joint venture, or the individual experience of key personnel will not be considered.

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 15 pages. Pages exceeding this limitation for Factor 3 will not be evaluated. 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 design-build and design-bid-build task orders under this MATOC. 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

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 11

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

than construction management services.

c) Describe the Offeror’s business method for selecting subcontractors and for managing subcontract acquisition, execution and administration.

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. Proposals failing to provide all required administrative and submission criteria may be deemed non-compliant and excluded from further evaluation.

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 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.

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 design and construction or repair projects submitted are “recent”, and “relevant”. For this solicitation, the Government will assign more relevance to projects that demonstrate a full range of vertical construction, renovation, repair, or incidental design; for projects located in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, or Georgia; for dollar values similar to those anticipated under this solicitation; and for projects where the Offeror performed as the prime contractor or lead design firm, respectively, as opposed to a subcontractor. Offerors demonstrating a project portfolio with a diversity of “relevant” projects similar to those anticipated under this MATOC (reference paragraph 1.2) may be given more consideration; and therefore, a higher confidence rating as identified below.

(1) The Government will then assess how well an Offeror performed on their projects. The Government will, as necessary, confirm quality of past performance data

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 12

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

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.

(2) 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 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; the diversity of work demonstrated; and the quality ratings of those projects.

(3) 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 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 successfully perform the required effort.

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 13

(4) 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, and safety plan to ensure it reflects an understanding of the requirements of the solicitation. The overall management approach will be assessed for understanding, logic, and reasonableness. 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.

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

SECTION 00 11 00 Page 14

REVISED BY AMENDMENT NO. W9127826RA089-0001

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)

b) The evaluators will identify the RFP…