Solicitation-SPT-D-B-MATOC.PDF

Request for Proposal W9127N19R0041

Various Locations Washington and Oregon

Small Projects Design-Build Multiple Award Task Order Contract

Project Manual

TOC-1

SMALL PROJECTS DESIGN-BUILD

MULTIPLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

00 10 00 SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD FORM (SF 1442)

00 10 00 SOLICITATION

00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS

00 45 00 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

00 72 00 GENERAL CONDITIONS

00 73 00 SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS

GENERAL AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

ATTACHMENTS

[AA: Concept of Operations]

[AB: Program for Design]

[AC: Drawings]

A1: Offeror's Experience Form

A2: Past Performance Questionnaire

A3: Submittal Register (ENG FORM 4288-R)

A5: Construction Project Identification Sign

A6: Spill Emergency - Initial Report Form

A7: Hazardous Energy Control Program

A8: Hazardous Material Survey Report Checklist

A9: Bonneville Boat Restricted Zone Entry Procedure

A10: The Dalles Boat Restricted Zone Entry Procedure

A11: John Day and Willow Creek Boat Restricted Zone Entry Procedure

A12: Willamette Valley Boat Restricted Zone Entry Procedure

A4: Transmittal Form (ENG FORM 4025-R)

00 22 00 SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

00 20 00 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCUREMENT

This acquisition w ill be a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Aw ard Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Design-Build (DB) small construction projects in the USACE Portland District geographical boundary. MATOC aw ard w ill be made using the Best Value Trade Off (BVTO) source selection process (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15) and the tw o-phase DB selection procedures (FAR 36.3). This acquisition is restricted to 8(a) f irms w hich have their principal off ice or an SBA approved 8(a) bona f ide off ice in either the Portland or Sacramento SBA Districts. A combined pool of up to four (4) f irms comprising the pool w ill be established w ith a shared capacity of $20M.

NAICS Code: 237990. FSC: Z2KA. Small Business Size Standard: $36.5M.

All solicitation documents and amendments w ill be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) w ebsite at https://fbo.gov/. Potential offerors w ill not be contacted w ith regard to any changes posted.

MARY K THOMSEN

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

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

05-Jun-2019

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

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

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________ calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________52.211-10

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

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

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________08 Jul 2019 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time of fers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork 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 w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

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

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

USACE PORTLAND DISTRICT

333 SW 1ST AVE

PORTLAND OR 97204-3440

W9127N

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W9127N19R0041 85

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

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

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

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)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

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

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

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

See Item 14

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

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 Job

SPT Construction D-B MATOC

FFP

Five-year ordering period.

Overall capacity will be $20,000,000.00 cumulative for all awardees within the Multiple Award Task Order (MATOC) pool.

FOB: Destination

SIGNAL CODE: A

NET AMT

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

0001 N/A N/A N/A N/A

00 10 00-3

Section 00 20 00 - Instructions for Procurement

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCUREMENT

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCUREMENT

This acquisition will be restricted to 8(a) small businesses located in the Portland and Sacramento Portfolios.

Proposals will be evaluated utilizing the Best Value Trade-Off Source Selection Procedures in FAR Part 15 and Two-Phase Design-Build procedures in FAR Subpart 36.3. The NAICS Code for this acquisition is 237990, Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. The PSC Code is Z2KA, Repair or Alteration of Dams. The small business size standard is $36.5 million.

The Phase One solicitation will contain the Phase One evaluation factors based on the overall Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC) Summary of Work (SOW). The Phase One evaluations of proposals will be used only for the selection of the most highly qualified offerors and to determine which offerors will submit proposals for Phase Two. Up to nine (9) of the most highly qualified firms will be selected to submit Phase Two proposals. Upon the conclusion of Phase One, the solicitation will be amended to include the Phase Two evaluation factors and the SOW for the first Task Order. The Government intends to award up to four (4) MATOCs to the responsible offerors whose proposals represent the best value to the Government after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation.

00 20 00-1

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PHASE ONE INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.0 CONTRACT DESCRIPTION

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

3.0 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS AND EVALUATION

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

5.0 BIDDER INQUIRY INFORMATION

1.0 CONTRACT DESCRIPTION

A. This acquisition will be a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Design-Build (DB) small construction projects in the USACE Portland District geographical boundary. MATOC award will be made using the Best Value Trade Off (BVTO) source selection process (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15) and DB procedures (FAR 36.3). DB TO contracts will be awarded using either the BVTO or Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) process (FAR Part 15). This acquisition is restricted to 8(a) firms which have their principal office or an SBA approved 8(a) bona fide office in either the Portland or Sacramento SBA Districts. Up to four (4) IDIQ contracts will be awarded to the Offeror(s) whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous and result in the best value to the Government. The IDIQs will have a shared capacity of $20M for a five-year period. The minimum guarantee for each IDIQ awarded is $2K. The TO minimum value is $2K and the maximum value is $1.5M. The MATOCs will have a shared capacity of $20M. The contract duration will be five (5) years from date of award.

B. The total value of all task orders awarded under this MATOC shall not exceed $20,000,000.00. The minimum guarantee amount for each contract will be $2,000.00. Task orders will be FFP.

C. The NAICS Code is 237990 and the Small Business Size Standard is $36.5 million.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

A. General.

(1) This acquisition is being conducted using 8(a) competitive set-aside and Two Phase Design-Build selection procedures. The Government intends to award up to four (4) MATOCs to the responsible offerors whose proposals represent the best value to the Government after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation.

(2) In the context of this acquisition, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor.

(3) All proposals received will stand alone and be considered complete and final. The evaluation board will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference or otherwise referred to. The successful offerors will be selected solely on the basis of the evaluation factors set forth below.

Accordingly, proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall provide clear, complete, concise, and straightforward responses to the evaluation factors. Elaborate proposals, color brochures, and other excesses are discouraged.

(4) The Government intends to make an award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions should discussions prove to be necessary or advantageous to the Government. Because the

00 21 00-1

Government does not intend to hold discussions offerors are encouraged to include their best pricing in their Phase Two proposal.

(5) Joint Ventures (JV). A joint venture is defined as a legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. This does not include other arrangements such as “teaming agreements” or “strategic alliances,” which are not recognized as bona fide joint ventures for the purposes of this solicitation. An offeror that is a joint venture shall submit a copy of its legally binding joint venture agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the joint venture with the chief executive of each entity identified. If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience and past performance of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The experience for each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity. Page and project form limits apply to the joint venture as a whole.

B. Evaluation Factors.

The Government will evaluate proposals under the following factors:

Phase One – Volume I Experience (Factor 1) Past Performance (Factor 2) Technical Approach (Factor 3)

All evaluation factors for Phase One are of approximately equal importance. Phase One ratings will not carry over to Phase Two evaluations.

Phase Two – Volume II Design Approach (Factor 1) Work Plan (Factor 2)

Phase Two – Volume III Price (Factor 1)

For Phase Two, Volume II Factor 1 (Design Approach) and Volume II Factor 2 (Work Plan), when combined, are significantly more important than Volume III Factor I (Price).

The Government will use the following definitions when evaluating proposals:

Deficiency – A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness – A flaw in a proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Weakness – A flaw in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

Strength – An aspect of a proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

00 21 00-2

Significant Strength – An aspect of a proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

3.0 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS AND EVALUATION

A. Administrative Details and General Instructions: Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

(1) General Proposal Format.

Submit proposal documentation in Adobe Acrobat PDF format except for Excel spreadsheets shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel 2013 format.

Title Page. The title page must include the offeror’s name and address, phone number and email address, title of the solicitation, solicitation number, and date of submittal.

Table of Contents. The proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents.

Font, Page Size, and Margins. Pages containing text are expected to be 8 ½ x 11 inches with at least one-inch margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Paragraphs should be separated by at least one blank line. A standard 12-point font in either Arial or Times New Roman is required.

Organization charts or schedules. An 11” x 17” format may be used for large format drawings or tables. For any technical drawings submitted the minimum PDF document size is 11” x 17”.

All information must be confined to the appropriate volume. Each volume of the proposal is expected to contain a table of contents, summary section with a brief abstract of the volume, and the narrative discussion.

(2) Proposal Content Limitations.

The Offeror must confine the proposal to relevant information and documentation sufficient to provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal.

Extraneous information provided in the proposals will not be considered in the evaluations;

therefore, the offeror should only provide information that satisfies the solicitation requirements.

Merely restating the specifications without sufficient elaboration demonstrates a lack of understanding of the requirement.

DO NOT cross reference past performance information. It is acceptable to repeat data, project information or experience in more than one non-price area as long as it satisfies the requirements of the factor.

Proprietary information must be clearly marked.

(3) English Language Requirement.

00 21 00-3

In order for a proposal to be considered, it MUST be prepared in ENGLISH.

B. Content of Proposals: All proposals for Phase One must be prepared in one volume: A technical proposal (Volume I). Do not submit pricing information with Phase One.

Each of the volumes shall be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently from evaluation of the other. The narrative and content structure of the technical proposal shall follow the format shown under Volume I below. Offerors that fail to submit a complete proposal may be excluded and thus receive no further consideration for the award.

(1) Phase One: Technical Proposal, Volume I: Volume I shall consist of information for the three

(3) technical (non-price) factors, listed in tabular form, as noted below. Repeating or restating the specifications without sufficient elaboration will be determined to show a lack of understanding of the requirement.

Volume I – Technical (Non-Price) Factors

Section 1 – Factor 1 – Experience

Section 2 – Factor 2 – Past Performance

Section 3 – Factor 3 – Technical Approach

C. Submission of Proposals: For Phase One Offerors shall submit their proposal by no later than the time and date established in Block 13 of the SF1442 through the FedBizOpps (FBO.gov) system. The requirements and procedures for offer submission are found in the FBO Vendor User Guide located on the FBO webpage at:

https://www.fbo.gov/downloads/FBO_Vendor_Guide.pdf. There will not be a public proposal opening.

The electronic proposal shall be in Portable Document Format, filename extension: “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Offerors shall bookmark and label each electronic PDF to afford easy identification from the proposal table of contents.

Offerors should enter a description for every file uploaded. For files over 10 megabytes (MB) the "Large Upload (JAVA)" button must be used. The combined file size limit for upload using "Large Upload (JAVA)" is 100MB. If needed, the offeror can break single files over 100MB into smaller files or use the upload utility multiple times if files exceed the 100MB size limit.

Once the offeror's proposal is submitted, it can be systematically revised prior to the solicitation response deadline. Refer to Paragraph 4.3.2 of the FBO Vendor Guide titled "Reviewing / Editing an Electric Response" for detailed guidance on completing a revision to an electronic proposal submission. Note: The FBO bid response system will send an email to the email address on file for the user confirming the electronic submission. Note: The offeror must be logged into the system to be able to submit / revise electronic responses.

For assistance and troubleshooting for the FBO electronic bid response system, contact the Federal Service Desk (FSD.gov) either via phone (866-606-8820) or Web Form (https://gsafsd.service-now.com/fsd-gov/login.do).

Do not assume submission will be instantaneous. File size and number of files to be uploaded will be factors to consider. Offeror/Teammate/Subcontractors should allow adequate time for submission completion because the

00 21 00-4 entire proposal (i.e. offerors submission and all teammate/subcontractor(s) independent submissions) must be received by the time and date specified in Block 13 of SF 1442.

To avoid rejection of an offer, the offeror must make every effort to ensure its electronic submission is virus-free. Proposals, or portions thereof, submitted with the presence of a virus or which are otherwise unreadable will be treated as unreadable pursuant to FAR 15.207(c).

Phase Two Submission of Proposal information will be provided during Phase Two.

4.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

Phase One: Volume I – Technical (Non-Price) Submission Requirements and Evaluation Method

FACTOR 1 (SECTION 1) – Experience

Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall submit information for no more than three projects, complete or substantially complete no more than five (5) years before the proposal due date, that demonstrate the offeror’s experience with projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the types of projects to be completed under this contract (please refer to Section 01 11 00.00 25 Summary of Work). To the extent that a project involved design-build effort or performance of design elements, please include a narrative addressing the offeror’s involvement in that aspect of the project. This section shall not exceed seven (7) pages in length.

“Substantially complete” is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time of proposal submission. If an offeror submits a project that it represents is “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 75% complete. If an offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 75% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project.

Information submitted for each project must include the information outlined in Attachment A, Offeror’s Experience Form.

A maximum of three (3) projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than three projects, only the first three projects will be evaluated. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how well the projects submitted meet the evaluation criteria outlined below.

Evaluation method:

The Government will rate this factor using the combined technical/risk rating as follows:

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

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

Purple 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.

00 21 00-5

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

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

Red 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.

TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Low

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.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or 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.

High

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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following:

The extent to which the offeror’s projects have a financial value similar to or greater than the typical project cost of $150,000 to $500,000 estimated for this requirement.

The extent to which the offeror’s projects each involved more than one of the functional areas described in the SOW (e.g., Construction, Renovation, and Building Envelope Repair; Mechanical; HVAC; Fire Protection; Structural; Civil; Flooring; and related incidental work).

The extent to which the offeror’s projects collectively demonstrate experience in multiple functional areas described in the SOW (e.g., Construction, Renovation, and Building Envelope Repair;

Mechanical; HVAC; Fire Protection; Structural; Civil; Flooring; and related incidental work).

The extent to which the offeror’s projects demonstrate experience with design-build or projects requiring design elements.

The extent to which the offeror’s projects demonstrate performance as a prime contractor with architect-engineer firms and subcontractors in completing a design-build project.

FACTOR 2 (SECTION 2) – Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

00 21 00-6

The offeror shall provide past performance information for each project listed by the offeror under Factor 1 – Experience.

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, the offeror shall submit it with the proposal.

If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project. See Attachment B. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available.

o If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

o Offerors should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's points of contact, Mary Thomsen, via email at mary.k.thomsen@usace.army.mil and Mitchell Johnson, via email at mitchell.j.johnson@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

o PPQs are source selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an email confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is the offeror’s responsibility to follow up to ensure the Government has received the information.

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

Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the PPIRS (Past Performance Information Retrieval System) including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS (Commercial and Government Entity Code/Data Universal Numbering System) numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), FAPIIS (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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

Evaluation Method:

The Government seeks contractors who maintain a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in their technical proposal. In doing so, be mindful that “past performance” and “experience” are not identical. Experience measures what the offeror has done and how many times, or for how long, the offeror has done it. Past performance, however, measures how well the offeror has performed.

00 21 00-7

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including text of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. For this solicitation, recent projects are those completed or substantially completed (as defined above) within five (5) years of the date that proposals are due.

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the work required by the solicitation. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the table below.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

RATING DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

In assessing the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance, the Government will consider the following:

The extent to which a submitted project had a financial value similar to or greater than the typical project cost of $150,000 to $500,000 estimated for this requirement.

The extent to which a submitted project involved more than one of the functional areas described in the SOW (e.g., Construction, Renovation, and Building Envelope Repair; Mechanical; HVAC; Fire Protection; Structural; Civil; Flooring; and related incidental work).

The extent to which a submitted project demonstrates experience with design-build or required design elements.

The extent to which a submitted project demonstrates performance as a prime contractor with architect-engineer firms and subcontractors in completing a design-build project.

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

The third aspect of the past performance is to determine how well the offeror performed on its past performance projects. If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type and severity of the problems and effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

Based on a consideration of those three aspects for each project, the Government will assign a final Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for this factor. The Government will review the past

00 21 00-8 performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the table below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

RATING 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and therefore may receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

FACTOR 3 (SECTION 3) – Technical Approach

Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall submit a Technical Approach that demonstrates the offeror’s approach to performing the required work as outlined in this solicitation (please refer to Section 01 11 00.00 25 Summary of Work). This section shall not exceed eight (8) pages in length.

The Technical Approach demonstrates the offeror’s vision and organization for completing task orders in compliance with all contract requirements. The Technical Approach should be as concise as possible and should not include detailed technical or design information. The purpose of the Technical Approach is to determine if the offeror has a clear understanding of the SOW and the included functional areas for this solicitation, including an understanding of the design-build process.

Based on your understanding of the MATOC SOW, describe your technical approach for design-build task order projects wherein the Government provides minimal or limited design consisting of informational drawings and functional/performance specifications. Address the following areas in your technical approach to include any risks and the proposed approach for risk mitigation:

Organization Provide an organizational chart showing the reporting structure and lines of authority for the proposed key functional members such as project manager (PM), lead designer, design team members, superintendent, safety manager, and quality control manager. Please note: Task orders issued under

00 21 00-9 the contract resulting from this solicitation likely will require the positions of superintendent, safety manager, and quality control manager to be performed by separate individuals. Do not assume that the same individual can perform more than one of those three positions.

Describe the role of the key functional members during design and construction.

Include in your narrative a description of how you would manage more than one task order at any one time. Presume that two or more task orders may have simultaneous onsite construction activities.

Cost Effectiveness and Schedule Management Describe your process for providing a task order proposal that is cost-effective and will allow you to expedite completion of the project.

Describe your approach to streamlining design and construction resulting in reduced costs and achievement of aggressive schedules with consideration to operational or environmental restraints.

NOTE: Do not assume that ‘fast-tracking’ is to be an option for the design-build task orders of this contract. ‘Fast-tracking’ is a scenario where construction of specific elements is permitted to begin prior to 100% completion of the entire design. Do not assume such ‘fast-tracking’ will be permitted.

Communication and Coordination Describe your communication and coordination approach within the design-build team, including subcontractors, and with the Government during the design and construction phases.

Describe your approach to facilitating design and construction submittal reviews.

Describe in detail the Designer of Record’s involvement throughout the entire project period.

Quality Control Describe your approach for quality control for both design and construction. Include the following:

quality control organization; review of design; verification of construction materials; construction inspection; permit compliance; project documentation; and change request process.

Evaluation Method:

The Government will rate this factor using the combined technical/risk rating as follows:

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red 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.

TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

00 21 00-10

Low

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.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or 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.

High

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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following when evaluating the offeror’s Technical Approach:

Whether the offeror’s Technical Approach demonstrates a clear understanding of this requirement including clarity of approaches for the offeror’s:

o Organization o Cost Effectiveness and Schedule Management o Communication and Coordination o Quality Control

The extent to which any risks and the proposed approach for risk mitigation is addressed.

Organization The extent to which the organizational chart and lines of authority demonstrate a clear understanding of the design-build process.

The extent to which the offeror’s organization clearly provides a reporting structure and lines of authority.

The extent to which the role descriptions and arrangement of key personnel demonstrate adequate personnel resources and/or capability for managing simultaneous task orders.

Cost Effectiveness and Schedule Management The extent to which the provided description for a cost-effective task order demonstrates knowledge and clear methods or processes for cost-effectiveness.

The extent to which the offeror can demonstrate methods for expediting critical schedules and maintaining schedules given unforeseen conditions.

The extent to which the offeror’s narrative demonstrates efficient use of processes or oversight to minimize common cost or schedule overruns such as design errors, design omissions, construction deficiencies, scheduling conflicts, supplier or subcontractor management, and performance of work within specific outage windows.

Communication and Coordination The extent to which the offeror’s communication and coordination approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the design-build process and the interrelationship between the offeror and the Government throughout the task order lifecycle.

00 21 00-11

The extent to which the offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the typical facilitation of design and construction submittal procedures and reviews for a design-build project as described in Specification Sections 01 33 00 Submittal Procedures, 01 33 16.00 25 Design-Build: Design After Award, and 01 45 00.00 25 Quality Control.

The extent to which the offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the Designer-of-Record’s involvement throughout the entire project period.

Quality Control The extent to which the offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of a quality control organization during both design and construction.

The extent to which the offeror’s approach demonstrates a clear understanding of engineering and design quality management as described in Specification Sections 01 33 16.00 25 Design-Build: Design After Award and 01 45 00.00 25 Quality Control.

The extent to which the offeror’s approach demonstrates a clear understanding of construction quality management as described in Specification Section 01 45 00.00 25 Quality Control.

Phase Two: Volume II – Technical (Non-Price) Submission Requirements and Evaluation Method

FACTOR 1 (SECTION 1) – Design Approach

Submission Requirements:

This information will be provided during Phase Two.

Evaluation Method:

The Government will rate this factor using the combined technical/risk rating as follows:

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red 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.

TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Low

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.

00 21 00-12

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or 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.

High

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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following when evaluating the offeror’s Design Approach:

Whether the offeror’s Design Approach demonstrates a clear understanding of this requirement including clarity of approaches for the offeror’s:

o Required Personnel o System Design Process

The extent to which any risks and the proposed approach for risk mitigation is addressed.

Required Personnel The extent to which the offeror demonstrates how the qualification requirements of the fire protection specialist will be met.

The extent to which the offeror understands the role of the fire protection specialist.

System Design Process The extent to which the offeror demonstrates how the required components will be selected, how the system addressing will be determined, and how the system interconnections will be determined.

The extent to which the offeror can demonstrate how the detail drawing requirements will be met.

FACTOR 2 (SECTION 2) – Work Plan

Submission Requirements:

This information will be provided during Phase Two.

Evaluation Method:

The Government will rate this factor using the combined technical/risk rating as follows:

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

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

Purple 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.

00 21 00-13

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

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

Red 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.

TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Low

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.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or 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.

High

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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following when evaluating the offeror’s Work Plan:

The extent to which the offeror’s schedule conforms to task order requirements for a design schedule including all quality checks and Government reviews.

The extent to which the offeror’s schedule conforms to task order requirements for all pre-construction submittals.

The extent to which the offeror’s schedule conforms to task order requirements to remove all components of the existing fire detection system.

The extent to which the offeror’s schedule conforms to task order requirements for all construction activities.

The extent to which the offeror’s schedule conforms to task order requirements for the required testing and commissioning.

The extent to which the offeror’s schedule conforms to task order requirements for the submission of final documents.

A detailed, descriptive, and project-specific Work Plan that describes the offeror’s approach and how the offeror’s proposed product will work will be evaluated more favorably than a vague and general plan.

Phase Two: Volume III – Price

Submission Requirements:

00 21 00-14

This information will be provided during Phase Two.

Evaluation Method:

The Price Proposal will be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness. For evaluation purposes, the total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the total price for all optional items to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.0 BIDDER INQUIRY INFORMATION

BIDDER INQUIRIES

All inquiries regarding this solicitation are to be submitted via ProjNet-Bid. Telephone and email inquiries will not be accepted. ProjNet-Bid is a web-based program that allows offerors to post questions regarding the solicitation, and to view all questions by other offerors, and answers by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

ProjNet-Bid can be accessed through the ProjNet website: https://www.projnet.org/projnet/.

To access the ProjNet-Bid website the first time:

1) Register

2) Click Quick Add Key (the agency is USACE).

3) Enter the following information for access:

The Bidder Inquiry Key…