Solicitation Amendment W9127N26RA0080002 SF 30.pdf

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 electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER.

If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

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

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

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

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section 00 00 00 - Procurement and Contracting Requirements

The following changes have been made:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Response Due Date

20 Feb 2026 06 Mar 2026

Party to receive Solicitation

W9127N

W071 ENDIST PORTLAND

KO CONTRACTING DIVISION,

333 SW FIRST AVE

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3495

UNITED STATES

W9127N

W071 ENDIST PORTLAND

333 SW FIRST AVE,

PORTLAND OR 97204-3495

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3495

UNITED STATES

Section 00 22 10 - Two Phase - Phase One

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

1 Phase One - Basis of Award

1.1 The Government is using a two-phase procurement approach for Evaluation Process.

this design-build project. One Solicitation will be issued for the acquisition consisting of a Request for Proposal (RFP) during Phase One pursuant to FAR 36.3 and an amendment to the RFP during Phase Two pursuant to FAR 15.101-1.

The Government intends to evaluate offerors' Phase One proposals and select up to five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors, without discussions, for advancement to Phase Two.

Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain its best terms, as stated in the Solicitation, Section 00 21 16. As stated in 1.6 below, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions/negotiations if the SSA later determines them to be necessary. If discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the SSA determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the SSA may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

W9127N26RA0080002

1.2 The Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient Compliance with Terms and Conditions.

information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the Solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

1.3 The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Adequacy of Response.

Offeror's proposal adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements as specified in the Solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether each requirement has been sufficiently addressed in the proposal IAW the proposal submission section of the Solicitation. The SSEB must not assume that an Offeror's performance includes the requirements of the Solicitation that are not specified in the Offeror's proposal.

1.4 The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated and Rejection of Proposals.

determined to be unacceptable or fails to comply with the Solicitation terms and conditions.

1.5 The Offeror's proposal shall meet the criteria stated in the Solicitation to be eligible for award, to include responsibility, and technical acceptability.

1.6 The Government intends to select Offerors for participation in Phase Two Discussions.

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

If discussions are deemed necessary, the SSA will include only those firms determined to be the most highly rated; those whose proposals are reasonably susceptible to being made acceptable; but not those that are so deficient as to essentially require major revisions or a total re-write of their proposal. In certain circumstances, the Government may limit Offers in the competitive range to a number that will permit an efficient competition. If discussions are required, the SSEB will follow the evaluation process herein until discussions are closed. Upon the conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still within the competitive range will be afforded an opportunity to revise their proposals and submit a Phase One, Final Proposal Revision (FPR) for evaluation. If discussions are held, the Offerors are required to submit their responses to comments electronically. If discussions are held, detailed instructions on responses will be provided. Electronic submissions shall meet the submission deadline set forth by the Government during discussions or indicated in the Amendment requesting the FPR. The Contracting Officer will notify all the Offerors in the competitive range, in writing, how and when interim revisions and FPR are to be submitted.

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

1.7 The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will Selection Process.

make the Source Selection Decision as to which Offerors will be invited to submit a proposal in Phase Two. Phase One factor ratings will be used to determine the Offerors participating in

Phase Two. For all Offerors participating in the Phase Two source selection process, the Government will not allow or consider any revisions to an Offeror's Phase One proposal during Phase Two.

The Solicitation contains certain mandatory or minimum requirements to be met for evaluation. The Solicitation also contains within the described factors certain documents for submission. Failure to satisfy any mandatory or minimum requirement may result in a determination that an offer is unacceptable. (A final determination that an offer is unacceptable means that an award to the Offeror involved cannot be made.)

After evaluating Phase One proposals, the SSA will select the most highly qualified Offerors' and request that only those Offerors submit Phase Two proposals. The maximum number of Offerors to submit Phase Two proposals shall not exceed five (5).

All the submission items to be evaluated pertain to the Prime Offeror, whether a single contractor entity, partnership, or a JV. The Government will consider information provided concerning primary subcontractors (those performing the likelihood that the proposed subcontractor will be available for the Solicitation project), then that submitted information will largely be diminished in the evaluation and selection process. At the same time, an Offeror that intends to have a significant on-site subcontractor participation (20% or more of the total on-site management and construction efforts) should provide information pertaining to those subcontractors IAW Section 00 21 16.

2 Phase One - Evaluation Factors for Award and Methodology

To determine the most highly qualified offerors, a source selection process will be used that involves evaluation of the Offeror's Phase One Proposal.

The SSEB--composed of USACE personnel, using activity representative, and as necessary, technical advisors--will conduct the evaluation. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone that is 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.

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

This is an initial check by Contracting Division to ensure that Proposal Compliance Review.

all required forms are complete, and in compliance with all administrative and submission criteria.

IAW the Solicitation, each member of the SSEB will conduct Non-Price Factor Evaluation.

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 KO's files. Upon completion of the evaluations, the results will be provided to the SSA in the form of a Proposal Analysis Report with a recommendation of the Offerors who are most qualified to proceed to Phase Two.

The highest-rated firms based on non-price factors are shortlisted. The Shortlisting.

contracting officer selects the most highly qualified offerors to proceed to Phase Two, up to the maximum number stated in the solicitation subject to best value tradeoff basis of relative importance as identified in Section 00 21 16.

3. Phase One - Volume I - Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission. Note:

3.1 Volume I - Tab A Past Performance

This factor is designed to verify the past performance of the Offeror's experience on projects of similar in magnitude, complexity, and scope to the requirements of this solicitation.

Submission Criteria

3.1.1 Prime Contractor:

The Offeror shall submit no more than two (2) narratives for projects completed within 10 years from the solicitation issue date. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

Each project narrative must include the information outlined below and shall not exceed four (4) pages. If more than four (4) pages are submitted for a single project, only the first four

(4) pages will be evaluated.

submit the following information:For each project, Detailed Project information:

o Name of Offeror o Project title o Contract Number o Award Date o Geographic location o Contract Award Amount o Final Contract Amount o Contract Completion Date o Contract Duration

Description of the project's scope and magnitude.

o The description should provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the similarities with the proposed project.

Details of Offeror's involvement of the project o Include whether your firm participated as a prime, subcontractor, or joint-venture, and state percentage performed and whether performed as subcontractor or prime. Specifically describe your roles and responsibilities in the design/construction portion of the project and specific tasks accomplished that are similar to the solicitation requirement.

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 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 point of contact, , via email at Cory Pfenning <font color="#3984c6">Cory.R.

prior to proposal closing date. Pfenning@usace.army.mil 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.

3.1.2 If subcontractor Instructions on the use of subcontractor past performance:

experience is submitted for consideration as part of the proposal, the offeror should include a commitment letter signed by offeror and subcontractor certifying that if a contract is awarded resulting from the proposal, the parties commit to joint performance as proposed. If the signed commitment letter is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

Affiliate companies, sister companies, teaming arrangements, joint venture agreement, etc., will be considered provided that sufficient documentation is included in the proposal. The primary offering entity must demonstrate that the affiliate will perform significant and critical aspects of the contract if awarded. Documentation includes a copy of the signed arrangement such as documented affiliation, a copy of the teaming agreement, a copy of the joint venture agreement, etc.

3.1.3 A maximum of two (2) projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than two (2) projects, only the first two (2) projects will be evaluated. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess the projects against the evaluation criteria described in the RFP. Contracts for submitted projects shall be 100% complete.

3.1.4 For evaluation purposes, "similar" is defined as work performed in the areas of work below. Each project submitted must demonstrate experience in at least two of the following areas to receive any rating higher than Somewhat Relevant (though a Somewhat Relevant rating is not guaranteed):

a. Vertical Construction that includes mechanical, electrical, and structural elements and is used for continuous occupancy

b. Road Construction

c. Experience in utility installation, relocation, or upgrades (e.g., water, sewer, electrical, communications).

3.1.5 To be considered similar in magnitude, projects must have a total contract value of a minimum of $2,000,000.00

3.1.6 Additional consideration may be given for projects that contain the following features:

a. Design/Build projects

b. Established, working relationship with the proposed DOR on prior Design/Build projects

c. Experience with Federal (e.g., DOD, USACE) Design/Build Criteria (e.g., AT/FP, UFC, Specs Intact, United Facilities Guide Specifications).

d. Medium voltage conductors and equipment between 4kv - 32kv.

e. Mixed vehicle geometric intersection road construction

f. Experience in constructing security-related facilities (e.g., entry control points, guard stations, fencing, surveillance systems).

3.1.6 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached (Attachment B) for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency by the reference. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror's respective corrective action.

3.1.7 The prime contractor for the subject past performance project must have self-performed at least 15% of the direct contract labor (including testing and layout personnel), exclusive of other general condition or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, or subcontractors for a submitted project performed by the offeror to receive any rating higher than Somewhat Relevant (though a Somewhat Relevant rating is not guaranteed).

3.2 Designer of Record (DOR):

The Offeror shall submit no more than two (2) narratives for projects completed within 10 years from the solicitation issue date that are similar in magnitude and scope (see paragraphs

3.1.4 and 3.1.5 above). To receive a rating higher than not relevant, the proposed firm must have been the DOR on the submitted project. The listed design firm must be used on the project. No deviations will be permitted unless approved by the Contracting Officer.

Identification of more than one design firm will result in an evaluation based on the least qualified firm. Indicate any previous working relationship with the prime contractor.

Each project narrative must include the information outlined below and shall not exceed four (4) pages. If more than four (4) pages are submitted for a single project, only the first four (4) pages will be evaluated.

Additional consideration may be given for the DOR projects that contain the following features:

1. Design/Build Projects

2. Established, working relationship with the Prime Contractor on prior Design/Build projects.

3. Experience with Federal (e.g., DOD, USACE) Design/Build Criteria (e.g., AT/FP, UFC, Specs Intact, United Facilities Guide Specifications).

4. Medium voltage conductors and equipment between 4kv - 32kv.

5. Mixed vehicle geometric intersection road design.

6. Experience in designing security-related facilities (e.g., entry control points, guard stations, fencing, surveillance systems).

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier (formerly known as DUNS number) with the JV proposal.

3.3 Performance Appraisals

The past performance information required in this solicitation shall be provided by the Offeror. Past performance information may also be obtained from past performance questionnaires (PPQ). At the Government's discretion, past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractors Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

3.3.1 Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS). For projects constructed for other Government or commercial entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by the respective Government or commercial entity. For each project that may be private industry work or other Government entity not covered in the CPARS database, submit a PPQ, Attachment B, completed by an owner or owner's representative not affiliated with the Offeror's firm. Offerors are advised to ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the Client point of contact. (Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is available). Offeror should explain any past performance resulting in significant cost and/or time growth. If the client requests, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government points of contact:

Nicholas E. Weaver at <font color="#3984c6">Nicholas.E.Weaver@usace.army.mil

Cory R. Pfenning at <font color="#3984c6">Cory.R.Pfenning@usace.army.mil

3.3.2 Offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line. 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.

3.3.3 Past performance information retrieved through PPIRS, CPARS, or other sources are not subject to the same evaluation criteria but will instead be reviewed for recent negative performance, trends of negative performance, and any other performance information that may negatively impact the offeror's Confidence rating. 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.

3.4 Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime contractor and Designer of Record. The Offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent and relevant experience in both design and construction included in this solicitation.

The past performance evaluation results are an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance evaluation factor includes recency, relevancy, and quality of projects to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror's ability to meet the needs of the requirement, based on a demonstrated record of past performance.

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).

3.4.1 Recency

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror's past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For this project, "recency" is defined as a project that has been completed within the past ten (10) years from the solicitation issue date. The Offeror is responsible for providing start and completion dates for each completed project.

Each of the submitted project must meet the timeframe expressed above. Projects which fail to meet the timeframe above for "recent" will not be evaluated and will not be considered when arriving at a Confidence rating.

3.4.2 Relevancy

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal.

In assessing the relevancy of the offeror's past performance, the Government will consider past projects similar in magnitude and scope (see paragraphs 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 above).

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria identified (see Table 3), the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the magnitude and scope of effort and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings shown in the Table 3 below.

Table 3 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

3.4.3 Quality Assessment

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. For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government may review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including similar projects other than those submitted by the offeror.

The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers identified in the offeror's proposal. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for both the Prime and DOR. The SSEB will determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above, based on the SSEB's assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror's recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience. NOTE: The Past Performance of both the Prime and DOR will be weighted equally in the establishment of the overall Performance Confidence rating.

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 evaluate the record of past performance for the Offeror to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the requirements under this solicitation. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The overall performance confidence assessment will be evaluated using Table 4, below.

Table 4: Performance Confidence Assessment

Ratin g

Description

Subs tantia l Con

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

fiden ce

Satis facto ry Co nfide nce

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

Neutr al Co nfide nce

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.

Limit ed C onfid ence

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 C onfid ence

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.

For Past Performance, a Neutral Confidence rating will be assigned when no past performance records are available. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a)(2)(iv), "In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance."

However, the Government reserves the right to value a Satisfactory Confidence rating or Substantial Confidence rating higher than a Neutral Confidence rating in the source selection decision.

3.5 Volume I - Tab B - Factor II - Technical Approach for Design-Build

3.5.1 Submission Requirements:

The narrative shall address the activities outlined below:

Technical Approach for Design-Build:

Submit a clear and concise narrative that describes the offeror's Narrative.

technical approach for performing the Design-Build Scope of Work, including design, site preparation, civil, electrical, mechanical, and architectural features. The technical approach narrative must not exceed 2 pages; if more than 2 pages are submitted, only the first 2 pages will be evaluated.

The quality of the Offeror's Narrative will be evaluated. A Narrative that addresses all requested items in a thorough and comprehensive manner and demonstrates an effective plan for construction and project closeout within the project timelines may receive higher ratings.

3.5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's understanding of the requirements described in Division 01 (plans and technical specifications) of the solicitation and the capability to execute the project. The Government will determine the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in the approach presented and then assign an overall combined technical/risk rating as listed in Table 6, below.

Table 5. Phase II - Factor 2 - Technical Approach

Combined Technical /Risk Rating

C o l o r

Rating Description

B l u e

Outstandi ng Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

P u r p l e

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

G Acceptabl r e e n e Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Y e ll o w

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

R e d

Unaccept able Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Note the combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

A is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal with appreciable merit or will significant strength exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

A is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified strength performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

A is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract weakness performance. See FAR 15.001.

A signif in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of icant weakness unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

A is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a deficiency combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.0001.

A as it pertains to source selection is the potential for unsuccessful contract risk performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror's proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

An is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of uncertainty the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

. Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to Low risk 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.

. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses Moderate risk which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses, High risk which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

3.5.3 Selection of The Proposals Invited to Participate in Phase Two

The most highly qualified offerors will be determined based on their ratings. The Government will evaluate the advantages each proposal offers when distinguishing between equal ratings. A maximum of five of the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and invited to participate in Phase Two. Those offerors not selected will be excluded from the competition.

KO CONTRACTING DIVISION, 333 SW FIRST AVE

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3495

UNITED STATES

NICHOLAS WEAVER, EMAIL: NICHOLAS.E.WEAVER@USACE.ARMY.MIL TELEPHONE: (503) 808-4932 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS:

CODate: 02/18/2026