A.07.24_Amendment_0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate the projnet responses, revise evaluation criteria (changes are noted in red), add clause 52.236-25, revise clause 52.217-7, provide the changes in the advertisment set RFP, provide site photo-video indices, provide the Air Force Adaptation 311 Data Dictionary, and provide the environmental assessment at the LRAFB. All other terms and conditions remains the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 29

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W9127S20R6008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Apr-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-May-2020

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE, LITTLE ROCK (W9127S)

700 W. CAPITOL AVE, RM 7315

LITTLE ROCK AR 72201-3225

W9127S 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – FAR 3.104

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION

Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Criteria and Basis of Award for the 168-Unit Replacement Airmen Dormitory for the Little Rock Air Force Base (LRAFB)

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

Construct a three-story Permanent Party Airmen Dormitory, 168 units maximum (Current Mission).

Construct a 168-unit, three-story dormitory utilizing economical design and construction methods to accommodate the mission of the facility. Facilities will comply with all applicable DoD, Air Force, and base design standards. In addition, local materials and construction techniques shall be used when cost effective.

Facilities will be designed as permanent construction in accordance with UFC 1-200-01, DoD Building Code (General Building Requirements). Project includes external balcony access, dormitory with steel reinforced concrete special foundations, slab on grade, steel reinforced masonry walls, standing seam metal roof, fire suppression/detection/alarm systems, elevator(s), heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), common area surveillance, WI-FI system capability, non-secure internet protocol router (NIPR) capability and administration area. Four-person Dorms for Airmen (D4A) design standards include private bedrooms with bath, common living area with fully equipped kitchen. Dormitory facility areas include public restrooms, common day room areas, and adequate storage on each floor. Supporting facilities include site work and all necessary support associated with the completion of this project. This project will comply with UFC 4-010-01 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards, UFC 1-200-02 High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements, and UFC 3-210-10 Low Impact Development (LID) storm water management strategies. Air Conditioning: 150 tons/528 KW Grade Mix: E1-E4

Housing facilities to accommodate Permanent Party enlisted military personnel are required; determinations for living space allowances and accommodations are further defined in the AF Dorm Master Plan (DMP) and Air Force Unaccompanied Housing Design Guide (reference AFMAN 32-1084, Section 7.2.3). AF 2012-2016 DMP for Little Rock AFB and FY15 Integrated Manpower Requirement Document (IMRD) identify the requirement for 798 Permanent Party and 185 Technical Training rooms; total room requirement of 983 by FY2016.

ADDITIONAL: This project meets the criteria/scope specified in the AF Unaccompanied Housing Design Guide and Air Force Manual 32-1084, “Facility Requirements”. All known alternative options were considered during the development of this project including status quo, add/alter, renovation and new construction. New construction was the only feasible option for this requirement. An Economic Analysis has been initiated and estimated completion date in December 2017. The site plan is in the current approved Installation Development Plan and was approved by Facility Board on 8 August 2008. Sustainable principles will be integrated into the design, development, and construction of the project in accordance with Executive Order 13693, 10 USC 2802 (c), and other applicable laws and Executive orders. The FY16 DoD Pricing Guide was used to develop the primary facility cost estimate.

The cost estimate was completed using UFC 3-701-01, DoD Facilities Pricing Guide, dated September 2016.

168-Unit Replacement Airmen Dormitory (5,544 SM = 59,640 SF).

2.0 GENERAL PROCEDURES/REQUIREMENTS

Preliminary Review:

This acquisition will be a firm-fixed price (FFP) contract utilizing a competitive small business set-aside.

This is a One-Phase acquisition process.

Proposals shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the requirements of the Solicitation.

Proposals should be specific and complete in every detail; and should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the requirements.

Proposals should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent.

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government. The price proposals will be separated from the technical proposals. Technical proposals will be provided to the designated Technical Evaluation Team and Price Proposals will be provided to the designated Price Evaluation Advisors, with both teams under the direct guidance and oversight of the Contracting Officer. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. Failure to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affect an Offeror's evaluation.

3.0 INTRODUCTION - NOTICE TO OFFERORS

This section is designed to provide the offeror with instructions to complete and deliver a competitive proposal in response to this request for proposals (RFP). The selection procedures to be used will be a one-phase approached IAW UAI 5136.303-100 for authorized military construction projects. The one-phase selection procedure authorized under 10 U.S.C. 2862(a)(1) allows for the selection of a contractor on the basis of price and other evaluation criteria to perform, in accordance with the provisions of a firm fixed-price contract, both the design and construction of a facility using performance specifications supplied by the Secretary concerned.

3.1 Acquisition Method:

The method of acquisition for this procurement considers the “Best Value” continuum, wherein a Best Value source selection process will be utilized in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.101. Award will be made to the proposal that represents the best value to the Government as determined by the Source Selection Official. In this acquisition method evaluation and price trade off, if conducted, are highly subjective in nature. The offer determined to be the Best Value may not be the lowest price or the highest technically rated offer. The decision will involve a comparison and trade-off analysis of the combination of non-cost strengths, weaknesses, and risks, the evaluated cost/price offered in each proposal, and judgment as to which proposal provides the best combination. As a result offerors must provide their best proposal with all required information in the required format. Information provided must be complete, clear and legible to obtain the best evaluation rating possible.

3.2. Contract Cost Ceiling Limitation for Design and Construction Costs:

The design and construction costs will be subject to the funds available for this project. The current Programmed Amount of funds for design and construction (base proposal plus all options) as well as contract administration fees is $27.0M. It is not anticipated that that additional funds in excess of $27.0M will be made available for this project prior to contract award.

The total contract award shall not exceed the anticipated funding amount of $24.3M for this contract.

Offerors are notified that they are under no obligation to approach this ceiling. The Government may not be able to make an award, if the total proposal amount exceeds the anticipated funding for this project or if the base proposal exceeds the Construction Cost Limit of $24.3M.

3.3. The solicitation process is known as the “Request for Proposals” or the acronym: “RFP”. Interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “offerors”) may submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

3.4. The Government will evaluate the proposals, in accordance with the criteria described in Section 00 22 00 in the solicitation (and below, Evaluating Factors for Award), and award a firm-fixed-price design-build construction contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government considering all factors, sub-factors, and price. Cost information will not be rated, but will be evaluated for reasonableness.

3.5. The proposal must describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the work, describe the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements contained in the solicitation and set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by the Request for Proposals (RFP). The proposal should be prepared simply and economically in the prescribed format and be complete, legible, clear and coherent.

3.6. The Government included Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors, in this RFP. This clause states that the Government intends to make award based on initial offers, but reserves the right to conduct discussions with all offerors determined to be part of the competitive range should the Source Selection Authority deem discussions necessary.

3.7. Oral Presentations:

The Government may conduct oral presentations. Location, assigned dates and times for each potential offeror will be provided at a later date if it is determined oral presentations are necessary.

3.8. Offerors will not be participating in a sealed bid procurement process under this acquisition method.

Issuance of this Request for Proposal does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

3.9. Contract Type:

An award of a firm-fixed-price design-build construction contract requiring delivery and installation is contemplated for this Acquisition.

4.0 PREPARING PROPOSALS

4.1 Proposal Submittal Information.

The following section describes the procedures for submittal of proposals in response to this Request for Proposal.

4.2 Who May Submit:

This request for proposal is set aside for Small Business Firms. The NAICS for this project is 236220, with a size standard of $39.5 Million, as determined by the U.S. Small Business Administration.

4.3 Where to Submit Bidder Inquiries:

A Request for Information (RFI) Review has been set up for this RFP in ProjNet https://www.projnet.org/projnet/ The Bidder Inquiry Key is: DFDPJ7-859TYA All questions and inquiries will be accepted only via the ProjNet website. The review is open from 09 April 2020 to 27 APR 2020 12:00 pm CT.

4.4 Where to Submit. Offerors shall submit proposals to:

US Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District ATTN: Contracting Division (Marcus Mitchell) CESWL-CT 700 W. Capitol Ave, RM 7315 Little Rock, AR 72203

The Packaging that contains the Proposals shall be marked:

All proposals must be marked on the outside with the solicitation number W9127S-20-R-6008, FY20 168-Unit Replacement Airmen Dormitory, LRAFB Jacksonville, Arkansas, “DO NOT OPEN”.

4.5 Submission Deadline. Proposals shall be received by the Corps of Engineers no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the Standard Form 1442. All information requested in Paragraph 3 (below, Evaluating Factors for Award) must be submitted in response to this solicitation in order for the Offeror to be considered responsive to the RFP.

4.6 The Offeror is required to submit a bid guarantee with its proposal in the amount of 20% of the total proposed price or $3,000,000, whichever is less.

4.7 Submission Format and Number of Submittals.

All original proposal materials shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. The section should parallel the submission requirements identified below. “Both” Volumes I and II, respectively, shall be submitted with one (1) hard copy marked “Original” and four (4)CDs copies (each) in read only format, using pdf files.

Each binder or envelope furnished shall contain the following information on its cover: the volume number, solicitation number, name, address, and telephone numbers of the Prime and Subcontractors, Joint Venture, or other entity identified on the cover as appropriate. Proposal clarity and material organization in each volume are mandatory. No material (e.g. samples) shall be incorporated by reference. Each volume will be submitted separately bound or secured in envelopes. The information will be used by the Source Selection Board to evaluate each proposal.

Proposals should provide more than superficial coverage of the information required below.

Additionally, should the proposal include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the proposal may be determined to be non-responsive and thus ineligible for award.

4.7.1 Size of Printed Materials. “Original” copy pages containing text shall be submitted on 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper using 10 point or larger font size, in bound volumes, using 3-ring binders.

4.7.2 Drawings or other graphics may be submitted on 11 x 17 inch paper provided that they are bound/included within their respective Factor Submission sections/tabs. Any 11 x 17 sheets will be counted as one (1) sheet each.

4.8 Proposal Cost. The Government will not be liable for any costs incurred by the offeror submitting an offer in response to this Solicitation.

5.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

5.1 Submit proposals initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume that firms will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals. Submit proposals in tabbed, three-ring binders. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, where indicated below.

6.0 SUMMARY

6.1 Project Title and Location: FY20 168-Unit Replacement Airmen Dormitory, LRAFB Jacksonville, Arkansas

6.2 Proposed Contract Type: Firm-Fixed-Price

6.3 Design-Build: Yes

6.4 Source Selection Process: Best Value, Trade-Off, IAW FAR 15.101-1

6.5 Firms Which Submitted Proposals: The RFP is RESTRICTED-Small Business Firms

Section 00 22 10 – One-Step Design Build Selection Process

SECTION 00 22 10

DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCESS – TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.0 INTRODUCTION

7.1 BASIS OF AWARD

7.2 RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS and SUBMITTALS

7.3 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

VOLUME I

8.0 PRICE PROPOSAL, RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

8.1 TAB A – PRICE (CLIN Schedule)

8.2 TAB B – BID BOND

8.3 TAB C – PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

VOLUME II

9.0 FACTOR 1 – PROJECT TEAM QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE

9.1 FACTOR 1 – Submission Requirements

9.2 FACTOR 1 – Evaluation Criteria

10.0 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

10.1 FACTOR 2 – Submission Requirements

10.2 FACTOR 2 – Evaluation Criteria

11.0 FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

11.1 FACTOR 3 – Submission Requirements

11.2 FACTOR 3 – Evaluation Criteria

12.0 FACTOR 4 – TABS (A & B) – TECHNICAL DESIGN

12.1 FACTOR 4 – (TAB A) – Sub-Factor 1 – Technical Solutions

12.1.1 - Submission Requirements

12.1.2 - Evaluation Criteria

12.2 FACTOR 4 – (TAB B) – Sub-Factor 2 – Sustainability

12.2.1 - Submission Requirements

12.2.2 - Evaluation Criteria

13.0 FACTOR 5 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

13.1 FACTOR 5 – Submission Requirements

13.2 FACTOR 5 – Evaluation Criteria

7.0 INTRODUCTION

The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria described herein, using the evaluation rating systems as outlined below in SECTION 7.3.4. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and for material unbalancing, as described herein. Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.

7.1 BASIS OF AWARD

The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority determines to conform to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable with regard to pricing, and whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described herein.

All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered more important than the price; however, the Contract award may not exceed the cost limitation described in Section 3.2. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best value proposal within the contract cost limitation. There is no obligation to approach or match the contract cost limitation in the offer. As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate betterments in proposals relative to the minimum standards in the RFP to determine if they offer additional value to the Government. In addition, innovations in proposals will be evaluated to determine if creative ideas of the Offeror are a better value to the Government compared to the minimum criteria. After the Government evaluates and rates each proposal, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value for award.

The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the SSA must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify award to that Offeror.

7.1.1 DEVIATIONS

Any proposed exceptions/deviations to the statement of work, codes, criteria and standards shall be clearly identified. Enumerate as separate and distinct page(s) in the proposal and reference in the table of contents.

7.2 RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS and SUBMITTALS

The following table describes the format for Volume I and Volume II. Originals must be clearly marked as “Original”. – Submit one (1) hard copy marked “Original” and four (4) CD copies, using pdf files, for both Volumes.

Limit Volume II to a maximum of 46 92pages or 23 46pages front and back. Pages in excess of this limit shall be removed from the proposal and will not be evaluated for award.

SUBMITTALS

Factors Location Description Relative Importance

VOLUME 1 PRICE AND PRO

FORMA

INFORMATION

PRICE is of lesser importance than the Factors in Volume II when combined.

VOLUME 1

TAB A

PRICE (CLIN

Schedule)

VOLUME 1

TAB B

BID BOND

VOLUME 1

TAB C

REQUIRED PRE-AWARD

INFORMATION (SF1442,

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET, REPS &

CERTS AND PAST PERFORMANCE

QUESTIONNAIRES

Factor 1 VOLUME II Project Team Qualifications and Experience

Factor 1 is equal in importance to Factors 2, 3, 4 & 5.

Factor 2 VOLUME II Past Performance Factor 2 is equal in importance to

Factors 1, 3, 4 & 5

Factor 3 VOLUME II Organization and Technical

Approach Factor 3 is equal in importance to Factors 1, 2, 4 & 5.

Factor 4 VOLUME II Technical Design Factor 4 is equal in importance to

Factors 1, 2, 3 & 5

Sub-Factor 1 VOLUME II

TAB 4.A

Technical Solution(s) Sub-Factor 1 is equal in importance to Sub-Factor 2.

Sub-Factor 2 VOLUME II

TAB 4.B

Sustainability Sub-Factor 1 is equal in importance to Sub-Factor 2.

Factor 5 VOLUME II

Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule

Factor 5 is equal in importance to Factors 1, 2, 3 & 4

7.3 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.3.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

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

7.3.2 EVALUATION

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

The Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary, to determine the most highly qualified Offerors.

7.3.3 DISCUSSIONS (If Necessary) –

The Government intends to award without discussions. A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that discussions with Offerors are required. In such an event, the SSA will approve a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with each Offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

7.3.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements.

Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

Rating System: The evaluation team will document strengths (e.g., advantages), weaknesses (e.g., disadvantages), and other comments (e.g., deficiency and/or clarification) to support the rating for each factor.

Documentation and comments are required for all ratings.

The consensus rating and any minority opinions will be provided to the Source Selection Authority for selection and award. The ratings for Technical Factors will be expressed in an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable.

ADJECTIVE

DEFINITION AND

CRITERIA

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 un-awardable.

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

2. Strength. Any aspect of a proposal when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

3. Significant Strength. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

4. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

5. Significant Weakness. A significant weakness in a proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

6. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of 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).

7. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

8. EXCEPTIONS:

Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

9. RESTRICTIONS:

Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this solicitation may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

VOLUME I:

8.0 PRICE AND PROFORMA INFORMATION

8.1 TAB A – PRICE (CLIN Schedule)

8.1.1 Submission Requirements:

Submit the properly filled out CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration.

Supplemental Price Breakdown. IF REQUESTED by the Contracting Officer, within three working days after the proposal submission due date, submit a price breakdown of the Contract Line items in a sealed envelope marked “Price Breakdown Information”, in Excel format. The Government may use this Supplemental Price Breakdown if it is deemed necessary during the evaluation of the price proposals. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown, if this breakdown is necessary. This information is not an opportunity for a firm to revise its non-price or price proposal.

8.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices.

Firms are cautioned to distribute direct costs, (such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc.) and to evenly distribute indirect costs, (such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc.,) to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the proposed contract.

If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

8.2 TAB B - BID BOND

8.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Submit the Bid Bond IAW FAR Clause 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee. Bid Bond (Standard Form 24). The bid guarantee amount shall be 20% of the proposed price, or $3 Million, whichever is less.

8.2.2 Evaluation requirements:

This item is not rated. The Government will review the Bid Bond for legal sufficiency IAW FAR Clause 52.228-

1. The Bond must be legally sufficient.

8.3 TAB C – PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

Submit the Required Pre-Award Information (SF 1442, Proposal Data Sheet, Reps & Certs, etc.)

7.1.2 Evaluation requirements:

This item is not rated. The Government will review the information provided for legal sufficiency.

Proposal Data Sheet

PROJECT TITLE: Solicitation No. W9127S20R6008, 168 Unit Dormitory Replacement, LRAFB

1. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR

Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

DUNS # :

(DUNS # is used for accessing the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS)

2. IDENTIFICATION OF JOINT VENTURE PARTICIPANTS

Provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the ACASS, CCASS, CPARS databases. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted.

Provide a DUNS number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor- subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide DUNS for each.

Firm 1:

DUNS# :

Firm 2:

DUNS# :

Firm 3:

DUNS# :

Nature of Association:

3. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS

Reference FAR 52.215-1. The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

VOLUME II:

9.0 FACTOR 1 - PROJECT TEAM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

This Factor considers the experience, knowledge, and skills of the Project Team and Key Personnel necessary to accomplish the requirements defined in the RFP.

9.1 Submission Requirements:

Examples (NTE three (3) double-sided pages maximum) Provide three (3) examples of dormitory or similar housing facilities and design-build projects the Prime Contractor and A-E of Record have completed together (or projects that are at least 25% complete) within the last five ten years. Provide three (3) each if they have not completed any projects together. The examples shall be of similar size and complexity to this project.

Resumes (NTE six (6) double-sided pages maximum) Provide 1-page resumes for the key personnel as per the Project Team Qualifications in the RFP. Include as a minimum:

9.1.1.1 Name and Title

9.1.1.2 Specific assignment on this project

9.1.1.3 Name of Firm (if different from Offeror)

9.1.1.4 Number of years with this firm/with other firms (including specific title and role)

9.1.1.5 Education - Degree(s)/year/specialization

9.1.1.6 Active registration: number/state/year

9.1.1.7 Specific dormitory, multi-family housing, or hotel facility experience, including dates, and qualifications relevant to this project. Provide three completed design-build projects (Project Name, location, P.O.C, experience and qualifications should reference specific details of the roles/involvement with projects used as a reference)

9.1.1.8 Personnel shall include as a minimum:

9.1.1.8.1 Project Manager – Construction Contractor

9.1.1.8.2 Project Manager – Design Team

9.1.1.8.3 Project Architect

9.1.1.8.4 QA/QC System Manager

9.1.1.8.5 Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO)

9.1.1.8.6 Sustainability – LEED AP, GPCP, GCP, or equal (may be the same person as the Project

Architect or Project Engineer)

9.1.1.8.7 Project Superintendent

9.1.1.8.8 Mechanical Engineer

9.1.1.8.9 Electrical Engineer

9.1.1.9 Offerors are encouraged to provide descriptive analysis of why they feel their proposed personnel meet the criteria for principal program personnel experience. Major subcontractors are required to have similar type facility and design-build experience.

9.2 Evaluation Criteria (Factor 1):

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which:

1. Key Personnel have a minimum of five (5) years-experience of the construction marketplace and specific experience in dormitory, multi-family or similar facilities and Design Build construction projects.

2. Key Personnel are both knowledgeable and experienced in construction sequencing; understand how dormitories are integrated; and understand the impact of site utility disruption.

3. The Prime Contractor and A-E of Record, as a team, demonstrate the ability to:

A. Provide quality design and construction - Based on all information available, the Government will assess the quality of the actual construction undertaken and the standards of workmanship exhibited by the Offeror.

B. Meet performance periods - The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror completing past projects within the scheduled completion times.

C. Manage subcontractors - The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s management of subcontractors, including mitigation of conflicts and resolution of disputes at the lowest level.

D. Control costs - The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s ability to observe current cost levels, compare them with a standard plan or norm and institute corrective action to keep cost within acceptable levels.

E. Maintain safety - The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s ability to effectively implement and maintain their accident prevention program and have a documented safety incentive program. If there are excessive lost time accidents, Offeror is encouraged to submit an explanation of what has been done to improve their safety record.

10.0 FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance considers the Offeror’s track record for meeting customer satisfaction on project timeliness, costs, quality and safety.

10.1 Submission Requirements:

1. (NTE ten (10)-double sided pages) Provide a minimum of five (5) relevant dormitory, multi-family or similar facility design-build construction contracts of the Prime Contractor that have been completed within the last seven (7) ten (10) years, or are currently under construction and are at least 25% complete; these shall include the projects identified for the Prime Contractor in Factor 1. All projects referenced shall provide location and description, owner contact information, project cost, scope, award amount and final price, and major departments affected by the renovation. At a minimum, two (2) of the five (5) projects must be dormitory or multifamily housing projects and two (2) of the projects must be design-build in nature.

Offerors may provide details on past performance problems and corrective actions taken as a part of the proposal. When an Offeror’s firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm that will actually perform the work.

2. Past Performance References: For the projects submitted in Factor 1, paragraph 9.1, the government will query the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to validate past performance ratings. For each project that does not have a final CPARS evaluation, offerors shall provide a NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) to the point of contact, clearly identifying the project to be evaluated. A NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) is included at the end of the RFP. When completed, these forms shall be mailed, faxed or emailed to the Little Rock District Contract Specialist identified in the RFP. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that the reference documentation is provided as the Government may not make additional requests for past performance information from the references.

3. Other Sources: The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the offeror for information with respect to past performance on projects completed, or at least 25% complete. These other sources may include, but are not limited to CPARS, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, and Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability. The Government may be unable to obtain any qualitative information under subcontracts due to the Government’s lack of privity with subcontractors. Unless otherwise requested by the subcontractor, adverse subcontractor performance information will be provided to the offeror if discussions are held and/or during a requested debriefing.

10.2 Evaluation Criteria (Factor 2):

The Government will evaluate how well the contractor performed on these contracts (See Performance Confidence Assessment below).

Rating

Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

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.

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.

See Performance Relevancy Rating definitions below.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Definitions In performing the past performance factor evaluation, evaluators will apply the following relevance levels to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of offerors.

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.

10.2.1 No Past Performance History

In most cases, this problem will not be encountered, since this solicitation allows firms to identify related relevant past performance information for Federal, state, and local government contracts, commercial contracts and major sub-contractors. However, in those cases where there is no relevant information, the Offeror’s lack of past performance must be treated as an unknown performance risk, having no positive or negative evaluative significance. Firms without relevant performance history must be neither rewarded or penalized a rating of Unknown (Neutral) confidence will be assigned.

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE

TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE

SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT

QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED

DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

8. Client’s Signature:

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

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

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner.

There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

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

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR

EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E N

VG S M U

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E N

VG S M U

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E N

VG S M U

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E N

VG S M U

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

VG

S

M

U

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E N

VG S M U

d) Overall customer satisfaction E N

VG S M U

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

VG

S

M

U

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes N o

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes N o

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes N o

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

Yes N o

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M…