A.07.24_Amendment_0001.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 include the Small Business Participation Plan Form, replace FAR Clause 52.219-9 w ith 52.219-9 Alt II & revise the language in the Site Visit Provision 52.236-27 Alt I.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 36

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 W9127S20R6019

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-May-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

22-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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

52.236-27 SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (FEB 1995) – ALTERNATE I (FEB 1995)

(a) The clauses at 52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions, and 52.236-3, Site Investigations and Conditions Affecting the Work, will be included in any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation. Accordingly, offerors or quoters are urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed.

(b) An organized site visit has been scheduled for-- May 27 at 1:00pm

(c) Participants will meet at-- 19th CES Parking Lot 528 Thomas Avenue Jacksonville, AR 72099

*If you are planning to attend the site visit, please send an email to Marcus Mitchell at marcus.d.mitchell@usace.army.mil to confirm your attendance. Please provide a list of the individuals that will be in attendance.

(End of provision)

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Criteria and Basis of Award for the Seven (7) High Bay Fuselage Training Facility for the Little Rock Air Force Base (LRAFB)

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

Construct a seven high-bay Fuselage Training Facility utilizing economical design and construction methods to accommodate the C-130H/J series training mission. Construction will include reinforced concrete foundation, steel frame structure, and metal roof. This facility will include special foundations. The project will include all necessary utilities, site improvements, pavements, communications support infrastructure, and all necessary supporting work for a complete and usable facility. The project includes four J model trainers, their associated administrative and support areas and required parking. Administrative area to include restrooms, break room and utility rooms sized to meet the requirements for both H and J model functions. The four trainers will be in individual bays sized to perform night vision google operations with maneuvering space for a K-Loader in each. The project will also include a high-bay area for three H model trainers, their associated administrative areas and required parking. The three trainers will be in individual bays sized to perform night vision goggle operations with maneuvering space for a K-Loader in each. Facilities will be designed as permanent construction in accordance with the DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-01.

Sustainable principles, to include Life Cycle cost-effective practices, will be integrated into the design, development and construction of the project in accordance with UFC 1-200-02. This project will comply with DoD Antiterrorism/force protection requirements per UFC 4-010-01. Air Conditioning: 167 Tons.

REQUIREMENT: The new facility will meet the support requirements for three high-bay C-130H model Fuselage Trainers, four high-bay C-130J Fuselage Trainers, cargo training and associated K-loader equipment storage requirements, associated classroom and briefing spaces, and training administration areas. Specialized mechanical spaces to support each Fuselage Trainers are also required. This project was developed based on criteria specified in Air Force Manual 32-1084, Facility Requirements, C-130J Maintenance and Aircrew Training System (MATS) Facilities Design Criteria Report (dated 2 October 2008) and user interviews.

ADDITIONAL: Air Force Manual 32-1084 does not specifically detail “Facilities Requirements” for a Fuselage Training facility. A size requirement analysis was performed to establish project requirements. An economic analysis was completed in January 2012, however new economic analysis has been requested due to significant change in scope. All reasonable alternatives were considered during the development of this project to include status quo, renovation, and new construction. New facility construction was the only viable option to meet this requirement. The site plan has been adopted into the approved Installation Development Plan and a site plan was approved at the Facilities Board level. This design shall conform to criteria established in the Air Force Corporate Facilities Standards, the Installation Facilities Standards, but will not employ a standard facility design because there is no AF standard facility design for this project and there is no applicable standard design from Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC). The design is to be based on the requirements of the fuselage trainers.

C-130H/J Fuselage Trainer Facility estimated at 11,942 SM = 128,543 SF.

2.0 GENERAL PROCEDURES/REQUIREMENTS

Preliminary Review:

This acquisition will be a firm-fixed price (FFP) contract utilizing a full and open competition strategy.

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 approach 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 facilityusing 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 $47.0M. It is not anticipated that additional funds in excess of $47.0M will be made available for this project prior to contract award.

The total contract award shall not exceed the anticipated funding amount of $43.8M 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 $43.8M.

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 21 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 UNRESTRICTED. 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: 749WPM-MC8ZI2. All questions and inquiries will be accepted only via the ProjNet website. The review is open from 15 MAY to 01 JUN 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-6019, FY20 Fuselage Trainer Facility, 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 Fuselage Trainer Facility, 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 UNRESTRICTED (full and open competition strategy).

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

8.4 FACTOR 1 (TAB D) – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

8.4.1 - Submission Requirements

8.4.2 - Evaluation Criteria

8.5 FACTOR 2 (TAB E) – SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

8.5.1 - Submission Requirements

8.5.2 - Evaluation Criteria

VOLUME II

9.0 FACTOR 3 – PROJECT TEAM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

9.1 FACTOR 3 – Submission Requirements

9.2 FACTOR 3 – Evaluation Criteria

10.0 FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

10.1 FACTOR 4 – Submission Requirements

10.2 FACTOR 4 – Evaluation Criteria

11.0 FACTOR 5 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

11.1 FACTOR 5 – Submission Requirements

11.2 FACTOR 5 – Evaluation Criteria

12.0 FACTOR 6 – TABS (A & B) – TECHNICAL DESIGN

12.1 FACTOR 6 – (TAB A) – Sub-Factor 1 – Technical Solutions

12.1.1 - Submission Requirements

12.1.2 - Evaluation Criteria

12.2 FACTOR 6 – (TAB B) – Sub-Factor 2 – Sustainability

12.2.1 - Submission Requirements

12.2.2 - Evaluation Criteria

13.0 FACTOR 7 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

13.1 FACTOR 7 – Submission Requirements

13.2 FACTOR 7 – 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 98 pages or 49 pages front and back (double-sided). Pages in excess of this limit shall be removed from the proposal and will not be evaluated for award.

SUBMITTALS

Location Description Relative Importance Price VOLUME I PRICE AND PRO

FORMA

INFORMATION

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

VOLUME I

TAB A

PRICE (CLIN

Schedule)

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

VOLUME I

TAB B

BID BOND Not Rated. Submit in hard copy only.

VOLUME I

TAB C

REQUIRED PRE-AWARD

INFORMATION (SF1442,

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET, REPS

& CERTS, etc.

Not Rated.

Factors Location Description Relative Importance Factor 1 VOLUME I

TAB D

Small Business Participation Plan

Significantly less important than price and all technical factors combined.

Factor 2 VOLUME I

TAB E

Subcontracting Plan Factor 2 is rated acceptable/unacceptable

Factor 3 VOLUME II Project Team

Qualifications and Experience

Factor 3 is equal in importance to Factors 4, 5, 6 & 7.

Factor 4 VOLUME II Past Performance Factor 4 is equal in importance to Factors 3, 5, 6 & 7

Factor 5 VOLUME II Organization and

Technical Approach Factor 5 is equal in importance to Factors 3, 4, 6 & 7.

Factor 6 VOLUME II Technical

Design Factor 6 is equal in importance to Factors 3, 4, 5 & 7

Sub-Factor 1 VOLUME II

TAB 6.A

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

Sub-Factor 2 VOLUME II

TAB 6.B

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

Factor 7 VOLUME II

Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule

Factor 7 is equal in importance to Factors 3, 4, 5 & 6

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 Criteria:

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

8.3.1 Submission Requirements:

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

PROJECT TITLE: Solicitation No. W9127S20R6019, Fuselage Trainer Facility; LRAFB Jacksonville, Arkansas

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:

8.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

8.4 FACTOR 1; TAB D - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

8.4.1 Submission Requirements:

All Offerors must submit the Small Business Participation Plan form.

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of participation of small business concerns in performance of this contract opportunity.

Offeror’s proposal must meet the minimum mandatory Total Small Business participation goal of 30% (through collective small business participation from any type of small business or subcategory small business). The subcategory small business goals are NOT mandatory. However, the Government will evaluate the proposal to determine which Offeror(s) propose the best value in terms of meeting all the Small Business Participation goals herein. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime Offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation.

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN EVALUATION FORM

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Plan. Offerors shall propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this area.

(a) Check the applicable size and categories for the PRIME offeror only -- Check all applicable boxes:

{ } Large Prime or

{ } Small Business Prime; also categorized as a { } 8(a) { } Woman-Owned Small Business { } HUB Zone Small Business { } Veteran Owned Small Business { } Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

(b) Submit the total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors):

Example: If Prime proposes a price of $1,000,000 (including all options), and small business(es) will provide $250,000 in services/supplies as a prime or subcontractor, the % planned for small businesses is 25%; and 75% for large business equaling 100%.

Total Percentage planned for Large Business(es) _______%

Total Percentage planned for Small Business(es) _______%

When combined, Large and Small Business totals must equal 100%.

(c) Please indicate the total percentage of participation to be performed by each type of subcategory small business. The percentage of work performed by Small Businesses that qualify in multiple small business categories may be counted in each category:

Example: Victory Prop Mgt (WOSB and SDVOSB) performing 2%; and Williams Group (8(a), HubZ and WOSB) performing 3%.

Results equate to: 8(a) 3%; HubZone 3%; WOSB 5%; SDVOSB 2%; VOSB 2%;). SDVOSBs are also VOSBs automatically;

however VOSBs are not automatically SDVOSBs.

8(a) _________% HUB Zone Small Business _________% Woman Owned Small Business _________% Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB _________% Veteran Owned Small Business _________%

(d) List principle supplies/services to be performed by Small Businesses:

Example: If a Small Business qualifies also as a WOSB and a SDVOSB, and you can add them to each category below in which they qualify.

Name of Company Identify Type of Service/Supply

Small:

8(a):

Woman-Owned Small:

HUB Zone Small:

Veteran Owned Small:

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small:

(e) Describe the extent of commitment to use small businesses (for example, what types of commitments if any are in place for this specific acquisition either – small business prime, written contract, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, joint venturing, mentor-protégé, etc.)

8.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Small Business Participation Plans (from large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the basis of:

(1) The extent to which Small Business firms are specifically identified in the proposal;

(2) The extent of commitment to Small Business firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighed more heavily than non‐enforceable ones);

(3) The complexity and variety of the work small business firms are to perform;

(4) Past performance of the Offerors in complying with requirement of the clauses at FAR 52.219‐8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219‐9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (large businesses only); and

(5) The extent of participation of SB firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition, and the extent to which the Offeror provides proposed percentages, or lack thereof for Small Business (% of total contract value); 8(a) Small Businesses (% of total contract value);WOSB (% of total contract value);

HUBzone (% of total contract value); SDVOSB (% of total contract value) ; Veteran Owned (% of total contract value); and HBCU/MI (% of total contract value).

Small Business Participation Plans will be rated, as follows:

Outstanding

Offeror is a large or small business (SB). SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates substantive commitment to SB firm(s), for example enforceable commitment with 1 or more firms;

identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; demonstrates commitment to far exceed the 30% SB Participation goal (offering 32% or more); meets or exceeds 2 or more subcategory small business goals.

Good

Offeror is a large or small business. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates substantive commitment to SB firm(s), for example enforceable commitment with 1 or more firms; identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform;

demonstrates commitment to exceed the 30% SB Participation goal; and meets or exceeds 1 or more subcategory small business goals. For large business prime – displays past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9.

Acceptable

Offeror is a large or small business. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates a commitment to SB firm(s); identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; and demonstrates commitment to meet the 30% SB Participation goal. Does not meet any of the subcategory small business goals. For large business prime – displays past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9.

Unacceptable

Offeror is a large or small business, and does not demonstrate commitment to meet the 30% SB participation goal or does not identify SBs in the proposal; or does not demonstrate a commitment to use SB firms; or does not identify the work small businesses are to perform; or for large business prime – does not display past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 or 52.219-9 (does not explain or provide justification for failure or show substantive effort.

8.5 FACTOR 2; TAB E – SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

8.5.1 Submission Requirements:

Separate from the Small Business Participation Plan, large business Offerors also must submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Individual Contract Plan) as required by FAR 52.219‐9. The Subcontracting Plan shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan. In accordance with DFARs 215.304(c), when an evaluation assesses the extent that small businesses are specifically identified in proposals, the small businesses considered in the evaluation shall be listed in any subcontracting plan submitted.

8.5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Large businesses will not be eligible for award if they fail to submit an acceptable Subcontracting Plan.

Subcontracting Plans will be evaluated on an ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE basis:

(a) Does the Subcontracting Plan adequately respond to each of the required elements of FAR 52.219‐

9 (d) paragraphs (1) through (11)?

(b) Are the commitments in the Subcontracting Plan comparative to the commitments in the Small Business Participation Plan?

VOLUME II:

9.0 FACTOR 3 - 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 six (6) double-sided pages) Provide a minimum of three (3) relevant aircraft hanger or similar facilities and design-build construction contracts of the Design-Build Team that have been completed together within the last ten (10) years, or are currently under construction and are at least 25% complete. All projects referenced shall provide location and description, owner contact information, project cost, scope, award amount and final price, and major impacts of the project. At a minimum, one (1) of the three (3) projects must be aircraft hanger or similar project, one (1) of the projects must be design-build in nature, and one (1) of the projects must be new construction. If no projects have been completed together as an existing Design-Build team, provide a minimum of three (3) projects for each company which represent at least one

(1) aircraft hanger project, one (1) design-build project, and at least one (1) new construction project. The examples shall be of similar size and complexity to the aircraft hanger facility as proposed in 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 aircraft hanger or similar 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 Key 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 3):

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

Examples The proposal will be evaluated for the overall team’s relevant aircraft hanger or similar experience as defined in Section 9.1 above (i.e. Submission Requirements).

Resumes:

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

2. Key Personnel are both knowledgeable and experienced in construction sequencing; understand how aircraft hangers 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 4 - 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. For the projects submitted in Factor 3, Paragraph 9.1, 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: (NTE ten (10) double-sided pages) For the projects submitted in

Factor 3, paragraph 9.1, the government will query the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to validate past performance ratings. Provided that the CPARS rating is available for the referenced project, the offerer does not have to include a print-out of the CPARS rating. 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.

Offerors submitting responses shall present a list of reference contacts that were mailed a past performance questionnaire to complete. The Offeror shall briefly discuss its past performance on each project identified above in order to explain any ratings that may impact its overall rating for this factor (positively or negatively).

The Government will assess the degree of success of the Offeror’s past performance in recent relevant projects. Owners/references will be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of subcontractor work, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such items or tasks as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas identified in the requirements of this solicitation including records conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, and level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, and problem resolution for construction errors, warranty work, and safety.

A PPQ is not required if CPARS is available for that project.

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 4):

The past performance of each Offeror and subcontractor as reported on the past performance questionnaires will be evaluated to determine the proposals strengths in performing recent projects.

Those proposals with questionnaires received indicating successful completion of recent and relevant projects will receive a better risk rating than those with past performance problems or those that have not completed similar projects or no projects of this type. The Government reserves the right to make contact with references provided and obtain clarification of the performance reported or other information as appropriate.

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

Based on…