10r3-am5.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 2

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

AM-0005 28 Jul 10

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

Contracting Division USAED, Honolulu, Bldg 230 Ft Shafter, HI 96858-5440

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State, and Zip Code) (x) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

W9128A-10-R-0003 X

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

6/23/10

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

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 Offers [ ] is extended, [ X ] is not extended.

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

(x) 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.)

FY09 Grow The Army Projects: PN 69308, PN 68786, PN 68821, PN 68822, South Range, Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

See Page 2 of 2 Pages

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

RFP No. W9128A-10-R-0003 Standard Form 30 Amendment No. AM-0005 Page 2 of 2 Pages Item No. 14 (Continued)

CHANGES TO THE SOLICITATION. Attached hereto are new pages to the solicitation. The revision marked “(AM-0005)” is shown on each page.

1. Summary for Amendment 0005:

Any reference to Section 00100 is changed to Section 00 21 00.

Any reference to Section 00600 is changed to Section 00 45 00.

Any reference to Section 00700 is changed to Section 00 72 00.

Any reference to Section 00800 is changed to Section 00 73 00.

Section 00 22 10 Paragraph 2.2.1 changed reference from Section 00600 to Section 00 45 00 Paragraph 4.2.2. corrected typo Attachment 4 added “and/or Lead Design Firm” to Part A

Section 00900 Additional Questions and Answers

2. DELETED PAGES: None

3. REVISED PAGES: Following are the revised Section and page to the solicitation:

Section 00 22 10

Section 00900 – page 00900-1

4. NEW PAGES: Following are the new pages to the solicitation:

Section 00900 – pages 00900-2 through 00900-6

5. The proposal due date of August 5, 2010, 2:00 P.M., Hawaiian Standard Time, remains unchanged.

00 22 10 - 1 (Am-0005)

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL – PART B CONTENTS

4.0 TAB A – FACTOR 1 - EXPERIENCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.0 TAB B –FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM, PAST PERFORMANCE IN COMPLYING WITH

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION

7.1. EVALUATION PROCESS

7.2. TERMINOLOGY

7.3. RATINGS

7.4. RISK ASSESMENTS

PHASE ONE – ATTACHMENTS

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL - PART A, ATTACHMENT 1, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL - PART B, TAB A, ATTACHMENT 2, COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE -

CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

00 22 10 - 2

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL - PART B, TAB A, ATTACHMENT 3, COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE –

LEAD DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN CAPABILITY

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL - PART B, TAB B, ATTACHMENT 4, PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

QUESTIONNAIRE

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL - PART B, TAB A, ATTACHMENT 5, LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR LEAD

DESIGN FIRM

00 22 10 - 3

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. The Government is looking for ways to streamline construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and achieve an aggressive schedule in executing the Army’s Transformation program goals of faster contract execution at lower cost, while taking advantage of industry standards, means and methods. In Phase 1 of the 2 phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the design-build construction contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability of the Offerors based on the submitted proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein. Approximately 3-6 of the most highly qualified Offerors in Phase 1 will be short-listed and offered the opportunity to compete for the design-build contract in Phase 2.

1.2. In Phase 2, the short-listed Offerors will submit proposals in accordance with Section 00 22 20.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Any legally organized firm or entity may submit proposals. An Offeror may include the one or more of the following: a design build entity, design firm, construction contractor, consortia of firms or associations.

Associations may be formed specifically for this project and may be formed as joint ventures or key team subcontractors. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

2.2. Submit proposals in two (2) separate envelopes. All proposal revisions shall be submitted as page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g. bold face print or underlining. Proposal replacement pages shall be clearly marked “REVISED,” shall show the date of revision, and shall be submitted in the appropriate number of copies (e.g., if four copies of the original page was required, then four copies of the revised page will also be required).

2.2.1 Volume I, Phase I Proposal - Part A: One envelope shall be clearly marked, “VOLUME I, PHASE I PROPOSAL – Part A, RFP NO. W9128A-10-R-0003.” Volume I shall include the following:

• Original and one copy of completed Standard Form (SF) 1442, using a printed copy of the SF 1442 included in this solicitation for the contract (NOT including the Proposal Schedule) completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror.

• Original and one copy of completed proposal data sheet (See Attachment 1, provided at the end of this

Section)

• One certified copy of the Offeror's executed joint venture agreement that holds all parties to the joint venture liable for all of its responsibilities as an Offeror (if the Offeror is a joint venture).

• Original and one copy of completed Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications, using a printed copy of Section 00600 included in this solicitation. Please note that the representations and certifications must also be completed electronically via the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) website at http://orca.bpn.gov.

• Original of completed, if applicable, SF LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, using a printed copy of the

SF LLL included as Appendix A in Section 00 45 00.

http://orca.bpn.gov/�

00 22 10 - 4

• Original letter from the Offeror’s surety stating that the Offeror has sufficient bonding capacity for performance and payment bonds in excess of $200 million and the surety’s assurance that it intends to provide such bonds if the Offeror is awarded the contract. FAILURE TO INCLUDE THIS LETTER IN

THE PROPOSAL MAY CAUSE THE OFFEROR TO BE INELIGIBLE TO PROCEED TO PHASE 2.

2.2.2 Volume 2, Phase 1 Proposal – Part B: One envelope shall be clearly marked, “VOLUME 2, PHASE 1 PROPOSAL – Part B, RFP NO. W9128A-10-R-0003.” Volume 2 shall include the following:

• Original and five copies of the Phase I Proposal - Part B described below. Submit the Phase 1 Proposal –

Part B in a tabbed, three-ring binder. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, indicated below. PHASE 1 DOES NOT INVOLVE A PRICING SUBMISSION.

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL – PART B CONTENTS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Tab A Factor 1 Experience 1st (Most Important Factor, equal in importance to Factor 2)

Tab B Factor 2 Past Performance 1st (Most Important Factor, equal in importance to Factor 1)

Tab C Factor 3 Small Business Program, Past Performance in complying with Small Business Subcontracting Plan

2nd (significantly less important than Factors 1 and 2)

4.0 TAB A – FACTOR 1 - EXPERIENCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.1.1. Prime Contractor and Lead Design Firm. Recent, relevant experience shall be demonstrated using the forms provided. Recent, relevant contracts submitted by the Prime Contractor shall be submitted using Attachment 2, Company Specialized Experience-Construction or Prime Contractor. The Lead Design Firm shall submit its recent, relevant experience using Attachment 3, Company Specialized Experience-Lead Design Firm or In-House Design Capability. Offerors may identify federal, state, and local government as well as private contracts. If the Offeror or any members of the JV has multiple functions or divisions, limit the submittal of contract examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Identify design-build contracts. The Prime Contractor and the Lead Design Firm shall each submit no more than two (2) recent, relevant contracts (maximum of four (4) relevant contracts per Offeror).

4.1.2. Company Specialized Experience Narrative (5-page limit). In addition to the Company Specialized Experience data sheets (Attachment 2 or 3, as applicable), provide a narrative description of each relevant contract included in the proposal. The narrative shall clearly explain how the submitted contract fulfills the experience characteristics for which it is being submitted. No more than five (5) pages shall be submitted for each contract, 00 22 10 - 5 including the Company Specialized Experience data sheet and any continuation pages. Pages exceeding this 5-page limit will not be considered.

4.1.3. Letters of Commitment. Include a signed letter of commitment (Attachment 5) from the Lead Design Firm (if other than a member of a Joint Venture) stating that the firm intends to work on this contract if it is awarded to the Offeror.

4.1.4. Supplemental Narrative (1-page limit). A supplemental narrative may be included, not to exceed one page, that describes any previous Joint Venture, teaming, or prime/subcontractor experience. (This page does not count against the 5-page limit set in paragraph 4.1.2.)

4.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

4.2.1. Proposals will be evaluated to determine the extent of Prime Contractor’s and the Lead Design Firm’s experience on recent, relevant contracts consistent with their proposed roles on this contract. Recent is defined as a construction or design-build contract currently well underway (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no earlier than five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation.

4.2.2. Items in the table below identify criteria that define contract relevancy. For Prime Contractors and Lead Design Firms, a relevant contract shall demonstrate size, type of experience and complexity criteria. Failure to meet one or more elements under the size, type of experience, or complexity criteria will not automatically preclude a contract from being considered relevant.

Relevant Contract Definition

Team Member Size Type of Experience Complexity

Prime Contractor and Lead Design Firm

Construction or Design-build contract approximately $100 million or larger

Design-build

Site design and development of unimproved land

Coordination and management of a multi-disciplined design and/or construction team

Coordination with multiple government and other outside agencies

Design and/or construction in similar site conditions as the GTA site

Design/construction of a USGBC

A complex that includes: site design and development of raw land, infrastructure systems such as roads, communication, water and electrical distribution, and sewer collection;

administrative buildings and light industrial buildings

Fast-track construction

Phased completion dates and/or early partial turnover

00 22 10 - 6

LEED-certified project

Incorporated use of BIM during design/construction

4.2.3. Experience of the Lead Design Firm (if other than a member of a Joint Venture) that does not submit a letter of commitment will not be evaluated.

4.2.4. Design-build experience may be given more consideration than experience for only design or construction contracts.

4.2.5. Relevant contracts more closely matching the size comparable to the total available funding limit for this contract of approximately $208 million (see Section 00 11 00) may be given more consideration than relevant contracts of smaller sizes.

4.2.6. Federal Government experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government experience.

4.2.7. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record.

5.0 TAB B –FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1 1. Past performance refers to the quality of performance on recent, relevant contracts from the owner's perspective. The information provided on the Company Specialized Experience forms submitted in Factor 1 will be used.

5.1.2. For each of the recent, relevant contracts identified in Factor 1, the Offeror and the Lead Design Firm shall complete and submit Part A of Attachment 4 with its proposal. In addition, submit EITHER an agency-generated performance evaluation, similar to DD Form 2626 or DD Form 2631, OR a completed Performance Evaluation Questionnaire (Attachment 4, Part B). If an agency-generated performance evaluation is not available for the submitted relevant contract(s), then the Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire found at the end of this section as Attachment 4, Part B must be completed and submitted. The Offeror is encouraged to provide information on problems encountered on identified contracts and the corrective action taken.

5.1.3. For those relevant contracts requiring submittal of the attached Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire, the Offeror shall complete Part A. Offeror shall then send the partially completed form to the reference (Administrative Contracting Officer/ Respondent or equivalent point of contact), for the identified contract for completion of Part B. The Offeror shall instruct the reference to submit the completed evaluation questionnaire (Parts A and B) directly to the person identified on the SF1442, Block 9 so the Government may solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that Respondents return their completed questionnaires (Part B) by the proposal due date. The Government may, but is not obligated to, contact and

00 22 10 - 7 interview the points of contact, and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed reference, if the listed reference is not available. The Government may use personal knowledge or information from other sources such as agency performance databases in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance.

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1. A risk assessment will be performed to ascertain the probability of the Offeror’s success on this contract, considering the degree of success of the Offeror’s and its Lead Design Firm’s experience on recent, relevant contracts (as defined in Factor 1.) Past Performance on recent, relevant contracts that are design-build may be given more weight than those that are not-design-build. Consideration will be given to the recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, relation of information to Offeror's proposed role on the contract and general trends in contractor performance.

5.2.2. The evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the contracts submitted by the Offeror and its Lead Design Firm. Personal knowledge or information from other sources such as agency performance databases may be used.

5.2.3. During the evaluation, points of contact may be contacted and interviewed. Other individuals acting for the listed reference may also be interviewed if the listed reference is not available. See Attachment 4 for the questions that will be asked. The names of references or individuals contacted will not be released to the Offeror at any time in order to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments.

5.2.4. If past performance information for the contracts identified by the Offeror or Lead Design Firm cannot be obtained or is not provided and a past performance record cannot be established through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The Offeror’s performance risk will be considered “unknown”.

5.2.5. For Joint Venture (or legally organized firm/entity) Offerors, the risk assessment will include an analysis of the JV (firm/entity)'s previous experience working together, the capacity in which the team members participated

(ex. Joint Venture, prime-sub, or teaming arrangement), and the success of the JV (firm/entity)’s performance, if applicable.

5.2.6. Past Performance for firms that do not submit letters of commitment in Factor 1 will not be evaluated. The lack of Past Performance information due to the failure to submit a letter of commitment will be part of the risk assessment.

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM, PAST PERFORMANCE IN COMPLYING WITH

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.1.1. Submit SF 294s, "Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts" for all contracts submitted by the prime contractor under Factor 1 above. Provide explanations for goals that were not met.

00 22 10 - 8

6.1.1.1. Offerors shall submit data that demonstrate its use of Small Business Concerns. Small Business Concerns include small businesses (SB), small disadvantaged businesses (SDB), women-owned small businesses (WOSB), service disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB), HUBZone small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses (VOSB) and historically black colleges/universities or minority institutions (HBCU/MI). If the Offeror’s submitted contracts did not require the submission of SF 294s, provide SF 294s on any other contracts that were completed and turned over no earlier than three (3) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. If goals were not met on these contracts, provide explanations. If SF 294s were not required on any other contracts, state that in the proposal.

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.2.1. Proposals will be evaluated to determine the extent that the Offeror’s Subcontracting Plan goals were met. If the goals were not met, the proposal will be evaluated to determine if the explanation for not meeting the goals were reasonable.

7.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION

7.1. EVALUATION PROCESS

7.1.1. Each proposal will be rated against the evaluation criteria stated above by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB). After ratings for all factors in all proposals are determined, the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals compared to each other will be examined and presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Only proposals in which all factors are rated “Acceptable” and/or “Moderate Risk” or better will be eligible for consideration to short-list for Phase 2. Using this information, the SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select approximately 3-6 of the most highly qualified offerors to short-list for Phase 2.

7.1.2. Possible Ratings. Factors 1and 3 will be assigned one of the following ratings: “Excellent”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable”. Factor 2 will be assigned one of the following risk assessments:

“Unknown Risk”, “Low Risk”, “Moderate Risk”, or “High Risk”.

7.2. TERMINOLOGY

7.2.1. 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.

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

7.2.3. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

00 22 10 - 9

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

7.3. RATINGS

7.3.1. Excellent. Proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes numerous advantageous characteristics of substance, and essentially no disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal offers solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk level: Very Low

7.3.2. Good. Proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives.

This sound approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to be low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk level: Low.

7.3.3. Acceptable. Proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives.

The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect moderate risk in that they are somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level:

Moderate.

7.3.4. Marginal. The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance, and advantages, if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in satisfactory performance.

The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect high risk in that that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High.

7.3.5. Unacceptable. The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has numerous disadvantages of substance, and advantages, if they exist, are far outweighed by disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages will not result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions are further considered to be very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision, are unsupported, and do not demonstrate an understanding of the requirement. Risk Level: Very High.

00 22 10 - 10

7.4. RISK ASSESSMENTS

7.4.1. Unknown Risk. Offeror has no relevant performance record identifiable; equates to an unknown risk rating having no positive or negative evaluation significance.

7.4.2. Low Risk. Little doubt exists, based upon the Offeror’s performance record, that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort.

7.4.3. Moderate Risk. Some doubt exists, based on the Offeror's performance record, that the Offeror can successfully perform the proposed effort.

7.4.4. High Risk. Significant doubt exists, based on the Offeror's performance record, that the Offeror can successfully perform the proposed effort.

00 22 10 - 11

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL - PART A

ATTACHMENT 1

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

1. Name of Solicitation: _______________________________________________________________________

2. Name of Firm: ____________________________________________________________________________

Address: ________________________________________________________________________________

Phone: __________________________________________________________________________________

Fax: ____________________________________________________________________________________

E-mail: _________________________________________________________________________________

DUNS # (used for accessing the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or A-E Contractor Administration Support System (ACASS) Database) _____________________________________

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the ACASS or CCASS databases. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (JV) it must also be submitted. 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.

DUNS #

Firm 1: __________________________________________________________________________________

Firm 2: __________________________________________________________________________________

Firm 3: __________________________________________________________________________________

Nature of Association: ______________________________________________________________________

3. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATOR. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposal (RFP).

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate: _______________________________________________________

Negotiator's Address: ______________________________________________________________________

Negotiator's Telephone: _____________________________________________________________________

Negotiator’s E-mail: _______________________________________________________________________

00 22 10 - 12

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL - PART B, TAB A

ATTACHMENT 2

COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE - CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

The data provided on this sheet will provide supporting information for the Offeror’s Experience and Past Performance (Factors 1 & 2). Use this form to document recent, relevant contracts. Use one form per contract.

(a) Your Firm’s Name: ________________________________________________________________________

(b) Contract Number: __________________________________________________________________________

(c) Contract Title: ____________________________________________________________________________

(d) Location of Contract: _______________________________________________________________________

(e) Owner: __________________________________________________________________________________

(f) General Scope of Contract (___Design-Build or ___Construction only): _______________________________

(g) Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self-Performed:

(h) Award Amount: __________________________ Final Contract Price: ____________________________

(j) Award Date: _____________________________ % Complete: __________________________________

(j) Original Completion Date: ___________________ Actual Completion Date: ________________________

(k) Your Final Performance Rating by Owner, if known _______________________________________________ (Attach copy of evaluation, if available)

(l) Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages? ___________________________________________ (If either is “Yes”, attach an Explanation)

(m) Point of Contact for Reference (Name, Company, Position) _________________________________________

(n) Current Telephone Number of Reference POC ____________________________________________________

(o) Current E-mail Address of Reference POC: _____________________________________________________

00 22 10 - 13

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL - PART B, TAB A

ATTACHMENT 3

COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE – LEAD DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN CAPABILITY

The data provided on this sheet will provide supporting information for the Offeror’s Experience and Past Performance (Factors 1 & 2). Use this form to document recent, relevant contracts. Use one form per contract.

(a) Your Firm’s Name _________________________________________________________________________

(b) Design Contract Number: ___________________________________________________________________

(c) Design Contract Title: ______________________________________________________________________

(d) Location of Construction: ___________________________________________________________________

(e) Owner: __________________________________________________________________________________

(f) General Scope of Contract (___Design-Build or ___Design only): ____________________________________

(g) Summary of Your Role in Design of this Contract, including implementing LEED: ______________________

(h) Dates Construction: Began ________________________ Completed ________________________________

(i) Construction Contract Award Amount: ______________ Final Construction Contract Price: ____________ (Indicate Estimated “E” or Actual “A”)

(j) Extent and Type of Design Subcontracted: _______________________________________________________

(k) Your Performance Evaluation, if known: _______________________________________________________

(l) Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages? ___________________________________________ (If either is “Yes”, attach an Explanation)

(m) Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company): ____________________________________________

(n) Current Telephone Number of Reference POC: __________________________________________________

(o) Current E-mail Address of Reference POC: _____________________________________________________

00 22 10 - 14

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL - PART B, TAB B

ATTACHMENT 4

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

PART A (to be completed by Offeror and/or Lead Design Firm)

1. Contractor/Name & Address (City and State): ____________________________________________________

2. Type of Contract: Fixed Price ________ Cost Reimbursement ________ Other (Specify) __________________

3. Title of Contract/Contract Number: _____________________________________________________________

4. Description of Work (___Design-Build or ___Construction only or ___Design only): _____________________

5. Location of Work: __________________________________________________________________________

6. Date of Award: ___________________________ Completion Date: _______________________________

7. Complexity of Work: High ________ Mid _________ Routine __________

8. Status: Completed (Yes/No): ________________ In Progress, _________% complete

9 % of work and type of work performed by the Offeror: ______________________________________________

10. Name and telephone number of Owner’s Technical Representative: __________________________________

00 22 10 - 15

PART B (to be completed by Respondent) (NOTE: The names of references or individuals contacted will not be released to the Offeror at any time in order to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments.)

QUALITY OF PRODUCT/SERVICE:

11. Please evaluate the contractor's/designer’s performance in complying with contract requirements, quality achieved and overall technical expertise demonstrated.

Outstanding/Exceptional Above Average/Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory (contractor) (designer) (contractor) (designer) (contractor/designer) (contractor/designer) (contractor/designer)

Remarks ____________________________________________________________________________________

12. To what extent were the contractor’s/designer’s reports and documentation accurate, complete and submitted in a timely manner? Construction contractor examples: submittals, test reports, CQC plan, Accident Prevention Plan, etc. Designer examples: construction plans and specifications, design analysis, studies, etc.

Outstanding/Exceptional Above Average/Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory (contractor) (designer) (contractor) (designer) (contractor/designer) (contractor/designer) (contractor/designer)

Remarks ____________________________________________________________________________________

13. To what extent was the contractor/designer able to solve contract performance problems without extensive guidance from Owner counterparts?

Outstanding/Exceptional Above Average/Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory (contractor) (designer) (contractor) (designer) (contractor/designer) (contractor/designer) (contractor/designer)

Remarks ____________________________________________________________________________________

00 22 10 - 16

14. How well did the contractor/designer manage and coordinate subcontractors, subconsultants, suppliers, and the labor force?

Outstanding/Exceptional Above Average/Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory (contractor) (designer) (contractor) (designer) (contractor/designer) (contractor/designer) (contractor/designer)

Remarks ____________________________________________________________________________________

TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

15. To what extent did the contractor/designer succeed in developing, managing, and adhering to a performance schedule?

Outstanding/Exceptional Above Average/Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory (contractor) (designer) (contractor) (designer) (contractor/designer) (contractor/designer) (contractor/designer)

Remarks ____________________________________________________________________________________

00 22 10 - 17

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

16. To what extent were the end users satisfied with:

Quality? Cost? Schedule?

Exceptionally Satisfied

Highly Satisfied

Satisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Highly Dissatisfied

Remarks ____________________________________________________________________________________

17. If given the opportunity, would you work with this contractor/designer again?

Yes ___________ No ____________ Not Sure ____________

OTHER REMARKS:

17. Please use the space below to provide other information related to the contractor's/designer’s performance. This may include the contractor's/designer’s selection and management of subcontractors, flexibility in dealing with contract challenges, their overall concern for the Owner’s interest, contract awards received, etc.

Remarks ____________________________________________________________________________________

END OF QUESTIONNAIRE

00 22 10 - 18

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL - PART B, TAB A

ATTACHMENT 5

LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR LEAD DESIGN FIRM

(USE COMPANY LETTERHEAD)

TO: Contracting Officer

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Contract for ____________________

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby make the unequivocal commitment that, in the event of an award of a contract to (Fill in name of Proposer), that (insert name of design firm) will fulfill the duties of (state role on contract)

Sincerely, (Authorized Official)

Date: __________

RFP No. W9128A-10-R-0003

SECTION 00900

Questions and Answers

Grow The Army Projects

Q # Question Answer

In review of the RFP we see that the project is made up of four projects ranging from $23,590,000 to $66,390,000. Combined as one they total $207,975,850. We believe that each one of the four projects identified could be a standalone project. The relevant contract definition as referenced in Spec section 4.2.2 under Prime Contractor and Lead Design Firm states that past contract size needs to be $100 million or larger. We can see this being the case for the overall size of the project being $200 Million, but with the four distinct projects we believe this requirement needs to be reduce to $50 to $60 Million (more relevant to the size of the four projects). This will allow more competition and more local bid participation. Since the largest project is an infrastructure project with a budget value of $66,390,000, we ask that at least one of the qualifying past performance projects be a civil infrastructure project close to this value. See AM-0003, para 4.2.2.

Phase I - Tab A - Factor I - Experience - 4.2.1 "Recent projects are defrined as a construction or design-build contract currently underway or completed and turned over no earlier than five years preceding the date of this solicitation. 1. With this project consisting of varied specific and complex building types, could you please consider moving the time frame "recent" to completed and turned over no earlier than ten years preceding the date of this solicitation? Most large, complex DoD projects we have submitted on defined recent experience as within the last ten years. No.

Please confirm whether it is required for us to register as a Joint Venture prior (and in order) to attending the conference and / or the site visit(s). No.

Instruction to Offerors, Item 1 on page TOC-1, indicates Section 00 11 00 is to be completed and returned with the proposal. This conflicts with 00 22 10-3, 2.2.1, which indicates that the Phase 1 proposal should NOT be included with the proposal. Is Section 00 11 00 Proposal Schedule to be included in the Phase 1 proposal? See AM-0002, TOC-1.

According to Section 00 22 10-11, 7.1.1, a Subcontracting Plan is to be included with the Phase 1 proposal. At this time, prior to completion of design and pricing of the work, it will be difficult and may not be possible to compile an accurate Subcontracting Plan. Other USACE two-phase solicitations have not required the Subcontracting Plan until submittal of the Phase 2 proposal. Is the Subcontracting Plan actually to be included in the Phase 1 proposal?

See AM-0004, Section 00 22 10. Factor 3 has been revised.

AM-0005

00900-1

Questions and Answers

Section 00 22 10, 2.2.1 instructs that Section 00600, Representations and Certifications should be included with the proposal. Section 00600 is not found; however, Section 00 45 00 is titled Representations and Certifications. Please confirm that Section 00 22 10, 2.2.1 should refer to Section 00 45 00.

See AM-0005. Paragraph is revised, Section 00 45 00 is correct.

With respect to Paragraph 4.1.2, you appear to have two criteria - "if different from the Lead Design Firm, shall also be identified in the Offeror's proposal: architectural, civil, mechanical and electrial" and "Identify no more than one design firm per project (1 infrastructure project and 3 campus projects)". So, how many firms other than the Lead Design Firm can we submit "no more than two (2) recent, relevant contracts.." ? 4.1.2. Other Design Firms. In addition to the Lead Design Firm, the design firms responsible for the following areas, if different from the Lead Design Firm, shall also be identified in the Offeror’s proposal: architectural, civil, mechanical, and electrical. Identify no more than one design firm per project (1 infrastructure project and 3 campus projects). The recent, relevant experience of these design firms shall also be submitted using Attachment 3, Company Specialized Experience-Design Firm or In-House Design Capability.

Identify design-build contracts. Submit no more than two (2) recent, relevant contracts for each of the other design firms.

See AM-0001, Section 00 22 10. Factor 1 has been revised

Section 00 22 10, Para 4.1.1, Pages 4-5: The paragraph states…”if the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV)….each member of the JV shall provide information demonstrating experience consistent with its proposed role on this contract.” It further states…”The Prime Contractor and Lead Design firm shall each submit no more than there (3) recent, relevant contracts. In order to demonstrate experience, does each member of the JV submit no more than three (3) recent, relevant contracts?

See AM-0001, Section 00 22 10. The submission requirement for Factor 1 has been revised.

Section 00 22 10, Para 4.2.2 table, Pages 5‐6: The Relevant Contract Definition table identifies Size of “…approximately $100M or larger” and Complexity for a Prime Contractor and Lead Design firm. Is there a size and complexity relevant definition for the Architectural, Civil, Mechanical and Electrical design firms? No. See AM-0001, Section 00 22 10.

00900-2

Questions and Answers

With respect to Paragraph 4.1.2, you appear to have two criteria "if different from the Lead Design Firm, shall also be identified in the Offeror's proposal: architectural, civil, mechanical and electrial" and "Identify no more than one design firm per project (1 infrastructure project and 3 campus projects)". So, how many firms other than the Lead Design Firm can we submit "no more than two

(2) recent, relevant contracts.." ? 4.1.2. Other Design Firms. In addition to the Lead Design Firm, the design firms responsible for the following areas, if different from the Lead Design Firm, shall also be identified in the Offeror’s proposal: architectural, civil, mechanical, and electrical. Identify no more than one design firm per project (1 infrastructure project and 3 campus projects). The recent, relevant experience of these design firms shall also be submitted using Attachment 3, Company Specialized Experience-Design Firm or In-House Design Capability. Identify design-build contracts. Submit no more than two (2) recent, relevant contracts for each of the other design firms. See AM-0001, Section 00 22 10. Factor 1 has been revised

In reference to Section 00 22 10, 2.2.1: Volume I, Phase I Proposal - Part A: Should the Offeror submit this Volume in a tabbed, three-ring binder similar to Volume 2 (Section 00 22 10, 2.2.2)?

It is not required but the Offeror needs to ensure all the required documents in Volume I are included.

Reference spec section 00 22 10 – 5, para 4.2.2, Relevant Contract Definition table. The size requirement of “construction or design-build contract approximately $100 million or larger” is very restrictive and exclusionary to many contractors that can perform the work. Please revise the size requirement to $70 million or larger to enhance competition and encourage participation from qualified small business and contractors. In addition, the funding available for each project is as follow as noted in 00 11 00 – 2, item 3: 3. Available funding for this contract is limited. The award amount of each project will not exceed the following: a. PN 69308 Infrastructure Expansion (CLIN 0001 + CLIN 0002) $66,390,000 b. PN 68786 Brigade Complex (CLIN 0003 + CLIN 0004) $57,000,000 c. PN 68821 HHD MP Unit Operations and Maintenance (CLIN 0005 + CLIN 0006) $60,995,850 d. PN 68822 Explosive Ordnance Facilities (CLIN 0007 + 0008) $23,590,000 Revising the size requirement to $70 million or larger better aligns the size requirement to the individual funding available for each project.

See AM-0003, Section 00 22 10, para 4.2.2. has been revised.

00900-3

Questions and Answers

Reference spec section 00 22 10 – 7, para 6.1, Small Business Subcontracting and sample small business subcontracting plan included with the RFP. Spec section 00 22 10 – 8, para 6.2.1.2 state “A subcontracting plan that is rated 70 points or less under the AFARS evaluation system will not be considered satisfactory.” AFARS Appendix DD item 6 provides for more points if SB, SDB, HBCU or MI is specifically identified in the small business subcontracting plan. During phase 1, we will not be able to identify small business subcontractors since phase one is the qualification phase which does not include the pricing factor of the design build proposal. The pricing factor is included with phase 2 of the proposal. We request the small business subcontracting factor be moved to the phase 2 of the proposal so we can specifically identify small business subcontractors in the subcontracting plan.

See AM-0004, Section 00 22 10. Factor 3 has been revised.

Section 00 22 10, 2.2 states to "Submit proposals in two (2) separate envelopes." Does the USACE find it acceptable if the Offeror chooses to use a properly labeled shipping box instead of envelopes? Yes.

2.2.1 - Volume I, Phase I Proposal, Part A indicates Reps and Certs as Section 00600. The Reps and Certs provided reflect "Section 00 45 00 Representations & Certifications". Please advise: if we are to use the Reps and Certs Section 00600 - please provide; if we are to use Reps and Certs Section 00 45 00 - provided with RFP.

See AM-0005. Paragraph is revised, Section 00 45 00 is correct. (Note to Kent: are you intending to revise and republish this page? There's a typo in 4.2.2 that I want to correct also.)

Factor 2: 5.1.2: ATTACHMENT 4 indicates it is only for the Offeror, by requesting the Offeror completes it and ask for the Contractor's information. Will the GOV provide an ATTACHMENT 4 for the Lead Design Firm, or will it be sufficient to modify the Offeror's ATTACHMENT 4, to be used for the Lead Design Firm? Yes. See AM-0005, Attachment 4.

Section 00 22 10, 6.1.1.1 limits submission information to 5 pages. The intent is unclear. Is the page limit to be applied to the following paragraph, 6.1.1.2? Two organization charts and a matrix are required and it may be difficult to provide all required information in the page limit. Is the page limit in 6.1.1.1 intended to apply to all the information requested in 6.1.1.2? Likewise, is the 10 page limit in paragraph 6.2.1.1 intended to apply to the information requested in 6.2.1.2 through 6.2.1.5?

See AM-0001, Section 00 22 10. Factor 1 has been revised

If the lead design firm is on more than one team, is it acceptable to receive one Past Performance Questionnaire for both proposals submitted?

Each offeror is responsible for submitting a complete proposal.

00900-4

Questions and Answers

In reference to Section 00 22 10, 4.1.1, if due to the nature of this project the Offeror chooses to utilize multiple divisions within the same parent company (but submitted under one Offeror), would the USACE find it acceptable in this instance for the Offeror to incude examples of recent and relevant experience from the two divisions that will be included in the proposal (i.e. one example from one division and the second example from the second division)? See AM-0001, Section 00 22 10, para 4.1.1.

Reference spec section 00 22 10 – 7, para 6.1, Small Business Subcontracting and sample small business subcontracting plan included with the RFP. Spec section 00 22 10 – 8, para 6.2.1.2 state “A subcontracting plan that is rated 70 points or less under the AFARS evaluation system will not be considered satisfactory.” AFARS Appendix DD item 6 provides for more points if SB, SDB, HBCU or MI is specifically identified in the small business subcontracting plan. During phase 1, we will not be able to identify small business subcontractors since phase one is the qualification phase which does not include the pricing factor of the design build proposal. The pricing factor is included with phase 2 of the proposal. We request the small business subcontracting factor be moved to the phase 2 of the proposal so we can specifically identify small business subcontractors in the subcontracting plan.

See AM-0004, Section 00 22 10. Factor 3 has been revised.

Reference spec section 00 22 10 – 5, para 4.2.2, Relevant Contract Definition table. The size requirement of “construction or design-build contract approximately $100 million or larger” is very restrictive and exclusionary to many contractors that can perform the work. Please revise the size requirement to $70 million or larger to enhance competition and encourage participation from qualified small business and contractors. In addition, the funding available for each project is as follow as noted in 00 11 00 – 2, item 3: 3. Available funding for this contract is limited. The award amount of each project will not exceed the following: a. PN 69308 Infrastructure Expansion (CLIN 0001 + CLIN 0002) $66,390,000 b. PN 68786 Brigade Complex (CLIN 0003 + CLIN 0004) $57,000,000 c.