AM-0002.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-0002 06 July 12

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-12-R-0013 X

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

5/30/12

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __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, [ X ] is required to sign this document and return 1 copies to the issuing office.

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

$49M Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build Construction Services within the Honolulu Engineer District Area of Responsibility.

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

Am-0002 Standard Form 30 RFP No. W9128A-12-R-0013 Page 2 of 2 Pages Item No. 14 (Continued)

1. CHANGES TO SPECIFICATIONS. Attached hereto are new, revised and deleted pages/paragraphs to the specifications.

Revised pages replace like-numbered pages. The revision mark “(Am-0002)” is shown on each revised page.

a. Revised Paragraphs. The following are revised paragraphs to the specifications. Changes are indicated in bold.

TOC-1, Section 00900 Standard Form 1442, Page 1, paragraph 13A

Section 00120, page 00120- Reissued in its entirety

b. Deleted Paragraphs. The following are deleted paragraphs to the specifications.

Section 00010, MATOC Proposal Schedule, Facilities Capital Cost of Money requirement Section 00100-01, FAR 52.215-16, Facilities Capital Cost of Money

Section 00700-01, FAR 52.215-17, Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of Money

2. NEW PAGES: The following are new pages to the solicitation:

Section 00900, Appendix B, Requests for Information Section 00900, Appendix C, Pre-proposal Conference Attendees Section 00900, Appendix D, Pre-proposal Conference Handout

3. The proposal due date has been EXTENDED to July 17, 2011, 2;00 PM, Hawaiian Standard Time.

W9128A-12-R-0013 TOC-1

(AM-0002)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. W9128A-12-R-0013

MAIN TABLE OF CONTENTS

$49M Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Design-Bid-Build and Design- Build Construction Services within the Honolulu Engineer District Area of Responsibility

Section 00010 SF 1442, MATOC Proposal Schedule, Sample

Project Proposal Schedule, Task Order Matrix

Section 00100 Instructions to Offerors

Section 00120 Proposal Submission Requirements and Evaluation

Factors

Section 00600 Representations & Certifications Appendix A – SF LLL

Section 00700 Contract Clauses Appendix A – Wage Rates

Section 00800 Special Contract Requirements Appendix A – Project Signs Appendix B – Sample Project 1 of 4 – Sample Project Section 01 90 10 2 of 4 – Sample Project Specifications 3 of 4 – Sample Project Drawings 4 of 4 – Sample Project Amendment

Section 00900 Questions and Answers Appendix A – Map to Bldg 230, Ft Shafter, HI Appendix B – Requests for Information Appendix C – Pre-proposal Conference Attendees

Appendix D – Pre-proposal Conference Handout

Instruction to Offerors

1. Offerors are required to COMPLETE AND RETURN the following sections of this solicitation: Sections 00010 and 00600 (ALL) and all Appendices. Offerors shall also follow instructions in Section 00120, “Proposal Submission Requirements and Evaluation Factors”. 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. Contractors shall also follow instructions in Section 00120, “Proposal Submission Requirements and Evaluation Factors”.

2. See Section 00700, DFARS clause 252.204-7004, Alternate A, regarding registration in the CCR database. Lack of registration in the CCR database will make an offeror ineligible for award.

http://orca.bpn.gov/�

$49M Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build Construction Services within the Honolulu Engineer District Area of Responsibility

TRISTIN MATSUKI 808-835-4382

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

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

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

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

US Army Engineer District, Honolulu Attn: CECT-POH-C Building 230, Room 103 Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5440 (Deliver hand-carried proposals to Bldg 230, Room 103, Fort Shafter, Oahu, Hawaii)

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

30-May-2012

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

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

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance within ___*____ calendar days and complete it within ____*____ calendar days after receiving award, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. ( See Section 00700, 52.211-10

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

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

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and (see sec 00120) copies to perform the work required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by 2:00PM (HST) local time July 17, 2012 (date).

If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

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

B. An offer guarantee is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) work requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than ___90___ calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

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

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

CECT - CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE, HONOLULU

BLDG 230, ROOM 103

FT. SHAFTER HI 96858-5440

W9128A

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

(hour) Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

808-835-4396 FAX: TEL: 808-835-4382 TEL: FAX:

W9128A-12-R-0013 2

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

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

CODE FACILITY CODE

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

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

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

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

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

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

See Item 14

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

30B. SIGNATURE

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

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

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

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

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

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

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W9128A-12-R-0013 00010-1

SOLICITATION NO. W9182A-12-R-0013

PROPOSAL SCHEDULE

MAN DAY

CLIN DESCRIPTION RATES MAN DAYS TOTAL

0001 Project Manager $____________ 200 $_______________

0002 Quality Control Representative $____________ 200 $_______________

0003 Site Safety and Health Officer $____________ 200 $_______________

Subtotal $_______________

Home Office Overhead Rate ________% $_______________

Total $_______________

_____ Proposals for task order solicitations will include Facilities Capital Cost of Money

_____ Proposals for task order solicitations will not include Facilities Capital Cost of Money

DEFINITION:

“Man Day” rate is the rate for an 8 hour work period.

NOTES:

1. The Offeror agrees that the rates included in Section 00010 shall be used in the pricing of all task orders and modifications issued for the life of the contract. At the end of an ordering period, the Offeror may request an equitable adjustment to the rates in Section 00010 if the new rate differs by 10% for the labor rates and 2% for the home office overhead rate. The Offeror must submit back-up documentation substantiating the proposed rate and the adjusted rate. Approval of the revised rate is subject to the approval of the Contracting Officer.

2. Multiple awards will be made to 8(a) firms serviced by the SBA Hawaii District Office and other construction firms with a bona fide place of business (as defined by SBA) within the geographical boundaries of the relevant competitive area. An 8(a) firm not serviced by the Hawaii District Office must consult its servicing district office

W9128A-12-R-0013 00010-2 regarding the establishment of a bona fide place of business or status of a previously established bona fide place of business. All other firms may be deemed ineligible to submit offers.

3. MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT. Compensation for all work to be performed under this contract will be made under the payment item(s) listed in the task order. Prices(s) and payment(s) for the item(s) shall cover all work, complete and finished in accordance with the specifications, schedules, and drawings, and shall be full compensation for all work in connection therewith, including quality control and the cost of performance-and payment-bond premiums as specified in the CONTRACT CLAUSES. Price(s) and payment(s) shall constitute full and final compensation for furnishing all materials, equipment, management, supervision, labor, transportation, fuel, power, water, and all incidental items necessary to complete the work, except as otherwise specified to be furnished by the Government. For the purpose of CONTRACT CLAUSE entitled "PROMPT PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS", the term "designated billing office" and "designated payment office" are as follows:

a. Billing Office

U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu Fort Shafter Area Office, Bldg 230 Fort Shafter, HI, 96858-5440

b. Payment Office

USACE Finance Center Attn: CEFC-FP 5722 Integrity Drive Millington, TN 380554-5005

4. A Contractor will be eligible for task order awards until the end of the current ordering period even if the Contractor graduated from the 8(a) program during that period. Once the Contractor graduates from the 8(a) program, the Government can not exercise any remaining ordering periods for that Contractor.

5. (a) For CLINS 0001 – 0003, the man day rates includes labor, labor burden, and fringe benefits.

(b) For The Home Office Overhead Rate, it should NOT include bond premiums and State of Hawaii general excise tax.

00100-1

Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition JAN 2004 52.215-16 Facilities Capital Cost of Money JUN 2003 52.216-27 Single or Multiple Awards OCT 1995 52.236-28 Preparation of Proposals--Construction OCT 1997

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.211-14 NOTICE OF PRIORITY RATING FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, AND ENERGY PROGRAM USE (APR 2008)

Any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation will be DX rated order; DO rated order certified for national defense, emergency preparedness, and energy program use under the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) (15 CFR 700), and the Contractor will be required to follow all of the requirements of this regulation. [Contracting Officer check appropriate box.]

(End of provision)

52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984)

The Government contemplates award of approximately 6-9 firm fixed price Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC) resulting from this solicitation.

52.222-5 DAVIS-BACON ACT--SECONDARY SITE OF THE WORK (JUL 2005)

(a)(1) The offeror shall notify the Government if the offeror intends to perform work at any secondary site of the work, as defined in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of the FAR clause at 52.222-6, Davis-Bacon Act, of this solicitation.

(2) If the offeror is unsure if a planned work site satisfies the criteria for a secondary site of the work, the offeror shall request a determination from the Contracting Officer.

(b)(1) If the wage determination provided by the Government for work at the primary site of the work is not applicable to the secondary site of the work, the offeror shall request a wage determination from the Contracting Officer.

(2) The due date for receipt of offers will not be extended as a result of an offeror's request for a wage determination for a secondary site of the work.

W9128A-12-R-0013 00120 - 1

SECTION 00120

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

AND EVALUATION FACTORS

1.0 GENERAL

1.1. Cost of Preparing Proposals

The Government will not reimburse any Offeror any costs incurred in the preparation and submittal of an offer in response to this solicitation.

1.2. Inquiries

Address all inquiries regarding this solicitation to:

U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu Corps of Engineers, Building 230 ATTN: CECT-POH-C (Ms. Tristin Matsuki and Kent Tamai) Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5440 Phone No. Ms Matsuki - (808)835-4382 Mr Tamai – (808)835-4377 Fax No. (808) 835-4396 E-Mail: W9128A-12-R-0013@usace.army.mil

1.3 Submittal of Proposals

The Offeror’s proposal should be complete, addressing any and all factors relevant to the specific question asked and demonstrating the Offeror’s understanding of the factors affecting performance of work.

Proposals may be submitted via U.S. Postal Service, courier service or personally delivered. Proposals submitted via U.S. Postal Service shall be mailed to the address shown in Block 8 of the Standard Form 1442. Proposals submitted via courier service or hand delivered shall be delivered to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District Attn: Contracting Division (W9128A-12-R-0013) Building 230, Room 103 Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5440

Proposals received by the Government after the date and time set for receipt of proposals will be handled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “52.215-1, Instructions to OfferorsCompetitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (c), found in Section 00100.

1.3.1 Proposal Evaluation

Numerical scores and other point-scoring techniques will not be used in the evaluation process. Each factor will be rated on an adjectival rating system.

The Government will evaluate offers in accordance with the EVALUATION FACTORS described below.

Offerors are advised that the Government intends to award without discussions.

Upon completing the evaluation of all proposals, the Contracting Officer will, in accordance with the provisions of this solicitation and applicable acquisition regulations, proceed to award without discussions. However, if discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with those Offerors only within the competitive range.

W9128A-12-R-0013 00120 - 2

Upon conclusion of discussions, if necessary, the Contracting Officer will request final proposal revisions from the Offerors remaining in the competitive range and may, upon receipt of final proposal revisions, proceed to award a contract without further discussions or notice.

1.4 Contract Award

Offerors shall submit certain specified qualification-related proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the task order projects issued under the indefinite-delivery construction contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

The Government intends to award approximately six (6) to nine (9) contracts to responsible Offerors whose proposal the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the evaluation factors described herein. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price.

The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions upon the determination and recommendation of the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

All proposals will be evaluated on the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated in the proposal. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. The non-price and price factors are as follows:

NON-PRICE FACTORS

Factor 1: Experience Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Bonding Capability

PRICE FACTOR

Factor 4: Price Subfactor 1 – Proposal Schedule Subfactor 2 – Sample Project

The relative importance of evaluation factors for award is listed below.

Factor 3 shall be evaluated on a GO/NO-GO basis. Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 are listed with the order of importance.

Factor Description Relative Importance 1 Experience 1st 2 Past Performance 1st 3 Bonding Capability Go/No-Go 3rd 4 Price 4th

W9128A-12-R-0013 00120 - 3

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), for this contract action, the non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The relevance of the non-price factors (in terms of importance to the overall evaluation) is as follows:

a. Non-price Factors 1 and 2 are equal in importance to each other.

b. Non-price Factors 1 and 2 when combined are more important than non-price Factor 3.

c. Non-price factors (Factors 1- 3), when combined, are more important than the Price Factor (Factor 4).

d. Price subfactors 1 and 2 are equal in importance to each other.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factor 1 - Experience, a rating of no less than “Relevant” AND “Satisfactory Confidence” for Factor 2 - Past Performance, AND a rating of “Go” for Factor 3 - Bonding Capability.

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.1 General

Proposals shall consist of submittals for the evaluation factors listed below.

The proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope, clearly marked, “SOLICITATION NO. W9128A-12-R-0013.” Volume 1, NON-PRICE FACTOR, shall contain one (1) original and four (4) copies. Volume 2, PRICE FACTOR, shall contain one

(1) original and two (2) copies. In addition, Offerors shall provide two (2) CDs of Volume 1, in read-only format, preferably using .pdf files of the proposal and two (2) separate CDs of Volume 2 in read-only format, preferably using .pdf files of the proposal.

Proposals shall completely address the requirements of the solicitation.

Elaborate format, binders, special reproduction techniques, and the like are not necessary. However, the proposal shall be neatly organized and bound.

Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in which section the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the section for each factor.

Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors set forth below.

Offeror is cautioned that “parroting” of the solicitation requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not reveal the Offeror's understanding of the problem or his capability to solve it. The inclusion of “filler” material from previous proposals or commercial applications shall be avoided unless it has direct application to the objective of this solicitation.

Offerors shall include sufficient details in the proposal, and shall present the details in the same order in which they are requested in this section to permit the Government to promptly, completely, and accurately evaluate the proposal from both a technical and management standpoint. The Government will not make any assumptions concerning the Offeror's intent, capabilities, facilities, or experience. Clear identification of the pertinent details shall rest solely with the Offeror.

Legibility, clarity, coherence, and contents are important. Offerors shall not submit verbatim sections of this solicitation as part of its proposal. Offerors that disregard these standards unnecessarily delay the evaluation process and may

W9128A-12-R-0013 00120 - 4 be rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without receiving any further consideration.

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “52.215-1, Instructions to OfferorsCompetitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (e), which is found in Section 00100 of this solicitation. The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

The proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. By submission of an offer, the Offeror agrees that all items in its proposal will be used throughout the duration of the contract and any substitutions of any item will require prior approval of the Contracting Officer.

All reference to the Offeror includes all proposed joint venture partners. All contractors in a joint venture must provide evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the joint venture. Information from Offerors in a joint-venture or from the joint-venture itself will be considered and evaluated as long as the Offeror or joint-venture was a prime contractor. Information provided from potential sub-contractors (not included in the joint venture) will not be considered or evaluated.

2.1.1 Table of Contents

Proposal shall be separated by evaluation factor. Each proposal volume shall include a Table of Contents that includes the title of the subject matter discussed therein and the page number where the information can be found. The proposal shall be organized in the same order described below in paragraph 2.2.

Proposals that are not correctly organized may receive a lower rating.

2.2 Evaluation Factors

All proposals will be evaluated on non-price factors. Offerors are required to address all stated factors. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated. The Contracting Officer may use discretion in reasonably applying evaluation standards where Offerors provide information to explain or justify deviation from selection criteria listed in the solicitation. Offers that do not address all factors may receive a lower rating and may not receive further consideration.

Evaluation Factors 1,2 and 3 are listed below. Factor 3 shall be evaluated on a GO/NO-GO basis.

NON-PRICE FACTORS (Proposal Volume I):

Factor 1, Experience

Factor 2, Past Performance

Factor 3, Bonding Capability

PRICE FACTOR (Proposal Volume II):

Volume II shall contain one (1) original and two (2) copies of the Offeror’s completed Standard Form (SF) SF1442, using a printed copy of the SF 1442 included in this solicitation.

W9128A-12-R-0013 00120 - 5

It shall also include the following:

• One (1) original and two (2) copies of Section 00010, Price Proposal

Schedule. Indicate whether or not Facilities Capital Cost of Money is included in the Offeror’s costs of performing the work. Proposals that state that Facilities Capital Cost of Money is not included, or proposals that do not address Facilities Capital Cost of Money, will be deemed to have waived Facilities Capital Cost of Money.

• One (1) original and two (2) copies of the Sample Project Price Proposal.

• One (1) original and two (2) copies of the Offeror’s completed Section 00600, Representations and Certifications, using a printed copy of Section 00600 included in this solicitation. Provide two (2) copies of representations and certifications completed electronically via the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) at website at http://orca.bpn.gov.

• One (1) original and two (2) copies of the Offeror’s completed, if applicable, SF LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, using a printed copy of the SF LLL included as Appendix A in Section 00600.

• If the Offeror is an approved Small Business Administration 8(a) Joint

Venture, submit one (1) original and two (2) copies of the Offeror’s executed joint venture agreement. If the Joint Venture has not been approved by the Small Business Administration, submit two (2) copies of the Offeror’s joint venture application.

2.2.1 Factor 1, Experience

If the Offeror intends to rely on its joint venture partner’s experience, the Offeror shall submit a Contract Data Sheet and narrative description for the joint venture partner’s relevant contract(s).

Definitions.

Relevant Contracts. A “relevant contract” is defined as a construction contract that was awarded to the Offeror, that was completed or substantially completed within the last five (5) years of the issuance date of this solicitation, and over $500,000.00 (at the time of award or the final contract amount).

If the Offeror intends to rely on its joint venture partner’s experience, the Offeror shall submit a Contract Data Sheet and narrative description for the joint venturer’s relevant contract(s). Joint venture Offerors may submit a maximum of 5 relevant contracts. If a joint venture Offeror submits a relevant contract that was performed by all partners, the relevant contract will be considered to be one relevant contract for the joint venture Offeror.

For the purposes of evaluation of the non-price factors under this solicitation, the following definitions are provided in relation to the definition of a “relevant contract:”

Substantially Complete: the stage in the progress of the Work where the Work or designated portion is sufficiently complete in

W9128A-12-R-0013 00120 - 6 accordance with the Contract Documents so that the Owner can occupy or utilize the Work for its intended use.

For a design-build contract, a contract is considered substantially complete if the construction portion is at least 50% complete.

Contract – a standalone contract or task order issued against an indefinite delivery type contract.

Single or Multiple Award task order contracts, such as Job Order Contracts, Indefinite Delivery Contracts, Multi-trade Contracts, etc. are not considered relevant contracts, even if the total value of the contract is over $500,000. However, an individual task order that exceeds $500,000 (at the time of award or the final contract amount) may be considered as a relevant contract.

EXPERIENCE: The Government’s experience evaluation will be a subjective assessment, based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances.

Evaluators will assess experience on each recent and relevant contract as defined above. The evaluation criteria for this evaluation factor is as follows:

Offerors shall identify a maximum of five (5) relevant contracts.

Proposals that include relevant contracts with higher dollar values and/or higher levels of complexity may be rated higher.

Data provided in support of this factor shall clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the contract based on its experience on relevant contracts as defined in paragraph 2.2.1. Only experience relevant to these contracts will be considered.

For each Relevant Contract submitted as defined under Para 2.2.1 above, a Contract Data Sheet shall be completed. This sheet is included as Attachment 1 to this section. All requested information must be provided. Failure to provide any of the requested data may be cause to eliminate a contract from consideration in the evaluation. Only the form provided as Attachment 1 will be accepted. Data submitted in any other format will be eliminated from consideration.

(a) The Offeror shall provide a narrative description of each relevant contract included in its proposal the Contract Data Sheet. The narrative shall clearly explain how the contract fulfills the experience for which it is being submitted.

The narrative should also describe the work by categories such as:

(1)Specification type: design-bid-build or design-build (2)Prime contractor or subcontractor (3)Type of construction: office building, barracks, warehouse, housing, hangars, road work, site improvement, etc.

(4)Diverse construction experience: civil, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, security, historical, communications, asbestos removal, lead abatement, fire protection, etc.

No more than five (5) pages shall be submitted for each contract, including the Contract Data Sheet and any continuation pages. Pages exceeding this 5-page limit will not be considered.

W9128A-12-R-0013 00120 - 7

Offeror’s experience will be evaluated based on relevant experience in contracts.

The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience, degree of relationship of such experience to the varied types of work that can be anticipated under this contract, and demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. The Government will place greater value on contracts performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and other considerations.

The Experience Factor will be rated utilizing the below table with associated description in identifying strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal.

Rating Description

Outstanding The Offeror provided relevant contracts which included design-bid-build and design-build contracts. Contracts identified show the Offeror has strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. Strengths far outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good The Offeror provided relevant contracts which include design-bid-build and design-build contract. Contracts identified show the Offeror has strengths that will benefit the Government. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable The Offeror provided relevant contracts. Contracts identified show the Offeror has both strengths and weaknesses of substance, where strengths are not outweighed by weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal The Offeror provided relevant contracts. Contracts identified show the Offeror only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal, but acceptable contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable The Offeror failed to provide relevant contracts and/or failed to meet the Marginal requirements above.

2.2.2 Factor 2, Past Performance

The Government’s past performance evaluation will be a subjective assessment, based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance. Evaluators will assess past performance on each relevant contract submitted for Factor 1, Experience. For each of the relevant contracts identified in Factor 1 above, Offerors shall submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 2) or a Government generated Past Performance Evaluation Form or a previous completed Past Performance Questionnaire. The evaluation will include a relevancy rating and confidence assessment as detailed below.

The Government intends to assess the relative risks associated with the offeror's performance based on the past performance information on relevant contracts submitted, including the various contract elements stated for Factor 1. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the offeror to include all relevant information, including demonstrated corrective actions, in its proposal.

W9128A-12-R-0013 00120 - 8

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources.

Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of the joint venture identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past five years prior to the issue date of the solicitation, but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date. The Government will evaluate the relevancy of the information, the source of the information, and general trends in performance, along with any other information, which may help the Government assess performance risk. Information on significant problems encountered, customer dissatisfaction, and corrective actions taken should be provided.

If any adverse information is obtained in the Past Performance Questionnaires, supplemental inquiries by the Government regarding past performance, or from any other source, the Government will deliver an Evaluation Notice (EN) to the offeror(s) so that they may have a chance to respond and individually address and/or mitigate that adverse information, if applicable.

1) PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

W9128A-12-R-0013 00120 - 9

2) PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offerors (a) for whom compliance with FAR 52.219-8 has been established; and/or

(b) for whom no negative information has been reported; or (c) certifying no past performance history of contract containing FAR 52.219-8 will be rated as “complying with FAR 52.219-8.” Such a rating shall have neither positive nor negative impact on the Offeror’s overall Past Performance evaluation. Offerors for whom negative information has been reported shall have such negative information, along with any explanations for comments responding to such negative information supplied by the Offeror, evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria for Past Performance. Such evaluation shall be substantiated and factored into the Offeror’s overall Past Performance evaluation.

2.2.3 Factor 3 Bonding Capability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s bonding capability. The Offeror shall submit a letter from its proposed surety stating the maximum single contract bonding amount (a minimum of $2,000,000) and an aggregate amount for all contracts (a minimum of $10,000,000).

Go The Offeror submitted a letter from its proposed surety stating at least a $2,000,000 single contract bonding amount and at least a $10,000,000 aggregate bonding amount for all contracts.

No-Go The Offeror failed to submit a letter from its proposed

W9128A-12-R-0013 00120 - 10 surety stating at least a $2,000,000 single contract bonding amount and/or at least a $10,000,000 aggregate bonding amount for all contracts.

2.3 Volume II, Price Proposal

The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, Offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of the price.

The contract will be a firm fixed priced construction MATOC. The Price Factor includes 2 Subfactors – Subfactor 1 - Proposal Schedule and Subfactor 2 - Sample Project.

2.3.1 Subfactor 1 – Proposal Schedule

The Proposal Schedule requires an Offeror to propose Man Day rates for 3 disciplines (Project Manager/Superintendent, Quality Control Representative, and Site Safety and Health Officer) and the Home Office Overhead Rate. Man Day rates will remain in effect through the current ordering period of the contract and will be applied to any contract changes unless the contractor request for an equitable adjustment is approved by the Contracting Officer.

2.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Sample Project

The Offeror will be required to provide a price proposal for the Sample Project.

Should the Government determine proposed prices are unbalanced, this will be considered a performance risk.

Using the drawings and specifications provided as a Sample Project, complete the Sample Project Price Proposal Schedule in Section 00010. Instructions are provided in the notes to the Sample Project price proposal schedule. A price analysis will be performed on the lump sum prices for the Contract Line items (CLINs).

2.3.3 Price Analysis

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), a price analysis will be performed to determine that the proposed prices are fair and reasonable, including if there is unbalanced pricing. The Price Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure the prices are fair and reasonable:

- Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation

- Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information

- Comparison of proposed prices with the Government Estimate

W9128A-12-R-0013 00120 - 11

Evaluation criteria for this price factor will include data from Subfactor 1 - Proposal Schedule and Subfactor 2 - Sample Project price proposal schedule. If deemed necessary, the Government will request price breakdown information to assist in price evaluation.

Sample Project price proposal schedule shall be provided as if it were a real project. A price analysis will be conducted and offerors should be prepared to provide price breakdown information upon Contracting Officer request.

After determining that proposed rates on the MATOC Proposal Schedule are reasonable AND that the Sample Project Price Proposal Schedule is reasonable, the Government will add the total prices of the MATOC Proposal Schedule and Sample Project Price Proposal Schedule together for evaluation purposes. This will be the “Price Proposal” referred to below.

2.3.4 Basis for Evaluation

The Government’s price evaluation will be an integrated price analysis, as further detailed below, which will require complete information as described above in paragraph 2.3.3. Failure to provide all information requested may be cause to eliminate an Offeror from consideration in the evaluation.

The information provided in the Price Proposal will be used in the tradeoff analysis. For purposes of award, a determination will be made on the reasonableness of the Price Proposal.

The RFP requires firm-fixed price contract line items. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable. Offers found to be unreasonably high or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

Labor rates, materials, other direct costs, labor overhead, general and administrative, overhead and any other costs that may be associated with the Sample Project may be subject to Proposal Analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404 to assess the potential risk factor to the Government and to determine fairness and reasonableness of prices contained in the Price Proposal. This includes the comparison of cost/price information from other proposals, information relative to market research, historical procurement data, and/or the Independent Government Estimate and, if necessary, further evaluation to determine fairness and reasonableness and whether or not there is unbalanced pricing.

3.0 Definitions and Evaluation and Rating System

3.1 Definitions

The following definitions are provided to assist the evaluators in the evaluation process.

Significant strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceed the specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027�

W9128A-12-R-0013 00120 - 12

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

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

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

3.2 Evaluation and Rating System

3.2.1 General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified.

3.2.2 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.

3.2.3 Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjectival rating for all non-price factors.

For Factor 1, the SSEB will assign an adjectival Experience rating of “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable.”…