16-R-0001_AM-0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04 EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FY16 PN 80412 Behavioral Health/Dental Clinic Addition, Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

See page 2

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 66

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W9128A-16-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Oct-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

Am-0001

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

CODE

CECT - CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE, HONOLULU DISTRICT

BLDG 252 (CECT-POH)

FT. SHAFTER HI 96858-5440

W9128A 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODE CODE

EMAIL: TEL:

28 Nov 2016

(Am-0001)

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AM-0001

1. CHANGES TO SPECIFICATIONS. Attached are new, revised and deleted sections to the specifications. The revision mark “(Am-0001)” is shown on each page. Revisions are shown in the replaced Section 00 21 16, in bold, italicized font. Deletions are in bold, strikethrough font. The exception is Attachment 3 (of Section 00 21 16), “Experience of the Designer” which has been revised for items #6, #7. #8, and #11, and is provided in this amendment with changes incorporated (instead of shown with changes italicized and with deletions shown with strikethrough font). Offerors should take note of the addition of the “Energy and Sustainability Record Card” within the proposal submission and evaluation criteria of Factor 3. Offerors should also take note of the addition of the “Letter of Commitment” proposal submission requirement within Factor 1, if the Lead Design Firm is a subcontractor.

a. New Sections: The following sections were added to the solicitation:

Section 00 60 00, Appendix A – Request for Information Section 00 60 00, Appendix B – Pre-proposal and site visit sign in sheet

b. Replaced Section: The following section was replaced:

Section 00 21 16, Instructions to Proposers Section 00 72 00, Appendix A – Davis Bacon Wage Determination Dated 10/11/2016 is replaced by Section 00 72 00, Appendix A – Davis Bacon Wage Determination Dated 11/18/2016

2. The Request for Proposal due date remains unchanged.

W9128A-16-R-0001

W9128A-16-R-0001 W9128A-16-R-0001

Section 00 21 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Instructions to Proposers

1.0 General Information

2.0 Phase One Proposal

2.1 General Information

2.2 Phase One Evaluation

Factor 1

a. Proposal Submission Requirements

b. Evaluation Criteria Factor 2

a. Proposal Submission Requirements

b. Evaluation Criteria

3.0 Phase Two Proposal

3.1 General Information

3.2 Phase Two Evaluation

Factor 3

a. Proposal Submission Requirements

b. Evaluation Criteria Factor 4

a. Proposal Submission Requirements

b. Evaluation Criteria Factor 5

a. Proposal Submission Requirements

b. Evaluation Criteria Factor 6

a. Proposal Submission Requirements

b. Evaluation Criteria

3.3 Price Evaluation

3.4 Discussions

3.5 Definitions

4.0 Attachments

4.1 Attachment 1 – Proposal Data Sheet (Submit in Phase One)

4.2 Attachment 2 – Experience of the Prime Contractor (Submit in Phase One)

4.3 Attachment 3 – Experience of the Designer (Submit in Phase One)

4.4 Attachment 4 – NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Submit in Phase One)

4.5 Attachment 5 – Experience of the Electrical Subcontractor (Submit in Phase Two)

W9128A-16-R-0001

4.6 Attachment 6 – Small Business Participation Plan (Submit in Phase Two)

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

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

See block 9 of the SF 1442.

1.3 Submittal of Proposals

Proposals may be submitted via U.S. Postal Service, courier service, or personally delivered as follows:

Proposals submitted via U.S. Postal Services should be mailed to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District Contracting Division, ATTN: Graeme Silva Building 230, Otake Street Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5440

Proposals submitted via courier service or hand delivered shall be delivered to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District Contracting Division, ATTN: Graeme Silva Building 252, Walker Drive 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 Offerors Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (c), found in Section 00 21 16.

1.4 Basis for Award

In Phase One, technical proposals will be evaluated based on evaluation factors 1 and 2, to select a maximum of five of the most highly rated offerors to participate in the Phase Two competition. In Phase Two, the limited number of offerors selected in Phase I will be invited to submit proposals in Phase Two, and will be evaluated based on evaluation factors 3 – 6 and Price, In Phase two, the Government will utilize the Tradeoff Process in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. In Phase Two, the factor ratings assigned in Phase One will roll over to Phase Two and be used along with the evaluation factors listed below to conduct the technical/price tradeoff analysis and make awards. The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to all six (6) non price

W9128A-16-R-0001 evaluation factors, and Prices. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE

IMPORTANT THAN COST/PRICE.

Offerors that receive an “Unacceptable” rating on any of the NON-PRICE factors may be determined “Unacceptable” and may not receive further consideration for award. Offerors are advised that the Government intends to award without discussions (except clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a) may be requested). In addition to evaluating all non-price proposals, the Contracting Officer will, in accordance with the provisions of the solicitation and applicable acquisition regulations, evaluate price. In the event that discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will conduct discussions with Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. In determining the competitive range, the Government will include analysis of the Offerors’ NON-PRICE and PRICE factors. Upon conclusion of discussions, the Contracting Officer will request final proposal revisions and may, upon receipt of final proposal revisions, proceed to award a contract without further discussions or notice.

1.5 Pre Proposal Conference

A pre-proposal conference will be held on 15 November 2016 at 0900 hours at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, Bldg. 230, 3rd floor conference room, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, 96858. See Section 00 22 13 for a map to Building 230. Potential offerors are invited to attend. The purpose of the conference is to provide project background, give an overview of the requirement, and review the selection process and evaluation factors. Individuals without base access will be required to obtain a pass at the Fort Shafter gate on the day of the conference.

1.6 Factors and Subfactors to be evaluated:

The following evaluation factors are those that will be used in this solicitation. The relative importance of each factor is shown in the table below. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the all six non-price evaluation factors, and price. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors. Proposals that do not address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

Factor - Description Relative Importance but NOT listed in order of importance

Factor 1 – Experience of the Prime Contractor and Designer

3rd in relative importance; less important than Factor 4

Factor 2 – Past Performance of Prime Contractor and Designer

4th in relative importance; less important than Factor 1

Factor 3 – Technical Approach Most important factor

Factor 4 – Specialized Experience Subfactor 1 : High Voltage Electrical Subcontractor Experience Subfactor 2: Key Personnel

2nd in relative importance; less important than Factor 3 Subfactors 1 and 2 are equal in importance

Factor 5 - Schedule 5th in relative importance; less important than Factor 2

Factor 6 - Small Business Participation 6th in relative importance; less important than Factor 5

W9128A-16-R-0001

Price Factors 1 – 6 combined, are significantly more important than price

Factors 1 and 3-5: A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth within each Factor.

During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each of these factors a combined Technical/Risk Adjectival Rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Past Performance: During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will determine relevancy and assign a confidence assessment rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings

Factor 6: Small Business Participation: During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Price: The resulting award will be a firm fixed price type contract. Price analysis will be utilized in the evaluation of the price schedule submitted as part of the offeror’s proposal. Price is not rated with an adjectival rating. The offeror’s total price, including all contract line items (CLINs), will be evaluated using price analysis to determine the price to be fair and reasonable. CLINs will be evaluated to ensure that unbalanced pricing between CLINs is not occurring. If the Government determines a price realism analysis is necessary the Government will require the offeror to submit other than certified cost and pricing data to determine whether an offeror’s price reflects their technical proposal and whether the offeror’s approach demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and whether any of the prices are unrealistically high or unrealistically low.

2.0 PHASE ONE PROPOSAL

2.1 General Information about Phase One Proposal Submission

a. The proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope, clearly marked, “SOLICITATION NO.

W9128A-16-R-0001, “FY16 PN 80412 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH/DENTAL CLINIC ADDITION,

SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, OAHU, HAWAII” Phase One, Volume I, Non-Price Proposal: The envelope shall be clearly marked, “VOLUME I, NON-PRICE PROPOSAL, RFP NO. W9128A-16-R- 0001.” Detailed instructions of WHAT to submit, may be found within each factor, under the heading

– “Submission Requirements.” The material submitted will be evaluated according to the corresponding paragraph for that factor, under the heading “Evaluation Criteria.” An offeror may (but is not required to) submit a one page introduction of their team. This introduction may serve as a helpful preface to the rest of the proposal, but shall not be used in the evaluation of any individual factor.

b. The Government must receive your proposal no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the SF 1442. Any and all amendments to the solicitation shall be acknowledged by completion of Block 19 of the SF 1442.

c. Submit your proposal as follows:

(1) Phase One - Volume I - submit an original and six (6) hard copies in 3-ring binders.

(2) Submit six (6) electronic copies of Phase One - Volume I in Portable Document File

(PDF) format on compact disk (CD), appropriately bookmarked. Place the CDs in an envelope and clearly mark on the outside “Phase One - Volume I CDs”.

(3) All Volume I information, hard copy and CD’s, is required in the Phase One proposal.

(4) Documents shall be formatted as single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. Text shall be 12-point minimum font size. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Other required formatting is as follows:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right = 1”

From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

Where page limitations are stated in the following paragraphs, it refers to each printed page. For example, if a sheet is printed on both sides, it will be considered as 2 pages.

d. To effectively and equitably evaluate proposals, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) must receive information, in the order described below, that clearly describes an offeror's capabilities to successfully complete the contract. It is therefore an offeror’s responsibility to submit proposal information that is fully responsive to the submission requirements of this section. Offerors are responsible for organizing material sequentially under tabs and numbered pages as set out below to facilitate evaluation. Materials that are not properly organized may easily be overlooked during evaluations, possibly affecting an offeror’s rating.

Offers should be concise, addressing only the information outlined in this section.

e. Phase One – Specific Submission Requirements for Each Factor. Specific material to be submitted, and the format and limitations, are described within the factor itself. The table below outlines how the material shall be organized, and to which factor it is associated with.

Volume I Factor - Description Summary of submittal items Tab A Administrative Requirements SF1442, Attachment 1, Proposal Data

Sheet JV Agreement (for JV offeror) OCI Disclosure

Tab B Factor 1 – Experience of the Prime Contractor and Designer

Attachment 2 for each experience (Prime) Attachment 3 for each experience (Designer) Letter of Commitment- if lead designer is a subcontractor Tab C Factor 2 – Past Performance of the Prime

Contractor and Designer PPIRS evaluation or Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire for each experience submitted

a. Volume I - Tab A, Administrative Requirements. The information submitted under this tab is not rated but checked for compliance.

(1) Submit a Standard Form (SF) 1442, completed and signed by an authorized representative of the offeror. Also include a completed Proposal Data Sheet. (See Attachment 1)

(2) Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV) shall obtain a DUNS number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a JV. Include a fully executed Joint Venture Agreement.

W9128A-16-R-0001

(3) Submit an Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Disclosure: The offeror shall provide a disclosure statement with its proposal that concisely describes all the relevant facts concerning any past or present OCIs relating to this solicitation. If applicable, in the same statement, the offeror shall provide information to assure the government that the conflicts of interest have been mitigated and/or neutralized to the maximum extent possible. If a conflict of interest is discovered after award of this contract, the Contracting Officer will make a decision on whether or not to terminate the contract. If no conflicts of interest exist, the offeror shall provide a statement stating no Conflicts of Interest exist.

b. Volume I – Tab B. The information to be submitted under this tab is described within Factor 1 under “Proposal Submission Requirements.”

c. Volume I – Tab C. The information to be submitted under this tab is described within Factor 2 under “Proposal Submission Requirements.”

2.2 Phase One - Evaluation Factors

In phase one, all proposals will be evaluated on non-price factors. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated. Proposals that do not address all factors may be considered “Unacceptable” and may not receive further consideration.

Factor 1 – Prime Contractor and Design Firm Experience

a. Proposal Submission Requirements Factor 1 – Prime Contractor and Design Firm Experience (Volume I - Tab B)

(1) The prime contractor and the lead design firm if the lead design firm is a subcontractor

(or just the prime contractor if design is to be self-performed) shall each submit recent, relevant experience on similar projects, using “Experience of the Prime Contractor” form

– (Attachment 2, a two page form), and “Experience of the Designer” Form – (Attachment 3, a two page form) at the end of the section. “Recent” and “Relevant” are defined within the Evaluation Criteria for the factor. A maximum of eight (8) projects will be evaluated, in total (for example six projects for the Prime and two projects for the designer, or as another example, eight projects where the Prime and the Designer performed together on design build contracts). A “project” is defined as either a contract or a task order performed under a contract. Offerors may submit federal government, state and local government and private contracts that are recent and relevant. If more than 8 projects are submitted, only the first 8 projects will be evaluated.

(2) Each project experience shall be limited to the 2-page format for either Attachment 2 (if submitted for the Prime contractor) or Attachment 3 (if submitted for the Designer).

(3) The projects submitted by the offeror may be experiences as either a prime or as a subcontractor. If the work experience of the offeror is as a subcontractor, it must be made clear what kind of work was performed as a subcontractor, and what percent of the project it represented. If the lead design firm for this project is a subcontractor to the offeror, the lead design firms experience must be submitted under this factor.

(4) The offeror must identify the lead design firm proposed for this project, and provide at minimum of two recent, relevant project experiences for that firm, whether they were as a

W9128A-16-R-0001 subcontractor, joint venture, or as the prime. If projects were design-build, so identify them. The projects submitted will count as part of the 8 (maximum) projects that the Government will evaluate for the factor. If the lead design firm is a subcontractor then a letter of commitment shall be submitted with the proposal that states the extent to which the Design Firm is committed to work with the offeror if awarded this contract.

Offerors shall note the language in section 00 72 00, FAR clause 52.236-5001, “Personnel, Subcontractors, and Outside Associates or Consultants (May 2006)”.

(5) Joint Ventures: If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm comprising the joint venture shall demonstrate experience relevant to their role on this project (but no more than 8 projects total for this factor). If the offeror is a joint venture, the offeror may demonstrate specialized experience through one or more of the members to the joint venture.

(a) Like other offerors, a JV offeror shall provide no more than eight (8) examples recent, relevant projects performed by the JV that reflect the JV’s ability to perform the work required in this solicitation.

(b) If the JV offeror does not have eight (8) projects performed as a JV, the offeror may supplement those projects it performed as a JV with recent, relevant projects performed by the members of the JV in their individual capacities. In such instance, the total number of projects submitted by the JV shall be no more than eight (8).

(c) If the JV offeror has not previously performed as a JV, each member of the JV may submit recent, relevant projects performed in their individual capacities. The total number of projects submitted by the JV shall be no more than eight (8).

(6) All Business Entities: In evaluating the Prime Contractor, only information pertaining to the corporate entity listed on the SF 1442 will be considered in the evaluation.

Information related to a parent company, affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries and other related entities will not be considered.

(7) The Government reserves the right to verify the information on projects submitted for evaluation and to review PPIRS, or other Government project appraisal systems, for information on other projects performed by the offeror whether submitted as part of a proposal or not. The Government also reserves the right to contact project clients/customer, or other references. For any adverse performance information found for which the offeror has not had an opportunity to address, the offeror will be afforded an opportunity to explain.

b. Evaluation Criteria Factor 1 – Prime Contractor and Design Firm Experience

(1) The Government will evaluate the extent to which an Offeror demonstrates recent, and relevant experience of both the prime contractor and design firm, in design, construction and design-build. If the design will be accomplished in-house, rather than by subcontract, then the design element of specialized experience will still be evaluated, realizing that the work is being done in-house.

“Recent” is a contract or task order that has been completed or substantially completed within five (5) years of the solicitation issue date. Projects which can demonstrate greater than 80% placement are considered to be substantially complete. (Offerors are responsible for providing

W9128A-16-R-0001 start and completion dates for each completed project, or the percentage of placement and the start and scheduled completion dates for projects currently under construction.);

“Relevant” is a contract or task order that is similar in dollar amount, and similar in scope (type of work, physical size, complexity) to the contract requirement. For the purpose of this evaluation, similarity in scope will be determined by the extent to which the kind of features listed below (not listed in any order of importance) were involved and similar to the proposed project, however similarity is not limited to this list. Contracts or task orders do NOT need to include every element listed below to be considered. It is important that the offeror clearly indicate in the proposal which element(s) listed below is associated with the project being presented.

(a) New construction, including expansion, and alteration of active hospital facilities that included: relocation, extension, and upgrade of major utilities at interior and exterior locations (40,000 sq. ft. minimum project size)

(b) Construction of electrical substations, electrical duct banks

(c) Design of new facilities in historic districts or repair of historic facilities

(d) Health clinic (30,000 sq. ft. minimum)

(e) Dental clinic (20 or more dental treatment rooms)

(f) Design Coordination with Section 106 Consulting parties

(g) Work in a physically confined footprint

Note: The minimum amounts stated above are not meant to be “pass/fail” criteria for relevancy. Projects below the sizes stated above will not bar an offeror’s otherwise relevant project from being considered, but may lessen the degree to which a project experience is evaluated as relevant.

(2) In addition, the Government may give additional consideration for projects that involved:

(a) Construction or repair type work that demonstrates planning, design, construction, sustainment, restoration and modernization criteria as defined by

UFC 4-510-01;

(b) Design-build construction

(c) Design-build construction where Designer and Constructor were the same firms as those proposed for this requirement.

(d) Projects that demonstrate adherence to patient privacy issues as covered under the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, infection control, noise mitigation, short or no-notice disruption of work due to medical emergencies, and interim life safety requirements; for projects that demonstrate competence with critical systems like those described in Section 01 00 02; and projects where the Offeror performed as the prime contractor, as opposed to a subcontractor.

(3) The following ratings will be assigned by evaluators. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1 and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 2 for factors 1 (Phase I) and also for factors 3, 4, and 5 (Phase II). For the purpose of this evaluation, the “understanding of requirements” in the table below, equates to “recent and relevant projects” in this Phase I evaluation.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

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

Acceptable

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

Marginal

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

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Table 2. Technical Risk Rating Method

Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Factor 2 Past Performance

a. Proposal Submission Requirement Factor 2 - Past Performance of the Prime Contractor and Designer (Volume I – Tab C)

(1) The offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of their past performance for each project submitted in factor 1. For Federal Government projects, the offeror shall provide a copy of all completed contractor performance evaluation(s), both interim and /or final, found in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (www.ppirs.gov). If a proper evaluation does not exist in PPIRS, because it has not been completed or the project is a

W9128A-16-R-0001

W9128A-16-R-0001 W9128A-16-R-0001 http://www.ppirs.gov/ non-Federal Government project, the offeror shall provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). (See Attachment 4). If, at time of evaluation, a final contractor performance evaluation exists in PPIRS, and yet the offeror submits a PPQ, only the evaluation in PPIRS will be considered.

(2) Past performance surveys/assessment/evaluation forms other than PPIRS or PPQs are unacceptable and will not be considered or evaluated.

(3) Completed PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection. However, offerors shall not incorporate such PPQs by reference and thus must resubmit the PPQ with their proposal. This does not, however, preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the Past Performance evaluation. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing current, detailed and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

(4) If an offeror has been required to take corrective action for any substandard performance or experienced other performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc., the offeror should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken.

(5) If an offeror’s client/customer will only provide completed PPQs directly to the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, offerors must ensure the client/customer submits the PPQ by the proposal due date using the following electronic mailing address:

W9128A-16-R-0001@usace.army.mil. The solicitation number shall be included on the PPQ form. PPQs received after the proposal due date will be considered untimely and will not be considered during the evaluation.

b. Evaluation criteria Factor - 2 Past Performance of the Prime Contractor and Designer

(1) The Government will evaluate the past performance of the projects submitted under

Factor 1. Each of those projects submitted in factor 1, will be assigned a relevancy rating, and then the Government will assess how well an Offeror performed on those projects, to come up with a “Performance Confidence Rating.” An offeror’s past performance on projects that are more relevant may be given more favorable consideration as confidence ratings are assigned. An offeror’s performance on projects that are less relevant will be considered, however that performance may have less impact on the rating. The Government will, as necessary, confirm quality of past performance data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and, at its discretion, obtain additional past performance information, if available, from other sources. When the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective action taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

(2) Upon completion of its evaluation of each project, the Government will assign each project one of the following ratings:

W9128A-16-R-0001 W9128A-16-R-0001 mailto:W9128A-16-R-0001@usace.army.mil mailto:W9128A-16-R-0001@usace.army.mil

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

(3) No overall relevancy rating is assigned to an Offeror’s portfolio of projects. Rather, after checking compliance and assigning each project a relevancy rating, the Government will then determine an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating takes into consideration the degree of relevancy of each project, the quality ratings of those projects, and the diversity of the project portfolio submitted as compared to the work required by the solicitation.

(4) If the Offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture (JV), the Government will utilize the information submitted to conduct the relevancy and performance confidence assessment ratings of the JV, or its partners, as previously indicated. Based on the information submitted by the JV Offeror, the Government will evaluate and assess:

(a) The JV’s “Past Performance Information” and/or

(b) Each JV partners’ “Past Performance Information”

(5) The overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating reflects the degree of probability the Offeror will be able to meet the solicitation’s requirements. Upon completion of the evaluation, one of the following ratings will be assigned:

Table 4. Performance Confidence Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description 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.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

Adjectival Rating

Description Very Relevant Very Relevant- Present/Past effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude, effort and complexities this Relevant Relevant- Present/Past effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation Somewhat

Relevant Somewhat Relevant- Present/Past effort involved some scope and magnitude of effort and complexities

Not Relevant Not Relevant- Present/Past effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this

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.

3.0 PHASE TWO PROPOSAL

3.1 General Information

The proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope, clearly marked, “SOLICITATION NO. W9128A-16-R-

0001, “FY16 PN 80412 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH/DENTAL CLINIC ADDITION, SCHOFIELD

BARRACKS, OAHU, HAWAII.” The Phase Two proposal due date will be provided by the Government, when the proposals are requested. Detailed instruction of WHAT to submit may be found in paragraph 3.2 of this section “Phase Two – Proposal Submission Requirements.”

3.1.1 Phase Two, Volume II, Non-Price Proposal: One envelope shall be clearly marked, “VOLUME II, NON-PRICE PROPOSAL, RFP NO. W9128A-16-R-0001.”

3.1.2 Phase Two, Volume III, Price and Administration Requirements: One envelope shall be clearly marked, “VOLUME III, PRICE PROPOSAL, RFP NO. W9128A-16-R-0001.”

3.4 Phase Two – Proposal Submission Requirements

a. The Government must receive your proposal no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of SF 1442. Any and all amendments to the solicitation shall be acknowledged by completion of Block 19 of the SF 1442.

b. Submit your proposal as follows:

(1) Phase Two - Volume II - submit an original and six (6) hard copies in 3-ring binders. The exception to the 6 copies, are the drawings, renderings and color board where only one original set is required.

(2) Phase Two – Volume III (Price) – submit an original and one (1) hard copy. Separate material by the TABS identified below.

(3) Submit six (6) electronic copies of Phase Two - Volume II, on 6 compact disks (CDs) and one separate CD with one (1) electronic copy of Phase Two - Volume III in Portable Document File (PDF) Volume II material shall be organized according to the TABS identified below, and bookmarked appropriately. The CDs shall be labeled appropriately. Place the CDs in an envelope and clearly mark on the outside “Phase Two - Volumes II and III CD’s”.

(4) Documents shall be formatted as single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. Text shall be 12-point minimum font size. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Other required formatting is as follows:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right = 1”

From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

Where page limitations are stated in the following paragraphs, it refers to each printed page.

For example, if a sheet is printed on both sides, it will be considered as 2 pages.

(5) It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit proposal information that is fully responsive to the submission requirements of this section. Offerors are responsible for organizing material sequentially under tabs and numbered pages as set out below to facilitate evaluation. Offers should be concise, addressing only the information outlined in this section. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements of the RFP with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform.

Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

c. Specific Submission Requirements for Each Factor. Specific material to be submitted is described in this section. The table below outlines how the material shall be organized, and to which factor it is associated with. It also provides a summary of what to submit, and the paragraphs that follow provide the specific detail about what to submit, and the format and limitations associated with the proposal submittal.

d. Price and Administrative Requirements: All Phase II Offeror’s shall submit the following information:

(1) Standard Form 1442, signed and dated, and acknowledgement of all amendments

(2) Price schedule, completed for each contract line item

(3) Representations and certifications as required by Section 00 45 00.

(4) Financial information: Most recent Balance Sheet and Income Statement, for two years prior, names of banks or other financial institutions with which business is conducted (Mailing addresses, points of contact and phone numbers ), evidence of adequate financing arrangements, such as commitments from lending institutions, etc., to perform this contract.

This information will be treated confidentially but may be checked for verification.

(5) A certified statement listing: (1) each contract or task order awarded to the Offeror within the preceding three month period exceeding $5,000,000 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded to the Offeror within the preceding three year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract or task order, and the completion date.

How to Identify and label proposal material

Evaluation with which material is associated

Summary of submittal items (see paragraphs that follow for format and limitations)

W9128A-16-R-0001

Phase Two Volume II – Tab A

Factor 3 – Technical Approach

-Major Systems and Interoperability: narrative.

- Interior Floor Plan and Functional Layout:

Drawings, Color Board, and Narrative -Exterior Design: Narrative, exterior elevations, color board, drawing of functional arrangement, rendering

- Betterments: list, describe and quantify -Energy and Sustainability Record Card

Phase Two

Volume II – Tab B Factor 4 – Specialized Experience

Subfactor 1 - Electrical Subcontractor Experience:

Attachment 5 for each experience Subfactor 2 – Key personnel: Resume for each individual proposed as key personnel. Letter of commitment for each individual proposed as key personnel.

Phase Two Volume II – Tab C

Factor 5 - Schedule Narrative and Gantt Chart Task level schedule for integrated design and construction

Phase Two Volume II – Tab D

Factor 6 - Small Business Participation

Attachment 6- Small Business Participation Plan Format

Phase Two Volume III Price and Administrative Requirements

-Standard Form 1442, signed and dated, and acknowledgement of all amendments -Price schedule, completed for each contract line item -Financial information -Statement listing awards over $5M in last 3 months -Representations and Certifications

Note: (Phase one material shall NOT be resubmitted in phase two)

3.2 Phase Two – Evaluation Factors

Factor 3 Technical Approach

a. Proposal Submission Requirements Factor 3 – Technical Approach (Volume II – Tab A)

The Technical Approach factor evaluates five Major Systems, Interoperability, Interior Floor Planning and Functional Layout, and Exterior Design. In addition, if any betterments are proposed, those are evaluated within this factor. The Offeror must submit a narrative and other submittals as described below, to explain their technical approach. The narrative for the five major systems and interoperability shall be limited to 40 pages (total). Submittal requirements and limitations for Interior and Exterior Design are stated within the paragraphs below.

Submitted items in excess of the limitations stated, will not be considered.

(1) Major Systems: For the 5 major systems, 1)Mechanical, 2)Plumbing, 3)Electrical, 4)Anti-

Terrorism Force Protection (ATFP), and 5)Site Utilities and Site System: Provide a narrative of the offeror’s proposed technical approach for each of the 5 major systems, that describes the components and systems that will provide the basic functions needed, that describes how

W9128A-16-R-0001 they are suitable for the intended use, efficient, limits the consumption of energy, will be easy to operate and maintain, and will comply with the statement of work. For ATFP, the narrative shall specifically describe features which will address the wall and window types which will accommodate the minimum standoff distances.

(2) Interoperability: Provide a narrative of the offeror’s proposed technical approach to integrate

Fire Alarm, Telephone, Cable TV, and Utility Monitoring and Control Systems, into the new facilities. These systems are those which require connection and interface with existing Installation wide systems. The narrative shall also include the offeror’s plan to coordinate and plan to integrate with privatized utility companies.

(3) Interior Floor Plan, Functional Layout and Design: Provide a maximum of ten (10) ANSI D half size scalable to fit 11"x17" sheets showing interior floor plans and functional layouts.

The proposal plans shall provide the floor plans including room names. All rooms contained in the project Program for Design (PFD) shall be identified on the proposed floorplan with the room name, room code and proposed net sq ft. (NSF). Provide a table listing 1) all rooms noting NSF per the PFD; 2) the proposed NSF; 3) variance in size of spaces 10% greater or less than the project PFD, and 4) an explanation for this deviation. Provide a single color board 24” x 36” showing the materials to be used in the interior spaces. Provide a narrative with tables of no more than ten (10) pages that describes how the proposed floor plan and layout meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in the Scope of Work.

(4) Exterior Design: Provide a narrative of no more than four (4) pages which describes how the exterior design meets the constraints and requirements of the Scope of Work. Provide a maximum of five (5) exterior elevations showing all sides of the building. Exterior elevations shall be ANSI D half size drawings, scalable to fit 11"x17". Show the exterior materials and roof pitches including colors. Provide a single color board 24” x 36” showing the materials, colors and textures to be used. Provide one (1) ANSI D half size scalable to fit 11"x17" sheet that shows the spatial and functional arrangement, project boundaries, preliminary storm water and grading plan, vehicular circulation, pedestrian circulation, and force protection features. Show features which address Historic Design Requirements and exterior detailing and finishes. Provide a maximum of three (3) individual color conceptual sketch/computer renderings of the Medical Clinic Addition. The renderings shall depict the overall appearance of the building. One of the three renderings shall be a separate rendering that shall expand the view of the main entrance of the Medical Clinic. Renderings should be at least 11" x 17" in order to show a detailed perspective view of the building(s). The Proposer is required to stay within the maximum SF on the 1391 for the facility. The renderings shall include the existing buildings in the view plane (i.e. the SFAC/WIT Barracks, Buildings 690, 699, or 673)

(5) Betterments: If any betterments are proposed, provide a narrative of no more than five (5) pages to include:

- An affirmative statement that betterments are proposed and reflected in their price

- A list of the betterment(s) (selected from Specification Section 01-10-10 paragraph

2.4) that are being proposed and include for each, a narrative describing and quantifying it in terms of number, area, location, duration, quantity or other measurable feature associated with the betterment

- If an extended warranty is proposed, a description and number of years (or other quantification) of the standard warranty compared to the betterment offered

(6) Energy & Sustainability Record Card: Provide an Energy Record Card for the proposed technical approach per ECB 2013-25, Paragraph 5, Bullet 3.

W9128A-16-R-0001

b. Evaluation Criteria Factor 3 – Technical Approach

(1) Major Systems: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical approach for five Major Systems, 1) Mechanical, 2) Plumbing, 3) Electrical (including high voltage substation and duct banks, electrical power and lighting systems, telephone, data, and cable television systems), 4) Anti-Terrorism Force Protection (ATFP), 5) Site Utilities and Site System, to assess the extent to which the proposed design indicates that it includes the components and systems that will provide the basic functions needed, is suitable for the intended use, efficient, limits the consumption of energy, will be easy to operate and maintain, and will comply with the statement of work.

(2) Interoperability: In addition to the five systems listed above, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeroror’s plan demonstrates a logical integration of the Fire Alarm, Mass Notification System, Telephone, Cable TV, and Utility Monitoring and Control Systems, into the new facilities. These systems are those which require connection and interface with existing Installation wide systems. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the need to coordinate and plan to integrate with privatized utility companies

(3) Interior Floor Plan, Functional Layout and Design: The Government will evaluate the layout of the spaces and adjacency of functions, to determine the extent to which they comply with the requirements of the RFP, enhance the building function, integrate evidence based design principles, and achieve a functional, world class, visually appealing facility that is a source of pride for the Post. Evaluation will include the extent to which the selection of materials and colors not only meet the requirements of the solicitation, but also suit the environment, and enhance the aesthetics of the facility.

(4) Exterior Design: the Government will evaluate the design of the exterior architectural feature of the building to determine the extent to which it achieves design compatibility within the historic district. Design compatibility includes but is not limited to, materials, height, scale, style and fenestration pattern.

(5) Betterments: Within the Factor 3, an offeror may receive additional consideration if the betterments described in Specification Section 01-10-10 paragraph 2.4 are proposed. If a betterment is being proposed, in order to receive additional consideration, the offeror shall:

(a) Make an affirmative statement that betterments are proposed and reflected in their price

(b) Provide a list of the betterment(s) and include for each, a narrative describing and quantifying it in terms of number, area, location, duration, quantity or other measurable feature associated with the betterment

(c) If an extended warranty is proposed, describe and quantify the standard warranty compared to the betterment offered

Offerors are discouraged from proposing betterments if the betterments cause the…