A.8.6_Am-0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

MULTIPLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT (MATOC) FOR DESIGN BUILD (DB) AND DESIGN-BID-BUILD (DBB) CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

FOR KWAJALEIN ATOLL, REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

(Continued on Page 2)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W9128A-17-R-0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Apr-2017

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 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-0002

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-May-2017

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 CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9128A-17-R-0002 Am-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. CHANGES TO SPECIFICATIONS. Attached hereto are new and revised items to the specifications.

Revised pages replace like-numbered pages. The revision mark (Am-0002) is shown on each revised and new pages.

A. REVISED PAGES/CLAUSES/PROVISIONS/SECTIONS. Revisions are indicated in bold for the following:

Section 00 60 00, Request for Information (RFI), responses to #9, #15, #32, #36, and #39.

Section 00 70 00, Conditions of the Contract, following were revised K-8, K-25, K-27, K-30, K-31, K-36 Section 00 21 16, Instructions to Proposers – Phase 1 of 2, page 12, paragraph 3).

Section 01 90 10, Task Order Specific Provisions, paragraphs 4.3(c), and 6.0

B. NEW PAGES/CLAUSES/PROVISIONS/SECTIONS. The following are added to the solicitation.

Section 00 70 00, S-36-12, Project Signs

2. The proposal due date of 17 May 2017, 12:00 pm., Hawaiian Standard Time, remain unchanged.

Section 00 21 16

(Am-0002)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Instructions to Proposers – PHASE 1 of 2

1.0 Overview – Phase 1

2.0 General Proposal Submission Instructions

3.0 Proposal Format And Submittal Requirements

3.1 General Information

3.2 Proposal Characteristics

4.0 Inquiries/Questions

5.0 Joint Ventures (Submissions)

1) A certified copy of their Joint Venture agreement

2) A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate

6.0 Basis for Award

7.0 Source Selection Process

8.0 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

9.0 Definitions

10.0 Debriefing Offerors

11.0 Technical Factors to be Evaluated in Phase 1

• Volume 1, Tab B – Factor 1, Experience o Sub-factor 1, Construction Experience Submission Requirements Evaluation Criteria o Sub-factor 2, Design Experience Submission Requirements Evaluation Criteria

• Volume 1, Tab C – Factor 2, Past Performance o Submission Requirements o Evaluation Criteria

• Performance Confidence Assessment

• Sample Transmittal Letter and Past Performance Questionnaire

• Volume 1, Tab D – Factor 3, Management Plan o Submission Requirements o Evaluation Criteria

12.0 Attachments

• Attachment A – Construction Project information Sheet

• Attachment B – Design Project Information Sheet

• Attachment C – NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire

SECTION 00 21 16: PHASE 1 OF 2

1.0 OVERVIEW

In Phase 1 of the two phase selection procedure, Offerors will submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute design-build and design-bid- build construction work under the contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the qualifications and intends to invite a maximum of five most highly qualified Phase 1 offerors who submitted proposals to compete for the base MATOC pool contracts and one construction seed task order contract for Repair Vehicle Maintenance Shop, Building 803 Kwajalein Atoll.

Offerors must submit a complete Phase 1 proposal to be considered for Phase 2. PHASE 1 DOES NOT

INVOLVE A PRICING SUBMISSION.

Prior to Phase 2, an amendment will be issued to only the selected offerors from Phase 1 inviting them to submit a design-build technical approach and price proposals for consideration. The amendment will request additional information needed to complete the submission of Phase 2 proposals. In Phase 2, the Contracting Officer will award a target of three contracts to the offerors whose proposals represent the best value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2.

Offerors must submit a complete Phase 2 proposal to be considered for award of a contract. Failure to submit a complete proposal may result in the entire proposal being rejected.

2.0 GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

For Phase 1, all offerors are required to submit a proposal with the minimum content as specified herein.

Proposals without the minimum content may be rejected. Proposals will be received until the date and time indicated on Standard Form 1442 at the following address:

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

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District Contracting Division, ATTN: Jennifer Ko Building 252, Walker Drive Fort Shafter, Hawaii, 96858-5440

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

Contracting Division, ATTN: Jennifer Ko Building 230, Otake Street Fort Shafter, Hawaii, 96858-5440

Proposal received by telegraph, facsimile and/or email will not be accepted.

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 2017),” subparagraph (c), found in Section 00 21 16.

3.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1. In order to be considered for award of a contract in response to this solicitation, the offeror must submit a proposal with its offer. Failure to submit a complete proposal may result in the entire offer being rejected. The proposals shall be submitted in Volumes as follows:

Phase 1:

Submit the Phase 1 proposal in a tabbed, three-ring binder identified by the Solicitation Number (W9128A-17-R-0002), project title (MATOC for Design-Build and Design-Bid- Build Construction Services for Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of Marshall Islands), name, address, and telephone number of the Offeror. Arrange tabs as follows:

Volume 1, Technical Proposal:

TAB A, Cover Sheet, Completed SF 1442, Section 00 45 00, Surety Letter, and Joint Venture Teaming Agreement TAB B, FACTOR 1, Experience TAB B, Factor 1, Subfactor 1, Construction Experience TAB B, Factor 1, Subfactor 2, Design Experience TAB C, FACTOR 2, Past Performance TAB D, FACTOR 3, Management Plan

Phase 2: Submittal requirements for Phase 2 will be described in the forthcoming amendment.

2. Proposal Characteristics

a) Submit original and 3 copies of the complete proposal. An electronic copy shall also be provided on one CD/DVD in PDF format and be *Optical Character Recognition (OCR) compatible. Each Volume shall contain a table of contents and all pages of each factor shall be sequentially numbered. All text must be legible and easily read. The size of the proposal contents shall be 8-1/2 by 11 inches where sheets are prepared specifically for this project, unless another paper size is specifically authorized elsewhere in this section for a particular submission. Diagrams, charts and tables shall conform to the paper size. All text shall be typed single-spaced with a minimum size 10 font. Do not use a font size smaller than 10 pitch, an unusual font style such as script, or condensed print for any submission. All page margins must be at least 1-inch wide, but may include headers and footers. If fold-out charts are unavoidable, and are to be utilized, all sheets shall be reproduced on 11 by 17 inch, and folded to 8-1/2 by 11 inch size. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the offeror.

*OCR is a common method of digitizing printed texts so that they can be electronically searched, stored more compactly, displayed on-line, and used in machine processes such as machine translation, text-to-speech, key data extraction and text mining.

b) Offeror shall submit a cover letter containing:

i. Solicitation number.

ii. Names, title, email, and telephone and fax numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

iii. Name, title and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal.

iv. A statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the RFP.

c) For Joint Ventures, the information required by paragraph “Joint Ventures”.

d) Acknowledgement of all amendments to the RFP in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 (amendment form).

e) The completed Section 00 45 00 of the RFP (Representations and Certifications), including the (Offerors System for Award Management extract will suffice) shall be placed in a separate envelope labeled “Representation and Certifications” with one copy.

f) Letter from Surety stating Offer is capable of providing a payment and performance bond for in the minimum and maximum task order limitations amount of $500,000 and $25,000,000 as required in FAR 52.228-1. Failure to provide bonding capability will make the offer ineligible to move forward to Phase 2.

4.0 INQUIRIES/QUESTIONS

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation shall be submitted to the Contracting Division POC listed below. This may be done via e-mail or in writing.

Contracting Division (Jennifer Ko) Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5440 Telephone No. (808) 835-4378

E-Mail: W9128A-17-R-0002@usace.army.mil

All inquiries/questions should reach the Contracting Division POC no later than 21 April 2017, as posted in the Federal Business Opportunities Website at www.fbo.gov.

5.0 JOINT VENTURES

Joint Ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities:

1) A certified copy of their Joint Venture agreement.

2) A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate.

a. The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

b. The management approach of the joint venture in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise and control the project and have custody and control of the assets of the Joint Venture and perform the duties necessary to complete the work.

c. The structure of the joint venture and decision-making responsibilities of the Joint

Venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

d. The bonding responsibilities of the Joint Venture parties.

e. Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the Joint Venture to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the Joint Venture.

f. Identification of party maintaining the Joint Venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the Joint Venture.

g. Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

h. Identification of party having overall control of the Joint Venture.

Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual Joint Venture parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the Joint Venture.

If one of the Joint Venture parties possesses experience and/or past performance as a Federal Government contractor or as a Corps of Engineers contractor, that experience and/or past experience shall be included as the experience and/or past experience of the Joint Venture.

6.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The agency will use a Two-phase Design-Build Selection Procedures authorized by FAR 36.301.

In Phase 1, the Government intends to select a maximum of five of the most highly qualified offerors to compete in Phase 2. The selection will be based on evaluation of the following technical factors.

Factor 1 - Experience; Factor 2 - Past Performance; and Factor 3 - Management Plan. Price will not be considered during Phase 1. Only those offerors selected in Phase 1 will be invited to submit a proposal in Phase 2.

In Phase 2, the Government intends to award no more than three MATOC contracts to the responsible offerors whose proposals conform to the solicitation and proposes the Best Value to the Government under a Traditional Subjective Tradeoff Process under FAR 15.101-1.

7.0 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

All proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with formal source selection procedures. The principal objective of this process is to select a responsible offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value to the Government. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all proposals received in response to this solicitation.

Selection of the most highly qualified offerors will be based on overall evaluation of proposal after consideration of the following factors: Experience, Past Performance, and Management Plan. The

Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals with a technical factor rating of Unacceptable on any factor regardless of the number of other proposals or their ratings.

The Government is not responsible for information overlooked during the evaluation which is not located in the appropriate proposal section. To ensure the evaluation credit is appropriately received for proposal material submitted, do not incorporate by reference documents not contained in the proposal. References to sections of the proposal shall be by specific paragraph number (and name, if applicable), page number, and section.

8.0 COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING METHOD

The offeror’s technical solution will be rated by the combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporates a proposal risk assessment for Factor 1 (Experience) and Factor 3 (Management Plan).

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding

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

Purple

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.

Green

Acceptable

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

Yellow

Marginal

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

Red

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.

9.0 DEFINITIONS

Rating: The rating for the Technical factor will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable.

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

Strength: Any 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.

Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit or specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

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

10.0 DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Pre-award Debriefing of offerors, and FAR 15.506 Post-award Debriefing of offerors.

11.0 TECHNICAL FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED IN PHASE 1

The Government intends to select a maximum of five offerors based on their overall merit after consideration of the evaluation factors described below. The relative weight given to the evaluation factors as described below.

PHASE 1 – RELATIVE WEIGHT OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Volume 1

Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Tab A N/A Cover sheet, Standard Form (SF) 1442, Surety Letter, Joint Venture Agreement, and Section 00 45 00, Reps and Certs.

N/A

Tab B 1 Experience Most important Factor

TAB B Subfactor 1 Construction Experience More important than Factor 1, Subfactor 2

TAB B Subfactor 2 Design Experience Less important than Factor 1, Subfactor 1

Tab C 2 Past Performance Less important than Factor 1

Tab D 3 Management Plan Approximately equal to Factor 1

12.0 The submittals for Phase 1 Proposal should be formatted as follows:

Phase 1 Proposal

Volume 1 Tab

Documents to be Included

A Cover Sheet

A SF 1442 (front and back page)

A Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications

A Letter from Surety

A Joint Venture Agreement (if Joint Venture)

B Attachment A “Construction Project Information Sheet.” Submit one information sheet per project. Submit at least two but not more than five projects.

B Attachment B “Design Project Information Sheet.” Submit one information sheet per project. Submit at least two but not more than five projects.

C Attachment C “NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire” and/or CPAR, and attachments (if any) for Construction Projects submitted under Factor 1, Subfactor 1, Construction Experience.

C Attachment C “NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire” and/or CPAR, and attachments (if any) for Design Projects submitted under Factor 1, Subfactor 2, Design Experience.

D Management Plan

VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 1 – Experience

Sub-factor 1, Construction Experience is more important than Sub-factor 2, Design Experience. The Sub-factors will be rolled up into Factor 1 for an overall rating of Factor 1.

Sub-factor 1. Construction Experience

Submission Requirements Use Attachment A, Construction Project Information Sheet to identify a minimum of two but no more than five relevant Construction projects. If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects will be considered for evaluation. The sixth and any additional projects will not be considered for evaluation regardless of whether or not the first five projects are classified as “relevant” or “not relevant” by Government evaluators.

Limit proposals to a maximum of 10 pages (2 pages per project) for Factor 1, subfactor 1. Any pages over this limit will not be considered for evaluation. A page is defined as text or information on one side of the paper. If it is printed double-sided, each face will be counted as a page.

Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) or any other type of task-order contracts that provide for the issuance of orders for the performance of tasks will not be considered projects for the purposes of this evaluation; only individual task orders issued under such contracts will be evaluated as projects.

Only relevant construction projects will be considered for evaluation. In order to be considered relevant, a project must possess the following features:

1) It must have been a construction projects

2) It must have been awarded for $1.5 million or more. The Government intends to give greater weight for award greater than $13 million.

3) It must have been substantially complete within seven years from the date of this solicitation.

The project will be considered substantially completed if it is 95% or more complete. If an Offeror presents a project that is less than 95% complete, the proposal must include an explanation why that project should be considered substantially complete. The Government will determine whether the explanation is sufficient to consider the project substantially complete, and

4) It must be awarded to an Offeror as the prime contractor.

Note: For purposes of evaluating construction experience as a prime contractor, the offeror and prime contractor are defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the SF 1442. If a Joint Venture (JV) is identified in Block 14 of the SF 1442, then, a signed joint venture agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM).

a) The offeror may demonstrate prime contractor experience through one or more of the members to the JV.

b) Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror (such as teaming partners) will be not be evaluated as construction experience by a prime contractor unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture for this solicitation as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement.

c) For projects in which your firm or a JV partner firm performed the role of a subcontractor, this will not count as construction experience as a prime contractor.

d) If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV) and the JV does not have any experience working as a JV, the partners of the JV may submit experience on behalf of the Offeror. The JV may submit minimum of 2 but no more than five (5) contracts, but each respective JV partner must submit at least one (1) contract under Factor 1, Subfactors 1 and 2.

Evaluation Criteria The Government will evaluate how the projects identified by the Offeror demonstrate the extent of the offeror’s Experience that is similar to the solicitation’s Statement of Work. The Government will evaluate the extent of experience of the prime contractor.

The Government will evaluate the content of each offerors' submitted construction experience and will assign strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies based on how well each offeror's proposal demonstrates the following:

a) Projects with higher contract value and complexity.

b) Projects involving new vertical construction with similar scope and magnitude as projects expected under this MATOC.

c) Demonstrate construction experience with sustainment, renovation and modernization Projects.

d) Experience performing multiple projects simultaneously.

e) Experience with Design-Build projects.

f) Experience with projects requiring extensive structural assessment and retrofit construction for the intended use.

g) Experience managing projects where the customer continues to occupy the area demanding phased construction or specified disruptions in the sequencing of work.

h) Experience with complex projects involving disparate disciplines and/or technically challenging work task and that require the coordination of multiple priorities.

A higher rating may be given to an Offeror that demonstrates experience performing in remote Pacific Island locations with secure operations, extremely corrosive atmospheric environments and limited services, to include locations such as Kwajalein Atoll, Johnston Atoll, Wake Island, Midway Island, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Sub-factor 2. Design Experience

Use Attachment B, Design Project Information Sheet to submit a minimum of two but no more than five relevant design projects. If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects will be considered for evaluation. The sixth and any additional projects will not be considered for evaluation. This is regardless whether or not the first five projects are classified as “relevant” or “not relevant” by Government evaluators.

Offerors shall limit proposals to a maximum of 10 pages (2 pages per project) for Factor 1, Sub-factor 2. Any pages over the limit will not be considered for evaluation. A page is defined as text or information on one side of the paper. If it is printed double-sided, each face will be counted as a page.

Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) or any other type of task-order contracts that provide for the issuance of orders for the performance of tasks will not be considered projects for the purposes of this evaluation; only individual task orders issued under such contracts will be evaluated as projects.

Only relevant design projects will be considered for evaluation. Relevant projects are projects that:

1) It must have been for design of construction projects, in which the construction cost was estimated to be $1.5 million or more. The Government intends to give greater weight for award greater than $13 million.

2) It must have been completed within seven years from the date of this solicitation.

3) It must have been for design in support of renovation and/or new construction to rehabilitate existing facilities and/or new construction of facility.

4) It must have been completed by the Offeror, Joint Venture Teaming Member on this RFP

(shown in a signed JV Agreement), or by the Offeror’s proposed design subcontractor (on this RFP), as the Designer of Record (DOR).

The Offeror acknowledges that the proposed subcontractors under this Sub-factor shall become contractually binding in accordance with local requirement 5152.236-9001, Personnel, Subcontractors, and Outside Associates or Consultants.

If the Offeror accomplished both design and construction for a Design-Build project which meets both the relevancy criteria for Sub-factor 1, Construction Experience and Sub-factor 2, Design Experience, the offeror may submit both Attachment A and B for the same project.

The Government will evaluate how the projects identified by the Offeror demonstrate the extent of the offeror’s Experience that is similar to the solicitation’s Statement of Work.

The Government will evaluate the content of each offerors' submitted design experience and will assign strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies based on how well each offeror’s proposal demonstrates the following:

a) Experience completing designs for Design-Build construction projects.

b) Demonstrate design experience with projects involving new vertical construction with similar scope and magnitude as projects expected under this MATOC.

c) Demonstrate design experience with sustainment, renovation and modernization projects.

d) Experience performing structural assessments and designing retrofits for buildings in similar condition to those anticipated under this MATOC.

A higher rating may be given to an Offeror that demonstrates experience performing designs in remote Pacific Island locations with secure operations, extremely corrosive atmospheric environments and limited services, such as Kwajalein Atoll, Johnston Atoll, Wake Island, Midway, and other islands of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

VOLUME 1, TAB C – FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 1 (Subfactors 1 and 2), the offeror shall furnish a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment C, Form PPQ-0) to a representative of the owner who can provide the owner’s opinion of the offeror’s past performance for the project. Completed PPQ-0 forms should be submitted with your proposal. A copy of a previously completed PPQ can be submitted if it reflects a substantially complete evaluation of the project. The PPQ-0 does not have to be sent directly from the client. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ-0 from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ-0, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Jennifer Ko, via email at W9128A-17-R- 0002@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the completed questionnaires are submitted by the closing date. If you have questions regarding the attached questionnaire, or require assistance, please contact the Contract Specialist at (808)-835-4378.

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 1, to ensure the agency has all relevant past performance information, the offeror also should submit copies of Federal/DoD/Navy/Army performance reviews that are likely already in the agency’s databases or likely within the agency’s arm’s reach, i.e., Contractor’s copy of CCASS or CPARS evaluations. To improve accuracy of database searches, the offeror will also provide the CAGE Codes for the prime contractor and all teaming partners, (i.e. design firms, key subcontractors, Joint Venture Partners) whose experience is being relied on Factor 1. If a submitted proposal includes a final CCASS/CPARS evaluation for a Factor 1 Experience project, it is not necessary to submit a completed PPQ for the same project.

Offerors should organize all Past Performance Information based on the Factor 1 Projects, which normally have project titles and are numbered 1-5, so that reviewers can match the owner’s opinion with the corresponding Factor 1 Project. All Past Performance Information presented will be identified in the top left hand corner of each page with the Corresponding Project Number and Title from Factor 1. There is no page limit for Factor 2.

The Government will evaluate the responses from the customers from which Past Performance Questionnaires have been received. The Government may contact and interview the owner’s representative on the PPQ-0, and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the owner’s representative, if the owner’s representative is not available. 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.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

At no time during this process, nor during the debriefing, nor after award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance be revealed to the offerors or to any other party. If discussions are held, offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references in accordance with guidelines identified in FAR Part

15.3. In this case, comments will be extracted and provided to the offeror. Copies of the questionnaires will not be furnished to the offeror and will remain confidential.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered. These will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

In reviewing each past performance effort by the offeror, the SST will first evaluate recency. For a project to be considered recent it must be completed or to be substantially complete within the past 7 years from the date of this solicitation.

In reviewing each past performance effort by the offeror, the SST will then evaluate how relevant the recent effort is to the work required by this solicitation. The relevancy determination will be based on the Factor 2 Evaluation Criteria above. Each past performance effort will be assigned one of the relevancy rating:

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.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror's past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror's past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The SSEB will review all collected past performance information and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. At the conclusion of the assessment, the offeror will be assigned one of the ratings in the performance confidence assessment. The SSA may determine that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating may be worth more than an "Unknown l Confidence (Neutral)" past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

Performance Confidence Assessment

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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

SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL LETTER

AND

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE

To: Date:

We have listed your firm as a reference for work we have performed for you as listed below. Our firm has submitted a proposal under a project advertised by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), an evaluation of our firm’s past performance will be completed by the Corps of Engineers. Your candid response to the attached questionnaire will assist the evaluation team in this process.

We understand that you have a busy schedule and your participation in this evaluation is greatly appreciated. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire as thoroughly as possible. Space is provided for comments. Please respond in time for us to include the questionnaire with our proposal, which is due on ________. Only one response from each office is required. If at all possible, we suggest that you individually answer this questionnaire and then coordinate your responses with that , to forge a consensus on one overall response from your organization. Please return completed questionnaires to the following:

If you would prefer to respond directly to USACE, your completed questionnaire may be sent to the following address:

Contracting Division (Jennifer Ko) Building 230, Otake Street

Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5440

The questionnaires can also be e-mailed to W9128A-17-R-0002@usace.army.mil

Volume 1, TAB D – Factor 3 – Management Plan

Submission Requirements The Offeror shall submit a Management Plan describing the Offeror’s approach to performing this task order contract. The Plan shall clearly, but concisely detail the organizational approach to program management and execution, and explain how the firm expects to handle multiple major projects at multiple locations under the contract. The plan shall include an organizational chart outlining the entities responsible for program execution. The plan shall describe the proposed management structure for the Offeror, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the Offeror’s organization. It shall describe how communications within the organization and with the Corps of Engineers will be conducted. Limit the Factor 3 Management Plan to twelve (12) pages or less (using a font size of no smaller than 10 pt.). Of the 12 pages, one (1) single-sided no larger than 11”x17’, folded to 8-1/2”x11”. Any pages over the prescribed limit will not be considered for evaluation. A page is defined as text or information on one side of the paper. If it is printed double-sided, each face will be counted as a page.

Evaluation Criteria The evaluation will consider the content of each offerors' Management Plan and will assign strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies based on how well each offeror's Management Plan demonstrates the following:

1. Organizational chart graphically represents the offeror’s organization in regard to other partnering firms/subcontractors/internal personnel and clearly indicates the name of the management team member (partnering firm/subcontractor/internal personnel).

2. Organizational Chart shows clears lines of authority among team members.

3. Organizational chart demonstrates the following information about all firms in the

Offeror’s team, including partnering firms and subcontractors: the role/responsibility for Design Build AND for Design-Bid-Build projects AND any contractual arrangements that have been established (Project Manager, AE Design Manager, Construction Superintendent, mechanical, electrical etc.).

4. Management Plan clearly addresses how the Contractor will manage:

a. Multiple task orders at the same location at the same time and

b. Multiple task orders at multiple locations at the same time.

5. Management Plan identifies potential risks AND the associative mitigation for the identified risks in both design-build AND design-bid-build projects.

6. Management Plan addresses successful coordination of AE work in conjunction with multiple task orders. Strengths, Weaknesses, and/or deficiencies will be given based on the firm’s inclusion of the following items: schedule, submittals, changes, communication and other elements that would be necessary to manage AE firms successfully in a Design- Build effort.

7. Management Plan addresses successful coordination between design and construction teams during all stages of design-build projects.

8. Shipping logistics plan shows methods to deliver materials from points of origin to Kwajalein with contingencies to mitigate delays and impacts to project execution for disruptions in shipping schedules.

9. Success in managing complex projects at secure and remote locations similar to those in the Marshall Islands.

10. Demonstrated success to expediently manage disruptions and mitigate project execution delays resulting from secure Government mission operations.

11. Success in managing limited skilled construction workforce in remote locations to ensure quality and timely project execution.

12. Demonstrated capability to retain continuity of executive and senior management resources when required by contract.

Attachment A. Construction Project Information Sheet

Name of Offeror: ____________________________

Provide information for relevant projects to be used for Construction Experience evaluation purposes. For each project, provide the following information (use additional sheets as necessary):

a. Type of project (check one):

_____Design-Bid-Build _____ Design-Build

b. Contract Number, Task Order Number, and Project Title:

c. Location (where the project was constructed):

d. Role of Offeror (address type of work performed, including design, percentage of work performed by the offeror, as applicable, and any proposed team members that were directly involved in this project, including work performed, roles and responsibilities)

e. Total Contract Value: ________________________________________ Construction only (if Design-Build project) _____________________________________ Design only (if Design-Build project) __________________________________________

f. Brief Description of Project. (Address how this project is similar to the types of task orders to be issued under this contract)

g. Identify key work disciplines your company/firm employed on this project:

h. Period of Performance:

Start Date: _______________________ Date Physically Completed: _______________________ If project is not complete, indicate percentage complete and anticipated completion date. If a project is less than 95% complete, explain why this project should be considered substantially complete.

i. Provide 2 Points of Contact for Client/Agency (if client is the U.S. Government, provide name and address of contracting office, contract number, and name and telephone number of Contracting Officer):

If unable to provide two (2) points of contact, provide at least one (1) point of contact.

(1) Name _______________________________ Telephone No. ___________________________ Fax No. ________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________

(2) Name _______________________________ Telephone No. ___________________________ Fax No. ________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________

Attachment B. Design Project Information Sheet

Name of Offeror (offeror on this RFP): ____________________________

Name of Designer (firm that did the design work for this project): _____________________________

Indicate if the design on this project was completed by the Offeror, Joint Venture Teaming Member (on this RFP, shown in a signed Joint Venture Agreement), or by the Offeror’s proposed design subcontractor (on this RFP), as the Designer of Record (DOR):

Provide information for relevant projects to be used for Design Experience evaluation purposes. For each project, provide the following information (use additional sheets as necessary):

a. Type of project (check one):

_____Design-Bid-Build _____ Design-Build

b. Contract Number, Task Order Number and Project Title:

c. Location (where the project was or will be constructed):

d. Identify the Designer of Record for the project. Also, if the Offeror was involved in the project, identify the nature of the offeror’s involvement in the project.

e. Cost of Project

Estimated construction cost: _____________________ Design amount: ___________________________

f. General Scope of Project:

g. Identify key work disciplines the design company/firm employed on this project:

h. Period of Performance:

Start Date: _______________________ Date Completed: _______________________

i. Provide 2 Points of Contact for Client/Agency (if client is the U.S. Government, provide name and address of contracting office, contract number, name and telephone number of Contracting Officer):

If unable to provide two (2) points of contact, provide at least one (1) point of contact.

(1) Name _______________________________ Telephone No. ___________________________ Fax No. ________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________

(2) Name _______________________________ Telephone No. ___________________________ Fax No. ________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________

ATTACHMENT C. NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (FORM PPQ-0)

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

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

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s…