A.2.11.2 W9128A21R0009_Amendment AM-0001_30Apr2021.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

W9128A21R0009 FY21 PN77881 Family Housing Replacement Construction, Kw ajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands.

See Page 2 of 2 Pages.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 16

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 W9128A21R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Apr-2021

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.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

30-Apr-2021

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE, HONOLULU DISTRICT

BLDG 230 (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:

W9128A21R0009

1. CHANGES TO SPECIFICATIONS. Attached hereto are the edited and new pages to the specifications.

The revision mark “AM-0001” is shown on each edited/new pages.

a. REVISED PAGES/CLAUSES/PROVISIONS/SECTIONS. The following revisions to the solicitation and indicated in red:

SF-1142, Block 10 within SECTION 00 10 00 – Solicitation.

The “Evaluation Factors” within SECTION 00 21 16– INSTRUCTION TO PROPOSERS – Paragraphs 3.2; 9.1.2; 9.1.3; 9.2.1; and 9.3.

b. NEW PAGES/CLAUSES/PROVISIONS/SECTIONS. The following Section are added to the solicitation:

ProjNet Requests for Information 30 April 2021.

2. The proposal due date of 14 May 2021, 10:00 a.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST), remain unchanged.

Offeror shall acknowledge AM-0001.

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SF-1142, Block 10 within SECTION 00 10 00 – SOLICITATION:

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS:

EVALUATION FACTORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS: 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 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 in Phase 2 for the contract award for Army Family Housing Replacement at Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands.

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 to the offeror whose proposal represents 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 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Proposals without the minimum content may be rejected.

The Offeror's proposal shall be submitted electronically, as described below. The RFP will provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal. The Offeror's proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in a proposal is prohibited. Elaborate brochures or documentation, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. The proposals will be submitted in electronic copies. No models, mockups, or videos will be accepted. Offerors are advised that the Government may make award without discussions, clarifications or any contact concerning the proposals received (FAR 15.306(a)(2)). Therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume that offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise proposals.

NOTE: The only authorized transmission method for a proposal in response to this solicitation is electronically via SAFE online submission. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHOD WILL BE ACCEPTED.

The Offeror's proposal must be received by the Government no later than the date and time specified in the solicitation. An Offeror shall use the following link for proposal submission:

https://safe.apps.mil/

Please send proposals using the link above to Contract Specialist, Ms. Merbby Nicolas, at MERBBYJOYCE.N.Nicolas@usace.army.mil AND to Contracting Officer, Ms. Tracy Tenholder, at Tracy.N.Tenholder@usace.army.mil.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS:

In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, each proposal shall be submitted electronically through the SAFE site.

Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. There is a limit of five (5) files per upload (total size cannot exceed 2GB). If the proposal contains a large number of files, recommend that the files be combined or condensed (ZIP files) before uploading to the SAFE site. An Offeror may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

REQUEST FOR DROP-OFF LINK:

An Offeror must email the Contract Specialist Ms. Merbby Joyce Nicolas at MerbbyJoyce.N.Nicolas@usace.army.mil and the Contracting Officer Ms. Tracy N. Tenholder at Tracy.N.Tenholder@usace.army.mil no later than five (5) working days prior to the proposal due date to request a drop-off link to upload files via the SAFE site. An Offeror that fails to submit an email for request at least five (5) working days before the proposal submission date might not be able to receive a drop-off link in time to upload the submission.

Once the drop-off request is submitted by the Government, you will receive an automated email from noreplyto@mail.mil with “[DoD SAFE]” in the subject line. The email will contain a unique web link that will direct you to the SAFE web page that will allow you to drop-off (upload) your proposal.

FILE DESCRIPTION:

Include a "File Description" for each file(s) you upload. The "File Description" will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.) Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR UPLOADING PROPOSAL:

1. Click the link contained in your email from noreplyto@mail.mil.

2. Enter the email address for every recipient in the “To:” line. For this solicitation, the Contract Specialist and the Contracting Officer will be the recipients.

The Contract Specialist for this solicitation is Ms. Merbby Nicolas, at MERBBYJOYCE.N.Nicolas@usace.army.mil and the Contracting Officer is Ms. Tracy Tenholder, at Tracy.N.Tenholder@usace.army.mil.

The E-Mail address of the Government Employee who initiated the request code will be automatically entered. The Offeror must enter the E-Mail address for both the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. The Offeror can enter an additional email address if desired. After entering the email address, click the green “+” button to add the person(s) email to the "Recipients List" of your response.

3. Enter the Solicitation number, followed by your Firm’s name, in the “Short note to the Recipients:” section.

4. Click the “Click to Add Files” icon or drag them over to the web page to add them.

5. Complete your drop off by clicking the “Drop-off Files” icon.

When your proposal is submitted, a “Drop-Off Completed” screen will be displayed, and a notification will be sent to the recipients you added with a download URL and Claim Passcode.

NOTE: Do NOT send the SAFE site packages to group email accounts.

Entering an incorrect email may result in the rejection of your submission. An Offeror can confirm proper submission by the 'Drop-Off Completed" screen that is generated based on proper file submission.

NOTE: It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the SAFE website when using a Firefox or Google Chrome web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that an Offeror will have more success utilizing any particular browser.

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS:

For the purpose of establishing a timely proposal, the government will use the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. For a Proposal that is larger than the 2GB capacity of the SAFE website and that requires multiple submissions, the Government will use the date and time the final submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It may take several minutes or even hours in some cases.

The Government will not be responsible for any submission that is not delivered in accordance with these instructions. An Offeror is responsible for ensuring that its proposal is submitted such that it reaches the designated recipient. The Offeror is also responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

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,” subparagraph (c).

3.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

3.1 General Info

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 Government will not reimburse any Offeror for any costs incurred in the preparation and submittal of its proposal in response to this solicitation. The proposals shall be submitted in Volumes as follows:

Phase 1:

Submit the Phase 1 proposal identified by the Solicitation Number (W9128A-21-R-0009), project title (FY21 PN77881 Army Family Housing Replacement at Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the 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, Acknowledgement of Amendments, Reps and Certs under Section 00 45 00, and Joint Venture Teaming Agreement and Identification of Partners under Section 00 70 00

TAB B, FACTOR 1, Experience

TAB C, FACTOR 2, Past Performance

3.2 Proposal Characteristics

Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be identified with the appropriate page number, centered at the bottom of the page, and the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number shall be identified in the header and/or footer. The terms RFP and solicitation are used interchangeably. All pages margins must be at least one (1) inch wide, and may include headers and footers. Sheet size of the proposal contents shall be 8 ½ inches by 11 inches, unless another paper size is specifically authorized.

The following additional restrictions apply:

Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The technical proposal will be appropriately organized using the tabs specified in the chart below. The first page shall be a cover sheet identifying the Offeror (name, address, and point of contact), contract description, and solicitation number shall be provided. The second sheet shall be a Table of Contents. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

TAB CONTENTS OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – Volume 1

A The Proposal Cover Sheet

B Experience

C Past Performance

Specific Instructions for the Technical Proposal (Volume 1). Proposal shall contain the entire proposal in .pdf format using Adobe Acrobat software to print to a .pdf file; do NOT scan the document(s) into a .pdf file. The text portion of the Volume I proposal shall be contained as a single .pdf file in searchable text.

Sections of the proposal shall be bookmarked (linked to the index) in logical order.

Offerors shall submit all technical proposal documentation in Adobe PDF format See Section 2.0 Proposal Submission Instructions.

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

4.0 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 Government, during Phase 2, will select the offer that represents the best value to the Government by using the tradeoff process described in FAR Part 15. This process permits tradeoffs between price and technical (“non- price”) factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The award decision will be based on a comparative analysis and an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

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

In accordance with the requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

5.0 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 and Past Performance. 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.

6.0 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).

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.

7.0 DEFINITIONS

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

b. 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.

c. 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.

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

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

f. Deviation: Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The firm may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is a deficiency.

The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

8.0 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.

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 TECHINICAL FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED IN PHASE 1

The Government intends to select a maximum of five offerors to advanced to Phase 2 based on their overall merit after consideration of the evaluation factors described below:

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

FACTOR LOCATION DESCRIPTION RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

N/A Vol 1, Tab A --Proposal Cover sheet;

--The completed Standard Form (SF) 1442 with continuation pages, without a price, duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company.

Ensure that the firm’s DUNS or DUNS+4 Number is entered in the block with its name and address;

--Your acknowledgement of any and all Amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the SF 30 Amendment;

-- Joint Venture Agreement and list full names of all partners (Section 00 70 00) , if applicable; and --Your completed Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Bidders/Offerors (Section 00 45 00).

N/A

1 Vol 1, Tab B Experience Most Important Technical Factor (Equally important to Factor 2)

2 Vol 1, Tab C Past Performance Equally important as Factor 1

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost price.

9.1 VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 1 – Experience

9.1.1 Submission Requirements

This factor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed Army Family Housing (AFH) Construction Experience for the base contract and all options. The Offeror (or prime contractor) and its team shall demonstrate experience on contracts with similar features, magnitudes, and complexities to this RFP. The Offeror is expected to explain how its experience is similar to AFH construction as described in this RFP. The Offeror shall explain how its experience is similar to the management and coordination complexity (such as multiple contractors, stakeholders, joint occupancies and a Temporary Workforce Camp) expected for this RFP.

9.1.2 The offeror shall submit a maximum of five (5) contracts.

A “contract” is defined as a single contract or a single task order performed under a MATOC (Multiple Award Task Order Contract)/SATOC (Single Award Task Order Contract)/IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contract).

Data presented shall demonstrate that the contract(s) submitted are relevant, recent and have been performed by the Offeror or Offeror’s sub-contractor as specified in this section. Relevant construction experience will be limited to performance of contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to that outlined in the solicitation. For the purposes of this solicitation, a recent contract is defined as at least 80% complete or substantially complete within the past ten (10) years preceding the issuance date of this RFP.

The Offeror shall submit a maximum of five (5) contracts. If more than five (5) contracts are submitted, only the first five (5) contracts will be evaluated. The Offeror shall either submit a completed Attachment A “Experience Information” form, an Attachment B “Design Project Information Sheet,” or both, as applicable, for each contract submitted. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current and complete. Each contract shall be described in two pages or less. Any pages that exceed this limitation will not be considered.

Note: If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV) and the JV does not have experience working as a JV, the partners of the JV may submit experience on behalf of the Offeror. All references herein to “the Offeror” include all proposed joint venture partners. Submitted contracts by members of a joint- venture or from the joint-venture itself will be considered and evaluated. Sub-contractor experience may be submitted on behalf of the Offeror provided the Offeror provides a copy of a binding teaming agreement or binding letter of commitment from that sub-contractor to perform the work required in this RFP for the Offeror.

The JV shall submit no more than five (5) contracts, but each respective JV partner must submit at least one

(1) contract under this Factor.

9.1.3 Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the extent of relevant experience of the prime contractor. If an Offeror submits a proposal as a joint venture, the Government will evaluate the experience of a JV partner according to the role that partner is to perform on this contract. If an Offeror submits a binding agreement or letter from a sub-contractor as specified in Para 9.1.2, the Government will evaluate the extent of recent and relevant experience of the proposed sub-contractor. The extent of relevant experience will be determined based on the similarity of the submitted contracts to the size, scope, and complexity of the construction required by the solicitation.

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

a) Contracts involving construction with greater similarity to the work required by this solicitation.

b) Experience completing designs for Design-Build construction projects. Design must have been completed by the Offeror or the Offeror’s sub-contractor as specified in section 9.1 as the Designer of Record (DOR);

c) Experience managing construction projects in remote areas with logistical challenges. A remote area is considered a site in an isolated location with higher risks and greater logistical challenges than a site in more accessible areas; and

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

When assessing an Offeror’s relevant experience, the Government intends to give greater weight, and a higher rating may be given to an Offeror, based on the following:

1) Proposals that include a higher number of relevant contracts, up to a maximum of five.

2) Design-Build construction contracts;

3) Design-Build construction contracts awarded for $10 million or more.

4) The Government intends to give significantly greater weight for awards greater than $25 million;

5) Contracts substantially complete within ten (10) years from the date this solicitation was issued. Substantially complete means a contract administrator or equivalent determined that the terms of the contract have been fulfilled to the extent that the constructed product can be occupied or used for its intended purposes. Evidence of substantial completion from the contracting agency, or a CCASS rating must be included in the proposal in order for a contract to be considered relevant;

6) Construction contracts with a temporary workforce camp;

7) Experience performing in remote Pacific Island locations with secure operations, extremely corrosive atmospheric environments, and limited services, to include locations such as Diego Garcia, Johnston Atoll, Wake Island, Midway Island, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands; and

8) Contracts awarded to the Offeror as the prime contractor (although the Government will consider relevant experience as a subcontractor).

See paragraph 6.0 above, Combined Technical / Risk Rating Table, for the evaluation rating system for Factor 1.

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

9.2 VOLUME 1, TAB C – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

9.2.1 Submission Requirements

Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner's perspective. For each project submitted under Factor 1, the Offeror shall provide past performance information. For Federal projects, the Offeror may submit finalized CCASS or CPARS reports. If a finalized CCASS or CPARS report is not available, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the RFP is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project. The Offeror shall provide customer reference name(s), company affiliation and current contact information (phone number and email address) on the PPQ form, for each experience submitted for Factor 1. Previously completed PPQ’s may be submitted; however, ensure current phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. The completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal and may be duplicated for submission on future solicitations. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first 2 pages of the PPQ (Attachment 1), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to Government via e-mail to Tracy.N.Tenholder@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Projects for which past performance information is submitted shall be well underway (fully designed and at least 80% construction progress completed) or completed and substantially complete no more than ten (10) years preceding the issuance date of this RFP. Also include performance recognition documents received within the last ten (10) years preceding to issuance date of this RFP, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of recommendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture or teaming arrangement) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. 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.

An Offeror will not receive credit for relevant past performance of a parent, affiliate, or separate division.

An Offeror may receive credit for relevant past performance under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example) if the Offeror demonstrates that its role on the submitted project is relevant to the role it proposes to perform on this project.

9.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

The Government will first assess and rate the recency and relevancy of each recent project submitted by the Offeror. The projects will include those submitted under the Factor 1 as well as from other sources as described above. This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to Factor 2. The past performance relevancy ratings are described in Paragraph 9.3.1 below.

The Government will next consider how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. Past performance of a parent, affiliate or separate division will not be considered relevant unless the Offeror demonstrates that the resources of the parent, affiliate or separate division will affect the performance of the Offeror on this project. Past performance under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the Offeror’s role on the project is not considered relevant. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, O&M manuals, problem resolution of construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government places a higher value on projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described in Paragraph

9.3 below.

9.3 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.

9.3.1 Past Performance Criteria – Recency and Relevancy

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the RFP.

9.3.1.1 Recency. A project is considered recent if it is currently well underway (designed and at least 80% construction progress completed) or completed and substantially complete no more than ten (10) years preceding the issuance date of this

RFP.

9.3.1.2 Relevancy. A project’s relevance is determined according to the similarity of the project to the work proposed by the RFP according to the Table below.

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.

9.3.2 Past Performance – Confidence Assessment and Ratings

Quality Assessment. The Confidence Rating assesses the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

The Government will utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror.

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.

Performance Confidence Assessments

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 reasonably 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.

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.

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Only

Bid Inquiry Contractor Report All Inquiries

Project: FY21 Army Family Housing, Kwaj Review: FY21 AFH Solicitation (00001) (sorted by CommentID ) Displaying 3 inquiries.

Id Discipline Sheet Detail Spec

9190873 Contracting Solicitation Eval Factors, section 3.2

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

In the Instructions to Proposers (Phase 1 of 2), Evaluation Factors, section 3.2 (bottom of page 17/68 of RFP), the document indicates 'Five (5) hard copies each for each proposal (1 original and 4 copies): and One (1) CD ROM...' indicates that hard copies are to be delivered. Please confirm all offers are to be submitted electronically via DOD SAFE upload as per Section 2.0 Proposal Submission Instructions.

On: Apr 20 2021.

Government Response. . Confirming all offers are to be submitted electronically via DOD SAFE upload as per Section 2.0 Proposal Submission Instructions.

Section 3.2 revised via forthcoming Amendment 00001. On: Apr 28 2021

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9191276 Contracting Solicitation Evaluation Factors - Instructions to Proposers, Section

9.1.2

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Reference Solicitation_Evaluation Factors - Instructions to Proposers, Section 9.1.

Due to the specific nature of the experience factors and relevancy, please advise if USACE can extend relevant construction experience and/or recent contract to be defined as 'substantially complete within the past eight (8) years preceding the issuance date of this RFP' (ilo seven (7) years). Thank you for your consideration.

On: Apr 20 2021.

Government Response. . RFP updated to extend relevant construction experience and/or recent contract to be defined as 'substantially complete within the past ten (10) years preceding the issuance date of this RFP'

Update forthcoming via Amendment 00001. On: Apr 28 2021

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9203747 General SF1442 Form

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Page 1 of the Solicitation (SF1442 Form) states the paragraph below but we are unable to find: " . . . design criteria and requirements provided in paragraph 2.0 and the attached Appendices." Please provide this information and / or documents. Also, please note that the project page does not seem to be loading for this Solicitation in beta.sam.gov.

"The Design-Build (DB) Contractor shall design and construct a minimum of 18 three-bedroom dwelling units w ith one to be modifiable for handicap accessibility and an Area Distribution Node (ADN) for telecommunications distribution located at U.S. Army Garrison-Kw ajalein Atoll (USAG-KA), Republic of the Marshall Islands. The Contractor shall also design and construct three transformer vaults as required to service the new residences. The DB Contractor shall demolish 40 abandoned housing units in seven buildings at the Army Family Housing site at USAG-KA. Design and construction of dwelling units, ADN, and transformer vaults, and demolition of the housing units shall be in accordance with the design criteria and requirements provided in paragraph 2.0 and the attached Appendices."

On: Apr 27 2021.

4/30/2021file:///C:/Users/j3ct9tnt/AppData/Local/Temp/1/UR3F8ILG.htm

Government Response. . Page 1 of SF1442, Block 10, revised to replace "in accordance with design criteria and requirements provided in paragraph 2.0 and the attached Appendices." with: "in accordance with the solicitation."

Please refer to FY21 AFH_Div01-General Requirements, Section 01 10 00, for design criteria and requirements and Appendices. On: Apr 30 2021

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

Report Complete

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Only Patent 11/892,984 ProjNet property of ERDC since 2004.

4/30/2021file:///C:/Users/j3ct9tnt/AppData/Local/Temp/1/UR3F8ILG.htm