W9128F-16-R-0014Am_0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

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

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a)By completing items 8 and 15, and returning 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 your 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 APPROPIRATION DATA (If required)

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

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

CHECK ONE 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.

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Amendment No. 0001 18-MAR-2016

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVE.

OMAHA, NE 68102-4901

See Item 6

W9128F-16-R-0014

29-FEB-2016

IN-GROUND CREMAINS AND PRE-PLACED CRYPTS,PROJECT NO. 888CM3038,FORT LOGAN NATIONAL CEMETERY, COLORADO

See attached documentation for content of the amendment revisions

Date for receipt of Proposals is 1 APR 2016 at 1400 hours CST

Government Point of Contact: Donna Larson, Contract Specialist(402) 995-2066

18-MAR-2016

Am #0001 -

Am #0001 - 2 (Continuation SF 30)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Omaha District, Corps of Engineers 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901 :NOTICE: Failure to acknowledge : Solicitation No. W9128F 16 R 0014 :all amendments may cause rejec- :

:tion of the offer. See FAR : Date of Issue: 29 FEB 2016 :52.215-1 of Section 00 21 00 : Date of Receiving Proposals:

1 APR 2016

Amendment No. 0001 17 March 2016

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0001 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Construction of IN-GROUND CREMAINS AND PRE-PLACED CRYPITS, PROJECT NO.

888CM3038, FORT LOGAN NATIONAL CEMTERY, COLORADO.

Solicitation No. W9128F 16 R 0014.

TO: Prospective Offerors and Others Concerned

1. The specifications and drawings for subject project are hereby modified as follows (revise all specification indices, attachment lists, and drawing indices accordingly).

a. Specifications. (Descriptive Changes.)

(1) General Wage Decision CO160012 – Heavy, delete this General

Wage Decision in its entirety and substitute attached revised General Wage Decision CO160012 – Heavy dated 03/18/2016.

b. Specifications (New and/or Revised and Reissued). Delete and substitute or add specification pages or sections as noted below. The substituted pages or sections are revised and reissued with this amendment. For convenience, on the revised specification pages, changes have been identified by “[*Am-1]”

Pages or Sections Deleted Pages or Sections Substituted or Added 00 22 00 00 22 00 (Para. 8.2.1, 8.2.2, and 8.3.1)

2. This amendment is a part of the proposing papers and its receipt shall be acknowledged on the Standard Form 1442. All other conditions and requirements of the request for proposal remain unchanged. If the proposals have been mailed prior to receiving this amendment, you will notify the office where proposals are received, in the specified manner, immediately of its receipt and of any changes in your proposal occasioned thereby.

a. Hand-Carried Proposals shall be delivered to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Contracting Division, 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901.

b. Mailed Proposals shall be addressed as noted in Item 8 on Page 00 10 00-1 of Standard Form 1442.

Am #0001 - 3 (Continuation SF 30)

3. Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m., local time at place of receiving proposals, 1 APR 2016.

Attachments:

General Wage Decision CO160012 – Heavy dated 03/18/2016 Spec Pages listed in 1.b. above Fort Logan National Cemetery Site Visit Attendance-15 March 2016

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901

18 March 2016 drl/2181

This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing.

Am #0001 CO160012 - 1 03/18/2016

General Decision Number: CO160012 03/18/2016 CO12

Superseded General Decision Number: CO20150012

State: Colorado

Construction Type: Heavy

Counties: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa, Pueblo and Weld Counties in Colorado.

HEAVY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Note: Under Executive Order (EO) 13658, an hourly minimum wage of $10.15 for calendar year 2016 applies to all contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act for which the solicitation was issued on or after January 1, 2015. If this contract is covered by the EO, the contractor must pay all workers in any classification listed on this wage determination at least $10.15 (or the applicable wage rate listed on this wage determination, if it is higher) for all hours spent performing on the contract in calendar year 2016. The EO minimum wage rate will be adjusted annually. Additional information on contractor requirements and worker protections under the EO is available at www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts.

Modification Number Publication Date 0 01/08/2016 1 01/15/2016 2 01/22/2016 3 03/11/2016 4 03/18/2016

Am #0001 CO160012 - 2 03/18/2016

ASBE0028-001 10/01/2014

Rates Fringes

Asbestos Workers/Insulator (Includes application of all insulating materials, protective coverings, coatings and finishings to all types of mechanical systems)....................$ 28.83 13.53

BRCO0007-004 01/01/2015

ADAMS, ARAPAHOE, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, DOUGLAS AND

JEFFERSON COUNTIES

BRICKLAYER.......................$ 24.50 8.91

BRCO0007-006 05/01/2015

EL PASO AND PUEBLO COUNTIES

Rates Fringes

BRICKLAYER.......................$ 24.44 8.90

ELEC0012-004 09/01/2015

PUEBLO COUNTY

Rates Fringes

ELECTRICIAN

Electrical contract over $1,000,000..................$ 27.35 11.00+3% Electrical contract under $1,000,000..................$ 24.85 11.00+3%

ELEC0068-001 06/01/2015

ADAMS, ARAPAHOE, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, DOUGLAS,

JEFFERSON, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES

ELECTRICIAN......................$ 33.15 13.46

ELEC0111-001 09/01/2015

Am #0001 CO160012 - 3 03/18/2016

Line Construction:

Groundman...................$ 18.79 22.25%+$5.00 Line Equipment Operator.....$ 29.40 22.25%+$5.00 Lineman and Welder..........$ 42.14 25.25%+$5.00

ELEC0113-002 06/01/2015

EL PASO COUNTY

Rates Fringes

ELECTRICIAN......................$ 30.00 14.95

* ELEC0969-002 06/01/2015

MESA COUNTY

Rates Fringes

ELECTRICIAN......................$ 24.00 7.92

ENGI0009-001 10/23/2013

Rates Fringes

Power equipment operators:

Blade: Finish...............$ 25.04 9.15 Blade: Rough................$ 24.73 9.15 Bulldozer...................$ 24.73 9.15 Cranes: 50 tons and under..$ 24.88 9.15 Cranes: 51 to 90 tons......$ 25.04 9.15 Cranes: 91 to 140 tons.....$ 25.19 9.15 Cranes: 141 tons and over...$ 25.97 9.15 Forklift....................$ 24.37 9.15 Mechanic....................$ 24.88 9.15 Oiler.......................$ 24.01 9.15 Scraper: Single bowl under 40 cubic yards........$ 24.88 9.15 Scraper: Single bowl, including pups 40 cubic yards and over and tandem bowls.......................$ 25.04 9.15 Trackhoe....................$ 24.88 9.15

IRON0024-003 11/01/2013

Rates Fringes

Ironworkers:.....................$ 24.80 18.77 Structural

Am #0001 CO160012 - 4 03/18/2016

LABO0086-001 05/01/2009

Laborers:

Pipelayer...................$ 18.68 6.78

PLUM0003-005 07/01/2014

JEFFERSON, LARIMER AND WELD COUNTIES

PLUMBER..........................$ 35.18 12.34

PLUM0058-002 07/01/2015

EL PASO COUNTY

Rates Fringes

Plumbers and Pipefitters.........$ 34.30 14.38

PLUM0058-008 07/01/2015

PUEBLO COUNTY

Rates Fringes

Plumbers and Pipefitters.........$ 34.30 14.38

PLUM0145-002 07/01/2013

MESA COUNTY

Rates Fringes

Plumbers and Pipefitters.........$ 32.67 11.55

PLUM0208-004 06/01/2015

JEFFERSON, LARIMER AND WELD COUNTIES

PIPEFITTER.......................$ 35.35 13.39

SHEE0009-002 07/01/2015

Am #0001 CO160012 - 5 03/18/2016

Sheet metal worker...............$ 32.85 14.63

TEAM0455-002 07/01/2015

Rates Fringes

Truck drivers:

Pickup......................$ 19.66 4.02 Tandem/Semi and Water.......$ 20.29 4.02

SUCO2001-006 12/20/2001

Rates Fringes

BOILERMAKER......................$ 17.60

Carpenters:

Form Building and Setting...$ 16.97 2.74 All Other Work..............$ 15.14 3.37

Cement Mason/Concrete Finisher...$ 17.31 2.85

IRONWORKER, REINFORCING..........$ 18.83 3.90

Laborers:

Common......................$ 11.22 2.92 Flagger.....................$ 8.91 3.80 Landscape...................$ 12.56 3.21

Painters:

Brush, Roller & Spray.......$ 15.81 3.26

Power equipment operators:

Backhoe.....................$ 16.36 2.48 Front End Loader............$ 17.24 3.23 Skid Loader.................$ 15.37 4.41

WELDERS - Receive rate prescribed for craft performing operation to which welding is incidental.

Unlisted classifications needed for work not included within the scope of the classifications listed may be added after award only as provided in the labor standards contract clauses (29CFR 5.5 (a) (1) (ii)).

Am #0001 CO160012 - 6 03/18/2016

The body of each wage determination lists the classification and wage rates that have been found to be prevailing for the cited type(s) of construction in the area covered by the wage determination. The classifications are listed in alphabetical order of "identifiers" that indicate whether the particular rate is a union rate (current union negotiated rate for local), a survey rate (weighted average rate) or a union average rate (weighted union average rate).

Union Rate Identifiers

A four letter classification abbreviation identifier enclosed in dotted lines beginning with characters other than "SU" or "UAVG" denotes that the union classification and rate were prevailing for that classification in the survey. Example:

PLUM0198-005 07/01/2014. PLUM is an abbreviation identifier of the union which prevailed in the survey for this classification, which in this example would be Plumbers. 0198 indicates the local union number or district council number where applicable, i.e., Plumbers Local 0198. The next number, 005 in the example, is an internal number used in processing the wage determination. 07/01/2014 is the effective date of the most current negotiated rate, which in this example is July 1, 2014.

Union prevailing wage rates are updated to reflect all rate changes in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing this classification and rate.

Survey Rate Identifiers

Classifications listed under the "SU" identifier indicate that no one rate prevailed for this classification in the survey and the published rate is derived by computing a weighted average rate based on all the rates reported in the survey for that classification. As this weighted average rate includes all rates reported in the survey, it may include both union and non-union rates. Example: SULA2012-007 5/13/2014. SU indicates the rates are survey rates based on a weighted average calculation of rates and are not majority rates. LA indicates the State of Louisiana. 2012 is the year of survey on which these classifications and rates are based. The next number, 007 in the example, is an internal number used in producing the wage determination. 5/13/2014 indicates the survey completion date for the classifications and rates under that identifier.

Survey wage rates are not updated and remain in effect until a new survey is conducted.

Union Average Rate Identifiers

Classification(s) listed under the UAVG identifier indicate that no single majority rate prevailed for those classifications; however, 100% of the data reported for the

Am #0001 CO160012 - 7 03/18/2016 classifications was union data. EXAMPLE: UAVG-OH-0010 08/29/2014. UAVG indicates that the rate is a weighted union average rate. OH indicates the state. The next number, 0010 in the example, is an internal number used in producing the wage determination. 08/29/2014 indicates the survey completion date for the classifications and rates under that identifier.

A UAVG rate will be updated once a year, usually in January of each year, to reflect a weighted average of the current negotiated/CBA rate of the union locals from which the rate is based.

WAGE DETERMINATION APPEALS PROCESS

1.) Has there been an initial decision in the matter? This can be:

* an existing published wage determination

* a survey underlying a wage determination

* a Wage and Hour Division letter setting forth a position on a wage determination matter

* a conformance (additional classification and rate) ruling

On survey related matters, initial contact, including requests for summaries of surveys, should be with the Wage and Hour Regional Office for the area in which the survey was conducted because those Regional Offices have responsibility for the Davis-Bacon survey program. If the response from this initial contact is not satisfactory, then the process described in 2.)

and 3.) should be followed.

With regard to any other matter not yet ripe for the formal process described here, initial contact should be with the Branch of Construction Wage Determinations. Write to:

Branch of Construction Wage Determinations Wage and Hour Division U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

2.) If the answer to the question in 1.) is yes, then an interested party (those affected by the action) can request review and reconsideration from the Wage and Hour Administrator (See 29 CFR Part 1.8 and 29 CFR Part 7). Write to:

Wage and Hour Administrator U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

Am #0001 CO160012 - 8 03/18/2016

The request should be accompanied by a full statement of the interested party's position and by any information (wage payment data, project description, area practice material, etc.) that the requestor considers relevant to the issue.

3.) If the decision of the Administrator is not favorable, an interested party may appeal directly to the Administrative Review Board (formerly the Wage Appeals Board). Write to:

Administrative Review Board U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

4.) All decisions by the Administrative Review Board are final.

END OF GENERAL DECISION

00 22 00, Page 1

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

INDEX

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3. SIZE OF PRINTED MATTER SUBMISSIONS

4. WHERE TO SUBMIT

5. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

6. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

7. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

8. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

8.1. PREFACE

8.2. TAB A - FACTOR 1 – SUBFACTOR 1 - RELEVANT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR

EXPERIENCE

8.3. TAB B – FACTOR 1 – SUBFACTOR 2 - OFFEROR’S SUBCONTRACTOR’S QUALIFICATIONS

AND CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

8.4. TAB C – FACTOR 1 SUBFACTOR - 3 TECHNICAL APPROACH/OFFEROR’S KEY

PERSONNEL

8.5. TAB D - FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE, CONSTRUCTION

9. BINDER NO. 2 - PRICE

9.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

9.2. EVALUATION OF PRICE

10. COMPETITIVE RANGE

11. CLARIFICATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

12. FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS AND SELECTION

13. NOT USED

14. AWARD OF CONTRACT

15. DEBRIEFING

Attachments:

Attachment A - NAVFAC USACE PPQ Form Sep 2011

Am #0001

00 22 00, Page 2

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

This solicitation is restricted to Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business participation.

All proposers, including joint ventures, must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and have completed their Representations and Certifications through SAM.

There will be no public opening. All proposals submitted will become, upon receipt, the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned. After evaluation of proposals, the original will be retained for the official contract file. Extra copies of the awardee’s proposal will be submitted to the Field and Area Offices in support of their contract administration functions.

Any extra copies of the proposals deemed unnecessary by the government will be destroyed.

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly indicate compliance with the proposal submission requirements.

3. SIZE OF PRINTED MATTER SUBMISSIONS

All written portions (other than the organization chart) shall be in 8-1/2" x 11" format, unless indicated otherwise.

4. WHERE TO SUBMIT

Offerors shall submit their proposal packages to the USACE Contracting Activity at the address shown in Block 8 of Standard Form 1442.

5. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

Offers shall be submitted at the location stated and by the time and date as specified in Section 00 10 00, Page 1.

Due to heightened security at Government installations, those offerors who have their proposals hand-carried* shall contact Donna Larson, Contract Specialist at (402) 995-2066 prior to delivering to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer District, Omaha, 1616 Capitol Ave, Omaha, NE 68102-4901.

On the date specified and for thirty (30) minutes prior to the specified time, a Contracting representative will be in the lobby to receive proposals. Containers (i.e. envelopes, packages, boxes) will be screened for security purposes. Hand-carried means the individual must be able to carry on their person. If due to size or volume, packages or boxes need to be wheeled in on a

00 22 00, Page 3 cart or dolly, you will be required to go to the dock area located on the northeast side of the facility. After inspection and screening, you will be allowed in the building after presenting valid photo identification. At the time specified in Section 00 10 00, Page 1, local time, it will be announced that receipt of proposals is closed. Official time will be established by time/stamp clock designated by the Contract Specialist.

*This instruction shall also apply to those proposals delivered through a delivery or parcel service.

NOTE: No parking on the street in front of the facility entrances will be allowed. Passenger vehicles will need to locate parking meters or parking garages before delivering proposals.

Delivery trucks must go to the dock. The vehicle will be inspected and packages screened at the dock. After inspection and screening, the delivery person will be allowed into the building.

6. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

a. All proposals and documentation which have been properly submitted will be evaluated. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the factors and subfactors stated in the solicitation to select the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government. Because of the number of proposals anticipated, uniformity of all proposals is essential to assure fair and accurate evaluation. All proposals must comply with the instructions in the solicitation. Proposals that do not generally conform to the RFP requirements may be considered to have a “critical defect”, i.e. a defect that cannot be remedied by exchanges and/or permitted proposal revisions. If a proposal is suspected of having a critical defect, it will be brought to the immediate attention of the Contracting Officer who will determine if there is a critical defect. If the determination is made that a critical defect exists, the proposal will not be evaluated further and will be eliminated from further consideration. The affected offeror shall be promptly notified of the decision. Properly conforming proposals will be forwarded to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for evaluation. If, after award, the contractor wishes to replace key personnel or sub-contractors identified in the proposal, a formal request for substitution shall be presented to the Contracting Officer for approval. The Contracting Officer’s written consent shall be obtained before making any substitutions for these designated personnel or sub-contractors. The request shall clearly show the qualifications of the replacement personnel or sub-contractors and shall illustrate that the replacements have skills, experience, and capacity to accomplish the work equal to or better than those personnel or sub-contractors identified in the proposal.

b. Information obtained from owners, contract administrators, or other points of contact from past performance questionnaire or Contractor Performance Assessment System (CPARS) evaluations submitted through Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and personal knowledge of the SSEB members may affect the evaluation rating given for the Past Performance factor being evaluated. The Government reserves the right to contact any owner, contractor administrator or other points of contract furnished by the offeror to verify accuracy of information submitted for Factor 1 Subfactors 1 and 2 (Tabs A and B).

c. Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Tradeoff Process, FAR 15.101-1.

This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and subfactors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest

00 22 00, Page 4 technically-rated proposal to achieve a best–value contract award. Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the Offeror's ability to perform the resultant contract successfully. Proposals will be evaluated to identify strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies contained in them and to determine ratings for stated evaluation factors and subfactors. See definitions and descriptions of terms and ratings in d. below.

d. Evaluation Definitions.

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

(2) Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk.

(3) 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.

(4) Clarification. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award without discussions is anticipated, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

(5) Communications. Communications are exchanges between the Government and offerors after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

(6) Discussions. Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition and take place after establishment of the competitive range.

(7) Technical Rating Evaluation. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. The rating system consists of the application of a scale of colors or words used in conjunction with a narrative to denote the degree to which the proposal has met the standard for a non-cost factor and subfactorf. Ratings will be applied at the Tab (Factor) level. The following Combined Technical/Risk ratings will be used to evaluate Factor 1 (Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 (Tab A, B, and C, respectively):

a. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed below:

Blue - Outstanding. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

00 22 00, Page 5

Purple - Good. Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green - Acceptable. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow - Marginal. Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red - Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

NOTE: If at any level of indentation an Offeror’s proposal is evaluated as not meeting a minimum requirement (that is, below the level of Yellow (Marginal)), this fact must be included in the rating and narrative assessment at that level and each higher level of indentation. Therefore, an unacceptable rating at any level must be carried to the Tab (Factor) level.

(8) Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation.

a. Relevancy Rating. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is the determination of how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy shall be determined utilizing the similarity definition found in Paragraph 8.2.1. With respect to Relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The four levels of relevancy are shown below.

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

00 22 00, Page 6

Not Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the

The Relevancy Rating is not a separate proposal rating, but is used only to develop an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for the Past Performance Evaluation Factors.

b. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed 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 Voting Members will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Each offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings for Factor 2 (Tab D):

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.*

*For Factor 2, Past Performance, Construction (Tab D), a neutral rating will be awarded when no past performance records are provided or are otherwise unavailable. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a) (2) (iv), “In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance."

(9) Evaluation Notice (EN): The Procurement Contracting Officer’s (PCO) written

00 22 00, Page 7 notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communication, or in support of discussions.

7. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The areas to be evaluated include Evaluation Factors, which will be evaluated based on the adjectival methodology. The requirements specified in the solicitation are considered to be minimum requirements. A more favorable evaluation rating may be given for exceeding the minimum requirements. Note: Tabs A-D are shown below in descending order of importance.

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

EVALUATION FACTORS

Binder No. 1

Descending Order of Importance

Location Factor 1 - Technical Most Important factor Tab A Subfactor 1 - Relevant Construction Contractor

Experience Most important Subfactor

Tab B Subfactor 2 - Offeror’s Subcontractor’s

Qualifications and Construction Experience Slightly less than Subfactor

Tab C Subfactor 3 – Technical Approach/Offeror’s

Key Personnel Slightly less than Subfactor 2

Factor 2- Past Performance, Construction Second most important factor

Tab D Factor 2 - Past Performance, Construction Slightly less than Subfactor

Relevancy Used in determining rating for Factor 2

Confidence Used in determining rating for Factor 2

SUBJECTIVELY EVALUATED FACTORS

Binder No. 2

Price least most important factor

Note: Binder No. 2, Price will be evaluated in accordance with requirements listed in paragraph

9.2, EVALUATION OF PRICE.

00 22 00, Page 8

8. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

All proposals shall contain the information stated herein. Proposal clarity, organization (as defined in this solicitation) and cross-referencing is mandatory. No material (information not part of proposal) shall be incorporated by reference. Material not specifically identified below will not be evaluated. If proposers do not want the data contained in the proposal disclosed by the Government, the proposer shall follow the procedure specified in Section 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, paragraph: RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE AND USE OF DATA. However, portions of the winning proposal will be incorporated into the contract and are subject to disclosure notwithstanding restrictive markings.

a. Binder No. 1 - For all materials contained in Binder No. 1, provide original and four (4) copies in hard copy format and two (2) CD’s or DVD’s in read-only format, with all files in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. No USB Drives will be accepted with the proposal. Provide hard copy format material for Binder No. 1 in a 3-ring binder (original and each copy) with Tabs (dividers) separating Factor 1 (Subfactors 1 through

3) and Factor 2. Tabs (dividers) shall be as follows:

Location Factor Factor 1 - Technical Tab A Factor 1 – Subfactor 1- Relevant Construction Contractor Experience

Tab B Factor 1- Subfactor 2 - Subcontractor’s Qualifications and Construction Experience

Tab C Factor 1 - Subfactor 3 – Technical Approach/Key Personnel

Tab D Factor 2 - Past Performance, Construction

b. Binder No. 2 - Provide a separate binder with all materials contained in Binder No. 2 in hard copy original and one (1) CD in read-only format, with all files in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. The Section 00 10 00 Solicitation/Contract Form (SF1442) and Pricing Schedule may be excluded from the CD. Additional copies of this binder are not required. Provide the following information, in the order identified herein. Additional information on the content of this binder is shown in Section 9.1 below

SF 1442 (Reference Section 00 10 00)

Pricing Schedule (Reference Section 00 10 00)

Representations and Certifications (Reference Section 00 45 00)

Pre-Award Survey Information, as defined in Section 9.1

c. Teaming Arrangements - For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Section 9.601. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of

00 22 00, Page 9 any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently-proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal. In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a prime contractor and subcontractor(s), where the prime contractor submits the proposal in response to this RFP, the prime contractor must have completed at least 50 percent of the total number of projects submitted for Factor 1 - Subfactor 1 for consideration in response to the experience requirements of this RFP. In the case of subcontractor submissions, the subcontractor must submit the final cost of their portion of the project. An Offeror that relies upon the experience and performance history of a member or members of a proposed contractor team arrangement will be expected to maintain that arrangement during performance of any contract awarded to that Offeror under this RFP. As a part of their proposal, the Offeror must provide a contractor team agreement signed by all parties, identifying the legal name(s) of all entities and describing the nature of each entity’s relationship (teaming/partnering, joint venture, mentor/protégé, etc.) and their role on this project.

This documentation shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror's technical proposal, prior to any Factors (Tabs).

8.1. PREFACE

The Preface to Binder No. 1 should consist of a brief explanation of the proposer, the organization of the proposed construction team, and key sub-contractors that will be utilized on this project. If a teaming arrangement or Joint Venture (JV) of prime contractors will be utilized, the JV will be identified in this preface and the management of the JV will be provided. Any additional information that will be useful to the selection board may also be included. This preface shall not exceed four (4) pages. The information included will not be evaluated, but will be utilized by the Selection Board to aid in the evaluation process. Factor 1 – Technical is the technical portion of this request for proposal

8.2. TAB A - FACTOR 1 – SUBFACTOR 1 - RELEVANT CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACTOR EXPERIENCE

8.2.1. Submission Requirements

[*Am-1] The Offeror shall submit examples of construction projects which best illustrate the experience of the construction contractor on projects of similar function, scope, size, and complexity as this project. Offerors must not submit more than four (4) projects. Each project example shall consist of a one or two page narrative of the example project, discussing the project and providing specifics as noted herein. If a Joint Venture (JV) is proposing, provide examples for each prime contractor in the JV within the four project examples allowed.

No more than the number of project examples listed above may be submitted.

Each construction project cited should not have a value less than $2,000,000, and must have been completed within six (6) years from the date that the proposal for this project is due. Projects must be of a similar scope and complexity to this requirement. The dollar value of the projects and similarity aspects to this requirement will impact the evaluation rating. See paragraph 8.2.2 below.

Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts, where numerous Task Orders are summed to meet the minimum construction dollar value identified herein, are not acceptable. Factor 1 - Subfactor 1

00 22 00, Page 10 should include project examples that are similar to the In-Ground Cremains and Pre-Placed Crypts, Fort Logan Cemetery, Colorado. In the project examples submitted, identify experience with the Veteran’s Administration National Cemetery Administration (VA-NCA). For evaluation purposes “similar” is defined as sharing the following aspects with the In-Ground Cremains and Pre-Placed Crypts, Fort Logan Cemetery, Colorado of comparable magnitude (or magnitude as defined above) and/or complexity:

VA and/or commercial construction where earthwork, landscaping and irrigation are 50 percent or more of the project; cemetery type work with placement of crypts and urns;

project site is being used by the customer

Each project example narrative should include the following information:

• Project title and location

• Detailed scope of the project. May be part of the narrative description of the project.

• Original contract award amount and final construction cost

• Original contract finish date and actual finish date

• Points of Contact, as described below

• Role of the proposing firm on the project, including a clear designation of whether or not the Offeror was the prime contractor

• Sub-contractors utilized on the project and if they are proposed to be utilized for the Fort Logan Cemetery, Colorado Project

• Prime Contractor Personnel on the project and if they are proposed to be utilized for the Fort Logan Cemetery, Colorado Project

• Narrative description of the project, as described below.

All project examples shall contain a Point of Contact (POC) as well as one alternate Point of Contact, to include the name, job title of the POC, address, telephone, and e-mail address. The POC and alternate shall be familiar with the construction performance of the proposer and be a representative of the owner/customer, not affiliated with the proposer. The POC and alternate shall be able to verify the experience cited.

Narratives for each project shall include a brief overview of the project, discussing major features of the project and each project’s relevance, VA-NCA or commercial construction project and similarities to this project. The role and work assigned to any sub-contractors and/or personnel noted in the narrative shall be explained. All time growth and construction cost growth shall be explained in each project example narrative. The government preference is that project examples submitted be of completed projects (i.e. construction complete).

8.2.2. Evaluation

[*Am-1] The Offeror's experience in construction of facilities similar to this project will be evaluated. No more than four projects may be submitted in this Tab. If the number of project examples in this tab exceeds four, only the first four projects listed in the proposal will be evaluated. Evaluation will be based on the project examples provided in the offeror’s proposal. Any additional material

00 22 00, Page 11 inserted into this tab will not be evaluated.

Higher evaluation ratings will be given for project examples which are similar in function, scope, size, and complexity to this project and clearly demonstrate a contractor’s capabilities to construct a project of this nature, execute the project successfully while containing costs and maintaining schedule. Those project examples that are of a dollar value greater than or equal to $4,000,000 will be rated more favorably than those projects with a value less than $4,000,000.

No additional consideration will be given to projects incrementally higher than $4,000,000. For example, the Government will rate a $4,000,000 project as favorably as a $500,000,000 project and such projects will be rated more favorably than a $3,000,000 or a $2,000,000 project. The Government will rate proposals more favorably for which project examples were undertaken while on an active site, were greater than $4,000,000 in construction cost, and were VA-NCA construction projects. Projects still under construction will be evaluated, though less favorably than completed projects, but must be at least 90 percent complete to be considered. Projects for which the proposer was not the prime contractor will be evaluated less favorably. Projects showing cost and time growth will be rated less favorably than those that maintain the contract completion date and the original award amount, unless the cost or time growth is explained to be caused by factors outside the proposer’s control. Higher evaluations may be given for previously used subcontractors that will be utilized for the Fort Logan Cemetery project. Higher evaluation ratings may be given if Prime Contractor personnel submitted for this project (Tab C – Factor 1 – Subfactor 3 Technical Approach/Offeror’s Key Personnel) have worked on projects submitted for this tab. Submission of fewer projects than allowed above will reduce the offeror’s rating in this Subfactor (Tab). Omission of requested information will result in lower ratings.

8.3. TAB B – FACTOR 1 – SUBFACTOR 2 - OFFEROR’S SUBCONTRACTOR’S

QUALIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

8.3.1. Submission Requirements

[*Am-1] The Offeror may submit one (1) candidate for each of the below primary subcontractors.

For any primary subcontractor work that will be self-performed by Prime Contractor, so indicate and provide the information requested below.

After award of the contract, the Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer's written consent before making any substitutions for the subcontractors identified in this tab.

Information on the following Primary Subcontractors shall be included in this Tab, listed in descending order of importance.

a. Pre-Placed Cast and Urn Crypts Manufacturer and Installer. Submit 3 projects that show that manufacturer and installer has a minimum of three years of experience in furnishing 3,000 pre-placed cast crypt and 50 pre-placed urn crypt units of similar type to the Fort Logan Cemetery project. Include copy of current plant certification for the location(s) that will be producing the crypt units for this project from the National Precast Concrete Association (NPCA). Crypt Manufacturer and Installer may be separate firms, but should have worked on the same projects.

b, Earthwork/Excavation. Submit 3 projects which show experience in earthwork/excavation

00 22 00, Page 12 of large areas of 5 acres or more and includes removal of trees, shrubs, fences, foundations, incidental structures, paving, debris, trash, and other obstructions.

c. Landscaping. Submit 3 projects which show: 5 years of experience in successfully transplanting trees, providing and installing planting materials in climate zone equal to the Fort Logan Cemetery project in conjunction with use of an irrigation system similar to the Fort Logan Cemetery project.

d. Irrigation. Submit 5 projects providing irrigation systems having large diameter gasketed pipe (6-inch and larger), centralized control systems with hardwired communication, electrically operated remote control valves, and large radius rotary sprinklers (minimum 1-inch inlet with swing joint) and pre-fabricated booster pump stations. Provide copy of Colorado license for Irrigation subcontractor.

e. Electrical. Show experience (3 projects) in providing electrical service to new and existing irrigation systems similar to the Fort Logan Cemetery project.

For each subcontractor proposed, include a one-page sheet identifying the subcontractor by name and the proposed role on this project, DUNS or CAGE number of the subcontractor followed by project example sheets, as described herein. Submit Subcontractor CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Report System) or CCASS (Construction Contract Administration Support System) Ratings with DD Form 2626 or PPQ-O Form completed by the Government for any of their projects that they submit (ratings include subcategory and overall). If past performance ratings for subcontractor work is only available under the Prime Contractor on work they performed, submit the Prime Contractor Past Performance Assessment report for which their performance may be assessed along with DUNS and CAGE number of the Prime Contractor they worked for (Identify subcontractor, if submitting Prime Contractor Performance Assessment report for subcontractor). Project ratings completed before 27 June 2014 are available at the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) located at http://www.ppirs.gov. Project ratings completed after 27 June 2014 will be processed through the CPARS location:

http://www.cpars.gov. Both interim and final report evaluations will then be loaded into the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) available at http://www.ppirs.gov. If no CPARS or CCASS ratings are available, submit other construction ratings and forms (from other government entities or completed Attachment A – NAVFAC USACE PPQ Form per requirements included in paragraph 8.5.1. for Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for each project (with no CPARS or CCASS rating) that they submit. If none submitted, CPARS or CCASS Ratings will be pulled (by the government), if available, for the subcontractors and evaluated.

Each project example narrative should include the following information:

• Project title and location

• Detailed scope and size of the project. May be included with Narrative Description for the project.

• Original contract award amount and final construction cost of the project

• Subcontract award amount if the work was performed as a subcontractor

• Original contract finish date and actual finish date

00 22 00, Page 13

• Points of Contact, as described below

• Name of the prime contractor

• Role of the subcontractor on the project, including a description of all items of work included in their subcontract for the project

• Narrative description of the project, as described below

All examples shall contain a Point of Contact (POC) as well as one alternate Point of Contact, to include the name, job title, address, telephone, and e-mail address. The POC and alternate shall be familiar with the subcontractor’s experience on the project and be able to verify the experience cited. The POC and alternate shall not be affiliated with the subcontractor.

Narratives for each project should include a brief overview of the project, discussing major features of the project and each project’s relevance and similarities to this project. The role and work assigned to any subcontractors and/or personnel noted in the narrative shall be explained.

The dollar amount of the work performed by the subcontractor, and a description of the work for which they were responsible. State whether or not the Offeror has had any previous experience working with this subcontractor. All time growth and construction cost growth shall be explained in each project example. The Government preference is that project examples submitted should be of completed projects (i.e. construction complete).

8.3.2. Evaluation

The Subcontractor's experience in construction of facilities similar to this project will be evaluated. No more than the 3 projects (all subcontractors except irrigation) and 5 projects (irrigation subcontractor) may be submitted in this tab for each subcontractor.