Am_0001_W9128F-17-R-0054.pdf

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 or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

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

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

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.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER 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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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)

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 (Number, 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)

Previous edition unusable

Amendment No. 0001

MASS PARKING APRON REPAIR – SECTION II, QJVF 150054, MINOT AFB, NORTH DAKOTA

See attached documentation for content of the amendment changes to RFP

Date for receipt of proposals is 28 AUG 2017 at 1400 hours

Government Point of Contact: Donna Larson, Contract Specialist (402) 290-3692

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVE.

OMAHA, NE 68102-4901

See Item 6

W9128F-17-R-0054

08/11/2017

08/11/2017

Am #0001 - 1

Am #0001 - 2 (Continuation of SF30)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Omaha District, Corps of Engineers

1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901

:NOTICE: Failure to acknowledge : Solicitation No. W9128F-17-R-0054 :all amendments may cause rejec-:

:tion of the offer. See FAR : Date of Issue: 25 JUL 2017 :52.215-1 of Section 00 21 00. : Date of Receiving Proposals:

28 AUG 2017

Amendment No. 0001

11 AUG 2017

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0001 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Construction of Mass Parking Apron Repair – Section II.

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)

None.

b. Specifications (New and/or Revised and Reissued). Delete and substitute or add specification pages as noted below. The substituted pages are revised and reissued with this amendment. For convenience, on the revised specification pages, changes have been identified by highlighting text. (All portions of reissued specification pages shall apply whether or not changes thereon have been indicated.)

Pages Deleted Pages Substituted or Added 00 22 00 00 22 00

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 thereby occasioned.

Proposals shall be submitted as described in Section 00 22 00, Paragraph 4.

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. Electronic Proposals shall be delivered via AMRDEC Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE), https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/, to the USACE Contracting Activity at the following email addresses:

Donna.R.Larson@usace.army.mil and Denise.M.Cramer@usace.army.mil

Am #0001 - 3 (Continuation of SF30)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District CENWO-CT-M (Larson) 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, NE 68102-4901

Telephone: (402) 290-3692

3. Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m, local time at place of receiving proposals, 28 AUG 2017.

Attachments:

Site Visit Record of Attendance Specification Page(s) listed in 1.b., above

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

11 AUG 2017

NEP/2160

This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing.

Am #0001

This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing.

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 1

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

INDEX

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3. FORMAT OF ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS

4. HOW TO SUBMIT

5. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

6. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

7. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

7.1. PREFACE

7.2. TAB A - FACTOR 1 - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR EXPERIENCE

7.3. TAB B - FACTOR 2 - OFFEROR’S SUBCONTRACTOR’S QUALIFICATIONS AND

CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

7.4. TAB C - FACTOR 3 TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.5. TAB D – FACTOR 4 - OFFEROR’S KEY PERSONNEL

7.6. TAB E - FACTOR 5 - PAST PERFORMANCE, CONSTRUCTION

7.7. TAB F - FACTOR 6 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

8. PRICE

8.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.2. EVALUATION OF PRICE

9. COMPETITIVE RANGE

10. CLARIFICATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

11. FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

12. SMALL BUSINESS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

13. AWARD OF CONTRACT

14. DEBRIEFING

Attachments:

Attachment A - NAVFAC USACE PPQ Form Sep 2011 SF294 - Subcontracting Report For Individual Contracts Attachment B - Individual Subcontract Form

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 2

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

This solicitation is unrestricted and open to both large and small business participation.

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

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. FORMAT OF SUBMISSIONS

3.1. HARDCOPY (ONE REQUIRED)

[*Am-1] All written portions (other than the organization chart and bar chart schedule, which can be 11” x 17”) shall be in 8-1/2" x 11" format, unless indicated otherwise. [**Am-1] The proposal shall be submitted in two separate volumes: Volume 1 (Technical) and Volume 2 (Cost).

3.2. ELECTRONIC

For electronic submissions, Volume 1 and 2 shall be submitted as separate Adobe PDF files.

Volume 1 shall have bookmarks, at a minimum, corresponding to each tab/factor and sub-factor.

4. HOW TO SUBMIT

4.1. HARDCOPY (ONE REQUIRED)

Offerors shall submit their proposal packages to the USACE Contracting Activity at the address shown in Block 8 of Standard Form 1442. Offers shall be submitted 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) 290-3692 prior to delivering to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer District, Omaha, 1616 Capitol Ave, Omaha, NE 68102-4901.

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 3

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 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.

4.2. ELECTRONIC

Offerors shall submit their proposal packages via AMRDEC Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE), https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/, to the USACE Contracting Activity at the following email addresses: Donna.R.Larson@usace.army.mil and Denise.M.Cramer@usace.army.mil. Under Email Settings, select “FOUO” option and mark all checkboxes. Offers shall be submitted by the time and date specified in Section 00 10 00, Page 1.

5. 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 stated in the solicitation to select the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government. 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 “deficiency”, i.e. a defect that cannot be remedied by exchanges and/or permitted proposal revisions. If a proposal is suspected of having a deficiency, it will be brought to the immediate attention of the appropriate authority who will determine if there is a deficiency. If the determination is made that a deficiency 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.

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 4

b. Information obtained from owners, contract administrators, or other points of contact, provided by the offeror may affect the evaluation rating given for the factors being evaluated by those discussions.

c. Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Best Value Tradeoff Process, FAR 15.101-1. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest 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 determine ratings supported by narratives, and to identify strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposed approach in each proposal.

d. Evaluation Definitions.

(1) 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 means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

(3) Deficiency is 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. See FAR 15.001.

(4) Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

(5) Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(b).

(6) Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(d).

e. Technical Rating Evaluation Process.

(1) For purposes of this solicitation, technical and risk ratings for non-cost Evaluation Factors other than Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan will utilize a scale of colors and words used in conjunction with narrative to evaluate the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement and the associated degree of risk.

Ratings will be applied at the factor (tab) and sub-factor level. 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, a red - unacceptable rating at any level must be carried to the factor (tab) level. The following ratings will be used to evaluate Factors 1 (Tab A) through 4 (Tab D) (see paragraph 6 for Evaluation Factors):

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 5

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Factor 5 (Tab E) 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. 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.

The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope of this contract for overall application to the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings described hereinafter. Relevancy shall be determined utilizing the similarity definition found in Paragraph 7.2.1, based on size, relevance, and complexity of the projects and the similarity of those projects to the project in this solicitation.

The following relevancy ratings will be used to evaluate the past performance information:

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.

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 6

The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts. 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. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or 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, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. (see the interview form at Attachment A). The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Interview Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CPARS/CCASS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing an overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor.

The following ratings will be used for the Performance Confidence Assessment:

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

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

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

For Volume #1, Factor 5, Past Performance, Construction, a neutral rating will be awarded when no past performance records are provided or are otherwise unavailable. Per Federal

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 7

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."

(3) Factor 6 (Tab F) Small Business Participation Plan Evaluation. See paragraph 7.7.2. The Government will use an overall rating of acceptable or unacceptable to evaluate Factor 6, Small Business Participation Plan.

6. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Offerors will be evaluated based on the Evaluation Factors shown below. 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-F are shown below in descending order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered approximately equal to price.

EVALUATION FACTORS

Volume No. 1

Location Factor Descending Order of

Importance Tab A Factor 1 - Construction Contractor Experience 1st Most Important

Factor

Tab B Factor 2 - Offeror’s Subcontractor’s Qualifications and Construction Experience 2nd Most Important Factor.

Tab C Factor 3 – Technical Approach 3rd Most Important

Factor

Tab D Factor 4 – Offeror’s Key Personnel 4th Most Important

Factor

Tab E Factor 5 – Past Performance, Construction 5th Most Important

Factor

Tab F Factor 6 – Small Business Participation Plan 6th Most Important

Factor

SUBJECTIVELY EVALUATED FACTORS

Volume No. 2

Price - (Equally important to the combined Factor elements in Binder 1)

Note: A low evaluation rating for any Factor, or combination of different Factors, may cause the proposal to be evaluated as “Red - Unacceptable”. Volume No. 2, Price will be evaluated in

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 8 accordance with requirements listed in paragraph 8.2, EVALUATION OF PRICE.

7. 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 01 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. Volume No. 1 shall consist of Factors 1 through 6 (Tabs A through F) and be divided as follows:

Location Factor Tab A Factor 1 - Construction Contractor Experience

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

Tab C Factor 3 – Technical Approach

Tab D Factor 4 Offeror’s Key Personnel

Tab E Factor 5 - Past Performance, Construction

Tab F Factor 6 – Small Business Participation Plan

b. Volume No. 2 - Shall be a separate PDF file containing the information shown below.

This volume shall include the following information, in the order identified herein.

Additional information on the content of this volume is shown in Section 8.1 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 8.1

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 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

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 9 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 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).

7.1. PREFACE

The Preface to Volume 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.

7.2. TAB A - FACTOR 1 - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR EXPERIENCE

7.2.1. Submission Requirements

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. No more than three (3) projects should be submitted. Each project example should 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 three project examples allowed.

No more than the number of project examples listed above may be submitted. Each project cited should have a construction dollar value equal to or greater than $3,000,000 and have been completed within six (6) years from the date that the proposal for this project is due. Indefinite- Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts, where numerous Task Orders are summed to meet the minimum construction dollar value identified herein, are not acceptable. Factor 1 should include project examples that are similar to the Repair Mass Parking Apron – Section II, Minot AFB, North Dakota. For evaluation purposes “similar” is defined as sharing the following aspects with the Repair Mass Parking Apron – Section II, Minot AFB, ND of comparable magnitude (or magnitude as defined above) and/or complexity:

Military and/or commercial airfield pavement construction consisting of runway; parking apron; or taxiway pavement for fixed-wing aircraft.

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 10

Each project example narrative should include the following information:

• Project title and location

• Detailed scope of the project including area of paving in SY

• 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 Minot AFB Project

• Prime Contractor Personnel on the project and if they are proposed to be utilized for the Minot AFB 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 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 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).

7.2.2. Evaluation

The Offeror's experience in construction of facilities similar to this project will be evaluated. No more than three projects may be submitted in this Tab. If the number of project examples in this tab exceeds four, only the first three 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 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, and execute the project successfully while containing costs and maintaining schedule. Projects submitted which demonstrate experience in construction of PCC airfield pavement 15 inch thick or greater will be rated more favorably. Projects meeting the $3 million criteria in Paragraph 7.2.1 will be rated higher than those not meeting the minimum.

Projects meeting the similarity criteria identified in Paragraph 7.2.1 will be rated higher than those projects that do not meet the similarity criteria. Projects still under construction will be

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 11 evaluated, though less favorably than completed projects. Projects for which the proposer was not the prime contractor will be evaluated less favorably. Military construction project examples will be rated more favorably than commercial projects. Projects showing significant 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 Minot AFB project. Higher evaluation ratings may be given if Prime Contractor personnel submitted for this project (Tab D – Factor -4 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 Factor (Tab). Omission of requested information will result in lower ratings.

7.3. TAB B - FACTOR 2 - OFFEROR’S SUBCONTRACTOR’S QUALIFICATIONS

AND CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

7.3.1. Submission Requirements

The Offeror may submit one (1) candidate for each of the below primary subcontractors.

If the Offeror only proposes one subcontractor, then a teaming arrangement signed by all parties must be provided as part of the Offeror’s proposal. 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. The Demolition Primary Subcontractor is significantly less important than the other Primary Subcontractors.

a. Airfield Pavement:

1. Show experience (3 projects) constructing Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement with a thickness of 15 inches or greater. Projects submitted for evaluation shall each consist of at least 10,000 square yards (SY) of total paving area. The Contractor shall demonstrate experience with slip-form paving, to include installation of dowel bars in hardened concrete. Experience installing pavement markings shall also be demonstrated.

2. Show experience (3 projects) constructing Asphalt Cement Concrete (ACC) pavement with a total thickness of 4 inches or greater in multiple lifts. Projects submitted for evaluation shall each consist of at least 6,000 square yards of total paving area. The Contractor shall demonstrate experience placing high stability asphalt meeting Department of Defense requirements for military airfield projects (See Section 32 12 15.13, HOT-MIX ASPHALT AIRFIELD PAVING). Experience installing pavement markings shall also be demonstrated.

b. CQC Geotechnical Laboratory. Submit 3 projects which show: Experience in casting and breaking concrete cylinders and beams for compressive and flexural strength testing for airfield pavement consistent with requirements in ASTM C31, ASTM C39 and ASTM C78. Experience

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 12 with concrete mix design for airfield pavement meeting requirements of ACI 211 and ASTM C1077. Experience with aggregate testing and deleterious materials in accordance with requirements in Section 32 13 11 CONCRETE PAVEMENT FOR AIRFIELDS AND OTHER HEAVY-DUTY PAVEMENTS. Ability to identify and resolve airfield pavement issues during construction. Submit current USACE laboratory certification for all testing required by Section

32 13 11 CONCRETE PAVEMENT FOR AIRFIELDS AND OTHER HEAVY-DUTY

PAVEMENTS.

c. Demolition:

Show experience (3 projects) in demolition of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement with a thickness of 18 inches or greater. Contractor shall demonstrate experience in milling ACC and PCC pavements. The Contractor shall demonstrate experience using the double saw cut method to initiate the removal of pavement slabs adjacent to other slabs that are to remain in place without damaging the existing slabs to remain.

7.3.1.1. Project Example Narrative

Each project example narrative should include the following information:

• Project title and location

• Detailed scope of the project to include size (SY)

• 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

• 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).

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 13

7.3.1.2. CPARS/CCASS Evaluations

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.

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. PPIRS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major federal performance reporting systems.

Logging onto PPIRS will require the following:

All firms must have purchased and installed a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificate. If you do not have this certificate, you cannot access your information. Additional information about the PKI certificate is posted in red at the top, center portion, of the http://www.ppirs.gov web page.

You will also need your DUNS number and Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) to log onto PPIRS. The MPIN number was selected by whoever registered your firm in the System for Award Management (SAM) at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. If you do not know your MPIN number, you will need to contact the Federal Service Desk as indicated on link:

https://www.fsd.gov/web page. Please be aware that they will only release the MPIN number to the person who originally registered your firm.

There are two other ways to obtain a copy of CCASS evaluations as follows: (1) Contact your government point of contact for the project you mentioned, and ask them if they can send you a copy, or (2) Apply for “Corporate Senior Contractor Representative” access on the following CCASS web page: http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/. This type of access is issued to only one person within the firm, typically a member of senior management. In addition to access to your completed CCASS performance evaluations, you will also be able to view status of evaluations which have not yet been completed. Following receipt of your faxed application request, you will be emailed a logon and access instructions. This type of access will only let you see CCASS information, so it is not as complete as PPIRS access which allows access to evaluations prepared by non-DOD federal agencies, as well as the DOD agencies which use CCASS. Be aware that you will also need to have a PKI certificate to access the CCASS system. This is a DOD requirement.

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 14

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) for each project (with no CPARS or CCASS rating). If no ratings are submitted, CPARS or CCASS Ratings will be pulled by the government, if available, for the subcontractors and evaluated.

7.3.1.3. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

The Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment A) is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client. The Past Performance Questionnaire should be completed by an owner or owner’s representative not affiliated with your firm. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment A), 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 the Government's point of contact, via email at Donna.R.Larson@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.

7.3.1.4. Government Utilization of Alternate Information

The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under the Tab A - Factor 1 Construction Contractor Experience and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal or to review personal knowledge. In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance of the Offeror on the submitted projects and any other previous work. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) 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.

7.3.2. Evaluation

The Subcontractor's experience in construction of facilities similar to this project will be evaluated. No more than three (3) projects may be submitted in this tab for each subcontractor. If the number of project examples in this tab exceeds three, only the first three projects listed in the proposal will be evaluated. Evaluation will be based on the project example narratives and other requested information provided in the offeror’s proposal. Any additional material inserted into

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 15 this tab will not be evaluated.

Lower evaluation ratings will be given for those project examples not meeting the minimum SY of Airfield Pavement for both PCC and ACC identified above. Higher evaluation ratings will be given for those project examples which are similar in function, scope, size, and complexity to this project and clearly demonstrate subcontractor capabilities to construct a project of this nature, and execute the project successfully while containing costs and maintaining schedule.

Any subcontractor work performed by the Prime will be evaluated more favorably. Projects meeting the similarity criteria identified in Paragraph 7.2.1 will be rated higher than those projects that do not meet the similarity criteria. Projects still under construction will be evaluated, though less favorably than completed projects. Subcontractors that have previously worked with the proposed prime contractor(s) will be evaluated more favorably. Projects which are relevant and similar and utilize personnel that will be used on the Repair Mass Parking Apron – Section II project will be evaluated more favorably. Those subcontractors that include military construction projects will be rated more favorably. Submission of fewer projects than stated above will reduce the offeror’s rating in this Tab. Omission of requested information will result in lower ratings.

Higher evaluations may be given where performance ratings show “Exceptional” evaluations. In descending order, lower ratings may be given for performance ratings showing “Above Average”, “Average”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, and “Unacceptable”. Higher evaluation ratings may also be awarded for CPARS evaluations in which the Assessing Official "definitely would" recommend the Contractor. In descending order, lower ratings may be given for CPARS evaluations in which the Assessing official "would," "probably would," "might or might not," "probably would not," and "definitely would not," recommend the contractor. The Government may, at its discretion, contact references cited to verify the information contained therein.

7.4. TAB C - FACTOR 3 TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.4.1. Submission Requirements

Based on your understanding of the RFP requirements, describe the technical approach you will take to address the unique challenges, opportunities, and constraints inherent to this project (i.e.

work delays, scheduling, working on an active runway, equipment height restrictions, etc.). The submission for this factor may not exceed (10) ten pages, including explanatory drawings, excluding bar chart schedule. Provide a bar chart schedule (may not exceed 4 pages) on your plan for completing the work based on an arbitrary estimated, non-binding Contract Notice to Proceed date of 30 September 2017 and Contract Completion date of 30 September 2018. This schedule shall be considered the preliminary project schedule per specification Section 01 32

01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE. Note: Per Section 01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE, the initial project schedule shall be submitted for approval the day Construction Notice to Proceed is assumed 30 September 2017 (demolition start is assumed 1 May 2018). Include major work milestones and scheduled activities (i.e. Non-Work Periods, Pavement Workshop, Order of Work restrictions and any other activity that will affect schedule as identified on the Construction drawings and Section 01 30 00 .24 OTHER ADMINSTRATIVE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS.) Present a narrative to describe your technical solution for this project, specifically citing the process and major equipment used for construction of airfield pavement, discussion of the batch plant required to produce concrete for the project, how subcontractors will be managed, how supplies and materials will be managed (i.e. source and location of all

Am #0001 00 22 00, Page 16 aggregates for concrete and asphalt proposed for use in this project), and your schedule development and methods to be utilized and to keep the project on schedule, including responsibilities for schedule development and updates. This portion of the tab shall also address mitigation of delays due to unforeseen conditions or events and methods to recover time to complete the scheduled work with the contract duration. Proposed equipment shall be consistent with requirements of Section 32 13 11 CONCRETE PAVEMENT FOR AIRFIELDS AND OTHER HEAVY-DUTY PAVEMENTS of the specifications.

7.4.2. Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the unique requirements of airfield paving as portrayed in your discussion of construction intent for this project. Requirements to be evaluated include, but are not limited to, project schedule, the process and type of major equipment proposed for construction of airfield paving for this project. Submissions which demonstrate a complete, logical and well defined construction methodology, understanding and presentation of a realistic schedule that includes major work items and all phasing requirements shown on construction drawings and specifications will be evaluated more favorably.

7.5. TAB D – FACTOR 4 - OFFEROR’S KEY PERSONNEL

7.5.1. Submission…