Am_0001.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

SHADOW UAS RANGE TRAINING FACILITY, PN 75893 (FY17) AT FORT CARSON, COLORADO

See attached documentation for content of the amendment changes to RFP

Date for receipt of proposals is 14 SEP 2017 at 1400 hours

Government Point of Contact: Katherine Fisher, Contract Specialist (402) 995-2102

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVE.

OMAHA, NE 68102-4901

See Item 6

W9128F-17-R-0100

08/25/2017

08/11/2017

08/25/2017

Am #0001 - 1

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 17 R 0100 :all amendments may cause rejec- :

:tion of the offer. See FAR : Date of Issue: 11 AUG 2017 :52.215-1 of Section 00 21 00 : Date of Receiving Proposals:

14 SEP 2017

Amendment No. 0001

25 AUG 2017

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0001 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Construction of Shadow UAS Range Training Facility at Fort Carson, Colorado

Solicitation No. W9128F 17 R 0100

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 (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, changed language has generally been identified by highlighting. All portions of reissued specification pages shall apply whether or not changes thereon have been indicated in this fashion.

Pages or Sections Deleted Pages or Sections Substituted or Added 00 22 00 00 22 00 01 30 00.24 01 30 00.24

CO170032 CO170032

07 05 23 ** ** ** 07 41 13 07 41 13 10 28 13 10 28 13 ** ** ** 33 40 01

b. Drawings (Reissued). The following drawings are revised with a revision date as shown on the drawings cover page and reissued with this amendment.

All drawings in advertised package are reissued with this amendment. See Sheet “Index” in revised drawing package for a complete list of reissued drawings.

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.

Am #0001 - 3 (Continuation SF 30)

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.

3. Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m., local time at place of receiving proposals, 14 SEP 2017.

Attachments:

Spec Pages listed in 1.a. above Dwgs. as described in 1.b. above (under separate cover)

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

25 AUG 2017

jlb/2099

This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing.

Section 00 22 00 W9128F-17-R-0100

Section 00 22 00 Page 1

SECTION 00 22 00 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF

AWARD

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

4.1. VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL

4.2. VOLUME 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.3. VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO-FORMA INFORMATION

5.0 VOLUME 1 –FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

5.1. TAB A –SUBFACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.2. TAB B –SUBFACTOR 2 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.3. TAB C –SUBFACTOR 3 – KEY PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE

6.0 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 TAB A - FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

7.0 VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

7.1. GENERAL

7.2. TAB A – FACTOR 3 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET AND CONTRACT

LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

7.3. TAB B – EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

7.4. TAB C– REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

8.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

8.2. EVALUATION

8.3. DEFINITIONS

8.4. EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

8.5. PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM

Am_0001

Section 00 22 00 Page 2

ATTACHMENTS

1 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

2 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE KEY SUBCONTRACTOR (OR PRIME IF WORK NOT TO BE

SUBCONTRACTED)

3 - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

4 - KEY PERSONNEL RESUME

5 - LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY PERSONNEL

6 - LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR (DESIGN FIRM OR KEY SUBCONTRACTOR)

7 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

Section 00 22 00 Page 3

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. This is a “Best Value” solicitation for the Construction of Shadow UAS Range Training Facility in Ft.

Carson, Colorado. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government.

1.2. PROPOSAL FORMAT

The Packaging that contains the Proposals shall be sealed and marked:

“Proposals for Solicitation No. W9128F-17-R-0100, to be opened by Contracting Personnel Only”

Written materials: 8 ½” x 11” format in bound volumes using 10 point or larger font size and using 3-ring binders. Combine Volumes 1 and 2 into a single binder. For each binder, provide a title sheet on the cover, table of contents and labeled tabs matching this documents’ Table of Contents. Provide a title sheet within each volume identifying the prime, consortium, or joint venture’s name, address, telephone, fax and email address and point of contact. Include the signature, title and contact information of the official that can bind the firm.

Volume number and tab section submitted shall appear in the bottom right corner of each page (along with the revision number and revision date for the amended page, if necessary)

Number of copies: Submit only one original and one copy of Volume 1 and 2 (in a single/shared binder) as well as one CD in read-only format, using .PDF files. Submit Volume 3 in a sealed envelope as well as one CD (with only Volume 3). It is imperative that none of the pricing or Volume 3 information show up in Volumes 1 or 2. The offeror has the option of excluding an electronic copy of only Section 00 10 00 (SF 1442 and CLIN Pricing Schedule) from the CDs and submitting it only in hard copy format. The CDs shall contain the balance of the printed materials electronically in PDF file format.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

2.1. The Contracting Officer will award a firm-fixed-price contract to that responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority has determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price; however, the Contract award should not exceed the cost limitation described in Section 00 21 01 for this project. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within the cost limitation. There is no obligation to approach or match the cost limitation in the offer. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Official must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal (within the cost limitation) would justify award to that offeror.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume that offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

3.2. The proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the requirements of the RFP. The proposal should be specific and complete in every detail and should be prepared simply and

Section 00 22 00 Page 4 economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the requirements. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent.

3.3. In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. Failure to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affect an Offeror’s evaluation.

3.4. Firms formally organized as construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal, provided that the Offeror or Offeror’s subcontractor has or will have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines and provided that the requirements specified in Contract clause, “Requirements for Registration of Designers”, are met.

3.5. Submit proposals in tabbed, three-ring binders per paragraph 1.2 above. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, where indicated below.

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

4.1. VOLUME 1 –TECHNICAL

Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL

Factor 1 is slightly more important than Factor

2. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price (Factor 3).

Subfactor 1 Vol. 1 TAB A Specialized Experience Most Important Subfactor

Subfactor 2 Vol. 1 TAB B Project Management Plan Second most Important Subfactor

Subfactor 3 Vol. 1 TAB C Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience

3rd most Important Subfactor (significantly less important than Subfactor 2)

4.2. VOLUME 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 2 Vol. 2 TAB A Past Performance

Factor 1 is slightly more important than Factor

2. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are significantly more important than cost or price (Factor 3).

N/A Relevancy Used in determining rating for Factor 2

N/A Confidence Used in determining rating for Factor 2

Section 00 22 00 Page 5

4.3. VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 3 Vol. 3 TAB A Price (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

Factor 1 is slightly more important than Factor

2. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are significantly more important than cost or price (Factor 3).

N/A Vol. 3 TAB B Evidence of Bondability Not Rated

N/A Vol. 3 TAB C Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

NOTE: 8(a) Joint Venture Offeror or Offeror submitting Proposal as HubZone Joint Venture shall submit evidence from Offerors SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or business Opportunity Specialist.

5.0 VOLUME 1 –FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

5.1. VOLUME 1 -TAB A – SUBFACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1.1. Submission Requirements:

5.1.1.1. Construction Projects. The Offeror shall submit between three (3) and five (5) projects performed by the Prime Construction Entity. Limit one (1) page per project submitted, with one additional page allowed for describing past teaming experience between current team members (see below). Any information presented beyond the page limit will not be evaluated.

5.1.1.2. Teaming Experience. In one page, the Offeror shall demonstrate any previous teaming experience between current team members. Teaming experience information is limited to projects that are well underway or that have been completed and turned over no longer than the past five years preceding the issue date of this solicitation.

5.1.1.3. Project Information. All projects submitted should demonstrate experience on similar projects of equal or greater value. Submit projects that are currently well underway (at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer than five (5) years preceding the issue date of this solicitation. The proposed prime construction shall have performed in the same role as the prime or lead entities on the projects submitted. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements set forth in the RFP. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. If the Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. If projects were design-build, so identify them.

Project information shall CLEARLY include:

(a) Type of Facility Represented

(b) Name of Firm

(c) Name of Project

Section 00 22 00 Page 6

(d) Location of Project

(e) Owner, including reference POC with confirmed contact information

(f) General Scope of Construction Project

(g) Summary of Your Role in the Project

(h) Construction Cost at completion

(i) Extent and Type of Work Subcontracted Out

(j) Dates Construction Began and Completed

5.1.2. Evaluation Criteria: The following criteria are not listed in any particular order of importance.

5.1.2.1. Experience on similar projects that exceed the scope and value may be rated more favorably.

5.1.2.2. Federal Government project experience may be rated more favorably than non-Federal Government project experience.

5.1.2.3. Projects that included an Unmanned Aerial System Facility no smaller than 5,000 square feet in size may be rated more favorably.

5.1.2.4. Projects that included Airfield Paving with runways no less than 800 feet in length may be rated more favorably.

5.1.2.5. Projects that are not “well underway” or completed as defined above may be rated less favorably.

5.1.2.6. The Government will consider extent of demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. Previous experience in the Colorado “Front Range” region may be rated more favorably.

5.1.2.7. The Government may consider previous recent teaming experience among the team members as a strength. The more relevant the experience, the more favorably it may be rated.

5.1.2.8. Note: The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing DoD or Government appraisal systems, or through interviewing owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

5.1.2.9. Note: A firm will not receive credit under this subfactor for the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project while employed at a different firm.

5.2. VOLUME 1 - TAB B – SUBFACTOR 2 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.2.1. Submission Requirements:

5.2.1.1. Provide information that describes the offeror’s Project Management approach to executing the contract per the detailed requirements herein. Clearly and concisely describe the organizational and technical approaches to project management and execution, and proposed contract duration. Limit the information to five (5) pages or less.

5.2.1.2. Organization. List the construction entities and describe their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established.

Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each entity’s roles and responsibilities on the project. A copy of the teaming or joint venture agreement(s) shall be appended to the plan (not included in the page limitation). Include a simple organizational chart, illustrating the organization, including the proposed quality control group(s). Identify the firm(s) chosen for the project, if not to be self-performed. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its lead entity (ies) and key subcontractors (see attachment 9). Describe the

Am_0001 g6edhjdt Highlight g6edhjdt Highlight g6edhjdt Highlight

Section 00 22 00 Page 7 proposed management structure for the team, describing the how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include a key personnel organization chart that clearly depicts the key positions and the names of the personnel, their firm affiliations and their job locations and their job/position title within the organization. The key personnel organization chart shall be consistent with the corporate organization chart, with the matrix of responsibilities assigned to the team entities, and with the list of key personnel to be provided under the Tab, “KEY PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE”.

5.2.1.3. Technical Approach for Construction. Describe the technical approach to construction of the facility.

Include any considerations of fast-tracking construction, panelized construction, pre-engineered components, etc. The Government is looking for ways to streamline construction and manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and achieve an aggressive schedule while minimizing impact to the base. The Government is looking for ways to minimize impacts of the construction.

5.2.1.4. Proposed Contract Duration: The offeror shall propose the contract duration in the appropriate Contract Line Item Number in the CLIN Schedule and should not exceed the benchmark performance duration specified in the CLIN. The offeror shall also list this duration in this tab of the proposal.

5.2.2. Evaluation Criteria: The following criteria are not listed in any particular order of importance.

5.2.2.1. Organization. The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization and how well it is organized, structured and staffed to execute the entire scope of work. This subfactor will be rated as unacceptable if the Offeror has not selected and committed to use its lead entity (ies). Joint venture participants’ contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

5.2.2.2. Technical Approach for Construction. Proposals that clearly and concisely demonstrate a thorough understanding of the constraints and impacts of the Small Arms Indoor Firing Range construction may be rated more favorably. The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline construction and manage labor and other resource constraints, in an effort to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule including such things as fast-tracking, etc. The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces on-site craft labor and susceptibility to inclement weather delays.

5.2.2.3. Proposed Contract Duration: Unless changed during negotiations, this duration will become the contractually binding performance period. The Government will rate the proposed duration matching or shorter than the benchmark duration as “acceptable”. No advantage will be considered for proposals that provide a duration shorter than the proposed benchmark. A proposed duration that is longer than the proposed benchmark duration will be viewed as a deficiency. The Government will consider an unreasonably condensed contract duration, which places undue risk on the Government or which may create a risk of contract or performance failure, as a significant weakness or a deficiency, depending upon the evaluators' judgment.

5.3. VOLUME 1 - TAB C – SUBFACTOR 3 - KEY PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE

5.3.1. Submission Requirements:

5.3.1.1. For key personnel provide a brief resume using the Key Personnel Resume form at the end of this Section. Indicate the position title on each project listed in resumes. Provide the name, owner, dollar amount, date of completion, and brief scope of each resume project.

Include resumes for the following key personnel:

- Project Manager responsible for the overall project (Prime Construction Contractor Employee)

- Construction Quality Control System Manager (Prime Construction Contractor Employee)

- General Superintendent (Prime Construction Contractor Employee)

Section 00 22 00 Page 8

5.3.1.2. The minimum experience requirement for the Project Manager is 5 years of experience as a Project Manager, managing similar projects to this solicitation.

5.3.1.3. The minimum experience requirement for the Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager is 5 years of experience as a Quality Control Manager on similar projects to this solicitation. CQC System Manager shall comply with personnel requirements listed in Section 01 45 00.

5.3.1.4. The minimum experience requirement for the Superintendent is 5 years’ experience as superintendent, managing multiple trades and subcontractors.

5.3.1.5. Offeror shall provide unequivocal letters of commitment from all proposed key personnel NOT currently employed by the Offeror. Use the form letter at the end of this section.

5.3.1.6. Each of the key personnel shall demonstrate experience on at least one project that included a minimum 5,000 square foot Unmanned Aerial System Facility completed or well underway in the past 5 years (as required for projects in Tab A).

5.3.2. Evaluation Criteria: The following criteria are not listed in any particular order of importance.

5.3.2.1. The Government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar type work, to manage, control and to perform construction.

5.3.2.2. Resumes that do not clearly state the personnel’s specific duties and job title on previous projects may be rated less favorably.

5.3.2.3. Project Managers that hold active architect or engineer professional registration will be rated more favorably.

5.3.2.4. Offerors that propose key personnel who worked on the projects in Tab A may be rated more favorably.

5.3.2.5. Key personnel that exceed the required minimum experience with Unmanned Aerial System Facilities may be rated more favorably.

5.3.2.6. Key personnel that exceed the required minimum years of experience in their position may be rated more favorably.

5.3.2.7. Previous Federal government project experience may be rated more favorably.

5.3.2.8. Performance of key personnel proposed for this project may be taken into account when it comes to the attention of the Government. This shall be achievable with other projected on-going work.

6.0 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1. VOLUME 2 – TAB A – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1.1. Submission Requirements:

Submit past performance evaluations and ratings for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1 - Volume 1 - Tab A Specialized Experience.

If available, submit Construction Contract Administration Support System (CCASS) or Architect- Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) Performance Evaluations ratings. For projects which were designed and/or constructed for other government entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available. For projects cited in Volume 1 - Tab A Specialized Experience not covered in the CCASS / ACASS database or other Government Design Performance Rating System, submit a Past Performance Questionnaire.

Section 00 22 00 Page 9

6.1.1.1. CPARS/CCASS/ACASS Evaluations

Firms are requested to retrieve their CPARS/CCASS/ACASS past performance information directly from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) 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 Central Contractor Registry at http://www.ccr.gov . If you do not know your MPIN number, you will need to contact the CCR help desk by emailing them from the email link on the http://www.ccr.gov/help.asp 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 / ACASS 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 “Contractor Corporate Senior Management Representative” access on the following CCASS / ACASS 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 / ACASS 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 / ACASS 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 / ACASS. Be aware that you will also need to have a PKI certificate to access the CCASS / ACASS system. This is a DOD requirement.

6.1.1.2. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

The Past Performance Questionnaire) 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, 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 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.

6.1.1.3. Government Utilization of Alternate Information Sources for Past Performance

The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under the Specialized Experience Subfactor 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.

Am_0001 http://www.ppirs.gov/ http://www.ppirs.gov/ http://www.ccr.gov/ http://www.ccr.gov/help.asp http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/

Section 00 22 00 Page 10

6.1.2. Evaluation Criteria:

6.1.2.1. The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the D-B team's recent (well under way or turned over no longer than 5 years preceding the date of this solicitation), relevant experience. See explanation of “well underway” and relevancy under the Subfactor “Specialized Experience”. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described in paragraph 8.5.

6.1.2.2. Relevancy: 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. The projects will include those submitted under the Specialized Experience SubFactor as well as from other sources described above. 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 past performance relevancy ratings are described below:

(a) Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(b) Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(c) Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(d) Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

6.1.2.3. Performance: The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. 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 designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc.. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for design or 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, CCASS/ACASS 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 past performance confidence ratings are described below:

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

Section 00 22 00 Page 11

(d) 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.

(e) 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.

6.1.2.4. Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, The Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance confidence assessment rating will be considered “Unknown Confidence”.

7.0 VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

7.1. GENERAL

Submit the Pro Forma information in a separate sealed envelope labeled: “Volume 2 – Price and Pro Forma Information.” Submit the original and one copy.

7.2. VOLUME 3 - TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET AND CONTRACT

LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

7.2.1. Submission Requirements:

7.2.1.1. Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed performance duration. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors”. Submit the Proposal Data Sheet.

7.2.1.2. Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government will request a price breakdown of the Contract Line Items in a sealed envelope marked “Price Breakdown Information”, in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

7.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices.

The Government is likely to not make award if the construction cost limitation set for this project is exceeded. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price.

7.3. VOLUME 3 - TAB B – EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

7.3.1. Submission Requirements:

Submit information showing Offeror's bondability in the amount of the proposal. Include the name, address and telephone number of the prime contractor's bonding agent.

Section 00 22 00 Page 12

7.3.2. Evaluation Requirements:

This item is not rated. Bonding information will be reviewed to determine the Offeror's ability to obtain the required Performance and Payment Bonds. The prime contractor is required to be able to obtain the level of bonding required by the solicitation from an acceptable surety.

7.4. VOLUME 3 - TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

7.4.1. Submission Requirements:

7.4.1.1. Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of offeror responsibility, which includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

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

(3) If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

7.4.1.2. One copy of the following information shall be provided:

(1) Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities)

(2) Number of years the firm has been in business

(3) Name, address and telephone number of firm’s bonding company

(4) Information showing offeror’s bondability for this project. Include the bond rate.

(5) Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references.

7.4.2. Evaluation Criteria:

In addition to the other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

8.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

8.1.1. The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions required, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

8.2. EVALUATION

8.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor and subfactor, except that performance risk ratings are assigned to past performance (see below).

8.2.2. The Government may award without discussions. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it.

Section 00 22 00 Page 13

8.2.3. A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that the Government decides that discussions with offerors are required or are considered to be in the Government’s best interests. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

8.2.4. If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give-and-take with those offerors in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

8.2.5. Upon conclusion of discussions, those offerors still considered the most highly rated will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

8.3. DEFINITIONS

8.3.1. Best Value

The expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. See FAR 2.101.

8.3.2. 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. See FAR 15.001.

8.3.3. Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

8.3.4. Strength

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.

8.3.5. Deviation

Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

8.3.6. Competitive Range

See FAR 15.306(c).

8.3.7. Clarifications

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

8.3.8. Communications

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

8.3.9. Discussions

Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment and 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).

Section 00 22 00 Page 14

8.3.10. Neutral/Unknown Risk

No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the entity being rated. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

8.3.11. Evaluation Notice (EN)

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO's written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

8.3.12. Performance Confidence Assessment

An evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

8.3.13. Recency

As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

8.3.14. Relevancy

As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

8.3.15. Risk

As it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance (for firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition).

8.3.16. Significant Weakness

A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

8.3.17. Source Selection Authority (SSA)

The official designated to make the source selection decision.

8.3.18. Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD)

The document that reflects the SSA’s independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision.

8.3.19. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

A group of individuals representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition that is responsible for evaluating proposals against the solicitation criteria.

8.3.20. Source Selection Information

Section 00 22 00 Page 15

Information prepared for use by an agency for the purpose of evaluating a bid or proposal to enter into an agency procurement contract, if that information has not been previously made available to the public or disclosed publicly.

See FAR 2.101 for a listing of source selection information.

8.3.21. Subjective Tradeoff

A source selection process that is used when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror but it is not possible to place a quantifiable value on proposed performance or capabilities above the threshold (minimum) requirements.

8.3.22. Threshold (or Threshold (minimum))

The minimum acceptable value of an attribute that is considered achievable within the available cost, schedule, and technology at low-to-moderate risk. Performance below the threshold value is not operationally effective or suitable or may not provide an improvement over current capabilities. (See also “mandatory minimums” in FAR 15.306(d)(4).)

8.4. EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

8.4.1. General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each technical evaluation factor and subfactor (if any). The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements.

8.