Am-0001_W9128F-18-R-0009.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

$49M Design-Build/Design-Bid-Build Paving MATOC – Small Business Set-Aside, Colorado & Wyoming

See attached documentation for content of the amendment revisions to solicitation

Date for receipt of proposals is 12 JAN 2018 at 1400 hours

Government Point of Contact: Jessica Jackson, Contract Specialist (402) 995-2052

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVE.

OMAHA, NE 68102-4901

See Item 6

W9128F18R0009

01/03/2018

12/11/2017

01/03/2018

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. W9128F180009 :all amendments may cause rejec-:

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

12 JAN 2018

Amendment No. 0001

03 JAN 2018

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0001 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Design and Construction of $49M Design-Build/Design-Bid-Build Paving MATOC – Small Business Set-Aside.

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 10 00 22 10

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 sent 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.

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:

jessica.r.jackson@usace.army.mil and tyler.hegge@usace.army.mil

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District CENWO-CT-M (Jackson) 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, NE 68102-4901 Telephone: (402) 995-2052

Am #0001 - 3 (Continuation of SF30)

3. Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m, local time at place of receiving proposals, 12 JAN 2018.

Attachments:

Specification Page(s) listed in 1.b., above

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

03 JAN 2018

NEP/2160

This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing.

$49M Design-Build/Design-Bid-Build Paving MATOC - SB set-aside

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 0

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

1. SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of this request for proposal (RFP) contains Paving Requirements under the Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) program which will include all work required for design-build (D-B)/design-bid-build (D-B-B) paving projects for existing military and civil stakeholders located within the Front Range (Colorado and Wyoming) Area of Responsibility (AOR). The work shall be in accordance with RFP documents issued within this solicitation. The competition of this contract is restricted to all Small Business (SB) concerns. The primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 237310 (Highway, Street and Bridge Construction) with a size standard of $36.5M

1.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

While this Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) will be available for paving projects located within Front Range’s AOR, the preponderance of the work for this solicitation is projected to be at Fort Carson, CO. The MATOC will be awarded with a 3-year base period and one 2-year option period. The total value of all task orders awarded under this MATOC will not exceed $49,000,000.

RFPs for projects will be issued under individual task orders. Task orders may range from $100,000 to $10,000,000.

1.2. TYPES OF PROJECTS

The general scope of work for this paving MATOC will consist of FSRM-funded projects for various types of pavement structures constructed of either Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) or Asphaltic Concrete (AC).

Structures include roads, streets, parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, recreational/mixed-use trails, and maintenance hardstands and do not include any paving related to airfield aprons, taxiways, or runways.

Types of improvements include, but are not limited to, new roadway/street pavement construction (either PCC or AC), new site work (sidewalks, trails, etc.) construction (PCC), and pavement restoration (mill and overlay, crack sealing/repair, joint sealing/repair) and other work associated with the 237310 NAICS code.

Improvements may also include road striping and traffic signage. Task orders may also include incidental utilities and storm drainage work.

This NAICS code 237310 (Highway, Street and Bridge Construction) will typically be used for FSRM paving requirements on military installations as well as some civil works facilities and Interagency support projects such as National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Veterans Affairs (VA).

The industry for NAICS code 237310 is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in the construction of highways (including elevated), streets, roads, airport runways, public sidewalks, or bridges. The work performed may include new work, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and repairs. Specialty trade contractors are included in this group if they are engaged in activities primarily related to highway, street, and bridge construction (e.g., installing guardrails on highways).

THE OFFEROR SHALL BE REGISTERED FOR NAICS CODE 237310 PRIOR TO THE DATE PHASE

1 PROPOSALS ARE DUE.

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 1

2. SELECTION PROCEDURE OVERVIEW

In Phase 1 of the two phase selection procedure, Offerors submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute task orders under a contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the qualifications submitted in Phase 1 of 2 Selection Procedures and will invite a maximum of five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors to compete in Phase 2 for award of the MATOC.

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

INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

Prior to Phase 2, an amendment will be issued to only the selected Offerors from Phase 1 inviting them to submit Phase 2 technical and price proposals for consideration. The amendment will request additional information needed to complete the submission of Phase 2 proposals. In Phase 2, the Source Selection Authority and Contracting Officer’s intent is to award a target of five (5) contracts under this MATOC to the Offerors whose proposal offers the best value to the Government.

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

3. PHASE 1 PROPOSAL FACTORS IN PHASE 2

The Phase 1 evaluations will be carried forward into the Phase 2 evaluation. There is no separate submission of Phase 1 information required or allowed for Phase 2. The Government will incorporate the Phase 1 individual factor ratings, underlying narratives, etc. when evaluating the Phase 2 proposals to determine the proposals which provide the best value to the Government.

4. GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

All offerors shall submit proposals electronically via the AMRDEC SAFE website with the content as specified herein. All electronic submissions must be in Adobe PDF format with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) applied to all documents so that word searches can be conducted using Adobe-compatible PDF software. Phase 1 Volume I, Phase 1 Volume II, Phase 2 Volume I, Phase 2 Volume II, and Phase 2 Volume III shall be submitted as “separate” single files via AMRDEC. Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission when using AMRDEC.

ONLY PHASE 1 VOLUMES I & II NEED TO BE SUBMITTED DURING PHASE 1 OF THE TWO

PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURE. Offerors are encouraged to send both Phase 1 volumes in the same AMRDEC transmission.

Title the single files in the following format:

For Phase 1 Submission:

W9128F18R0009_COMPANY NAME_PHASE1_VOLUME_I_FACTORS_1-3

W9128F18R0009_COMPANY NAME_PHASE1_VOLUME_II_REQUIRED_DOCS

For Phase 2 Submission:

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 2

W9128F18R0009_COMPANY NAME_PHASE2_VOLUME_I_FACTOR_4

W9128F18R0009_COMPANY NAME_PHASE2_VOLUME_II_PRICE

W9128F18R0009_COMPANY NAME_PHASE2_VOLUME_III_REQUIRED_DOCS

(Note: Company names may be abbreviated)

To submit proposals electronically via AMRDEC go to the following website:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/ At the AMRDEC SAFE website select “Non-CAC Users” in order to register, access the site and submit your proposal(s). When completing the information for transmittal at the AMRDEC SAFE website, you will be asked to enter e-mail addresses for the recipients. When your proposal is submitted via the AMRDEC SAFE website, the website will provide notification of the submittal to the recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients will be:

1. Jessica Jackson - email address is jessica.r.jackson@usace.army.mil and

2. Tyler Hegge - e-mail address is tyler.hegge@usace.army.mil.

IMPORTANT: After submitting your information, you will receive two (2) notifications:

1. “The files were successfully uploaded.”

2. “Your files cannot be downloaded by recipients until you verify your email address. Please check your email for further instructions.”

***OFFERORS MUST FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS SENT TO YOUR EMAIL TO

COMPLETE YOUR SUBMITTAL PROCESS***

Offerors should also provide their best effort to submit the electronic copy via AMRDEC SAFE website before the date and time specified on the Standard Form 1442 or any subsequent amendments. For the purposes of determining whether the proposal was received “late” in accordance with FAR 15.208, the date and time the file(s) are uploaded into the AMRDEC SAFE website as identified in the AMRDEC e-mail sent to the Contract Specialist(s)/Contracting Officer will be the time and date the Government received the proposal. Please note that the process involves two steps, after the proposal has been uploaded to the AMRDEC SAFE website the Offeror must verify its email address in order for the Government to receive access to the proposal uploaded onto the AMRDEC SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal.

NOTE: ONLY in the unusual case that the AMRDEC website is “down” (not operational); the Offeror should email their proposal to the individuals listed above. In this case, the time and date the email was received will be the official transmittal time of receipt.

5. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

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

a. PHASE 1, VOLUME I, FACTORS 1-3 (File #1)

1) Contents of this Volume/File shall be arranged in the following sequence:

• FACTOR 1: Construction Experience

• FACTOR 2: Past Performance

• FACTOR 3: Technical Approach

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 3

2) Page limitations for Factors 1, 2, 3 are shown in Table 1, below. Tables of Contents, Cover Letters, Dividers, and blank pages are not included in the page limitations below, and should not be numbered.

TABLE 1: Phase 1 Evaluation Factors

Evaluation Factor Title Page Limitations

Factor 1 Construction Experience 8 (two (2) pages per project)

Factor 2 Past Performance DART information – 1 page;

Past Performance Evaluations - No Page Limit

Factor 3 Technical Approach 6

3) Pages for each factor should be separately and sequentially numbered (i.e., the first page submitted for evaluation for each factor should be “1”). All text must be 10 pt. font or larger and must be legible and easily read. The page size of the Offeror’s proposal shall be 8-1/2 by 11 inches. Diagrams, charts and tables shall conform to the paper size. All text shall be typed single-spaced.

Margins shall be no less than 1-inch (right, left, top, and bottom) and shall be clean and clear. [*Am-1] Items such as program title, date, customer, Offeror logo, page number, proprietary information statement and solicitation number are allowed to be printed in the margin at the top and/or bottom of each page.

[**Am-1]

4) Pages that exceed the page limitations for any factor will not be reviewed and the information contained on those pages will not be considered for evaluation.

Page limitations are per factor, i.e., an Offeror may not reduce the page count for one factor in order to submit additional pages for another factor. Similarly, in Factor 1 where there is a page limit for each project; an Offeror may not reduce the page count for one project in order to submit additional pages or portions of a page for another factor.

5) Information required by the solicitation for an individual factor must be included in the proposal under the corresponding factor number. In satisfying the requirements of a factor, do not refer evaluators to information contained within a separate factor. The Government is not obligated to consider information provided in other factors, or elsewhere within the proposal, when evaluating the factor for which the information was required.

b. PHASE 1, VOLUME II, REQUIRED DOCUMENTS (File #2)

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 4

1) Submit the following components in the sequence listed below:

• Cover Letter

• Table of Contents

• Completed SF 1442

• Contractor Team Arrangement Requirements (if applicable)

• Completed SF 30 or acknowledgement of amendment(s)_on SF 1442 (if applicable)

2) Component requirements:

(a) Cover Letter: The cover letter shall contain:

• Solicitation number

• Name, title, address, email, and telephone number of the Offeror.

• Names, titles, emails, and telephone numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

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

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

(b) Offerors shall submit a completed SF1442 with their proposal.

(c) Offerors shall submit a letter from their bonding company agent certifying the current maximum bonding capacity per project and the aggregate capacity.

(d) For Contractor Team Arrangements including Joint Ventures, submit the information required by Paragraph 7 “Contractor Team Arrangements”.

(e) Completed SF 30: Offerors shall submit acknowledgement of all amendments to the RFP in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 (amendment form).

(f) Offeror’s tax identification number (TIN).

There is no page limit for Required Documents (File #2).

2. Prior to Phase 2, an amendment will be issued to selected Offerors from Phase 1 inviting them to submit Phase 2 technical and price proposals for consideration. The amendment will request additional information needed to complete the submission of Phase 2 proposals. The following evaluation criteria will be included in Phase 2 Selection Procedures (subject to revision):

• Evaluation Factor 4: Management Plan

• Evaluation Factor 5: Price

6. INQUIRIES/QUESTIONS

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 5

Prospective Offerors shall submit contracting and technical inquiries and questions concerning this solicitation document via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at www.projnet.org/projnet. Please refer to Section 00 21 00 of this solicitation for Bidder Inquiry instructions.

***Please Note: Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry, i.e., each query should have a unique corresponding ProjNet bidder inquiry number assigned. All inquiries containing multiple questions will be rejected.

7. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

7.1. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENT OTHER THAN JOINT VENTURE

Phase 1 Requirements:

All Offerors proposing a team arrangement other than a Joint Venture, shall submit the following information in Phase 1:

a. Provide a list of the team arrangement members’ corporate names (no abbreviations), address, point of contact, phone number, Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, and Cage Code.

b. Submit a copy of the signed team arrangement agreement or binding letter of commitment between each team member. All team arrangement agreements and letters of commitment shall:

(1) clearly identify the expected relationship, role and responsibility between the firms, prime contractor, and of the subcontractor or other entity (type and proportion of work to be performed); and

(2) shall be signed by the appropriate individual(s) of each firm.

7.2. JOINT VENTURE TEAM ARRANGEMENT

No contract may be awarded to a Joint Venture that is not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. The Joint Venture must have its own Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and register as such. An 8(a) Joint Venture agreement must be received by the Small Business Administration (SBA) prior to the Phase 1 proposal due date and approved before award of any resulting contract. Failure to comply with these requirements will render the proposal unawardable.

Phase 1 Requirements:

a. In the cover letter of your proposal, provide the complete names, addresses, and phone and fax numbers of the firms comprising the Joint Venture.

b. A copy of the Joint Venture agreement.

c. Signature requirements: SF 1442, SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (pages 00 10 00- 1 and 00 10 00-2), Block 20 requires that the name and title of a person authorized to sign the offer for the Joint Venture be provided. In the case of a Joint Venture, subject Standard Form shall be signed by the principal representative of the Joint Venture (or the alternate principal representative, if the principal representative is unavailable).

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 6

d. In addition to the requirements stated above, and to assure a single point of contact for resolution of contractual matters and payments, the Offeror shall submit a certificate signed by each participant in the Joint Venture containing the following statement:

“The parties hereto expressly understand and agree as follows:

1. (name, title, and company) is the principal representative of the Joint Venture. As such, all communications regarding the administration of the contract and the performance of the work there under may be directed to him or her. In the absence of (same name, title, and company), (enter name, title, and company of alternate) is the alternate principal representative of the Joint Venture. These individuals have authority to sign on behalf of the Joint Venture.

2. Direction, approvals, required notices, and all other communications from the Government to the Joint Venture, including transmittal of payments by the Government, shall be directed to (enter name, title, and company of principal), principal representative of the Joint Venture.”

NOTE: Provide telephone numbers and email addresses for the points of contact listed in the above statement.

7.3. INTEGRITY AND VALIDITY OF CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

The Contracting Officer will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements provided that the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed and validation of formal agreements and relationships (i.e., Mentor-Protégé agreements, Joint Ventures, partnerships, etc.) are provided in the offer and submitted with the proposal responding to the solicitation. Nothing in the solicitation authorizes contractor team arrangements in violation of antitrust statutes or limits the Government’s rights to:

a. Require consent to subcontracts (see FAR Subpart 44.2);

b. Determine, on the basis of the stated contractor team arrangement, the responsibilities of the prime contractor (see FAR Subpart 9.1);

c. Provide to the prime contractor data rights owned or controlled by the Government;

d. Pursue its policies on competitive contracting, subcontracting, and component breakout initial production or an any other time; and

e. Hold the prime contractor fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors.

8. BASIS FOR AWARD

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

The Phase 1 selection will be based on evaluation of technical factors and past performance. There are three

(3) non-price factors in Phase 1:

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 7

• Factor 1 – Construction Experience

• Factor 2 – Past Performance

• Factor 3 – Technical Approach.

Price will not be considered during Phase 1. Only the five (5) Offerors who submitted the most highly rated proposals in Phase 1 will be invited to submit a proposal for Phase 2, and they will be the only Offerors eligible to compete in Phase 2.

In Phase 2, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without conducting discussions with Offerors. However, in the event the Source Selection Authority (SSA)/Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) concludes conducting discussions is in the best interest of the Government, the SSA/PCO will establish a competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

A sample project will be used to meet price competition requirements for this solicitation.

9. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Construction Experience Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Technical Approach Factor 4: Management Approach (Phase 2 only) Factor 5: Price (Phase 2 only)

All Evaluation Factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

10. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

All offers received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.3, DoD Source Selection procedures, and Army Source Selection Supplement. The principal objective of this process is to select a responsible Offeror who submits the offer that is the Best Value to the Government.

The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all technically acceptable, responsible proposals received in response to this particular solicitation.

Source Selection Team

The Source Selection Team (SST) is established as a separate organization and management chain of command whose only purpose is to accomplish the objective above. The organization consists of a Source Selection Authority, Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), and a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The organization is designed to ensure active ongoing involvement of appropriate contracting, technical, logistics, legal, price analysis, small business, and other functional staff management expertise.

Source Selection Procedures

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 8

The source selection procedures will begin with an initial review of proposals received in response to Phase 1 of this solicitation. The SSEB shall evaluate the proposals based solely on the evaluation criteria identified below. To be considered acceptable, each Offeror shall specifically address each of the evaluation factors listed below. Sufficient detail shall be provided, citing specific data as may be required, such that the proposal may be adequately evaluated. The proposal must show clearly that the Offeror has an understanding of the work tasks required and has the capability and responsibility to accomplish the work.

Proposals that do not generally conform to the RFP requirements may be considered to have a “deficiency”.

The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the SSA, who will select the most highly qualified Offerors. The SSA will determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications or communications.

Only the most highly qualified Offerors will be invited to enter into Phase II.

The Government’s intent is to select a maximum of five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors based on the Offeror’s rating for each of the following factors: Construction Experience, Past Performance, and Technical Approach.

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

11. TECHNICAL RATING

The evaluation ratings for Technical Factors 1, 3, and 4 will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the particular strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The SST will use a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 2. The Combined technical/risk ratings will be used to evaluate Phase 1 – Factor 1 Construction Experience, Phase 1 – Factor 3 Technical Approach, Phase 2 – Factor 4 Management Approach. The evaluation rating that will be used for Technical Factor 2 Past Performance is described in Paragraph 12 below.

Table 2: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

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

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

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 9

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

12. PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation, Relevancy and Contractor Performance, which are described below:

a. Relevancy. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Recent is defined as past performance on contracts that had a construction completion date within six (6) years prior to the date that Phase 1 proposals are due. Relevancy is defined as similarity of items stated within this solicitation such as: types of projects, dollar value, contract type, and customer(s). With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment. Relevancy is not a separate proposal rating but is used to develop an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The four levels of relevancy ratings are:

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.

b. Contractor Performance. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 10 performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The SSEB will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

After evaluating relevancy and contractor performance, a Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be determined. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings:

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

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

Limited Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral). No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a) (2) (iv), “In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance."

13. RATING DEFINITIONS

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.

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

Significant Strength: a significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

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

Strength: any aspect of a proposal when judged against a stated evaluation criterion that enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

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

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 11

14. PPIRS, CPARS, AND CCASS RECORDS

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)/Construction Contract Administration Support System (CCASS) records may be obtainable by Offerors using one of the following methods:

(1) Accessing past performance information directly from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at https://www.ppirs.gov for CCASS completed before 27 June 2014 and for merged CPARS completed after 1 July 2014. PPIRS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major federal performance reporting systems and can be accessed at https://www.ppirs.gov.

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) Registry at https://www.sam.gov. If you do not know your MPIN number, you will need to contact the SAM help desk by emailing them from the email link on the SAM web page. Please be aware that they will only release the MPIN number to the person who originally registered your firm.

Additional instructions on locating your MPIN is located in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section under the Help tab.

(2) Contact your government point and request a copy of the evaluation, or

(3) Apply for Contractor access on PPIRS web page at http://www.ppirs.gov by selecting “PPIRS-Report Card Application Logon” under Products/Services then select “Accept/Login with Password” below the disclaimer. At the login page, select User Type as “Contractor” and click “Request New Account”. Fill out your information and submit your application. Following receipt of your application request, you will be emailed a login and access instructions. This type of access will only let you see merged CPARS/ CCASS information for all government projects evaluated after 1 July 2014 or CCASS information for projects evaluated before 1 July 2014, 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.

15. DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

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

16. DEFINITIONS

Construction: means construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, structures, or other real property. For purposes of this definition, the terms “buildings, structures, or other real property” include, but are not limited to, improvements of all types, such as bridges, dams, plants, highways, parkways, streets, subways, tunnels, sewers, mains, power lines, cemeteries, pumping stations, railways, airport facilities, terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways, lighthouses, buoys, jetties, breakwaters, levees, canals, and channels. Construction does not include the manufacture, production, furnishing, construction, alteration, repair, processing, or assembling of vessels, aircraft, or other kinds of personal property (except that for use in FAR Subpart 22.5, see definition at 22.502).

Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager: for this solicitation, the CQC System Manger is the Contractor’s Quality Control personnel who is on-site at all times during construction and employed by the Prime Contractor.

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 12

Design: means defining the construction requirement (including the functional relationships and technical systems to be used, such as architectural, environmental, structural, electrical, mechanical, and fire protection), producing the technical specifications and drawings, and preparing the construction cost estimate.

Design-Build: combining two components, design and construction, in a single contract with one contractor; one component is not incidental to the other but rather dependent on each other.

Design-Bid-Build: the traditional delivery method where design and construction are sequential and contracted for separately with two contracts and two contractors.

Modernization: the alteration or replacement of facilities solely to implement new or higher standards, to accommodate new functions, or to replace building components that typically last more than 50 years (such as the framework or foundation).

Military: for this solicitation, military is defined as a secure government installation that supports national defense.

Project Superintendent: for this solicitation, the Project Superintendent is the highest level manager responsible for the overall construction activities at the project site, including quality and production.

Restoration: the restoration of real property to such a condition that it may be used for its designated purpose. Restoration includes repair or replacement work to restore facilities damaged by inadequate sustainment, excessive age, natural disaster, fire, accident, or other causes.

Similar: having characteristics in common and is strictly comparable to a referenced item.

Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO): for this solicitation, the SSHO implements and administers the Contractor’s safety program and government-accepted Accident Prevention Plan and must be at the work site at all times. The SSHO should have completed the 30-hour OSHA Construction Industry safety class.

17. TECHNICAL FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

17.1. VOLUME 1, TAB 1 – FACTOR 1 – CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

17.1.1. Submission Requirements

In this tab, the Offeror shall submit four (4) design-build or design-bid-build paving and flatwork project examples. Project examples should illustrate the scope and types of projects described under Paragraphs 1.0-

1.2 above in support of FSRM paving and flatwork projects. Project examples submitted should be similar in size, scope, and complexity as it relates to this solicitation. Project examples for which the Offeror was the prime contractor at the time of project execution are preferable. Each project example shall consist of no more than a [*Am-1] two (2) [**Am-1] page narrative and should clearly demonstrate the capabilities of the Offeror.

NOTE: If more than four (4) project examples are submitted, only the first four (4) contained in the proposal will be evaluated. If more than a [*Am-1] two (2) [**Am-1] page narrative per project example is submitted, only the first [*Am-1] two (2) pages [**Am-1] will be evaluated. [*Am-1] The Offeror may not reduce the length of one or more project examples and submit a narrative(s) longer than 2 pages in length for another example project(s); i.e. the Offeror may not submit a one (1) page narrative for one project example and a

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 13 three (3) page narrative for another project example. [**Am-1] Each project is limited to a [*Am-1] two (2) [**Am-1] page narrative. Pictures or other information may be included but will count towards the [*Am-1] two (2) [**Am-1] page per project limit.

Each project example shall state the date when construction was complete (defined as when warranty period has started) that is within six (6) years prior to the date that Phase 1 proposals are due. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts, where numerous Task Orders are summed to meet the minimum contract dollar value identified herein, are not acceptable. Each project example cited should have a contract (stand-alone contract or single task order) dollar value at award that is $400,000 or greater. It is NOT acceptable to sum the award values of multiple Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Task Orders to meet the minimum award value of $400,000. If the Offeror chooses to submit a Task Order on an IDIQ as a project, then they must include the award value of that individual Task Order.

Project examples where the primary focus of the scope/effort is paving and flatwork are preferable. If the Offeror submits a project example in which the paving and flatwork was not the primary focus of the scope/effort, then the Offeror should provide a description of the scope of the paving and flatwork effort and the estimated value of that work. (e.g. $3M Utilities and Road Repair project; combined 1 mile of paving was demolished and replaced as part of effort to upgrade utilities under the road; $1.0M of the project was for the paving and flatwork effort).

Project examples where the Offeror is the prime are preferable. In project examples where the Offeror is the subcontractor, the Offeror should provide a description of the subcontracted effort scope and an estimate of the portion (dollar value and percentage) of the overall project value was attributed to the subcontracted work (e.g. $500K Road and Drainage Repair Project; Offeror performed as Subcontractor on 80% or $400K of project; performed all of grading and paving; did not perform drainage work). For project examples where the primary focus of the scope/effort is not paving and flatwork, or for project examples where the Offeror is not the prime; the estimated dollar value of the paving and flatwork performed on the contract as either the prime or subcontractor will be used as the value compared to the $400,000 preferred minimum value.

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

The narrative for each Construction Experience project should include the items below in the following order:

1. project title

2. contract number, task order number, or unique customer-assigned identifier

3. location (include: installation/base/facility, city, state, country)

4. contract (stand-alone contract or single task order) dollar value at award

5. beneficial occupancy date (BOD) or construction completion date (i.e., the date at which the facility or system was fully operational and usable by the Customer)

6. project description

7. Brief description of the construction and design work performed

8. Percentage of work that were construction and design (for example, 90% construction/10% design).

9. Whether the Offeror was the prime or subcontractor on the project.

10. In project examples where the Offeror is the subcontractor, the Offeror should provide a description of the subcontracted effort scope and an estimate of the portion (dollar value and percentage) of the overall project value was attributed to the subcontracted work (e.g. $500K Road and Drainage Repair Project; Offeror performed as Subcontractor on 80% or $400K of project; performed all of grading and paving; did not perform drainage work).

Am #0001 SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 14

11. brief explanation of the relevance of the project example compared to the types of projects stated within this solicitation

12. If the Offeror submits a project example in which the paving and flatwork was not the primary focus of the scope/effort, then the Offeror should provide a description of the scope of the paving and flatwork effort and the estimated value of that work. (e.g. $3M Utilities and Road Repair project; combined 1 mile of paving was demolished and replaced as part of effort to upgrade utilities under the road; $1.0M of the project was for the paving and flatwork effort).

13. name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of a representative of the customer or an alternate individual not affiliated with your firm and familiar with your firm’s experience on the project example that can verify the experience cited

17.1.2. Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the breadth, depth and relevance of each Offeror’s experience in performing paving and flatwork work of the type described in Paragraphs 1.0-1.2. The Government will identify specific features in each proposal that it considers “strengths,” “weaknesses,” or “deficiencies” before assigning an overall adjectival rating consistent with the ratings as set forth in Paragraph 11.

To ensure that each Offeror has a better understanding of the areas that the Government intends to emphasize when assessing an Offeror’s relevant experience with performing work called for under this RFP, the Government provides the following guidance concerning the assignment of proposal “strengths,” “weaknesses,” and “deficiencies.”

Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

• Project examples where the Offeror has shown a significant amount of experience as the prime contractor.

• Projects in which the Offeror utilized the services of the Designer (Architect-Engineer) also proposed for use on this contract (whether in-house or teamed/subcontracted).

• Project examples that are considered Design-Build.

• Project examples completed on Military Installations.

• Experience which demonstrates the Contractor’s capabilities to perform the diversity of types of paving and flatwork (asphalt, concrete, sidewalks, curbing, striping, utilities, etc.).

• Experience which demonstrate the Contractor’s capabilities to perform complex paving and flatwork projects.

• Any other aspect of a proposal that the evaluators and/or the SSA believe enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

• Any project example submitted that has a contract (stand-alone contract or single task order) dollar value at award under $400,000.

• Omission or incompleteness of describing the portion of the overall project scope and value of the overall project that was paving and flatwork work activities related to the NAICS 237310 activities performed if performed as a subcontractor.

• Omission or incompleteness of any requested information listed in Paragraph 17.1.1 that is otherwise not stated as a deficiency.

• Any…