Attachment_1_-_Section_00_22_10_-_Phase_1.pdf

W9128F-18-R-0015

$225M DB/DBB FSRM MATOC

SB set-aside

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 0

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

INDEX

1. SCOPE OF WORK

1.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

1.2. TYPES OF PROJECTS

2. SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR PHASE 1

3. INVITATION TO PHASE 2

4. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

4.1. AMRDEC SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

4.1.2 File Names

5. PROPOSAL CHARACTERISTICS

6. INQUIRIES/QUESTIONS

7. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

7.1. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGMENTS OTHER THAN JOINT VENTURE/ MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ

7.2. JOINT VENTURE TEAM ARRANGEMENTS (INCLUDING MENTOR-PROTÉGÉS)

7.3. INTEGRITY AND VALIDITY OF CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

8. BASIS FOR AWARD

9. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

10. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

10.1. TECHNICAL RATINGS

10.2. RATING DEFINITIONS

10.3. PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

10.4. DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

11. PPIRS, CPARS, AND CCASS RECORDS

12. DEFINITIONS

13. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

13.1. VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

13.1.1 Submission Requirements

13.1.2 Evaluation Criteria

13.2. VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

13.2.1 Submission Requirements

13.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

13.3. VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

13.3.1 Submission Requirements

13.3.2. Evaluation Criteria

ATTACHMENT 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (FORM PPQ-0)

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 1

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

1. SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of project work associated with this request for proposal (RFP) involves Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) requirements. Work will consist of design-build (D-B)/design-bid-build

(D-B-B) projects for existing military and civil stakeholders located within Omaha District’s Area of Responsibility

(AOR). The majority of projects are anticipated to be military FSRM design-build projects within Colorado and

Wyoming. However, project locations may include various military and civil locations within the Omaha District’s

AOR, which includes Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. All work shall be in accordance with RFP documents issued within this solicitation.

Competition for this contract will be limited to all Small Business (SB) concerns. The North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) code is 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction), with a corresponding small business size standard of $36.5M.

THE OFFEROR SHOULD BE REGISTERED IN SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT WEBSITE

(SAM.GOV) FOR NAICS CODE 236220 PRIOR TO THE DATE PHASE 1 PROPOSALS ARE DUE.

1.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

The purpose of this Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) is to execute a broad range of FSRM D-B/D-B-

B projects for civil and military stakeholders located within Omaha District’s AOR. The majority of the work under this solicitation is expected to be in Colorado and Wyoming. The MATOC will be awarded with a 3-year base period and a 2-year option period. The aggregate value of all task orders awarded under this MATOC will not exceed

$225,000,000.

As requirements develop, RFPs for projects will be issued under individual Task Orders. Task Orders will be company-fixed price and negotiated to obtain a fair and reasonable price. It is anticipated that a majority of the individual Task Orders contemplated under this solicitation will be in the range of $500,000 to $10,000,000. Recent history of similar acquisitions indicates that the majority of task orders issued were in the range of $1,000,000 to

$5,000,000.

1.2. TYPES OF PROJECTS

Work will consist of a wide range of FSRM D-B/D-B-B projects for stakeholders within Omaha District’s AOR.

FSRM projects may also include incidental demolition, hazardous and toxic waste remediation and disposal services per requirements set forth at the task order level. Incidental hazardous and toxic waste remediation may include asbestos/lead abatement or removal services.

The industry for NAICS code 236220 is comprised of construction (including new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs) of commercial and institutional buildings and related structures. This MATOC will be used for FSRM requirements on military installations, civil works facilities, and interagency support projects such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Types of projects that may be performed under this contract include, but are not limited to, design-build/design-bid-build, installation, upgrades, and/or repairs of:

mechanical systems, electrical systems, sewer systems, and plumbing systems, minor construction of new buildings/structures, existing buildings/structures, SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 2 dam and levee structures, and roadways, parking areas, pedestrian walkways, boat/access ramps, and bank stabilization.

It is anticipated that work requiring special security requirements and at Government facilities may be occasionally performed under this Contract; therefore when appropriate, certain Task Orders will require the Contractor to comply with security requirements not required on typical task orders.

Examples of these security requirements include, but are not limited to:

Criminal background checks of Contractor and/or Subcontractor personnel, or other employee screening

Securing of sites (for reasons other than safety) by Contractor, to include physical barriers, guards, checkpoints, surveillance, and/or alarm systems

Badging of Contractor and/or Subcontractor personnel by the Government or a DoD entity

Certain Contractor and/or Subcontractor personnel must be U.S. citizens

Certain Contractor and/or Subcontractor personnel holding “Secret” or “Top Secret” security clearances

2. SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR PHASE 1

In Phase 1 of the Two-Phase selection process, Offerors submit performance capability proposals that demonstrate their ability to successfully execute task orders under a contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the qualifications submitted in Phase 1 and will invite a maximum of eight (8) of the most highly qualified

Offerors to compete in Phase 2.

3. INVITATION TO PHASE 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. Failure to submit required information may result in the entire proposal being rejected. The following factors will be evaluated in Phase 2:

Evaluation Factor 4: Management Approach

Evaluation Factor 5: Price

The Government will carry Phase 1 evaluations forward into the Phase 2 evaluation. There is no separate submission of Phase 1 information required or allowed during Phase 2. The Government will take into account both Phase 1 and

Phase 2 submissions when determining which proposals provide the best value to the Government.

At the conclusion of Phase 2, the Source Selection Authority’s and PCO’s intent is to award a target of five (5) contracts under this MATOC to the Offerors whose proposals offer the best value to the Government.

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

ANY SUBMISSION OF PRICING INFORMATION.

4. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

4.1. AMRDEC SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically via the AMRDEC

SAFE website. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) applied to all documents that will enable word searches to be conducted using Adobe-compatible PDF software. Offerors may use compression utilities such as 7-Zip, WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission when using

AMRDEC. Offerors are encouraged to send both files in the same AMRDEC transmission, if possible.

These proposals shall be submitted via the AMRDEC SAFE website. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) applied to all compatible documents so that word searches can be

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 3

conducted using Adobe-compatible PDF software. Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or

PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission when using AMRDEC, if necessary

ONLY PHASE 1 REQUIREMENTS (VOLUMES I AND II) SHOULD BE SUBMITTED DURING PHASE 1.

To submit proposals electronically via AMRDEC SAFE, 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. Doug Hadley, whose e-mail address is doug.e.hadley@usace.army.mil and

2. Melissa Harlon, whose e-mail address is melissa.r.harlon@usace.army.mil

After submitting your information, you will receive one of these notifications:

A. “The files were successfully uploaded.”

B. “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

THE SUBMITTAL PROCESS***

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

Offerors 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 following individuals prior to the proposal due date and time:

1. Doug Hadley, whose e-mail address is doug.e.hadley@usace.army.mil and

2. Melissa Harlon, whose e-mail address is melissa.r.harlon@usace.army.mil .

Electronic Proposals shall be received by the date and time indicated in Block 9 of the SF 33 for this solicitation or as identified in subsequent amendments.

4.1.2 File Names

For Phase 1 submission, submit the following two files, titled in the format shown below:

#1: W9128F-18-R-0015_COMPANY NAME_PHASE1_VOLUME_I_FACTORS_1-3

#2: W9128F-18-R-0015_COMPANY NAME_PHASE1_VOLUME_II_REQD_DOCS

5. PROPOSAL CHARACTERISTICS

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

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

mailto:doug.e.hadley@usace.army.mil mailto:jessica.r.jackson@usace.army.mil

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 4

Table of Contents

FACTOR 1: Construction Experience

FACTOR 2: Past Performance

FACTOR 3: Technical Approach

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

TABLE 1: Phase 1 Evaluation Factors

Evaluation Factor Title Page Limitation

1 Construction Experience 8 (2 pages per project)

2 Past Performance DART information – 1 page;

Past Performance Evaluations

– no page limit

3 Technical Approach 5

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 shall be at least 10 pt. font and easily read. All text shall be typed and single-spaced. Each page shall be 8-1/2 by 11 inches. This includes pages containing diagrams, charts and tables. Margins shall be no less than 1” (right, left, top, and bottom).

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.

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

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) SF 1442: The SF 1442 shall be completed and signed by a person authorized by the

Offeror.

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 5

(c) Contractor Team Arrangement Requirements: For Contractor Team Arrangements, including Joint Ventures, submit the information required by Paragraph 7 “Contractor

Team Arrangements”.

(d) Completed SF 30: Offeror shall submit acknowledgement of all amendments to the

RFP in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 (amendment form).

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

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

6. INQUIRIES/QUESTIONS

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 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 shall be rejected.

7. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

7.1. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGMENTS OTHER THAN JOINT VENTURE/ MENTOR-

PROTÉGÉ

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

a. A listing of the team arrangement members’ corporate name (no abbreviations), address, point of contact, phone number, DUNS Number, and Cage Code.

b. 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) Be signed by the appropriate individual(s) of each company.

7.2. JOINT VENTURE TEAM ARRANGEMENTS (INCLUDING MENTOR-PROTÉGÉS)

No contract may be awarded to a Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé that is not registered in the System for Award

Management (SAM) database. The Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé must have its own registered Data Universal

Numbering System (DUNS) number. Any Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé agreement that is required to be approved by the Small Business Administration (SBA) shall be approved in accordance to the applicable Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR). If the applicable requirements are not met prior to the due date for Phase 1 proposals, the proposal will be rendered unawardable.

1. In the cover letter of your proposal, provide the complete names, addresses, and phone number of the firms comprising the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé.

2. A copy of the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé agreement.

http://www.projnet.org/projnet

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 6

3. 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/Mentor-Protégé be provided. In the case of a Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé, subject Standard Form shall be signed by the principal representative of the Joint Venture/ Mentor-Protégé (or the alternate principal representative, if the principal representative is unavailable).

4. 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 thereunder 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/Mentor-Protégé. These individuals have authority to sign on behalf of the Joint

Venture/Mentor-Protégé.

2. Direction, approvals, required notices, and all other communications from the Government to the

Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé, including transmittal of payments by the Government, shall be directed to (enter name, title, and company of principal), principal representative of the Joint

Venture/Mentor-Protégé.”

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 PCO 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.

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 7

The Phase 1 selection will be based on evaluation of technical factors and Past Performance. There are three non-price factors in Phase 1:

Factor 1: Construction Experience

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Technical Approach

Price will not be considered during Phase 1. Only those 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 contracts 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 PCO will establish a competitive range. If the

PCO 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 PCO 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.

The use of a sample project is anticipated to meet price competition requirements for this SB MATOC.

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)

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 Offerors 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.

10.1. TECHNICAL RATINGS

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 (Source

Selection Team) 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 and Phase 2 – Factor 4

Management Approach. The evaluation rating that will be used for Phase 1 - Factor 2 Past Performance is described in Paragraph 12 below.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 8

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

10.2. RATING DEFINITIONS

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

Significant Strength: an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

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

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.

10.3. 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 previous experience accomplished by the Offeror is to the anticipated work to be accomplished under this

MATOC. Recent is defined as Past Performance on contracts that had a construction completion date within the past six (6) years of 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 stakeholder(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.

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 9

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

Not Relevant. Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and

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 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 stakeholders 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.”

10.4. DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Preaward Debriefing of Offerors or FAR 15.506

Postaward Debriefing of Offerors.

11. 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 http://www.ppirs.gov for CCASS completed before 27 June 2014 and for merged CPARS completed after http://www.ppirs.gov/

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 10

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

(2) Contact your government point of contact for the project you mentioned, and ask them if they can send you a copy, 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.

12. DEFINITIONS

Construction: 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).

Design: 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.

Institutional: Relating to an established organization or agency

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.

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.

https://www.ppirs.gov/ https://www.sam.gov/ https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ http://www.ppirs.gov/ http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/22.htm#P497_100010 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/22.htm#P500_100221

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 11

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

Structure: An item that is constructed. This may include but is not limited to 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.

Sustainment: The maintenance and repair activities necessary to keep an inventory of facilities in good working order. It includes regularly scheduled adjustments and inspections, preventive maintenance tasks, and emergency response and service calls for minor repairs. It also includes major repairs or replacement of facility components that are expected to occur periodically throughout the life cycle of facilities. This work includes regular roof replacement, refinishing of wall surfaces, repairing and replacement of heating and cooling systems, replacing tile and carpeting, and similar types of work.

13. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

13.1. VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

13.1.1 Submission Requirements

In this tab, the Offeror shall submit four (4) project examples. At least two (2) of these examples shall be Design-Build.

If more than four (4) project examples are submitted, only the first four (4) contained in the proposal will be evaluated.

The Offeror shall not exceed two (2) pages per project example. If more than a two (2) page narrative per project example are submitted, only the first two pages will be evaluated.

Each project example submitted shall meet the following criteria:

1. The Offeror (either individually or as a member of a Joint Venture) was the Prime Contractor at the time of project award. “Offeror” and “Prime Contractor” as used in this solicitation shall mean ONLY the named entity entered on SF1442 of Section 00 10 00 of the proposal submission. Projects for which the Offeror was a subcontractor or a teaming member of a subcontractor are not acceptable.

2. The Offeror shall have actively participated in the design and construction aspects in each design-build project example submitted.

3. Contract (stand-alone contract or single task order) dollar value at award was $2,000,000 (two million dollars) 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 $2,000,000.

4. Building Occupancy Date (BOD) (or date when construction was complete and system was operational) was within the past six (6) years of the date that Phase 1 proposals are due.

Additionally:

1. Project examples should be the same types of projects described in paragraphs 1-1.2 above, and similar in size, scope, and complexity

2. Project examples should be in support of Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization for military installations, civil works facilities, and/or interagency support projects. Examples of interagency support would include projects for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

The examples should include the items below, and in the following order:

1. Project title

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

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 12

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. Brief description of construction and design work performed

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

8. Trades/disciplines employed on the project

9. Brief explanation of the relevance of the project

10. Name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of a representative of the customer or an alternate stakeholder who is not affiliated with your company but who is familiar with your company’s experience on the project example that can verify the experience cited

13.1.2 Evaluation Criteria

The Government intends to evaluate four (4) projects submitted by each Offeror to assess the breadth, depth and relevance of each Offeror’s proposed experience in in performing the type of FSRM work described in this RFP and in Paragraphs 1, 1.1, and 1.2.

The following guidance is provided in regard to the assignment of “strengths,” “weaknesses,” and “deficiencies:”

Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

All project examples submitted were Design-Build.

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

Projects that demonstrate that the Offeror has experience in both Military and Civil Customer/Stakeholders.

One or more projects required special security in paragraph 1.2.

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:

Projects that fail to demonstrate that the Offeror has the breadth and depth of experience necessary to perform the variety of requirements this contract will be utilized for.

Omission or incompleteness of any requested information listed in Paragraph 13.1.1 that is not otherwise a deficiency.

Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government identifies as a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiencies shall be given for each of the following criteria:

Submitting fewer than four (4) project examples.

Submitting fewer than two (2) Design-Build project examples in which the Offeror participated in the design and construction aspects of the work. .

Any project example submitted for which the Offeror was not the Prime Contractor

Any project for which the Building Occupancy Date (BOD) or construction completion date occurred more than six (6) years prior to the date that Phase 1 proposals are due.

Multiple task orders combined and submitted as a single project.

Any project example that was awarded for less than $2,000,000.00.

Any other 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

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 13

13.2. VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

13.2.1 Submission Requirements

a. Past Performance Evaluations:

1) Submit Offeror’s final Past Performance ratings for each project submitted under Factor 1 –

Construction Experience. To obtain a formal Past Performance evaluation that has been completed via PPIRS, CPARS, or CCASS see paragraph 14, PPIRS, CPARS, and CCASS

Records above. Otherwise, reference Paragraph 17.2.1.1 on submitting Past Performance

Questionnaires (PPQs).

b. Health and Safety:

1) Submit Offeror’s three most recent “Days Away, Restricted or Transferred” (DART) incident rates, and the average of those three years. Utilize the following format to submit ratings:

Offeror “Days Away, Restricted or Transferred” (DART) ratings

Company Name Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 3YR Average

2) On the same page, show the calculations used to determine the most recent year’s (Year 3)

DART incident rate. Calculations for Years 1 and 2 are not required.

13.2.1.1 DART ratings for newly formed Joint Ventures

If the Offeror is a JV, and DART incident rates are not available for the JV for the entire three year period, Offeror may add an additional row to the table above and provide the DART ratings for each JV participant for any of the three years. In such cases, the individual participants’ incident rates for that year will be averaged.

Information regarding DART and DART calculations may be found on the OSHA website at https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/new-osha300form1-1-04.pdf. This link is provided as a courtesy only; the link and/or information contained at that location is subject to change. Offerors are responsible for obtaining information required to correctly calculate their DART incident rates in accordance with OSHA’s current requirements/processes.

The Government reserves the right to verify the accuracy of any information or statements provided.

13.2.1.2 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

In the event that a formal Past Performance evaluation has not been completed via CPARS, or CCASS, the Past

Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0, Attachment 1) is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client. The PPQ should be completed by an owner or owner’s representative not affiliated with your company.

Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed PPQs shall be submitted with your proposal or to the designated personnel listed below prior to the Phase

1 proposal due date. Offeror should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the designated Government's point of contacts, via email at melissa.r.harlon@usace.army.mil and doug.e.hadley@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offeror 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.

https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/new-osha300form1-1-04.pdf

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 14

Do not submit PPQs for projects evaluated via CPARS or CCASS when the CPARS or CCASS evaluation is available instead. In the event an Offeror submits a PPQ for a project for which a CPARS or CCASS evaluation is available, the CPARS or CCASS evaluation will be considered authoritative.

13.2.1.3 Government Utilization of Alternative Information Sources for Past Performance

The Government reserves the right to contact any persons who may be knowledgeable about the project or projects

(this is not limited to contracts identified by the Offeror) submitted in an Offeror’s proposal. In addition, the

Government may review and take into consideration other sources of information pertinent to the evaluation of the

Offeror’s Past Performance, including both the previous experience projects and other similar projects performed by the Offeror. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, Past Performance information retrieved through the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS), using all Commercial and Government Entity (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 ensuring detailed, current, accurate and complete Past Performance information rests with the Offeror.

13.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

The Government’s overall confidence level for this factor will be based on 1) Offeror’s Past Performance and, 2)

Offeror’s Health and Safety Record (based on the Offeror’s DART three-year average).

Past Performance on projects will examine how well Offeror have performed on relevant projects considering such criteria as: cost growth and adherence to budget; time growth, timeliness and adherence to schedule; quality and quality control measures; management of personnel and subcontractors; compliance with safety standards/safety plan;

overall customer satisfaction; responsiveness to customer concerns.

DART rating averages will be compared against the most recently available incident rates reported by the Bureau of

Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov) to determine whether the Offeror’s DART incident rate average is better than, equivalent to, or poorer than the most recently posted industry average for NAICS 2362 (Nonresidential building construction).

CPARS/CCASS Ratings will be given more weight than PPQs. The Government may, at its discretion, contact individuals other than those identified by the Offeror as references in order to verify the information contained therein.

The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror's performance history, but may attribute more importance to work that was similar to the scope and types of projects as stated in Paragraphs 1.0-1.2.

If an Offeror does not submit both Past Performance evaluations and DART incident rates, and the Government does not otherwise obtain the requested information, an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating will be given for this factor.

13.3. VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

13.3.1 Submission Requirements

This factor considers the Offeror’s technical approach to projects resulting from this solicitation. The Government seeks assurance that the Offeror is capable of complying with the construction and design requirements of this contract and of protecting the safety and health of workers at project sites. The Technical Approach should be consistent with the requirements of both Divisions 00 and 01.

http://www.bls.gov/

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 15

1. Construction Quality Control and Safety: Describe how your company would perform construction quality control.

2. Safety and Health: Describe how your company would protect the safety and health of workers at a project site.

3. Design: Design Quality Control (QC): Describe how your company would control the quality of designs.

13.3.2. Evaluation Criteria

The description of the Offeror’s Technical Approach to the above items will be evaluated.

Strengths may be given for:

Comprehensive technical approaches that align with Division 01 requirements for Construction Quality

Control, Safety and Health, and Design Quality Control.

Demonstration that the Offeror’s Technical Approach will likely result in high quality work

Demonstration that the Offeror’s Technical Approach will significantly decrease safety and health risks

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:

A Technical Approach for any item that clearly does not align with Division 01 requirements

Copying and pasting Division 01 requirements into Offeror’s Technical Approach

Omission or incompleteness of any requested information that is otherwise not rated as a deficiency.

Any other aspect of a proposal that the evaluators and/or the SSA believe is a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance and which does not constitute a deficiency.

Deficiencies will be given for each of the following criteria:

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.

Any other 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

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 16

ATTACHMENT 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (FORM PPQ-0)

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information

Company Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain)

Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Company Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine

How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information

Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

SECTION 00 22 10, PAGE - 17

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR WILL SUBMIT

THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE

HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE CONTRACTOR.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT

THE CONTRACTOR FOR USACE POC…