Am-0002_W9128F-19-R-0005.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. 0002 W9128F

SOF MOUNTAINEERING FACILITY, PN 81899 (FY19), FORT CARSON, COLORADO

See attached documentation for content of the amendment revisions to solicitation

Date for receipt of proposals is 20 FEB 2019 at 1400 hours

Government Point of Contact: Bill Rawe, Contract Specialist (402) 996-3722

U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA

Rocky Mountain Area Office Attn: CONTRACTING DIVISION (CENWO-CT-M) 5475 Tech Center Drive, Suite 205 Colorado Springs, CO 80919

See Item 6

W9128F-19-R-0005

01/28/2019

01/10/2019

01/28/2019

Am #0002 - 1

Am #0002 - 2 (Continuation SF 30)

28 January 2019 Solicitation No. W9128F 19 R 0005

Date of Issue: 10 JAN 2019 Date of Receiving Proposals: 20 FEB 2019

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0002 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Design and Construction of SOF MOUNTAINEERING FACILITY.

TO: Prospective Offerors and Others Concerned

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

a. Specifications. (Descriptive Changes.)

(1) Section 01 81 00 Page 4, paragraph 1.3.4.2.6, delete title “Construct Climbing Wall” and substitute “Bid Option – Construct Climbing Wall”.

(2) Sections 01 82 00 page 3, 01 83 00 Page 3, and 01 89 00 page 4, paragraph 1.1, revise the title of UFC 4-010-01 to the following:

“(2018) DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings”

(3) Section 01 82 00 Pages 3-4, paragraph 1.1, delete “UFC 4-010- 02 (2012) DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standoff Distances for Buildings (FOUO)”.

(4) Section 01 83 00 Page 10, delete paragraph 1.3.13.5 “Slab-On-grade General Requirements” in its entirety and substitute “1.3.13.5 Not Used”.

(5) Section 01 91 00.15 Page 3, paragraph 1.2 “SYSTEMS TO BE COMMISSIONED” delete the first sentence “Commission the following...included in the project:” and substitute the following “Commission the following systems if they are included in the project:”.

b. Specifications (New and/or Revised and Reissued). Delete and substitute or add specification pages or sections as noted below. The substituted pages or sections are revised and reissued with this amendment. For convenience, on the revised specification pages, changes have been identified with highlighting, all portions of the revised specification pages apply regardless of whether changes are shown with highlighting.

Pages or Sections Deleted Pages or Sections Substituted or Added 00 22 00 00 22 00 01 86 10 01 86 10 01 86 13 01 86 13 01 86 13 Attachment 01 86 13 Attachment 01 86 26 01 86 26 01 86 26 Attachment 1 01 86 26 Attachment 1

Am #0002 - 3 (Continuation SF 30)

Pages or Sections Deleted Pages or Sections Substituted or Added Appendix B – Room Data Appendix B – Room Data Sheets, page 7 Sheets, page 7

c. Drawings (Reissued). The following drawings are revised with latest revision date as shown in the drawing border, and reissued with this amendment.

(1) Sheet CS104, SITE PLAN – AREA 4

(2) Sheet CS104B, SITE PLAN BID OPTION – AREA 4

(3) Sheet CS105, SITE PLAN – AREA 5

2. This amendment is a part of the proposing papers and its receipt shall be acknowledged. All other conditions and requirements of the request for proposal remain unchanged.

3. Electronic Proposals. Provide proposals via the instructions provided in Section 00 22 00 of the Request for Proposal.

4. Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m., local time at place of receiving proposals, 20 FEB 2019.

Attachments:

Specification Pages listed in 1.b., above Drawings listed in 1.c., above

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

28 JAN 2019

nep/2160

This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing.

Section 00 22 00 W9128F19R0005

Section 00 22 00 Page 1 Am #0002

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

AWARD

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

4.1. VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL

4.2. VOLUME 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.3. VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO-FORMA INFORMATION

5.0 VOLUME 1 –FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

5.1. TAB A –SUBFACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.2. TAB B –SUBFACTOR 2 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

6.0 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 TAB A - FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

7.0 VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

7.1. GENERAL

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

LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

7.3. TAB B – EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

7.4. TAB C– REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

8.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

8.2. EVALUATION

8.3. DEFINITIONS

8.4. EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

8.5. PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM

ATTACHMENTS

1 - NOT USED

2 - NOT USED

Section 00 22 00 Page 2

3 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

4 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN CAPABILITY

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

SUBCONTRACTED)

6 - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

7 - KEY PERSONNEL RESUME

8 - LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY PERSONNEL

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

10 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

Section 00 22 00 Page 3

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. This is a “Best Value-Tradeoff” solicitation for the Design and Construction of the SOF Mountaineering Facility at Fort Carson, Colorado. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government.

1.2. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

[*Am-2] In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically via the AMRDEC SAFE website. In the event that the AMRDEC SAFE website remains disabled, submit proposals on CD/DVD as described in the NOTE below. All submissions, other than the Supplemental Price Breakdown (see paragraph 7.2.1.2), 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. The Supplemental Price Breakdown may be submitted in Excel format to the recipients listed below via email and must be submitted no later than three working days after the proposal submission. The three (3) volumes listed below shall be submitted as “SEPARATE” single files via AMRDEC. 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 all three (3) files in the same AMRDEC transmission, if possible.

Volume I: Technical Volume II: Past Performance Volume III: Price and Pro Forma Information

Title the single files in the following format:

W9128F19R0005_Company Name_Volume_I_Technical_and_Small_Business_Utilization W9128F19R0005_Company Name_Volume_II_Past_Performance W9128F19R0005_Company Name_Volume_III_Price_and_Pro_Forma_Information

(Note: Company name may be abbreviated)

It is imperative that none of the pricing or Volume 3 information show up in Volumes 1 or 2.

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:

Mr. Bill Rawe, william.t.rawe@usace.army.mil Ms. Christine Wilson, christine.l.wilson@usace.army.mil

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

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 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.

Section 00 22 00 Page 4

[*Am-2] NOTE: In the event that the AMRDEC website remains disabled, Offeror shall submit one CD/DVD containing their proposal to the following address prior to the proposal due date and time:

U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA

Rocky Mountain Area Office Attn: CONTRACTING DIVISION (CENWO-CT-M) 5475 Tech Center Drive, Suite 205 Colorado Springs, CO 80919

In the event that Offerors choose to hand-carry their proposals, Offerors shall contact Bill Rawe, Contract Specialist, 402-996-3722, william.t.rawe@usace.army.mil at least one business day prior to delivery to ensure availability of appropriate Government personnel to receive the package in person. Offers shall be received by the date and time indicated in Block 13 of the SF 1442 for this solicitation or as identified in subsequent amendments

1.3. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Written materials: 8 ½” x 11” format using 10 point or larger font size. For each volume, provide a title sheet on the cover and table of contents. Volume 1 shall have bookmarks, at a minimum, corresponding to each factor and sub-factor. Provide a title sheet identifying the prime, consortium, or joint venture’s name, address, telephone, and email address and point of contact. Include the signature, title and contact information of the official that can bind the firm. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, where indicated below.

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

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

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

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

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

3.2. The proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the requirements of the RFP. The proposal should be specific and complete in every detail and should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the requirements. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent.

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 5

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

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

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

4.1. VOLUME 1 –TECHNICAL

Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL

Factor 1 is slightly more important than Factor

2. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are equal to cost or price (Factor 3).

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

Subfactor 2 Vol. 1 TAB B Project Management Plan Second most Important Subfactor (slightly less important than Subfactor 1)

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

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

4.2. VOLUME 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 2 Vol. 2 TAB A Past Performance

Factor 1 is slightly more important than Factor

2. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are equal to cost or price (Factor 3).

N/A Relevancy Used in determining rating for Factor 2

N/A Confidence Used in determining rating for Factor 2

4.3. VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance

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

Factor 1 is slightly more important than Factor

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 6

Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance

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

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

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

5.0 VOLUME 1 –FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

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

5.1.1. Submission Requirements:

5.1.1.1. Construction and Design Projects. The Offeror shall submit a total of six (6) projects as follows. The Offeror shall submit three (3) projects performed by the Prime Construction Entity while in the same capacity as Prime Construction Entity. Additionally, the Offeror shall submit three (3) projects performed by the Lead Design Entity while in the same capacity as Lead Design Entity. The proposed prime construction and lead design entities shall have performed in the same role as the prime or lead entities on the projects submitted. Limit one (1) page per project submitted. Any information presented beyond the page limit will not be evaluated.

5.1.1.2. Teaming Experience. In one page, the Offeror shall demonstrate previous teaming experience between current team members. Teaming experience information is limited to projects that are well underway (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or that have been completed and turned over no longer than the past ten (10) years preceding the issue date of this solicitation. If the Offeror has no teaming experience to demonstrate, a statement stating so shall be included in place of the “Teaming Experience” page.

5.1.1.3. Project Information. All projects submitted should demonstrate experience on similar projects (design/construction complexity and size) of similar or greater value. Submit projects that are currently well underway (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer than ten (10) years preceding the issue date of this solicitation. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements set forth in the RFP. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. If the Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member.

If projects were design-build, so identify them.

Project information shall CLEARLY include:

(a) Type of Facility Represented

(b) Name of Firm

(c) Name of Project

(d) Location of Project

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

(f) General Scope of Construction Project

Section 00 22 00 Page 7

(g) Summary of Your Role in the Project. Indicate that you were the prime construction entity for construction projects or the lead design entity for the design projects.

(h) Construction Cost at completion

(i) Percent (%) and Type of Work Subcontracted Out

(j) Dates Construction Began and Completed

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

5.1.2.1. Experience on similar projects that exceed the scope (complexity and/or size) and/or value may be rated more favorably. A similar project does not necessarily have to perform the same mission, but should be of similar design and construction complexity and size.

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

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

5.1.2.4. Previous design-build experience is not necessary for an acceptable rating. The Government may consider previous D-B experience a strength.

5.1.2.5. The Government may consider previous recent (as defined above) teaming experience among the team members as a strength. The more relevant the experience (as defined above), the more favorably it may be rated.

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

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

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

5.2.1. Submission Requirements:

5.2.1.1. Provide information that describes the offeror’s Project Management approach to executing the design-build contract per the detailed requirements herein. Clearly and concisely describe the organizational and technical approaches to project management and execution, and proposed contract duration. Limit the information to fifteen (15) pages or less.

5.2.1.2. Organization. List the design and construction entities and describe their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each entity’s roles and responsibilities on the project. A copy of the teaming or joint venture agreement(s) shall be appended to the plan (not included in the page limitation). Include a simple organizational chart, illustrating the organization, including the proposed quality control group(s).

Identify the design firm(s) chosen for the project, if not to be self-performed. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its lead design entity (ies) and key subcontractors (see attachment 9). Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing the how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include a key personnel organization chart that clearly depicts the key positions and the names of the personnel, their firm affiliations and their job locations and their job/position title within the organization. The key personnel organization chart shall be consistent with the corporate organization chart, with the matrix of responsibilities assigned to the D-B team entities, and with the list

Section 00 22 00 Page 8 of key personnel to be provided under the Tab, “KEY PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES AND

EXPERIENCE”.

5.2.1.3. Technical Approach for Design and Construction. Describe the technical approach to design and construction of the facility. Include any considerations of fast-tracking design and construction, panelized construction, pre-engineered components, etc. The Government is looking for ways to streamline construction and manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and achieve an aggressive schedule while minimizing impact to the base.

5.2.1.4. Risk Assessment. Submit a list of risks specifically associated with this project. Identify the degree of risk, possible impact of the risk on project (schedule, cost, safety etc.), whether it’s within or outside the Offeror’s control, and a plan to mitigate the risk(s).

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

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

5.2.2.1. Organization. The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization and how well it is organized, structured and staffed to execute the entire scope of work. This subfactor will be rated as unacceptable if the Offeror has not selected and committed to use its lead design entity.

Joint venture participants’ contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

5.2.2.2. Technical Approach for Design and Construction. The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline construction and manage labor and other resource constraints, in an effort to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule including such things as fast-tracking, etc. The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces on-site craft labor and susceptibility to inclement weather delays.

5.2.2.3. Risk Assessment. The Government will evaluate the risk assessment to verify that the Offeror has a clear understanding of the risks, roles, and scope of the project. Proposals may be rated more favorable for risk assessments that are clearly identified with logical and accurate assessments of each risk.

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

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

5.3.1. Submission Requirements:

5.3.1.1. For key personnel provide a brief resume using the Key Personnel Resume form at the end of this Section (Attachment 7). Indicate the position title on each project listed in resumes. Provide the name, owner, dollar amount, date of completion, and brief scope of each resume project.

Include resumes for the following key personnel:

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

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 9

- General Superintendent (Prime Construction Contractor Employee)

- Design Manager (Lead Design Entity Employee)

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

5.3.1.3. The minimum experience requirement for the Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager is 5 years of experience as a Quality Control Manager on similar projects to this solicitation. CQC System Manager shall comply with personnel requirements listed in Section 01 45 00.00 10.

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

5.3.1.5. The minimum experience requirements for the Design manager is at least 5 years of design management experience. The Design Manager and designers of record should be a registered in accordance with FAR 52.236-25.

5.3.1.6. Offeror shall provide unequivocal letters of commitment from all proposed key personnel NOT currently employed by the Offeror. Use the form letter (Attachment 8) at the end of this section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.3.2.6. Previous design-build experience may be rated more favorably.

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

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

6.0 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1. VOLUME 2 – TAB A – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1.1. Submission Requirements:

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 10

If available, submit Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Performance Evaluations ratings. For projects which were designed and/or constructed for other government entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available. For projects cited in Volume 1 - Tab A Specialized Experience not covered in the CPARS database or other Government Design Performance Rating System, submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 6).

6.1.1.1. CPARS/PPIRS Evaluations

Firms are requested to retrieve their CPARS/PPIRS past performance information directly from the merged CPARS/PPIRS Application available at: http://www.cpars.gov. For evaluations completed prior to 27 June 2014, use the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) module.

PPIRS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major federal performance reporting systems. Logging onto PPIRS will require the following:

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

You will also need your DUNS number and Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) to log onto PPIRS. The MPIN number was selected by whoever registered your firm in the System for Award Management (SAM) Registry at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. 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 https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ web page. Please be aware that they will only release the MPIN number to the person who originally registered your firm.

There are two other ways to obtain a copy of CPARS/PPIRS evaluations as follows: (1) Contact your government point of contact for the project you mentioned, and ask them if they can send you a copy, or (2) Apply for “Corporate Senior Contractor Representative” access on the merged CPARS/PPIRS Application web page: http://www.cpars.gov/userforms.htm. This type of access is issued to only one person within the firm, typically a member of senior management. In addition to access to your completed CPARS/PPIRS performance evaluations, you will also be able to view status of evaluations which have not yet been completed. Following receipt of your application request, you will be emailed a logon and access instructions. Be aware that you will also need to have a PKI certificate to access the PPIRS system. This is a DOD requirement.

6.1.1.2. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

The Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 6) is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client. The Past Performance Questionnaire should be completed by an owner or owner’s representative not affiliated with your firm. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 6), which will provide contract and client Information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

6.1.1.3. Government Utilization of Alternate Information Sources for Past Performance

The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under the Specialized Experience Subfactor and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal or to review personal knowledge. In addition, the Government may review any

Section 00 22 00 Page 11 other sources of information for evaluating past performance of the Offeror on the submitted projects and any other previous work. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

6.1.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

6.1.2.2. Relevancy: The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope of this contract for overall application to the performance confidence assessment ratings described hereinafter. The projects will include those submitted under the Specialized Experience SubFactor as well as from other sources described above. This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing an overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance relevancy ratings are described below:

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

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

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

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

6.1.2.3. Performance: The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. Past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance.

Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. (see the interview form at attachment 6). The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Interview Forms to the offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CPARS/PPIRS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. This rating is not a separate

Section 00 22 00 Page 12 proposal rating but is only used in developing an overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance confidence ratings are described below:

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

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

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

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

(e) Neutral Confidence: No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

7.0 VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

7.1. GENERAL

Submit the Price and Pro Forma information as separate files per the instructions in paragraph 1.2.

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

LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

7.2.1. Submission Requirements:

7.2.1.1. Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed performance duration. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors”. Submit the Proposal Data Sheet, Attachment 10.

7.2.1.2. Supplemental Price Breakdown. The Government requires a price breakdown of the Total Basic Amount of the Contract Line Item Pricing Schedule, using Excel format. This information must be submitted with the proposal submission. This information will also be required for any revised proposals.

This information is not an opportunity for an offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

7.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

The Government is likely to not make award if the construction cost limitation set for this project is exceeded. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price

Section 00 22 00 Page 13 breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above. All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined, are considered equal to cost or price.

7.3. VOLUME 3 - TAB B – EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

7.3.1. Submission Requirements:

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

7.3.2. Evaluation Requirements:

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

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

7.4.1. Submission Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.4.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

8.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 14

8.2. EVALUATION

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

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

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

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

8.2.5. Upon conclusion of discussions, those offerors still considered the most highly rated will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection. Any verbal revisions not included in the written revised proposal will not be considered in re-evaluation process. Any verbal request for a revised proposal shall be confirmed in writing. Proposal revisions, and modifications thereto, must be received by the date, time, and in the place specified in the notice, or they are subject to the provision regarding late offers (reference solicitation Section 00 21 00).

8.2.6. Each offeror, successful or unsuccessful, will have the opportunity, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.505 and 15.506, to receive one debriefing. Offerors are required to submit a written request for debriefing and discussion of the evaluation of its proposal within three (3) calendar days after receipt of exclusion from competition or notice of award. The debriefing of all offerors, successful or unsuccessful, will be conducted by the Contracting Officer in accordance with the FAR. The Contracting Specialist will coordinate and schedule the debriefings. Debriefing participation will include the Contracting Officer, chairperson of the SSEB, and Contracting Specialist with additional support from other members of the SSEB as required. The Contracting Officer will conduct the debriefings. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to provide written debriefings at their discretion.

8.3. DEFINITIONS

8.3.1. Best Value

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

8.3.2. Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government…