Am_0001.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

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

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

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

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

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

Amendment No. 0001 W9128F

REPAIR CADET FIELDHOUSE, PH2, AT US AIR FORCE ACADEMY, COLORADO

See attached documentation for content of the changes to RFP

Date for receipt of proposals is 15 JUN 2020 at 1400 hours

Government Point of Contact: Bill Rawe, Contracting Officer, william.t.rawe@usace.army.mil

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT

CONTRACTING OFFICE

5475 Tech Center Drive, Suite 205 Colorado Springs, CO 80919

See Item 6

W9128F-20-R-0004

06/09/2020

05/15/2020

06/09/2020

Am #0001 - 2 (Continuation of SF 30)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Omaha District, Corps of Engineers

1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901

:NOTICE: Failure to acknowledge : Solicitation No. W9128F-20-R-0041 :all amendments may cause rejec-:

:tion of the bid. See FAR : Date of Issue: 15 MAY 2020 :52.214-3 of Section 00 21 00. : Date of Receiving Proposals:

15 JUN 2020

Amendment No. 0001

9 JUN 2020

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0001 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Construction of REPAIR CADET FIELDHOUSE, PHASE 2 AT USAFA, COLORADO

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).

p

a. Specifications (New and/or Revised and Reissued). Delete and substitute or add specification pages as noted below. The substituted pages are revised and reissued with this amendment. Please note that sections marked with asterisks have changes tracked within them for convenience.

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

2. This amendment is a part of the bidding papers and its receipt shall be acknowledged on the Standard Form 1442. All other conditions and requirements of the specifications remain unchanged.

3. Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m., local time at place of receiving proposals (Colorado Springs address provided on SF30 form), 15 JUN 2020.

Attachments:

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

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

9 JUN 2020

jlb/2099

00 22 00 Page 1

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND

EVALUATION

INDEX

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

2. BASIS OF AWARD

3. PROPOSAL FORMAT

4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

5. SUBMITTING PROPOSALS

6. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

7. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

8. TECHNICAL FACTORS 1, 2, 3, AND 4

9. TECHNICAL FACTOR 5; SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

EVALUATION

10. TECHNICAL FACTOR 6; PAST CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION

11. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENT AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

11.1. PREFACE

11.2. FACTOR 1: OFFEROR’S SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

11.3. FACTOR 2: OFFEROR’S TECHNICAL APPROACH

11.4. FACTOR 3: OFFEROR’S SUBCONTRACTOR CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

11.5. FACTOR 4: OFFEROR’S KEY PERSONNEL

11.6. FACTOR 5: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

11.7. FACTOR 6: PAST PERFORMANCE – PAST CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE

12. FACTOR 7: PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

12.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

12.2. EVALUATION OF PRICE

13. COMPETITIVE RANGE

14. CLARIFICATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

15. FINAL REVISIONS AND SELECTION

16. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD REPORT

17. COMPETITIVE RANGE EXCLUSION NOTIFICATION

18. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION DOCUMENT

19. AWARD OF CONTRACT

20. DEBRIEFING

Am_0001

00 22 00 Page 2

Attachments:

Attachment A - NAVFAC USACE PPQ Form Sep 2011

W9128F‐20‐R‐0004.

00 22 00 Page 3

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

This is a best value solicitation for the construction/renovations for the Repair Cadet Field House Phase 2, Building 2169 US Air Force Academy, Colorado. The intent of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to solicit proposals and award a firm-fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.215-1. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint. Offerors shall organize their proposals as described herein. Proposals may be determined non-compliant for failure to follow this format, and may be rejected from further consideration.

The proposal shall describe the capability of the offeror to perform the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW). 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.

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.

2. BASIS OF AWARD

To arrive at a source selection decision, the Government will evaluate the factors and proposed costs/price. The Government intends to award to the firm providing the proposal which is considered by the SSA to be the best value to the Government using best value trade-off methods.

This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Contract award should not exceed the cost limitation described in Section 00 21 01. 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.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING:

BIFURCATED RFP PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOLLOWING FAR PART 15:

This project will use the bifurcated solicitation process. This process is a split/two-part RFP best value trade-off procurement process for requirements that are approximately 90% designed but

00 22 00 Page 4 waiting for 100% design. The construction solicitation, along with the current 90% design, is issued CONCURRENT with the Brooks Act design being completed. Offerors will submit only technical proposals. Price proposals will be requested through amendment once the Brooks Act design is completed. The amendment will go out to all offerors who submit proposals in this first step. Once the technical proposals have been received, the SSEB will evaluate all proposals and submit the SSEB report. The process will then PAUSE until the Brooks Act Design is complete.

When the final 100% design is complete, an amendment is issued to include the final design documents, price schedule. Offerors will be instructed to submit their best and final technical proposal along with their price proposal. The evaluation board will then perform a best-value trade-off analysis of final proposals.

CONTRACT FUNDING: Award of this project will be a firm fixed price contract. However, funding will be dependent on the approved 2020 budget.

3. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Proposals shall not exceed the page limits described. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein. Provide all information in tabbed sections.

Written materials (other than organizational chart): 8 ½” x 11” format, using 10 point or larger font size. For each factor, provide a title sheet on the cover, Table of Contents, and file titled with appropriate factor number. Provide a title sheet within each electronic file identifying the prime, consortium, or joint venture’s name, address, telephone, fax and email address and point of contact.

Include the signature, title and contact information of the official that can bind the firm.

Document name and factor number shall appear in the bottom right corner of each page (along with the revision number and revision date for the amended page, if necessary).

Note: the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, as indicated below.

4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

This solicitation is available for full and open competition, on an unrestricted basis. All proposers, including joint ventures, must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and have completed their Representations and Certifications through SAM.

There will be no public opening. All proposals submitted will become, upon receipt, the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned. After evaluation of proposals, the original will be retained for the official contract file. Extra copies of the awardee’s proposal will be submitted to the Field and Area Offices in support of their contract administration functions.

Any extra copies of the proposals deemed unnecessary by the government will be destroyed.

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly indicate compliance with the proposal submission requirements. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, proposals submitted should include the most favorable terms from a technical and price standpoint. Do not

00 22 00 Page 5 assume that offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposal.

5. SUBMITTING PROPOSALS

Offeror shall submit proposal to the following individuals prior to the proposal due date and time:

1. Bill Rawe whose email address is william.t.rawe@usace.army.mil and

2. Christine Wilson whose email address is christine.l.wilson@usace.army.mil

Electronic Proposals 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. The file size limitation is 35 MB per email message. An email with attachments totaling more than 35 MB may not be received by the Government.

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.

The three two (32) volumes listed below shall be submitted as “SEPARATE” single files. Offerors may send each volume separately if they exceed the maximum email file size. Offerors are encouraged to send all three two (32) files in the same email transmission, if possible.

Title the single files in the following format:

W9128F-20-R-0004_Company Name_Volume_I_Technical W9128F-20-R-0004_Company Name_Volume_II_Price_and_Pro_Forma_Information

(Note: Company name may be abbreviated)

Offerors will submit only Volume I by the proposal due date listed in the SF 1442. Once the 100% specs and drawings are ready for issuance, Volume II and any changes to Volume I will be requested by amendment. It is imperative that none of the pricing or Volume 3 II information show up in Volumes 1I or 2.

If the proposal is too large for email, Offers may be submitted electronically via DOD Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) at https://safe.apps.mil/ to the recipients listed above.

**Offerors accessing the DOD SAFE site as a GUEST, (a “Guest” is defined as a user who is not assigned a CAC), must request a package invitation from the Contract Specialist listed in Section 00 10 00, Page 1 a minimum of 48-business hours prior to the close of the RFP.**

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 received by the USACE Email Server or uploaded into the DOD SAFE website as identified in the DOD SAFE notification e-mail sent to the Contract Specialist(s)/ Contracting Officer will be the time and date the Government received the proposal. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal.

00 22 00 Page 6

6. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

a. All proposals and documentation which have been properly submitted will be evaluated.

Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the factors stated in the solicitation to select the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. Because of the number of proposals anticipated, uniformity of all proposals is essential to assure fair and accurate evaluation. All proposals must comply with the instructions in the solicitation. Proposals that do not conform to the RFP requirements may be considered to have a “deficiency”. If a proposal is suspected of having a deficiency, it will be brought to the immediate attention of the SSA. If the determination is made that a deficiency exists, the proposal will not be evaluated further and will be eliminated from further consideration. The affected offeror will be promptly notified of the decision.

Properly conforming proposals will be forwarded to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for evaluation.

b. Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Tradeoff Process, FAR 15.101-1.

This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically- rated proposal to achieve a best–value contract award. Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the Offeror's ability to perform the resultant contract successfully. Proposals will be evaluated to identify strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies contained in them and to determine ratings for stated evaluation factors.

See definitions and descriptions of terms and ratings in dc. below.

c. Evaluation Definitions.

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

(2) Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(3) Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

(4) Clarification. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award without discussions is anticipated, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

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

(6) Discussions. Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition and take place after establishment of the competitive range.

00 22 00 Page 7

7. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offerors whose proposal represents the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. Factors 1 and 6 are equal in importance and are the most important factors. Factor 2 is the second most important factor.

Factors 3 and 4 are the third most important factor and factor 5 is the fourth most important factor. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are significantly more important to cost or price. 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.

This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

VOLUME 1 –TECHNICAL

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 Vol. 1 TAB A Specialized Experience Factors 1 and 6 are equal in importance and are the most important factors.

FACTOR 2 Vol. 1 TAB B Technical Approach 2nd most important Factor

FACTOR 3 Vol. 1 TAB C Subcontractors’ Construction Experience

Factors 3 and 4 are equal and 3rd most important factor.

FACTOR 4 Vol. 1 TAB D Key Personnel Factors 3 and 4 are equal and 3rd most important factor.

FACTOR 5 Vol. 1 TAB E Small Business Participation Plan

4th most important factor. Factor 5 is slightly less in importance to Factors 3 and 4.

FACTOR 6 Vol. 1 TAB F Past Construction Performance

Factors 1 and 6 are equal in importance and are the most important factors.

VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 7

Vol. 2 TAB A

Price (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 combined are significantly more important than Factor 7 (price).

N/A Vol. 2 TAB B

Evidence of Bondability Not Rated

N/A Vol. 2 TAB C

Required Pre-Award Information

Not Rated

00 22 00 Page 8

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

N/A Vol. 2 TAB D

Subcontracting Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable

8. TECHNICAL FACTOR 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5.

Each factor’s technical/risk rating shall be evaluated and assigned a rating based on the following:

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Definition

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: If, at any level of evaluation, an Offeror’s proposal is evaluated as not meeting a minimum requirement (that is, Red-Unacceptable) this must be detailed in the narrative assessment. A Red-Unacceptable rating at any level must be carried to the factor level.

9. TECHNICAL FACTOR 6, PAST CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION.

The following ratings will be used for assigning performance relevancy to the offeror’s past performance:

Adjectival Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

00 22 00 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 magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the current procurement.

Adjectival Rating Description 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.

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

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

Offerors for which no relevant past performance record is available will not have that factor evaluated, either positively or negatively, in the evaluation of the proposal package. An “unknown/neutral” rating shall be assigned when an offeror provides no past performance data and/or where none can be readily obtained. When arriving at a consensus score for past performance, evaluators shall consider a “neutral” rating as one that neither helps nor harms an offeror’s chances of being awarded a contract.

Information obtained from owners, contract administrators, or other points of contact from past performance questionnaire or Contractor Performance Assessment System (CPARS) evaluations submitted through Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and personal knowledge of the SSEB members may affect the evaluation rating given for the Past Performance factor being evaluated. The Government reserves the right to contact any owner, contractor administrator or other points of contract furnished by the offeror to verify accuracy of information submitted for Factors 1 and 3.

10. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

00 22 00 Page 10

All proposals shall contain the information stated herein. Proposal clarity, organization (as defined in this solicitation) and cross-referencing is mandatory. No material (information not part of proposal) shall be incorporated by reference. Material not specifically identified below will not be evaluated. If proposers do not want the data contained in the proposal disclosed by the Government, the proposer shall follow the procedure specified in Section 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, paragraph: RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE AND USE OF DATA. However, portions of the selected proposal will be incorporated into the contract and are subject to disclosure notwithstanding restrictive markings.

a. All materials shall be provided in read-only Adobe Acrobat PDF format. The files shall be named as follows:

W9128F-20-R-0004_Company Name_Volume_I_Technical W9128F-20-R-0004_Company Name_Volume_II_Price_and_Pro_Forma_Information

b. Provide the following information and name documents as noted in Factor 7.

Additional information on the content is shown in Section 12.1.

SF 1442 (Reference Section 00 10 00)

Pricing Schedule (Reference Section 00 10 00)

Supplemental Pricing Breakdown (Reference Section 00 10 00)

Representations and Certifications (Reference Section 00 45 00)

Pre-Award Survey Information, as defined in Section 12.1

Subcontracting plan (If proposing as other than small business)

c. Teaming Arrangements - For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Section 9.601. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently-proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal. In the case of subcontractor submissions, the subcontractor must submit the final cost of their portion of the project. An Offeror that relies upon the experience and performance history of a member or members of a proposed contractor team arrangement will be expected to maintain that arrangement during performance of any contract awarded to that Offeror under this RFP. As a part of their proposal, the Offeror must provide a contractor team agreement signed by all parties, identifying the legal name(s) of all entities and describing the nature of each entity’s relationship (teaming/partnering, joint venture, mentor/protégé, etc.) and their role on this project. This documentation shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror's technical proposal, prior to any Factors.

11.1 PREFACE

The Preface should consist of a brief explanation of the proposer, the organization of the proposed

00 22 00 Page 11 construction team, and key sub-contractors that will be utilized on this project. If a teaming arrangement or Joint Venture (JV) of prime contractors will be utilized, the JV will be identified in this preface and the management of the JV will be provided. Any additional information that will be useful to the selection board may also be included. This preface shall not exceed four (4) pages. The information included will not be evaluated, but will be utilized by the Selection Board to aid in the evaluation process.

11.2 TECHNICAL FACTOR 1 –

OFFEROR’S SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

11.2.1 Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall submit examples of construction projects which best illustrate the experience of the construction contractor on projects of similar function, scope, size, and complexity as this project. Offerors shall submit three (3) projects. Each project example shall consist of a one or two page narrative of the example project, discussing the project and providing specifics as noted herein. If a Joint Venture (JV) is proposing, provide examples of projects performed by the JV itself or projects performed by each of the prime contractors in the JV, within the three project examples allowed.

No more than three projects may be submitted. Each project cited shall have a construction dollar value equal to or greater than $10,000,000 and have been completed within six (6) years from the date that the proposal for this project is due. Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts, where numerous Task Orders are summed to meet the minimum construction dollar value identified herein, are not acceptable as project examples. Factor 1, should include project examples that are similar to the Cadet Fieldhouse, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado. For evaluation purposes “similar” is defined as sharing the following aspects with the Cadet Fieldhouse, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado, of comparable magnitude (or magnitude as defined above) and/or complexity:

Military and/or commercial vertical facility construction (e.g., containing architectural, structural, mechanical, fire protection, and electrical construction features) and all other site development features applicable to the submitted project (e.g., demolition, earthwork, utilities, etc.), especially involving higher education facilities, facilities where operations were maintained simultaneously with project work, and facilities that were continually occupied during construction activities.

Each project example narrative shall include the following information:

Project title and location

Detailed scope of the project including area of building in square feet (SF). May be part of the narrative description of the project.

Original contract award amount and final construction cost

Include a narrative of any cost differences greater than 5%

00 22 00 Page 12

Original contract finish date and actual finish date (Month/Year)

Points of Contact, as described below

Role of the proposing firm on the project, including a clear designation of whether or not the Offeror was the prime contractor and the percentage of self-performed work

Subcontractors utilized on the project, the extent to which they were utilized (by percentage of cost), and if they are proposed to be utilized for the Cadet Fieldhouse Project

Prime Contractor Personnel on the project and if they are proposed to be utilized for the Cadet Fieldhouse Project

Narrative description of the project, as described below.

All project examples shall contain a Point of Contact (POC) as well as one alternate Point of Contact, to include the name, job title of the POC, address, telephone, and e-mail address. The POC and alternate shall be familiar with the construction performance of the proposer and be a representative of the owner/customer, not affiliated with the proposer. The POC and alternate shall be able to verify the experience cited.

Narratives for each project shall include a brief overview of the project, discussing major features of the project and each project’s relevance, military or commercial construction project, building types and areas being constructed and similarities to this project. The role and work assigned to any sub-contractors and/or personnel noted in the narrative shall be explained. All time growth and construction cost growth shall be explained in each project example narrative. The government preference is that project examples submitted be of completed projects. A completed project shall be defined as one that has been at least 95% billed and turned over for use.

11.2.2 Evaluation

The Offeror's experience in construction of facilities similar to this project will be evaluated. No more than three projects may be submitted for this Factor. If the number of project examples in this Factor exceeds three, only the first three projects listed in the proposal will be evaluated.

Evaluation will be based on the project examples provided in the offeror’s proposal. Any additional material inserted into this Factor will not be evaluated.

Higher evaluation ratings may be given for project examples which are most similar in function, scope, size, and complexity to this project and clearly demonstrate a contractor’s capabilities to construct a project of this nature, and execute the project successfully while containing costs and maintaining schedule. The Government may rate proposals more favorably on projects meeting or exceeding project size threshold identified in paragraph 11.2.1. Higher ratings correspond to what may be considered strengths. Projects still under construction (i.e., have not been 95% billed and turned over for use) will be evaluated, though less favorably than completed projects.

Projects for which the proposer was the prime contractor may be evaluated more favorably – i.e., considered a strength. Projects showing cost and time growth may be rated less favorably than those that maintain the contract completion date and the original award amount, unless the cost or time growth is fully explained to be caused by factors outside the proposer’s control.

Failure to provide an explanatory narrative, as applicable, may be categorized as a weakness.

Submission of fewer projects than allowed above may reduce the offeror’s rating in this Factor.

Omission of requested information may be categorized as a deficiency.

00 22 00 Page 13

11.3 FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL

OFFEROR’S TECHNICAL APPROACH

11.3.1. Submission Requirements

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

phasing, work delays, scheduling, equipment height restrictions, hazardous materials abatement, facility occupied during construction activity, etc.). The submission for this factor may not exceed (10) ten pages, including explanatory drawings, excluding bar chart schedule. Provide a bar chart schedule (preferably shown on no more than 4 - 11 x 17 pages) on your plan for completing the work based on an estimated Contract Notice to Proceed date of 15 October 2020 and Contract Completion date of 17 October 2022. This schedule shall be considered the preliminary project schedule. Include major work milestones and scheduled activities (i.e. Non- Work Periods to include a recurring dormant period from 31 October to 31 May, Order of Work restrictions, and any other activity that will affect schedule as identified on the Construction drawings and Section 01 30 00.24 OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS.) Present a narrative to describe your technical solution for this project, specifically citing the process and major equipment used for construction.

11.3.2. Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the unique requirements of the Cadet Fieldhouse’s construction as portrayed in your discussion of construction intent for this project.

Requirements to be evaluated include, but are not limited to, the process proposed for construction of this project. Submissions which demonstrate a complete, logical, and well-defined construction methodology (including major work items) may be evaluated more favorably.

Submissions that are incomplete, illogical, or lack a well-defined construction methodology will be categorized as weaknesses. Omission of requested information may be categorized as a deficiency.

A schedule including unrealistic task durations will be considered a weakness. It would also be considered a weakness if the Offeror does not address the events from the historical schedule shared in Section 01 30 00.24

11.4 FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL

OFFEROR’S SUBCONTRACTORS’ CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

11.4.1. Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall submit examples of construction projects which best illustrate the experience of the Mechanical and Electrical subcontractors only. The experience of these subcontractors shall be on projects of similar function, scope, size, and complexity as this project. Offerors must submit two (2) projects per subcontractor. Each project example shall consist of a one or two page narrative of the example project, discussing the project and providing specifics as noted herein.

No more than two projects per subcontractor may be submitted. Each project cited shall have a construction dollar value listed (to reflect the amount of work the subcontractor performed) and

00 22 00 Page 14 have been completed, using the 9095% billed, and turned over for use, criterion shared previously, within six (6) years of the date that the proposal for this project is due.

Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts, where numerous Task Orders are summed to meet the minimum construction dollar value identified herein, are not acceptable as project examples. Factor 3 should include project examples that are similar to the Cadet Fieldhouse, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado. For evaluation purposes, “similar” is defined as sharing comparable magnitude and/or complexity with the Cadet Fieldhouse, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado. Below is a summary of typical elements for consideration:

Military and/or commercial vertical facility construction (e.g., containing architectural, structural, mechanical, fire protection, and electrical construction features) and all other site development features applicable to the submitted project (e.g., demolition, earthwork, utilities, etc.), especially involving higher education facilities, facilities where operations were maintained simultaneously with project work, and facilities that were continually occupied during construction activities.

Each project example narrative should include the following information:

Project title and location

Detailed scope of the project including area of building in square feet. May be part of the narrative description of the project.

Original contract award amount and final construction cost

Include a narrative of any cost differences greater than 5%

Original contract finish date and actual finish date (Month/Year)

Points of Contact, as described below

Role of the proposed subcontractors on the project, including a clear designation of whether or not they served as prime contractors and the percentage of self-performed work

Contractor Personnel on the project and if they are proposed to be utilized for the Cadet Fieldhouse Project

Narrative description of the project, as described below.

All project examples shall contain a Point of Contact (POC) as well as one alternate Point of Contact, to include the name, job title of the POC, address, telephone, and e-mail address. The POC and alternate shall be familiar with the construction performance of the proposer and be a representative of the owner/customer, not affiliated with the proposer. The POC and alternate shall be able to verify the experience cited. Higher evaluations may be given for utilizing subcontractors that the Prime has worked with on past projects.

Narratives for each project shall include a brief overview of the project, discussing major features of the project and each project’s relevance, military or commercial construction project, building types and areas being constructed and similarities to this project. The role and work assigned to any sub-contractors and/or personnel noted in the narrative shall be explained. All time growth and construction cost growth shall be explained in each project example narrative. The government preference is that project examples submitted be of completed projects (i.e. 95% billed

00 22 00 Page 15 and turned over for use).

If, after award, the Mechanical and Fire ProtectionElectrical subcontractors identified in the proposal are not able to be utilized on this project, replacement subcontractors with similar skills and experience shall be presented for acceptance and approval by the Contracting Officer. Replacement subcontractors for this project shall be required to have qualifications and experience meeting or exceeding those identified in the proposal. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitutions for these subcontractors.

11.4.2. Evaluation

The Offeror's subcontractors’ experience in construction of facilities similar to this project will be evaluated. Higher evaluation ratings may be given for project examples which are most similar in function, scope, size, and complexity to this project and clearly demonstrate a contractor’s capabilities to construct a project of this nature, and execute the project successfully while containing costs and maintaining schedule. The Government may rate proposals more favorably on projects meeting or exceeding project size threshold identified in paragraph 8.2.1. Higher ratings correspond to what may be considered strengths. Projects still under construction (i.e., have not been 95% billed and turned over for use) will be evaluated, though less favorably than completed projects. Projects for which the proposer was the prime contractor may be evaluated more favorably – i.e., considered a strength. Projects showing significant cost (5% or higher of the overall total cost of the project) and time growth may be rated less favorably than those that maintain the contract completion date and the original award amount, unless the cost or time growth is fully explained to be caused by factors outside the proposer’s control. Failure to provide an explanatory narrative, as applicable, may be categorized as a weakness.

Submission of fewer projects than allowed above may reduce the offeror’s rating in this Factor.

11.5 FACTOR 4 – TECHNICAL

OFFEROR’S KEY PERSONNEL

11.5.1. Submission Requirements

In this factor, the offeror shall provide resumes for key construction personnel that will be assigned to this project. Resumes shall be submitted for the personnel roles shown in this paragraph.

The first page of this factor shall include a one-page listing of the names of the construction personnel that will be assigned to each of the positions listed below. Provide primary name and resume for each key construction person identified below.

Following this page, provide a summary of the duties and responsibilities of these individuals that clearly indicate separate duties and responsibilities for each individual.

Following this summary, the offeror shall submit the resumes for key construction personnel that

00 22 00 Page 16 will be assigned to this project. This factor shall include resumes on the following personnel:

Project Manager

Project Superintendent

Contractor Quality Control System Manager

The resumes in this factor should clearly present the credentials of each person and show that each meets the requirements listed below. Each resume shall be limited to 2 pages. Each resume shall include the following information:

Name, assignment for this project, and company employing the person Education and degree (Month/Year)

Past project experience (including what role or capacity the individual served on each project), as well as the durations (including month/year started and ended) employed on each project in that capacity, the monetary size of each project cited as experience, and a point of contact familiar with each project. Resumes should list enough projects to clearly show the requisite years of experience shown for personnel in the paragraph below. A brief description of each project cited in the resume should be provided, showing the monetary size of each project, and identifying any relevant features of each project. Successful past performance at institutions of higher learning, especially where operations were maintained throughout, may be considered more favorably. Resumes shall be listed in reverse chronological order, with the latest experience listed first, and all time gaps on each resume fully explained.

Any pertinent training, registration, or certifications applicable to the position

The proposal should clearly present the credentials of each person, and should show that each possesses the following qualifications:

Project Manager: The proposed Construction Project Manager shall be an employee of the Prime Contractor and should possess a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering or Construction Management, with a minimum of 10 years of experience (within the last 10 years) performing as a Construction Project Manager on construction projects similar in monetary size and/or scope to this project. A minimum of 2 of those 5 10 years should indicate experience as a Construction Project Manager for Military and/or commercial vertical construction.

Project Superintendent: The proposed On-Site Project Superintendent shall be an employee of the Prime Contractor and should have a minimum of 10 years construction related experience (within the last 10 years) as a superintendent on construction projects similar in monetary size and/or scope to this project and for Military and/or commercial vertical construction.

Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager: The Contractor Quality Control

System (CQC) Manager should possess:

00 22 00 Page 17 o A Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering or Construction Management and have a minimum 5 years of experience (within the last 10 years) as a Construction CQC for Military and/or commercial vertical construction on projects similar in monetary size and/or scope to this project. The CQC System Manager shall be an employee of the Prime Contractor and have no other duties, and shall have completed or be scheduled to complete the “Construction Quality Management For Contractors” course, identified in Section 01 45 00.00 10, Quality Control of the specifications, prior to the start of construction.

Or;

o Have a minimum 5 years construction experience (within the last 10 years) as a Construction CQC or Superintendent for Military and/or commercial vertical construction on projects similar in monetary size and/or scope to this project. The CQC System Manager shall be an employee of the Prime Contractor and have no other duties, and shall have completed or be scheduled to complete the “Construction Quality Management For Contractors” course identified in Section 01 45 00.00 10, Quality Control, of the specifications prior to the start of construction.

o Higher evaluation ratings may be given if Prime Contractor personnel submitted for this project have previously worked on projects submitted for Factor 1. If, after award, the key personnel identified in the proposal are not able to be utilized on this project, replacement personnel with similar skills and experience shall be presented for acceptance and approval by the Contracting Officer.

Replacement individuals for this project shall be required to have qualifications and experience meeting or exceeding those identified in the proposal. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitutions for these designated personnel.

11.5.2 Evaluation

Qualifications of key construction personnel assigned to this project will be considered.

Resumes should be limited to those positions shown above – resumes for other project positions will not be evaluated. More favorable evaluation ratings (corresponding to strengths, per the evaluation definitions shared above) may be given for past experience in projects similar in cost, size, and complexity to this project, experience on military construction projects, longevity of experience at the position being proposed, and education. Personnel meeting the qualification requirements identified above may be given higher evaluation ratings than those not meeting the qualifications. Lower evaluation ratings may be given for resumes which are ambiguous, do not follow the requested format, or do not contain the information identified in Paragraph 8.411.5.1 above. Ambiguity and formatting issues fall into the weakness category while an omission may be categorized as a deficiency.

11.6. FACTOR 5 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

11.6.1. Submission Requirements

This factor requires all offerors, regardless of size status to address their planned small business usage for this project. All offerors are required to provide a Small Business Participation Plan. It

00 22 00 Page 18 should address their corporate approach and methodology for acquiring, soliciting and using small businesses in the performance of this contract. All plans should address the Offeror's commitments to providing subcontracting opportunities, as well as evidence of planned and /or continued outreach efforts to encourage and use small businesses. This Participation Plan should include a breakdown of small business subcategories to be used as shown on the chart in (d) below.

The Participation Plan should demonstrate commitment to all federally designated categories of small business: Small Businesses (SBs), Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs), Service- Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) HUBZone Small Businesses (HUB), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSBs), and when applicable, Historically Black Colleges/Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MIs).

The plan should identify all categories for participation as part of the Offeror's team. This should include a general description of the type of work, product or service anticipated to be supplied via a small business concern.

The Offeror shall not exceed more than 10 pages for the submitted Small Business Participation Plan. A specific format is not required, however, items stated below (a) through (e) shall be provided as a minimum.

Small Business Participation Plan requirements:

(a) Provide a Narrative…