Am 0001 - W9128F20R0006.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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.

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. The purpose of this amendment is to revise Section 00 22 10 of the solicitation.

2. Date for receipt of proposals remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Mar-2020

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W9128F20R0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Mar-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer 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 0 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, 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)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

NO.

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

13-Mar-2020

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DIST

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVENUE

OMAHA NE 68102-4901

W9128F 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9128F20R0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

00 22 10

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of this request for proposal (RFP) contains Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) as defined in Paragraph 16 below which includes all work required for design-build (D-B)/design-bid-build (D-B-B) projects for existing military and civil stakeholders located within Omaha District’s Area of Responsibility (AOR). Majority of projects are anticipated to be military FSRM design-build projects within Colorado and Wyoming, however, project locations may exist at various military and civil locations within the Omaha District’s AOR which includes Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. The work shall be in accordance with RFP documents issued within this solicitation. The competition of this contract will be limited to Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns. The primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction).

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

The purpose of this Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) is to perform work for D-B/D-B-B projects for a broad range of FSRM projects for civil and military stakeholders located within Omaha District’s AOR. The preponderance of the work for this solicitation is projected to be in Colorado and Wyoming. The MATOC will be awarded with a 3 year base period and one 2-year option period. The total value of all task orders awarded under this MATOC will not exceed $76,000,000. As requirements develop, RFPs for projects will be issued under individual Task Orders.

Task Orders will include work as defined by Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization. Task Orders will be negotiated to obtain a fair and reasonable price. Individual Task Orders contemplated under this solicitation may range from $150,000 to $10,000,000. Past history of similar acquisitions indicate that the majority of task orders issued were in the range of $2,000,000 to $6,000,000.

TYPES OF PROJECTS

Work anticipated under this MATOC includes, but is not limited to, design-build/design-bid-build, installation, upgrades, and/or repairs of VA or DOC facilities and additional stakeholder facilities, to include: mechanical systems, electrical systems to include Essential Electrical Systems (EES) and telecommunications/IT/Low Voltage (including environmental monitoring and building automation systems - EMS/BAS), sewer systems, plumbing systems, and medical gas systems (categories 1-4); minor construction of new buildings/structures, existing buildings/structures, fire protection systems, roadways, parking areas, pedestrian walkways, boat/access ramps, minor site grading, landscape plantings, exterior irrigation systems, retaining walls, and bank stabilization. It is the Government's intent to procure a tool that has medical and laboratory specific support, using their unique requirements to develop a tool that will create efficiencies in the procurement process.

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

Contractors should anticipate projects unique to hospitals, medical facilities, and testing laboratories. Contractors may be required to meet specific codes, standards, and regulations not typically prescribed for other types of facilities. Work may also consist of a wide range of FSRM D-B/D-B-B projects for existing civil and military stakeholders within Omaha District’s AOR.

THE OFFEROR SHALL BE REGISTERED FOR NAICS CODE 236220 AT A MINIMUM BY THE DATE

PHASE 1 PROPOSALS ARE DUE.

The industry for NAICS code 236220 is comprised of construction (including new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs) of commercial and institutional buildings and related structures. This NAICS code will typically be used for FSRM requirements on military installations and some civil facilities such as the Veterans Administration (VA).

Types of projects that may be performed under this contract include design-build/design-bid-build, installation, upgrades, and/or repairs of:

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

SELECTION PROCEDURE OVERVIEW

In Phase 1 of the two phase selection procedure, Offerors submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute task orders under a contract resulting from this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the qualifications submitted in Phase 1 of 2 Selection Procedures and will invite a maximum of seven (7) of the most highly qualified Offerors to compete in Phase 2 for award of the MATOC.

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

PRICING SUBMISSION.

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

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

PHASE 1 PROPOSAL FACTORS IN PHASE 2

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

GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, proposals will be submitted electronically via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website, https://wawf.eb.mil/piee-landing/. Tutorial information is available on the website and is included in Section J of this solicitation. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) applied to all documents that will enable word searches to be conducted using Adobe-compatible PDF software. Offerors may use compression utilities such as 7-Zip, WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission when using PIEE. Offerors are encouraged to send all files in the same PIEE transmission when possible.

Title the single file in the following format:

W9128F20R0006_Company Name_Volume1_Technical_Proposal

*Note: Company Name may be abbreviated

Since PIEE has not been used in the Omaha District previously and use on this solicitation is a pilot project, the Offerors are also required to submit one (1) copy via email at the addresses listed below.

For the purposes of determining whether the proposal is received on time in accordance with FAR 15.208, the proposal must be received on or before the date and dated specified in Block 9 of the SF33.

The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the proposal reaches the designated recipient and must allow sufficient time for the proposal to be received on time.

The following Contracting personnel are the Points of Contact and recipients for this Request for Proposal:

1. Ms. Ericka Collins, ericka.t.collins@usace.army.mil and

2. Mr. Tyler Hegge tyler.hegge@usace.army.mil

PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

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

Phase 1

Phase 1, Volume I, Technical Proposal:

Table of Contents FACTOR 1 Construction Experience FACTOR 2 Past Performance FACTOR 3 Management/Technical Approach

Phase 1, Volume II, Required Documentation:

Cover Letter Table of Contents Completed SF 1442 Bond Letter Contractor Team Arrangement Requirements Completed SF 30 (if applicable)

TABLE 1: Phase 1 Evaluation Factors

Volume Eval Factor Tab –Title Page Limitations

I Factor 1 Construction Experience 8

I Factor 2 Past Performance No Page Limitations for Past

Performance

I Factor 3 Management/Technical Approach 9

2. Proposal Characteristics

a) Each Volume shall contain a table of contents and all pages of each factor shall be sequentially numbered. All text must be legible and easily read. The page size of the Offeror’s proposal shall not exceed 8-1/2 by 11 inches. Diagrams, charts and tables shall conform to the paper size. All text shall be typed single-spaced. Margins (1-inch) shall be clean and clear. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror.

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

PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURE.

b) Offeror shall submit a cover letter containing:

i. Solicitation number

ii. Name, title, address, email, and telephone number of the offeror.

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

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

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

c) Offerors shall submit a completed SF1442 with their proposal.

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

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

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

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

Evaluation Factor 4: Qualifications of Construction Office and Personnel Evaluation Factor 5: Price

INQUIRIES/QUESTIONS

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

***Please Note: Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions shall be rejected.

CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGMENT OTHER THAN JOINT VENTURE

PHASE 1 Requirements:

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

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

b. Indicate to what extent the members of this team arrangement have worked together in the past, including identifications of magnitude and complexity of projects worked on.

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

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

and

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

JOINT VENTURE TEAM ARRANGMENT

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

PHASE 1 Requirements:

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

b. A copy of the Joint Venture agreement.

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

d. Indicate to what extent the members of the joint venture have worked together in the past, including identifications of magnitude and complexity of projects worked on.

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

“The parties hereto expressly understand and agree as follows:

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

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

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

f. Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual Joint Venture parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the Joint Venture.

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

PHASE 2 Requirements:

Joint Ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities during Phase 2:

a. For 8(a) Joint Venture agreements, a certified copy of the Joint Venture agreement. This agreement must be certified by SBA before award of any resulting contract.

b. A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate, shall be submitted during Phase 2 of the two phase selection procedures.

1. The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

2. The structure of the joint venture and decision-making responsibilities of the Joint Venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

3. Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the Joint Venture to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the Joint Venture.

4. Joint Ventures shall also state who will have custody and control of the assets of the Joint Venture and perform the duties necessary to complete the work. Identification of party maintaining the Joint Venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the Joint Venture.

5. Identification of party having overall control of the Joint Venture.

INTEGRITY AND VALIDITY OF CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

BASIS FOR AWARD

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

The Phase 1 selection will be based on evaluation of technical factors and past performance. There are three non-price factors in Phase 1: Factor 1 – Construction Experience, Factor 2 – Past Performance, and Factor 3 – Management Approach. Price will not be considered during Phase 1. Only those Offerors who submitted the most highly rated proposals in Phase 1 will be invited to submit a proposal for Phase 2, and they will be the only Offerors eligible to compete in Phase 2.

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

Subject to availability of funds, a seed or sample project may be used to meet price competition requirements for this SDVOSB Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) in Phase 2.

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Construction Experience Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Management Approach Factor 4: Qualifications of Construction Office and Personnel (Phase 2 Only) Factor 5: Price (Phase 2 Only)

Proposals will be evaluated using the Best Value-Tradeoff process as identified in FAR 15.101-1. All Evaluation Factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

All offers received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.3, DoD Source Selection procedures, and Army Source Selection Supplement. The principal objective of this process is to select a responsible Offeror who submits the offer that is the Best Value to the Government. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all technically acceptable, responsible proposals received in response to this particular solicitation.

Source Selection Team

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

Source Selection Procedure

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

The proposal must show clearly that the Offeror has an understanding of the work tasks required and has the capability and responsibility to accomplish the work. Proposals that do not generally conform to the RFP requirements may be considered to have a “deficiency”.

The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the SSA, who will select the most highly qualified Offerors.

The SSA will determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications or communications.

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

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

TECHNICAL RATING

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

Qualifications of Construction Office & Personnel. The evaluation rating that will be used for Technical Factor 2 Past Performance is described in Paragraph 12 below.

Table 2:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

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

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

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

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

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. Contractor Performance. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The SSEB will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

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

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.

RATING DEFINITIONS

Deficiency: is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See

FAR 15.001.

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

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

Strength: 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.

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

PPIRS, CPARS, AND CCASS RECORDS

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

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

You will also need your DUNS number and Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) to log onto PPIRS.

The MPIN number was selected by whoever registered your firm in the System for Award Management (SAM) Registry at https://www.sam.gov. If you do not know your MPIN number, you will need to contact the SAM help desk by emailing them from the email link on the SAM web page. Please be aware that they will only release the MPIN number to the person who originally registered your firm. Additional instructions on locating your MPIN is located in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section under the Help tab.

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

(3) Apply for Contractor access on PPIRS web page at http://www.ppirs.gov by selecting “PPIRS-Report Card Application Logon” under Products/Services then select “Accept/Login with Password” below the disclaimer. At the login page, select User Type as “Contractor” and click “Request New Account”. Fill out your information and submit your application. Following receipt of your application request, you will be emailed a login and access instructions. This type of access will only let you see merged CPARS/ CCASS information for all government projects evaluated after 1 July 2014 or CCASS information for projects evaluated before 1 July 2014, so it is not as complete as PPIRS access which allows access to evaluations prepared by non-DOD federal agencies, as well as the DOD agencies which use CCASS.

DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Preaward Debriefing of Offerors, and FAR

15.506 Postaward Debriefing of Offerors.

DEFINITIONS

Civil: For this solicitation, civil is defined as a non-military government agency that supports the general public. Civil agencies or stakeholders may include VA, NIST, USACE Civil Works Projects, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, National Parks Service, etc.

Construction: means construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, structures, or other real property. For purposes of this definition, the terms “buildings, structures, or other real property” include, but are not limited to, improvements of all types, such as bridges, dams, plants, highways, parkways, streets, subways, tunnels, sewers, mains, power lines, cemeteries, pumping stations, railways, airport facilities, terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways, lighthouses, buoys, jetties, breakwaters, levees, canals, and channels.

Construction does not include the manufacture, production, furnishing, construction, alteration, repair, processing, or assembling of vessels, aircraft, or other kinds of personal property (except that for use in FAR Subpart 22.5, see definition at 22.502).

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

Corporate Construction Project Manager (CCPM): for this solicitation, the CCPM is the Project Manager at the corporate level with a higher level of education and/or experience. The CCPM is the primary point of contact for the contract and is responsible for all contract activities to include administration, construction management, quality control, etc. The CCPM is the liaison between the task order level project superintendent and personnel, corporate level contract personnel, and Government personnel.

Corporate Safety and Health Officer (SHO): for this solicitation, the Corporate SHO is the individual who establishes and approves the Contractor’s safety program and the Accident Prevention Plan which are then submitted for government acceptance. In addition to the OSHA 30-hour course, the Corporate SHO is either a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) or Certified Safety Professional (CSP).

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

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

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

Institutional: relating to an established organization or agency

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

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

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

Restoration: the restoration of real property to such a condition that it may be used for its designated purpose.

Restoration includes repair or replacement work to restore facilities damaged by inadequate sustainment, excessive age, natural disaster, fire, accident, or other causes.

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

Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO): for this solicitation, the SSHO implements and administers the Contractor’s safety program and government-accepted Accident Prevention Plan and must be at the work site at all times.

Structure: an item that is constructed. This may include but is not limited to bridges, dams, plants, highways, parkways, streets, subways, tunnels, sewers, mains, power lines, cemeteries, pumping stations, railways, airport facilities, terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways, lighthouses, buoys, jetties, breakwaters, levees, canals, and channels.

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

TECHNICAL FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

VOLUME 1, TAB 1 – FACTOR 1 – CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements

In this tab, the Offeror shall submit four (4) total projects. One (1) of the four (4) projects shall be a design-build project example (Am 0001). The Offeror shall have actively participated in the design and construction aspects in each design-build project example submitted. Project examples should illustrate the types of projects described in Paragraph

1.2 above in support of Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization of military and civil structures.

Project examples submitted should be similar in size, scope, and complexity as it relates to this solicitation. Only those project examples for which the Offeror was the prime contractor or joint venture participant at the time of project execution shall be submitted. Projects for which the Offeror was a subcontractor or a teaming member of a subcontractor at the time of project execution are not acceptable. Each project example should consist of no more than a two (2) page narrative and should clearly demonstrate the design-build capabilities of the Offeror.

NOTE: If more than four (4) project examples are submitted, only the first four (4) contained in the proposal will be evaluated. If more than a two (2) page narrative per project example is submitted, only the first two pages will be evaluated.

Each project example cited shall have a contract (stand-alone contract or single task order) dollar value at award that is $500,000 or greater and a Building Occupancy Date (BOD) or date when construction was complete and system was operational that is within six (6) years of the date that Phase 1 proposals are due. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts, where numerous Task Orders are summed to meet the minimum contract dollar value identified herein, are not acceptable.

The narrative should include the items below in the following order:

1. project title

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

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

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

5. construction completion date (BOD or construction complete and system was operational date)

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

7. project description

8. briefly explain the relevance of the project example compared to the types of projects stated within this solicitation

NOTE: "Offeror" and "prime contractor" as used in this solicitation shall mean ONLY the named entity entered on SF1442 of Section 00 10 00 of the proposal submission. In the event the Offeror is a Joint Venture (reference Paragraph 7 “Joint Venture” above), project examples submitted for this evaluation factor shall be those completed by the Joint Venture Offeror or any party of the Joint Venture at the time of project execution. In the event the Offeror or prime contractor intends to have contractor team arrangement(s), whereby a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractor(s) under this Government contract or where two or more committed companies form a partnership other than a certified Joint Venture, projects submitted for this evaluation factor shall be limited to projects completed by the Offeror/prime contractor entity ONLY. The Government will not accept for evaluation project examples completed as a subcontractor.

Evaluation Criteria

The Government intends to evaluate the four projects submitted by each Offeror to determine each Offeror's construction experience. Under this evaluation factor, the Government intends to evaluate the projects submitted with each Offeror’s proposal to assess the breadth, depth and relevance of each Offeror’s proposed experience with performing the FSRM requirements called for in this RFP and as described in Paragraph 1.2. An Offeror that submits projects that demonstrate the breadth, depth and relevance of its experience with performing the work called for under this RFP will be rated more favorably than Offerors that submit proposals that do not demonstrate the breadth, depth or relevance of an Offeror’s experience with performing the work called for in this RFP. Each Offeror’s proposal will be thoroughly evaluated against this evaluation criteria and, using the definitions noted above, the Government intends to identify specific features in each proposal that it considers “strengths,” “weaknesses,” and “deficiencies” before assigning an overall adjectival rating consistent with the definitions as set forth in Paragraph 11.

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

Strengths or Significant Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

Design-Build project experience above the minimum requirement of one (1) design-build project (Am

0001).

Diversity of experience across the four project examples submitted that demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to perform both Military and Civil projects capability.

Each project example that exhibits the Offeror’s capability to perform complex facilities sustainment, restoration or modernization activities. A complex project may include a combination of any of the following:

o a project example that consists of five (5) or more disciplines/trades;

o a project that consists of new minor construction or restoring or modernizing two or more large structures;

o provides demolition, environmental remediation (asbestos/lead removal and/or abatement) and disposal services within a project.

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

Weaknesses or Significant Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

Experience which does not fully demonstrate the Contractor’s capabilities to perform the diversity of types of projects (e.g. submitting all four (4) projects as roadway repair only or submitting two (2) examples of roadway repair and two (2) examples of utility upgrades).

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

Any other aspect of a proposal that the evaluators and/or the SSA believe is a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiencies will be given for each of the following criteria:

Submitting fewer than four (4) project examples.

Submitting no design-build project examples.

Any design-build project example submitted in which the Offeror did not actively participate in the design and construction aspects. (Am 0001) Any project example submitted for which the Offeror was not the Prime Contractor or Joint Venture participant at the time of project execution.

Any project example that is still under construction or falls outside the six (6) year BOD or construction complete and system was operational date.

Any project example submitted that has a contract (stand-alone contract or single task order) dollar value at award under $500,000.

Any project example submitted that has numerous Task Orders summed to meet the minimum contract dollar value identified herein.

Any other material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level

VOLUME 1, FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements

The Offeror should submit at a minimum the past performance ratings for each project the Offeror included in Tab 1

– Factor 1 – Construction Experience.

To obtain a formal past performance evaluation that has been completed via PPIRS, CPARS, or CCASS see paragraph 14. PPIRS, CPARS, and CCASS Records above.

Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

If a formal past performance evaluation has not been completed via PPIRS, CPARS, or CCASS, the Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0, Paragraph 18, Attachment 1) is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client. The PPQ should be completed by an owner or owner’s representative not affiliated with your firm. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed PPQs shall be submitted with your proposal or to the designated personnel listed below prior to the Phase 1 proposal due date. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the designated Government's point of contacts, via email at ericka.t.collins@usace.army.mil and tyler.hegge@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.

However, this does not preclude…