Am-0008_W9128F-20-R-0031.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. 0008 W9128F

COMPANY OPERATIONS FACILITIES, PN 77303, BUTTS ARMY AIRFIELD (FY20), FORT CARSON, COLORADO

See attached documentation for content of the amendment revisions to solicitation

Date for receipt of proposals is 9 APR 2020 at 1400 hours

Government Point of Contact: Bill Rawe, Contract Specialist, William.T.Rawe@usace.army.mil

U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA

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

See Item 6

W9128F-20-R-0031

03/19/2020

01/23/2020

03/19/2020

Am #0008 - 1

Am #0008 - 2 (Continuation SF 30)

19 March 2020 Solicitation No. W9128F 20 R 0031

Date of Issue: 23 January 2020 Date of Receiving Proposals: 9 APR 2020

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0008 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Construction of COMPANY OPERATIONS FACILITIES, PN 77303, BUTTS ARMY AIRFIELD

TO: Prospective Offerors and Others Concerned

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

a. Specifications. (Descriptive Changes.) NONE

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

Pages or Sections Deleted Pages or Sections Substituted or Added 00 22 00 00 22 00

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

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

4. Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m., local time at place of receiving proposals, 9 APR 2020.

Attachments:

Specifications listed in 1.b., above

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

19 MAR 2020

nep/2160

Section 00 22 00 W9128F-20-R-0031

Section 00 22 00 Page 1

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

AWARD

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL

4.1. TAB A – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

4.2. TAB B –FACTOR 2 – KEY PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE

4.3. TAB C- FACTOR 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.0 VOLUME 2 –FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. TAB A – FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.0 VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

6.1. GENERAL

6.2. TAB A – FACTOR 5 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET AND CONTRACT

LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

6.3. TAB B – EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

6.4. TAB C– REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

7.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.2. EVALUATION

7.3. DEFINITIONS

7.4. EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

7.5. PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM

ATTACHMENTS

1 - NOT USED

2 - NOT USED

3 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

4 - NOT USED

5 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE KEY SUBCONTRACTOR

6 - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

Section 00 22 00 Page 2

7 - KEY PERSONNEL RESUME

8 - LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY PERSONNEL

9 - LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY SUBCONTRACTOR

10 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

Section 00 22 00 Page 3

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. This is a “Best Value-Tradeoff” solicitation for the Construction of the Company Operations Facilities, Butts Army Airfield, Ft Carson, CO. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government.

1.2. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

[*Am-8] Offeror shall emal 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

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 20 MB per email message. An email with attachments totaling more than 20 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 (3) volumes listed below shall be submitted as “SEPARATE” single files. Offerors may break down each volume if they exceed the maximum email file size. Offerors are encouraged to send all three (3) files in the same email transmission, if possible.

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

Title the single files in the following format:

W9128F-20-R-0031_Company Name_Volume_I_Technical W9128F-20-R-0031_Company Name_Volume_II_Past_Performance W9128F-20-R-0031_Company Name_Volume_III_Price_and_Pro_Forma_Information (Note: Company name may be abbreviated)

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

1.3 PROPOSAL FORMAT

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

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

2.1. The Government will award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, all factors considered. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than 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. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001, and may not award a project that has a marginal rating in any factor.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Section 00 22 00 Page 4

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

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

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

3.4. Firms formally organized as construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Submit proposals as noted in paragraph 1.2 above. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, where indicated below.

Section 00 22 00 Page 5

PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

3.5. VOLUME 1 –TECHNICAL

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 Vol. 1 TAB A Specialized Experience Most important Factor. Factor 1 is approximately equal in importance to Factor 4.

FACTOR 2 Vol. 1 TAB B Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience

2nd most important factor. Factor 2 is slightly less in importance to Factor 1 and Factor 4 combined.

FACTOR 3 Vol. 1 TAB C Project Management Plan 3rd most important Factor. Factor 3 is slightly less in importance to Factor 2.

3.6. VOLUME 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 4 Vol. 2 TAB A Past Performance Most important Factor. Factor 4 is approximately equal in importance to Factor 1.

N/A Relevancy Used in determining rating for Factor 4

N/A Confidence Used in determining rating for Factor 4

3.7. VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 5 Vol. 3 TAB A Price (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

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

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

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

4.0 VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL

4.1. VOLUME 1 -TAB A – FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

4.1.1. Submission Requirements:

4.1.1.1. Construction Projects. The Offeror shall submit three (3) projects performed by the Prime Construction Entity. Limit one (1) page per project submitted, with one additional page allowed for describing past teaming experience between current team members, for a maximum of four (4) pages.

Any information presented beyond the page limit will not be evaluated.

4.1.1.2. Teaming Experience. The Offeror should describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described in the project list. The above information is limited to projects that are well underway (as defined in paragraph 4.1.1.3) or that have been completed and turned over no longer than the past ten (10) years preceding the issue date of this solicitation.

4.1.1.3. Project Information. All projects submitted should demonstrate experience on similar building and site improvement projects of similar or greater value and scope.

Similar Commercial or Military type buildings (relevant): Company or Squadron operations facilities, office warehouses, general offices and warehouses and large vehicle storage/loading areas. Project information shall CLEARLY include:

Section 00 22 00 Page 6

- Summaries for each project submitted

- LEED certification level/status

- Contract award amount and final construction cost

- Location

- Date when the project was started (Month/Year)

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

- All summaries shall contain the name, address, telephone and email of a representative of the owner (as well as one alternate individual not affiliated with your firm) familiar with your firm’s experience on the project that can verify the experience cited.

- Please do not include extraneous information that was not requested.

The Offeror should demonstrate recent, relevant construction experience on similar building projects using, Construction – Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 3). Offerors may identify other federal government, state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements set forth in the RFP. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Submit projects completed and turned over no longer than ten (10) years preceding the date of this Solicitation (recent). The government will also consider projects that are well underway (see paragraph 4.1.2.3). A project well underway is defined as the construction is greater than fifty percent complete as of the date of this Solicitation. If the Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Offerors may list government, private or commercial customers. If projects were design-build, so identify them.

4.1.2. Evaluation Criteria: The Government will evaluate the construction experience on projects submitted as to how well they demonstrate the offeror’s role on this project, utilizing the following criteria. The criteria are not listed in any particular order of importance.

4.1.2.1. Experience on similar projects that meet or exceed the scope of this project may be rated more favorably.

4.1.2.2. Federal Government project experience may be rated more favorably than non-Federal Government project experience. Projects that demonstrate experience on similar military projects may be rated more favorably than experience on other Federal or non-Federal projects. Demonstrated experience with USACE Military construction contracts may be rated more favorably.

4.1.2.3. The more recent the project the more favorable the rating may be. Projects submitted that are well underway may be considered less relevant and rated less favorably. Joint Venture partners should each demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project or explain in the supplemental narrative how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

4.1.2.4. The Government may consider previous teaming experience among the team members as a strength.

The more relevant the experience, the more favorably it may be rated.

4.1.2.5. Note: The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing DoD or Government appraisal systems, or through interviewing owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. A firm will not receive credit under this factor for the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project while employed at a different firm.

4.1.2.6. The Offeror should demonstrate qualifications and experience in sustainable design, based upon experience on projects that have achieved US Green Building Council’s LEED certification. A more favorable rating may be given if the offeror demonstrates qualifications and experience on LEED certification of Silver level or higher.

4.2. VOLUME 1 - TAB B – FACTOR 2 - KEY PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE

Section 00 22 00 Page 7

4.2.1. Submission Requirements:

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

Indicate whether project was performed with current employer or other. Include resumes for the following key personnel:

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

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

- General Superintendent (Prime Construction Contractor Employee)

4.2.1.1. The minimum requirement for the Project Manager is 5 years of experience as a Project Manager, managing projects similar to this solicitation, with multiple subcontractors and familiarity with scheduling.

The Project Manager shall be a registered professional engineer (P.E.), a Registered Architect (R.A.) or have a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering, Architecture, Construction Engineering, or Construction Management.

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

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

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

4.2.1.5. Each of the key personnel shall demonstrate experience on at least one project similar in scope and complexity to this solicitation, completed in the past ten (10) years, or well underway (as defined in Tab A).

4.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

4.2.2.1. The Government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar type work, and to manage, control, and to perform construction. The following evaluation criteria will be utilized; criteria are not listed in any particular order of importance.

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

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

4.2.2.4. Key personnel that demonstrate experience on multiple projects similar or greater in scope and complexity to this solicitation that exceed the required minimum experience may be rated more favorably.

4.2.2.5. Key personnel that demonstrate experience that exceeds the required minimum experience may be rated more favorably.

4.2.2.6. Previous Federal government project experience may be rated more favorably. Previous experience with USACE Construction contracts may be rated more favorably.

Section 00 22 00 Page 8

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

4.3. VOLUME 1 - TAB C –FACTOR 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

4.3.1. Submission Requirements:

4.3.1.1. Provide a narrative that describes the offeror’s Project Management approach to executing the contract pursuant to the following requirements. Clearly and concisely describe the organizational and technical approaches to project management and execution, proposed contract duration, and summary schedule.

Limit the narrative information to ten (10) pages or less.

[*Am-4]

4.3.1.2. Organization. List the construction entity (ies) and describe their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each entity’s roles and responsibilities on the project. A copy of the teaming or joint venture agreement(s) shall be appended to the plan (not included in the page limitation). Identify the firm(s) chosen for the project, if not to be self-performed. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its lead entity (ies) and key subcontractors (see attachment 9). Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing the how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include a simple organizational chart, including the proposed quality control group(s). Include key personnel in the organization chart. Clearly illustrate key positions, names of the personnel, their firm affiliations, job locations and their job/position title within the organization. The organizational chart shall be consistent with the matrix of responsibilities assigned to the team entities, and with the list of key personnel to be provided under Volume 1, Tab B, Factor 2, “KEY PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE”.

4.3.1.3. Technical Approach for Construction. Describe the technical approach to construction of the facility.

Include any considerations of fast-tracking, panelization, pre-engineered components, etc. The Government is looking for ways to streamline construction and manage labor and other resources in an effort to reduce costs and achieve an aggressive schedule while minimizing impact to the installation.

The Government is looking for ways to minimize impacts of the construction.

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

4.3.1.5. Summary Schedule: Submit a summary level schedule for construction. Provide schedules or diagrams separately in an appendix to the TAB (not included in the narrative page limitation) in a size that is easily read. Summary schedule shall be bound and clearly labeled as Tab B-Appendix. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule. The schedules shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his/her choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented.

The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration. Give attention to the following features:

(a) Show the overall construction phase for the facilities, the site work and the utilities. Include any long lead items and any fast-tracking starts. It isn’t necessary to show the detailed breakdown construction (e.g., by trades) of each facility, site work and utilities.

(b) Show schedule line items for environmental permits and notifications and utility connection permits.

(c) Show turnover of facility. Identify any proposed phased turnovers. The time to complete the facility and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

(d) Show as-built submissions (See section 01 78 39.00 24 AS-BUILT DRAWINGS).

(e) Constraints: Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather). Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

Section 00 22 00 Page 9

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

4.3.2.1. Organization. The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization and how well it is organized, structured and staffed to execute the entire scope of work. This factor will be rated as unacceptable if the Offeror has not selected a lead entity (ies). Joint venture participants’ contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

4.3.2.2. Technical Approach for Construction. Proposals that clearly and concisely demonstrate a thorough understanding of the constraints and impacts of the project construction may be rated more favorably.

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

4.3.2.3. Proposed Contract Duration: The Government will evaluate the performance period, as proposed by the Offeror in the Contract Line Item Schedule. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the Government may take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports the proposed duration. Evaluators will use their independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. The Government will rate the proposed duration matching the benchmark duration as “acceptable”. A proposed duration that is longer than the proposed benchmark duration will be viewed as less favorable than a duration that meets the benchmark. The Government will consider an unreasonably condensed contract duration as an additional cost or schedule risk on the Government or which may create a risk of contract or performance failure, depending upon the evaluators' judgment. Unless changed during negotiations, this duration will become the contractually binding performance period.

4.3.2.4. Summary Schedule: The Government will evaluate the summary schedule for integrated construction.

The length of the schedule must match the proposed performance duration. A Schedule unreasonably shorter than the proposed contract duration may indicate the Offeror is placing additional risk on the Government for any delays between the scheduled completion date and the required performance completion period, and may be rated less favorably. Offerors shall include field overhead costs in the contract price for the full proposed performance duration and these prices must be a reflection of the proposed schedule. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g., permitting (see Section 01 32 01.00 10 Project Schedule), long lead items, availability of labor and materials, etc. A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction will be rated more favorably.

5.0 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 4 - PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. VOLUME 2 – TAB A – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1.1. Submission Requirements:

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

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

5.1.1.1. CPARS Evaluations

Firms are requested to retrieve their CPARS past performance information directly from CPARS available at: http://www.cpars.gov. CPARS is an electronic repository of performance information

Section 00 22 00 Page 10 collected by all the major federal performance reporting systems. Logging onto CPARS will require the following:

All Department of Defense (DoD) employees (military and civilian), including DoD Contractors that are working on site (military/government facilities) or contractors working offsite using Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) are required to use certificates from DoD Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) to access CPARS. If the contractor doesn't work on site or with GFE they are encouraged to obtain and use a certificate from an External Certificate Authority (ECA). For DoD users, the use of PKI Login is Mandatory. Federal and Contractor users can use the PKI login category if they have PKI.

External Certificate Authority External Certificate Authorities (ECAs) and Interim External Certificate Authorities (IECAs) provide digital certificates to the DoD's private industry partners, contractors using their own equipment or working in non-government facilities, allied partners, and other agencies.

Additional information about the PKI certificate is at https://www.cpars.gov/pki_info.htm web page.

5.1.1.2. You will also need your DUNS number and Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) to log onto CPARS. The MPIN number was selected by whoever registered your firm in the System for Award Management (SAM) Registry at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. If you do not know your MPIN number, you will need to contact the SAM help desk by emailing them from the email link on the https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ web page. Please be aware that they will only release the MPIN number to the person who originally registered your firm. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

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

Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 6), which will provide contract and client Information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, via email at William.T.Rawe@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 the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

5.1.1.3. Government Utilization of Alternate Information Sources for Past Performance

The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under the Specialized Experience Factor and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal or to review personal knowledge. In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance of the Offeror on the submitted projects and any other previous work. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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

5.1.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.1.2.1. The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the team's recent (well under way or turned over no longer than 10 years preceding the date of this solicitation), relevant

Section 00 22 00 Page 11 experience. See explanation of “well underway” and relevancy under the Factor “Specialized Experience”. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described in paragraph 7.5.

Relevancy: The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope of this contract for overall application to the performance confidence assessment ratings described hereinafter. The projects will include those submitted under the Specialized Experience Factor as well as from other sources described above. This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing an overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance relevancy ratings are described in Paragraph 7.5.3.

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

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

This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing an overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance confidence ratings are described below in Paragraph 7.5.

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

6.0 VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

6.1. GENERAL

Submit the Pro Forma information as a separate file in accordance with Paragraph 1.2.

6.2. VOLUME 3 - TAB A - FACTOR 5 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET AND

CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

6.2.1. Submission Requirements:

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 12

6.2.1.2. Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate cost/price elements of the price proposals, the Government will request a price breakdown of the Contract Line Items labelled “Price Breakdown Information”, in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

6.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

The Government is likely to not make award if the construction cost range set for this project is exceeded. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above. All evaluation factors when combined, other than cost or price, are significantly more important than cost or price.

6.3. VOLUME 3 - TAB B – EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

6.3.1. Submission Requirements:

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

6.3.2. Evaluation Requirements:

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

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

6.4.1. Submission Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 13

6.4.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

7.0 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

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

7.2. EVALUATION

7.2.1. If at any level of evaluation, an offeror’s proposal is evaluated as not meeting a minimum requirement, that is, below the level of “Yellow - Marginal”, this fact must be included in the rating and narrative assessment at that level and each higher level of indentation. Therefore, a “Red -Unacceptable” rating at any level must be carried to the factor level, as defined in the RFP, a rating of “Red – Unacceptable” means that a proposal is unawardable.

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

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

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

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

7.2.6. Upon conclusion of discussions, those offerors still considered the most highly rated will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

7.3. DEFINITIONS

7.3.1. Deficiency

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

7.3.2. Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

7.3.3. Strength

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 14

7.3.4. Clarifications

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.

7.3.5. Communications

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

7.3.6. Discussions

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition and take place after establishment of the competitive range. Discussions are tailored to each offeror’s proposal, and shall be conducted by the Contracting Officer with each offeror within the competitive range.

7.3.7. Evaluation Notice (EN)

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO's written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

7.4. EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

7.4.1. General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each technical evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements.

7.4.2. Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

7.4.3. Rating System: The application of a scale of colors or words used in conjunction with the narrative to denote the degree to which the proposal has met the standard for a non-cost factor. After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Blue - Outstanding”, “Purple - Good”, “Green - Acceptable”, “Yellow - Marginal”, or “Red - Unacceptable” to each factor (except those factors rated as “Acceptable/Unacceptable” and the Past Performance factor), which reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

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

7.4.3.2. 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.

7.4.3.3. 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.

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

7.4.3.5. 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.

7.5. PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM

Section 00 22 00 Page 15

7.5.1. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings assess the offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the offeror's demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts.

7.5.2. Performance Confidence Assessment (Overall) Rating System:

7.5.2.1. 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.

7.5.2.2. 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.

7.5.2.3. 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.

7.5.2.4. No Confidence: Based on the…