Amendment 0001.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

This amendment updates language in Division 00, Section 00 22 00, Para 8.4.1 for Factor 4. Revisions are included as red text.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Nov-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 W9128F20R0068

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Nov-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 1 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

20-Nov-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:

W9128F20R0068

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 00

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK

Construct a Fighter Alert Shelter at Truax Field Madison, WI: This project will be executed using a design-bid-build (DBB) project delivery method, which will require the contractor to provide the government with a complete facility and warranty based on the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Estimate of the magnitude of this project is between $10M and $25M.

This project will provide a new 28,000 SF Fighter Alert Shelter for four universal fighter aircraft to accommodate the mission of the facility. Special construction requirements: the shelter shall house four aircraft with automatic opening front and rear aircraft doors; heating, fire detection and ultra-high-pressure fire suppression system/closed head wet-pipe sprinkler fire suppression systems. Provide support for Intrusion Detection System (IDS) and installation of a backup emergency generator. Facilities will be designed as permanent construction in accordance with the DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200- 01, General Building Requirements and UFC 1-200-02, High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements. The facility shall be compatible with applicable DoD, Air Force, and base design standards. In addition, local materials and construction techniques shall be used where cost effective.

This project will comply with DoD antiterrorism/force protection requirements per unified facilities criteria.

All work shall be in accordance with RFP documents issued within this solicitation.

Competition for this contract will be full and open competition. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction), with a corresponding small business size standard of $39.5M.

OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED IN THE SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

WEBSITE (BETASAM.GOV) FOR NAICS CODE 236220 PRIOR TO THE DATE PROPOSALS ARE

DUE.

2. TECHNICAL RATINGS

The evaluation ratings for Technical Factors 1 and 2 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 Source Selection Team (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 1. The Combined technical/risk ratings will be used to evaluate Factor 1 Specialized Experience and Factor 2 Project Management Plan. The evaluation rating that will be used for Factor 3 Past Performance and Factor 4 Small Business Participation is described further below.

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

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

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

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

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

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

RATING DEFINITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

3. PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

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

a. Relevancy. The first aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how relevant previous experience accomplished by the Offeror is to the anticipated work to be accomplished under this project scope. Recent is defined as Past Performance on contracts that had a construction completion date (otherwise known as a beneficial occupancy date (BOD)) within the past seven (7) years of this solicitation release. Relevancy is defined as similarity of items stated within this solicitation such as: types of projects, dollar value, contract type, and relative complexity. With respect to relevancy, more relevant Past Performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance confidence assessment. Relevancy is not a separate proposal rating but is used to develop an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The four levels of relevancy ratings are:

Very Relevant. Present/Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant. Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant. Present/Past Performance effort involved some of the scope and

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

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

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

Substantial Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

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

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral). No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a) (2) (iv), “In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance.”

4. SMALL BUSINESS RATING METHOD

The small business evaluation for Factor 4 will utilize the following ratings as stated in the below table for this solicitation.

Table 2: Small Business Rating Method Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

5. PAST PERFORMANCE RECORDS

Past performance records may be obtainable by Offerors using one of the following methods:

(1) Accessing Past Performance information directly from Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) website at https://www.cpars.gov/ for CCASS completed before 27 June 2014 and for merged CPARS completed after 1 July 2014. CPARS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major federal performance reporting systems and can be accessed at the aforementioned website.

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.

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

(2) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) may be used to provide or supplement a firm’s past performance with other than U.S. Governmental clients. Contact your client point of contact (POC) for the project you need a past performance record, and request the POC to complete the PPQ. The PPQ included in this solicitation is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project the Offeror may need a past performance record for to meet the requirements in this synopsis. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client POC. Completed PPQs 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, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). It is the Offeror’s responsibility to follow-up with client POCs to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Melissa Harlon, Contract Specialist, via email at Melissa.r.harlon@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. If a PPQ is to be submitted for a project, the complete PPQ shall be submitted (either by the client POC or the Offeror) prior to proposal closing date.

6. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

Volume I Factors Descending Order of Importance

Factor 1 – Specialized Experience 1st Most Important Factor

Factor 2 – Project Management Plan 2nd Most Important Factor

Factor 3 – Past Performance 3rd Most Important Factor

Factor 4 – Small Business Participation 4th Most Important Factor

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

7. BASIS OF AWARD

The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described within the solicitation, and will award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the Government utilizing the best value tradeoff process as described in FAR 15.101-1.

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

8. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

8.1 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

8.1.1 Submission Requirements (The page limit for this factor is seven (7) pages – two (2) pages per project plus a one-page teaming narrative)

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EXAMPLES: The Offeror shall submit three (3) projects similar in project size to this project to be performed by the Prime Offeror. Offeror shall limit each project example to two (2) pages per project submitted. If more than two (2) pages are submitted per project, only the first two pages will be evaluated. In addition to the three (3) project examples, the Offeror should submit a one page summary to describe any past teaming experience between current team members as it relates to the three

(3) submitted project examples. The page limitation for Factor 1 shall be a maximum of seven (7) pages.

Any information presented beyond the page limit will not be evaluated. All project examples submitted shall have a completion date (or BOD) no greater than the past (7) years of this solicitation. Task order projects under an IDIQ MATOC or similar IDC types will not be evaluated.

Each project example submitted shall meet the following criteria:

1. Past project examples submitted for this factor shall have been awarded to the Offeror (either singly or one of the participants in a JV named on the SF1442 for this solicitation (W9128F20R0068)). The company shall have been the Prime Contractor for the past project, either singly or as a member of the Joint Venture to which it was awarded.

The table below provides example scenarios based on the requirements above:

Scenario Examples

Project Examples Qualify for Evaluation for Factor 1 (if all other requirements are met)

1 Past project was awarded to Company X only. Company X is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F20R0068 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F20R0068.

Yes

2 Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”). Past project was awarded to Company Y only. Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F20R0068and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F20R0068.

Yes

3 Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”). Past project was awarded to JV Company YZ. Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F20R0068 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F20R0068.

Yes

4 Past Project was awarded to Company “AY,” a JV composed of Company A (not Prime Offeror for RFP W9128F20R0068) and Company Y. Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”). JV Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F20R0068.

Yes

5 Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”).

Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F20R0068 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F20R0068. Company Y performed work on the past project, but was not the Prime Contractor for the past project (either singly or as a member of a JV).

No

6 Company X is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F20R0068 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F20R0068. Company X will use Company R as a teaming member/subcontractor but Company R is not part of a JV with Company X for W9128F20R0068. The past project was awarded to Company R as a Prime Contractor (singly or as a member of a JV), but not Company X (singly or as a member of a JV).

7 Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”).

Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F20R0068 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F20R0068. Company YZ will use Company R as a teaming member/subcontractor but Company R is not part of the JV. The past project was awarded to Company R as a Prime Contractor (singly or as a member of a JV), but not to Companies Y or Z (singly or as a member of a JV).

PROJECT INFORMATION: Additionally, each project example submitted should demonstrate experience on similar building projects of similar or greater value ($10M) and scope. Projects whose contract award was less than $5M shall not be considered for evaluation.

Similar Commercial or Military type buildings (relevant) can be the following: hangars, office warehouses, warehouses, large vehicle storage/loading areas. Project information per project example shall CLEARLY include:

Summaries for each project submitted to include 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;

Original contract award amount and final construction cost;

Location of project;

Original schedule contract completion date at award and actual completion date (Month/Year);

Identify if the project was a construction project or a design-build project;

Percentage (%) performed by the Prime Offeror; and Percentage (%) and type of work subcontracted.

Do not include extraneous information that is not requested.

The Offeror should demonstrate recent, relevant construction experience on similar building projects using Attachment 1, ‘Construction – Specialized Experience Form’. Offerors may identify other federal, state or local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements set forth in the 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.

8.1.2 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.

Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

At least one (1) project example that exceeds the scope contemplated for this project as described within this solicitation.

If 2 of the 3 projects submitted have been completed within the last 4 years.

Demonstrated experience with USACE, AFCEC or NAVFAC Military construction projects.

Team member qualifications and experience on LEED certification of Silver level or higher.

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

Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

Projects lacking similarity to the scope and value of this Fighter Alert Shelter project Omission or incompleteness of any requested information that is not otherwise a deficiency Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government identifies as a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiencies shall be given for each of the following criteria:

Proposals missing information as required under paragraph 8.1.1 (seven bullets) Submission of less than three (3) project examples requested Projects submitted whose construction award was less than $5M Projects submitted whose completion date is greater than 7 years of this solicitation release

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

8.2 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 2 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

8.2.1 Submission Requirements (The page limit for this factor is fourteen (14) pages excluding the organization chart)

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.

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

Organizational Approach. List and describe all subcontractors, their roles and responsibilities, how they will be utilized, 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. Identify the work (including %) which will be self-performed by the Prime Contractor. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its lead entity(ies) and key subcontractors. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team.

Include an Organizational Chart, including the proposed quality control group(s). Organizational chart will not be included in the page count referenced above. 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.

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

Include any considerations to the project which will increase efficiencies in the schedule (penalization, pre-engineered components, commissioning, efforts to minimize the impacts to the active taxiway), increased quality (batching of concrete), etc.

Summary Schedule. Provide a schedule on your plan to complete all work based on an arbitrary estimated, non-binding Notice to Proceed date of 1 April 2021. Provide a summary schedule or diagrams as a separate file when submitting Volume I Technical Proposals (reference Section 00 21 00 Instructions). 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. The duration 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.

8.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

Proposals that demonstrate a detailed and coherent plan and provides logical methodology to execute the entire scope of work. Joint Venture/Subcontractors participants’ contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

Proposals that offer methods to streamline construction and manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule to completion.

Proposals with schedules that demonstrate an understanding of processes inherent to USACE/NAVFAC/AFCEC airfield paving projects.

Proposals that illustrate an understanding of construction practices inherent to northern climates.

Self-performance of major construction tasks by the Prime Contractor Any other aspect of a proposal that the evaluators and/or the SSA believe enhances the merit of

A proposed schedule whose duration is greater than that stated in the subject solicitation (without discussion for exceeding duration)

A proposed schedule that unreasonably condenses contract duration well below the period of performance (without discussion) which as determined by the government may increases cost or create a risk of contract/performance failure

Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government identifies as a flaw that increases the risk of

A Project Management Plan that does not demonstrate the Prime Offeror as the lead entity for this project.

Omission of any one (1) of the (3) three elements (Organizational Approach; Technical Approach for Construction; Summary Schedule) as stated above for the Project Management Plan.

Any other material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of to an unacceptable level.

8.3 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

8.3.1 Submission Requirements (There is no page limitation for Past Performance Evaluations) Submit past performance evaluations and ratings for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Volume 1 - Factor 1 Specialized Experience. Reference Paragraph 4 above for obtaining a past performance record. No other past performance record shall be submitted other than those related to the three (3) projects submitted for Factor 1.

If available, submit the respective CPARS record for the project. 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 - Factor 1 Specialized Experience not covered in the CPARS database or other Government Design Performance Rating System, submit a PPQ. A PPQ form is attached to this solicitation for convenience.

A CPARS record or a complete PPQ shall be submitted prior to proposal closing date.

Government Utilization of Alternative Information Sources for Past Performance

The Government reserves the right to contact any persons who may be knowledgeable about the project or projects (this is not limited to contracts identified by the Offeror) submitted in an Offeror’s proposal. In addition, the Government may review and take into consideration other sources of information pertinent to the evaluation of the Offeror’s Past Performance, including both the previous experience projects and other similar projects performed by the Offeror. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, Past Performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE)/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, Joint Venture, teaming arrangement, or parent firm/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

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

8.3.2 Evaluation Criteria

The Government’s overall confidence level for this factor will be based on the Offeror’s Past Performance.

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

responsiveness to customer concerns.

CPARS/CCASS records will be given more weight than PPQs. The Government may, at its discretion, contact individuals other than those identified by the Offeror as references in order to verify the information contained therein. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror's performance history, but may attribute more importance to work that is similar to the scope contemplated for this project.

8.4 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT

(REQUIRED FOR ALL OFFERORS)

8.4.1 Submission Requirements (There is no page limitation for Small Business Participation Commitment Document)

This factor requires all Offerors, regardless of size status to address their planned small business usage for this project. All Offerors are required to provide a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). It should address their corporate approach and methodology for acquiring, soliciting and using small businesses in the performance of this contract. All documentation for this factor should address the Offeror's commitments to providing subcontracting opportunities, as well as evidence of planned and/or continued outreach efforts to encourage and use small businesses. This SBPCD should include a breakdown of small business subcategories to be used as shown on the chart in (d) below.

Separate from the Small Business Participation Plan (Factor 4) required by all offerors, a Subcontracting Plan will ONLY be required from the Apparent Successful Offeror if the firm is an Other Than Small Business (OTSB) - meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003. The Apparent Successful OTSB must submit an acceptable subcontracting plan to be eligible for award.

Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan. Please do not submit a Subcontracting Plan for Factor 4.

The SBPCD should demonstrate commitment to all federally designated categories of small business:

Small Businesses (SBs), Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) HUBZone Small Businesses (HUB), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSBs), and when applicable, Historically Black Colleges/Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MIs).

Offerors should propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime, joint venture, teaming arrangement, and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this area. The SBPCD should identify all categories for participation as part of the Offeror's team. This should include a general description of the type of work, product or service anticipated to be supplied via a small business concern.

A specific format is not required, however, items (a) through (f) as stated below shall be provided as a minimum.

(a) Provide a Narrative addressing the corporate approach and methodology for acquiring, soliciting and using small businesses in the performance of this contract. The Narrative should address the Offeror's commitment to providing subcontracting opportunities, as well as evidence of planned and /or continued outreach efforts to encourage and use small businesses. The Narrative should provide detailed supporting documentation regarding the individual commitment expressed in percentages for evaluators to determine the goals stated are realistic.

(b) Check the applicable size and categories for the PRIME Offeror for this procurement – Check all applicable boxes:

{___} Large Prime

- or - {___} Small Business Prime; also categorized as a:

{___} Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) {___} Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) {___} Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business {___} Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) {___} Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

(c) Submit the total percentages of work to be performed by both large and small businesses

(include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime, joint venture, teaming arrangement, and subcontractors). Percentages are based on Total Contract Value. For this project, the small business participation goal is 30% of the Total Contract Value performed by the Small Business Community.

Total Percentage planned for Large Business(es): = __________% Total Percentage planned for Small Business(es): = __________% (Small Business Prime Contractors – Include yourselves in the above percentage.)

For example: If you are a Small Business Prime Contractor and will be doing 40% of the work and you will be subcontracting another 20% of the Total Contract Value to other small business firms, then your Total Percentage planned for Small Business will equal 60%.

(d) Indicate the total percentage and dollar value of participation to be performed by each type of subcategory small business. The percentage of work performed by Small Businesses that qualify in multiple small business categories may be counted in each category:

For example: Firm A (WOSB and SDVOSB) performing 2%; and Firm B (SDB, HubZ and WOSB) performing 3%. Results equate to: SB 5%; SDB 3%; HubZone 3%; WOSB 5%;

SDVOSB 2%; VOSB 2%;). SDVOSBs are also VOSBs automatically; however, VOSBs are not automatically SDVOSBs.

Small Business _________% Small Disadvantaged Business _________% HUB Zone Small Business _________% Woman Owned Small Business _________% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned SB _________% Veteran-Owned Small Business _________%

(e) Identify the Prime Offeror and type of service/supply that the Prime Offeror will provide. Then list each of the intended subcontractors and principal supplies/services to be provided by that subcontractor. Provide the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code for the Prime and each intended subcontractor. Also, provide the anticipated NAICS codes(s) that the Prime Offeror believes best describes the product or services being acquired by its subcontracts with each intended subcontractor. Small business Primes and small business subcontractors that qualify as small businesses in multiple small business categories should be listed in each applicable small business category.

Firm Name CAGE Code NAICS code Type of Service Prime Offeror Large Business Small Business

SDB

WOSB

HUBZone

VOSB

SDVOSB

Note: Pursuant to Sections 8(d) of the Small Business Act, a business is considered small for Government procurements if it does not exceed the size standard for the NAICS code that the prime contractor believes best describes the product or services being acquired. In other words, the size of the prime’s suppliers is determined by the applicable NAICS code of their joint venture, teaming partner, or subcontract, which may or may not be the same NAICS code as the one for your prime contract with the Government.

(f) Describe the extent of commitment to use small businesses (e.g., what types of commitments, if any, are in place for this specific acquisition either – small business prime, written contract, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, joint venturing, mentor-protégé, etc.)

Provide documentation regarding commitments to small business for this effort. Copies of such agreements should be provided as part of your small business participation plan and will not count against the page limitation for this volume.

8.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Small Business Participation Commitment Document shall be consistent with the resultant Subcontracting Plan (if submitting a proposal as an Other-Than-Small-Business) and will be evaluated as follows:

Offerors that propose a realistic Total Small Business Participation percentage higher than 30%.

A proposal that indicates a realistic and thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives in respect to this project.

A SBPCD that provides clear detail of the services/supplies that small business firms are to perform.

Copies of agreements regarding commitments with all small business firms who are identified in the SBPCD.

Any other aspect of a proposal that the evaluators and/or the SSA believe enhances the merit of

A proposed Total Small Business Participation percentage less than the stated goal of 30%.

Information submitted for items (a) through (f) above that is general or ambiguous language.

Omission or incompleteness of any requested information that is not otherwise a deficiency Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government identifies as a flaw that increases the risk of

Omission of any item (a) through (f) above.

Any other material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of to an unacceptable level.

SECTION 00 22 00 - ATTACHMENT 1

COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE - CONSTRUCTION / PRIME CONTRACTOR

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last seven (7) years as stated in Section 00 22 00, indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope.

Use one form per project.

(a) Type of Facility and Construction Represented ___________________________________________

(b) Your Firm’s Name _________________________________________________________________

(c) Name of Project ___________________________________________________________________

(d) Location of Project _________________________________________________________________

(e) Owner/Customer __________________________________________________________________

(f) General Scope of Construction Project _________________________________________________

Your Role (Prime or Joint Venture) and % Work Your Company Self-Performed:

Construction Cost: Awarded_____________________ Completed_______________________________

Type of Work and Extent (%) You Subcontracted Out _________________________________________

Dates Construction: Began__________ Original Completion__________ Actual Completion __________

Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known ____________________________________________

Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages? _____________________________________

(If either is “Yes”, attach an Explanation)

Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company) __________________________________

Current Telephone Number & Email of Reference POC _______________________________________

ATTACHMENT 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (FORM PPQ-0)

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

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Company Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

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

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

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

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY

ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE CONTRACTOR. HOWEVER,

QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE

CONTRACTOR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO

VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner.

A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts

E VG S M U

N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E VG S M U

N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U

N

d)…