Am_0004.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.0004 W9128F

LO HANGAR (FY21), FXBM1081508

ELLSWORTH AFB, SOUTH DAKOTA

See attached documentation for content of the amendment revisions to solicitation.

Date for receipt of proposals is 7 JUN 2021 at 1400 hours

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

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT

CONTRACTING OFFICE

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

See Item 6

W9128F-21-R-0024

05/14/2021

03/24/2021

05/14/2021

Am #0004 - 2 (Continuation of SF 30)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Omaha District, Corps of Engineers

1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901

:NOTICE: Failure to acknowledge : Solicitation No. W9128F-21-R-0024 :all amendments may cause rejec-:

:tion of the bid. See FAR : Date of Issue: 24 MAR 2021 :52.214-3 of Section 00 21 00. : Date of Receiving Proposals:

07 JUNE 2021

Amendment No. 0004

14 MAY 2021

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0004 to Specifications and/or Drawings for Construction of LOW OBSERVABLE RESTORATION FACILITY (LO HANGAR) AT ELLSWORTH

AFB, SD

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 (New and/or Revised and Reissued). Delete and substitute or add specification pages as noted below. The substituted pages are revised and reissued with this amendment. Sections marked with asterisks below have had revisions tracked for convenience.

Pages Deleted Pages Substituted or Added

00 22 00 00 22 00*

SD20210027 SD20210027

02 41 00 02 41 00* 03 30 00 03 30 00*

31 00 00 31 00 00*

b. Drawings (Reissued). The following Volume 1 drawings are revised, with revision dates indicated in their title blocks, and reissued with this amendment:

(1) Sheet EL91C001, CIVIL LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS;

(2) Sheet EL91B110, B-110 SOIL CLASSIFICATION PLAN;

(3) Sheet EL91CS502, SITE DETAILS 2;

(4) Sheet EL91CS504, SITE DETAILS 4;

(5) Sheet EL91CP501, PAVEMENT DETAILS 1; AND

(6) Sheet EL91CU506, UTILITY DETAILS 6.

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

Am #0004 - 3 (Continuation of SF 30)

3. Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m., CST, on 07 JUN 2021, in accordance with Section 00 22 00.

Attachments:

Specifications listed in 1.a., above Drawings listed in 1.b., above (under separate cover) COVID Travel Risk Matrix (under separate cover)

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

14 MAY 2021

jlb/2099

SECTION 00 22 00

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK

Construct a Low Observable Restoration Facility at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota: 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 the base scope of this project is between $70M and $100M.

This project will provide a new Low Observable Restoration Facility (LO Hangar) with two segregated aircraft positions and all associated back shop, unique climatically controlled material storage with uninterrupted power supply system, administrative and facility support spaces. 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 should 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.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.215-1. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint. Offerors shall organize their proposals as described herein. Proposals may be determined non-compliant for failure to follow this format and may be rejected from further consideration.

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.

THE OFFEROR SHOULD BE REGISTERED IN SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

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

DUE.

2. TECHNICAL RATINGS

The acquisition approach for this project will be a Bifurcated Best Value RFP following FAR Part

15. It provides the advantages of a traditional Best Value Trade-off procurement method but advertises at 95% design while the remaining design is being developed. The Bifurcated Best Value process means that a portion of technical proposals will be due first. At that time, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will convene and begin to independently evaluate each proposal against the factors in the solicitation. Approximately within a month after submission of Volume I proposals, the amendment for 100% complete design will be issued and offerors will have approximately 30 days to submit their price proposals (Volume II) proposals to include Factor 5 and Price. Upon receipt of Volume II, the SSEB will reconvene to evaluate the remaining evaluation factors. Price Analysis, Source Selection Advisory Council review and the

Am_0004

Source Selection Authority review of the Best Value Trade-off will commence after Volume II submission.

The evaluation ratings for Technical Factors 1, 2, and 4 will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the particular strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The 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, Factor 2 Project Management Plan, and Factor 4 Key Personnel. The evaluation rating that will be used for Factor 3 Past Performance and Factor 5 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: is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance

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

Significant Weakness: is a flaw in the proposal 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 building occupancy date (BOD)) within the past ten (10) 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

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

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 5 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, Bill Rawe, Contract Specialist, 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; this does not preclude an Offeror submitting a previously completed PPQ as long as the full PPQ is submitted and completed in its entirety. This also 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:

Location Volume I Factors Descending Order of Importance

TAB A SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments Not Rated

TAB B Representations & Certifications Not Rated

TAB C

JV Agreement or Teaming Agreement (if applicable) and/or Corporate, Partnership, Joint Venture Certificate

Not Rated

TAB D Factor 1 – Specialized Experience 1st Most Important Factor

TAB E Factor 2 – Project Management Plan 2nd Most Important Factor

TAB F Factor 3 – Past Performance 3rd Most Important Factor

TAB G Factor 4 – Key Personnel 4th Most Important Factor

Location Volume II Factors Descending Order of Importance

TAB A SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments Not Rated

TAB B Factor 5 – Small Business Participation 5th Most Important Factor

TAB C Factor 6 – Section 00 10 00, Pricing Schedule

6th Most Important Factor (significantly less important than Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 combined

TAB D Small Business Subcontracting Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable

TAB E

Any new JV Agreement or Teaming Agreement (if applicable) and/or Corporate, Partnership, Joint Venture Certificate

Not Rated

All non-price Factors/Subfactors combined are significantly more important the cost/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 bifurcated 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. VOLUME I

Following the proposal cover sheet, Volume I shall be organized and submitted in the following tabbed sections:

8.1. TAB A. Standard Form (SF1442), Solicitations, Offer, and Acknowledgement of Amendments. The SF1442 shall be completed by the offeror and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with instructions at FAR

4.102. Include with the offeror’s name and address in BLOCK 14 of the SF1442, your company’s DUNS, CAGE, and Tax Identification numbers. Offerors shall acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in Block 19. If the offeror fails to acknowledge all amendments, the proposal (Volumes I and II) will be considered as non-compliant and shall not be evaluated further.

8.2. TAB B. Certifications/Representations and other Statements of Offerors. This TAB shall contain Section 00 45 00, Certifications/Representations which are provided in this solicitation, including the Representation & Certifications cover page. Fill in all applicable areas. Offerors shall include in this TAB their completed electronic Representation and Certifications from the SAM.gov website. Since FAR Clause 52.204-7 System for Award Management is applicable to this solicitation, the offeror in accordance with FAR 52.204-8 (d) is required to complete the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM website accessed through https://www.sam.gov. After review the SAM database information, the offeror verified by submission of the offer that the representations and certifications currently posted electronically that apply to this solicitation as indicated in paragraph ( C ) of this provision have been entered or updated within the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), as of the date of this offer and are incorporated in this offer by reference (see FAR 4.1201); except for the changes identified by the offeror under this provision.

8.3. TAB C. Joint Venture (JV) Agreement and/or Corporate, Partnership, Joint Venture Certificate. If applicable, the offerors shall provide a copy of the firm’s JV Agreement. The offer shall provide a completed copy of the Corporate, Partnership, Joint Venture Certificate provided in the RFP.

8.4 TAB D. VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

8.4.1 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 should submit three (3) projects similar in project size, scope, and complexity to this project to be performed by the Prime Offeror. Offeror should 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 may 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 should have a completion date (or BOD) no greater than the past ten (10) years from the advertisement of this solicitation. Projects should be substantially complete, meaning more than 90% invoiced and paid.

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 (W9128F21R0024)). 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 W9128F21R0024 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0024.

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 W9128F-18-R-0015 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0024.

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 W9128F21R0024 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0024.

Yes

4 Past Project was awarded to Company “AY,” a JV composed of Company A (not Prime Offeror for RFP W9128F21R0024) 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 W9128F21R0024.

Yes

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

Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F21R0024 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0024. 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 W9128F21R0024 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0024. Company X will use Company R as a teaming member/subcontractor but Company R is not part of a JV with Company X for W9128F21R0024. 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 W9128F21R0024 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0024. 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 and site improvement projects of similar or greater value ($70M- 100M) and scope. Projects whose contract award was less than $30M shall not be considered for evaluation. At least one project submitted shall demonstrate experience constructing an aircraft hangar or vehicle maintenance facility with at least one single service/maintenance bay of at least 25,000 square feet AND with a total facility area of at least 50,000 square feet.

Project information per project example should 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 contract completion date 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 out.

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’. 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.

8.4.2 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.

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

Projects that include constructed airfield paving in compliance with Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-260-02 and associated Unified Federal Guide Specifications (UFGSs) contained within this contract.

Projects constructed in compliance with ICD/ICS 705 and the ICD/ICS 705 tech spec.

Projects that are corrosion control hangars or aircraft paint booths.

Hangar projects constructed in compliance with UFC 4-211-01 and/or UFC 4-211-02.

Projects constructed on an active military flightline.

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 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 8.4.1 (seven bullets).

Submission of less than three (3) project examples requested.

Projects submitted whose construction award was less than $30M.

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.

8.5 TAB E. VOLUME I – FACTOR 2 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

8.5.1 Submission Requirements (The page limit for this factor is twenty (20) pages total including organizational approach, technical approach, proposed duration, and schedule).

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, technical, and risk management approaches to project management and execution, proposed contract duration, and summary schedule.

Organizational Approach. List and describe key subcontractors, their roles and responsibilities, how they will be utilized, and any contractual arrangements that have been established to this point. 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 the 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). 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 (panelization, pre-engineered components, commissioning, efforts to minimize the impacts to the active taxiway), increased quality (batching of concrete), etc. This approach should also include site security and access management procedures (see specification 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS) or special procedures to address the potential concurrent construction of a large hangar facility and airfield paving.

Risk Assessment. In spreadsheet format, submit a list of risks specific to this project. Identify the degree of risk, impact of the risk (schedule, cost, safety, etc.), whether it’s within or outside the Offeror’s control, and a brief statement on how to mitigate the risk(s).

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 December 2021. Provide a summary schedule or diagrams separately in an appendix to the TAB. Clearly label the summary schedule under the TAB. 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.

8.5.2 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 that demonstrate an understanding of the local subcontractor market and economy and how it will impact this project.

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

Proposals that demonstrate an understanding of the site security and access management requirements documented in 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS.

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

Proposals that demonstrate a very clear understanding of the project’s risks and how to best mitigate them.

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

A project management plan that does not demonstrate a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements associated with the 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS specification.

A risk assessment that does not provide specific risks to this project and a demonstration of how to mitigate those risks.

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.

A proposed schedule which does not address the five features as described under Para

8.5.1 Summary Schedule (a) through (e).

Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government identifies as a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

Omission of one (1) or more of the four (4) elements as stated above for the Project Management Plan (Organization Approach, Technical Approach, Risk Assessment, Summary Schedule). 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.

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

8.6 TAB F. VOLUME I – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

8.6.1 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 I - Factor 1 - Specialized Experience. Reference Paragraph 5 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 I - 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.

8.6.2 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 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.

8.7 TAB G. VOLUME I – FACTOR 4 – KEY PERSONNEL

8.7.1 Submission Requirements (The page limit for this factor is two (2) pages per resume for a total of no more than six (6) pages)

Submit brief resumes for the following key personnel. If more than two (2) pages are submitted per resume, only the first two pages will be evaluated. Each resume should demonstrate experience and expertise on similar projects in the same roles as proposed for this solicitation.

- Project Manager responsible for the overall project: The project manager should have 5 or more years of experience as a project manager, managing similar projects to this solicitation.

- Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager(s): CQC System Manager should have 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.

- General Superintendent: The superintendent should have 5 years’ experience as superintendent managing multiple trades and subcontractors.

Each resume should include the following information:

- Proposed role/title for this solicitation

- Recent relevant projects: information should include the project name, role on project, prime contractor, owner, dollar amount, date of completion, and brief scope of each project listed.

8.7.2 Evaluation Criteria

Key personnel that demonstrate experience that is recent (within 7 years of date of proposal submission) and exceeds the minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar type work.

Key personnel with recent relevant experience with ICD/ICS 705 and the ICD/ICS 705 tech spec on new construction projects.

Key personnel with recent relevant experience with hangar projects constructed in compliance with UFC 4-211-01 and/or UFC 4-211-02.

Key personnel with recent relevant experience with projects constructed on an active military flightline.

Federal government experience.

Key personnel who also worked on the projects in Factor 1.

Resumes that do not clearly demonstrate the capabilities and experience of the proposed key personnel.

Past projects that do not represent recent relevant experience in the same capacity/role as this solicitation.

Omission of one (1) or more of the resumes required for evaluation.

Any other material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a

9.0 VOLUME II

9.1 VOLUME II SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: Volume II will be requested for submission separate from Volume I, via an amendment issued after receipt of Volume I proposals. A Price Schedule will be included in the amendment for submission of Volume II and will be due approximately 30 days after issuance of the referenced amendment.

This volume shall consist of all information required to support proposed prices. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408 and the requirements set forth below. The Offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the price schedule, SF1442 and continuation sheets. Proposals may be determined non-compliant and rejected from further consideration for failure to follow the following format and provide all the items listed below.

9.1.1. Offerors shall include a cover sheet in Volume II as required by FAR 52.215-1 ( c ) and ( 2 ). This provision, entitled “Instructions to offerors – Competitive Acquisition,” is included in full test in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation. The cover sheet must provide the following information:

1. Solicitation Number

2. Name, address, telephone, and facsimile numbers, and electronic email address

3. Statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item as reflected on the proposal schedule attached to the SF1442. (Note: Failure to agree with all terms, conditions, and provisions in the solicitation may result in the offeror’s proposal being rejected as non-compliant)

4. Names, title, telephone and facsimile numbers, and electronic email address of person(s) authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

5. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal and any contract that may result from that proposal

6. Acknowledgement that your company’s record in the System for Award Management website is current per FAR Clause 52.204-13, System for Award Management Maintenance. (This clause is in Section 00 72 00 of this RFP)

Following the proposal cover sheet, Volume II shall be organized into the following tabbed sections:

9.1.2. TAB A. Standard Form (SF1442), Solicitations, Offer, and Acknowledgement of Amendments. The SF1442 shall be completed by the offeror and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with instructions at FAR

4.102. Include with the offeror’s name and address in BLOCK 14 of the SF1442, your company’s DUNS, CAGE, and Tax Identification numbers. Offerors shall acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in Block 19. If the offeror fails to acknowledge all amendments, the proposal (Volumes I and II) will be considered as non-compliant and shall not be evaluated further.

9.1.3. TAB B. VOLUME II – FACTOR 5 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT

DOCUMENT (REQUIRED FOR ALL OFFERORS)

9.1.3.1. 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 5) 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) -…