Am_0001.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

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

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

Amendment No. 0001 W9128F

LRS CAMPUS AT OFFUTT AFB, NEBRASKA

See attached documentation for content of the changes to RFP

Date for receipt of proposals is 1 SEP 2021 at 1400 hours

Government Point of Contact: Dawn Barnett, Contract Specialist (402) 995-2646

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVE.

OMAHA, NE 68102-4901

See Item 6

W9128F-21-R-0026

08/13/2021

08/02/2021

08/13/2021

Am #0001 - 2 (Continuation SF 30)

13 AUG 2021

Solicitation No. W9128F21R0026

Date of Issue: 2 AUG 2021 Date of Receiving Proposals: 1 SEP 2021

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0001 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Construction of

LRS CAMPUS AT OFFUTT AFB, NEBRASKA

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 or sections as noted below. The substituted pages or sections are revised and reissued with this amendment.

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

REGISTER REGISTER

01 33 39.00 10 01 33 39.00 10 02 41 00 02 41 00 06 41 16.00 10 06 41 16.00 10 06 61 16 06 61 16 07 21 16 07 21 16 07 27 10.00 10 07 27 10.00 10 07 53 23 07 53 23 07 84 00 07 84 00 08 11 13 08 11 13 08 14 00 08 14 00 08 51 13 08 51 13 08 62 00 08 62 00 08 71 00 08 71 00 08 81 00 08 81 00 09 29 00 09 29 00 09 30 10 09 30 10 09 65 00 09 65 00 09 68 00 09 68 00 09 72 00 09 72 00 09 84 20 09 84 20 09 90 00 09 90 00 10 14 00.20 10 14 00.20 10 26 00 10 26 00 10 28 13 10 28 13 11 13 19.13 11 13 19.13 12 24 13 12 24 13 12 48 13 12 48 13 12 50 00.13 10 12 50 00.13 10 12 59 00 ** ** ** 13 34 19 13 34 19 21 13 13 21 13 13 23 05 93 23 05 93 23 07 00 23 07 00 23 11 20 23 11 20

Am #0001 - 3

23 30 00 23 30 00 23 52 00 23 52 00 23 81 00 23 81 00 25 05 11.00 28 25 05 11.00 28 25 10 10 25 10 10 26 12 19.10 26 12 19.10 32 31 13.53 32 31 13.53 33 11 00 33 11 00 33 30 00 33 30 00 33 51 15 33 51 15

b. Drawings (Reissued). The following drawings are revised with latest revision date (indicated in title block) and reissued with this amendment.

(1) Sheet OF63G-002, INDEX – 1 OF 2

(2) Sheet OF63G-007, LOCATION PLAN

(3) Sheet OF63B-101, BORING LOCATION PLAN

(4) Sheet OF63VF101, EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN

(5) Sheet OF63CS101, SITE PLAN

(6) Sheet OF63CS503, FE-6 SLIDE GATE DETAILS

(7) Sheet OF63CS505, FENCE DITCH CROSSING

(8) Sheet OF63CG101, GRADING PLAN

(9) Sheet OF63CG201, STORM DRAIN PROFILE

(10) Sheet OF63CG401, SURCHARGE GRADING PLAN

(11) Sheet OF63CD101, DEMOLITION PLAN

(12) Sheet OF63CD201, UTILITY DEMOLITION PLAN

(13) Sheet OF63CP101, PAVING PLAN

(14) Sheet OF63CE101, EROSION CONTROL PLAN

(15) Sheet OF63CU101, UTILITY PLAN

(16) Sheet OF63CU202, SANITARY SEWER PROFILE

(17) Sheet OF63ES501, ELECTRICAL POLE DETAIL

(18) Sheet OF63S-004, GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES

(19) Sheet OF63S-103, ROOF FRAMING PLAN – WAREHOUSE

(20) Sheet OF63S-301, FOUNDATION SECTIONS

(21) Sheet OF63A-500, WALL BASE DETAILS

(22) Sheet OF63A-501, WALL BASE DETAILS

Am #0001 - 4

c. Drawings (New). The following new drawings (dated as indicated in the title block) are hereby added to the request for proposal drawings and issued with this amendment.

(1) Sheet OF63CS506, FE-6 SWING GATE DETAILS

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

3. Electronic Proposal/Email. See Section 00 22 00 for how to submit electronic proposals.

4. Electronic Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m., local time at place of receiving proposals, 1 SEP 2021, as stated in the Request For Proposal.

Attachments:

Spec Pages listed in 1.a. above Drawings listed in 1.b. and 1.c. above (provided under separate cover)

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

13 AUG 2021

jlb/2099

Section 00 22 00 W9128F-21-R-0026

Section 00 22 00 Page 1

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

AWARD

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

4.1. VOLUME 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.2. VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO-FORMA INFORMATION

5.0 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.0 VOLUME 3 – FACTOR 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

6.1. GENERAL

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

SCHEDULE)

6.3. TAB B – EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

6.4. TAB C– REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

7.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.2. EVALUATION

7.3. DEFINITIONS

7.4. PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM

ATTACHMENTS

1 - NOT USED

2 - NOT USED

3 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

4 - NOT USED

5 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE KEY SUBCONTRACTOR

6 - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

7 - NOT USED

8 - NOT USED

Am_0001

Section 00 22 00 Page 2

9 - LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY SUBCONTRACTOR

10 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

Section 00 22 00 Page 3

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. This is a “Best Value-Tradeoff” solicitation for the Construction of the Logistics Readiness Campus (LRS), Offutt AFB, NE. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government.

1.2. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

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

1. Dawn Barnett whose email address is Dawn.S.Barnett@usace.army.mil

2. Bill Rawe whose email address is William.T.Rawe@usace.army.mil

Electronic Proposals shall be received by the date and time indicated in Block 13 of the SF 1442 for this solicitation or as identified in subsequent amendments. The file size limitation is 20 MB per email message. An email with attachments totaling more than 20 MB may not be received by the Government.

All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) applied to all documents that will enable word searches to be conducted using Adobe-compatible PDF software. The two (2) volumes listed below shall be submitted as “SEPARATE” single files. Offerors may break down each volume if they exceed the maximum email file size. Offerors are encouraged to send all two (2) files in the same email transmission, if possible.

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

Title the single files in the following format:

W9128F-21-R-0026_Company Name_Volume_I_Past_Performance W9128F-21-R-0026_Company Name_Volume_II_Price_and_Pro_Forma_Information (Note: Company name may be abbreviated)

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

1.3 PROPOSAL FORMAT

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

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

2.1. The Government will award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, all factors considered. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered of equal importance to price. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within the cost limitation. There is no obligation to approach or match the cost limitation in the offer. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001, and may not award a project that has a marginal rating in any factor.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 4

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

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

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

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS:

4.1. VOLUME 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 Vol. 1 Past Performance All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are equal to cost or price (Factor 2).

N/A Relevancy Used in determining rating for Factor 1

N/A Confidence Used in determining rating for Factor 1

4.2. VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 2 Vol. 2 TAB A Price (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are equal to cost or price (Factor 2).

N/A Vol. 2 TAB B Evidence of Bondability Not Rated

N/A Vol. 2 TAB C Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

5.0 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. VOLUME 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements: Page limitations: no more than a three (3) page narrative per project example submitted; no more than a two (2) page narrative to describe any past teaming experience; no page limitations on official past performance records such as PPQs and/or CPARS.

5.1.1.1. There are three aspects to the performance confidence evaluations: recency, relevancy and quality of past performance. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. Relevance and quality of performance will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. The project examples requested within this factor must be of relevant scope and complexity to the solicited project.

Section 00 22 00 Page 5

5.1.1.2. 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 three (3) pages per project submitted. If more than three (3) pages are submitted per project, only the first three pages will be evaluated. In addition to the three (3) project examples, the Offeror may submit a two-page summary to describe any past teaming experience between current team members as it relates to the three (3) submitted project examples. Any information presented beyond any page limitation 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 date of this solicitation release; however, all projects submitted shall at least be substantially complete, meaning more than 90% invoiced and paid, within the past ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation release.

5.1.1.3. 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 (W9128F21R0026)). 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.

5.1.1.4. 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 W9128F21R0026 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0026.

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 W9128F21R0026.

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 W9128F21R0026 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0026.

Yes

4 Past Project was awarded to Company “AY,” a JV composed of Company A (not Prime Offeror for RFP W9128F21R0026) 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 W9128F21R0026.

Yes

5 Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”). Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F21R0026 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0026. 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 W9128F21R0026 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0026. Company X will use Company R as a teaming member/subcontractor but Company R is not part of a JV with Company X for W9128F21R0026. 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 W9128F21R0026. 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).

Section 00 22 00 Page 6

5.1.1.5. PROJECT INFORMATION: Additionally, each project example submitted should demonstrate experience on similar building and site improvement projects of similar or greater value ($10M - $25M) and scope.

5.1.1.6. Project examples submitted should have a value at time of contract award between $10M and $25M.

5.1.1.7. 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 design-bid-build construction project or a design-build project;

Percentage (%) performed by the Prime Offeror; and

Explanation as to how the project is relevant to the project that is being solicited.

Do not include extraneous information that is not requested.

5.1.1.8. The Offeror should demonstrate construction experience on similar building projects using Attachment 1, ‘Company Specialized Experience - Construction / Prime Contractor’. 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.

5.1.1.9. CPARS Evaluations

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

Firms are requested to retrieve their CPARS past performance information directly from CPARS available at: http://www.cpars.gov. CPARS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major federal performance reporting systems. Logging onto CPARS will require the following:

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

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

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 7

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

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

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

5.1.1.11. Government Utilization of Alternate Information Sources for Past Performance

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

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

5.1.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.1.2.1. The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the team's recent (well under way or turned over no longer than 10 years preceding the date of this solicitation), relevant experience. See explanation of “well underway” and relevancy under the Factor “Specialized Experience”. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described below in paragraph 7.4.

Relevancy: The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope of this contract for overall application to the performance confidence assessment ratings described hereinafter. The projects will include those submitted under the Specialized Experience Factor as well as from other sources described above. This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing an overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance relevancy ratings are described below in paragraph 7.4.

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 8

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

This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing an overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance confidence ratings are described below in paragraph 7.4.

5.1.2.3. Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, The Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance confidence assessment rating will be considered “Unknown Confidence”. Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

6.0 VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

6.1. GENERAL

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

6.2. VOLUME 2 - TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET AND CONTRACT

LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

6.2.1. Submission Requirements:

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

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

6.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 9

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

6.3. VOLUME 2 - TAB B – EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

6.3.1. Submission Requirements:

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

6.3.2. Evaluation Requirements:

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

6.4. VOLUME 2 - TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

6.4.1. Submission Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.4.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

7.0 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.1. The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions required, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance

Section 00 22 00 Page 10 information. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

7.2. EVALUATION

7.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign performance risk rating for past performance (see below).

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

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

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

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

7.3. DEFINITIONS

7.3.1. Deficiency

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

7.3.2. Weakness

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

7.3.3. Strength

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

7.3.4. Clarifications

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

7.3.5. Communications

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

7.3.6. Discussions

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 11

7.3.7. Evaluation Notice (EN)

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

7.4. PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM

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

7.4.2. Performance Confidence Assessment (Overall) Rating System:

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

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

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

7.4.2.4. 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.

7.4.2.5. 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.

7.4.3. Relevancy Rating System:

7.4.3.1. (a) Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

7.4.3.2. (b) Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

7.4.3.3. (c) Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Section 00 22 00 Page 12

SECTION 00 22 00 - ATTACHMENT 1

NOT USED

Section 00 22 00 Page 13

SECTION 00 22 00 - ATTACHMENT 2

Section 00 22 00 Page 14

SECTION 00 22 00 - ATTACHMENT 3

COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE - CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last ten years or as noted otherwise, indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.

(a) Type of Facility Represented____________________________________________________________

(b) Your Firm’s Name ________________________________________________________________________

(c) Name of Project__________________________________________________________________________

(d) Location of Project________________________________________________________________________

(e) Owner _________________________________________________________________________________

(f) General Scope of Construction Project ________________________________________________________

(g) Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self-Performed :

(h) Construction Cost: Awarded_______________ Completed_______________________________

(i) Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out _______________________________________________

(j) Dates Construction: Began___________________ Completed______________

(k) Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known _______________________________________________

(l) Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages? ________________________________________

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

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

(n) Current Telephone Number of Reference POC__________________________________________________

Section 00 22 00 Page 15

SECTION 00 22 00 - ATTACHMENT 4

Section 00 22 00 Page 16

SECTION 00 22 00 - ATTACHMENT 5

Section 00 22 00 Page 17

SECTION 00 22 00 - ATTACHMENT 6

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm 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: Firm 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:

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

o o o o 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 OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR

Section 00 22 00 Page 18

PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

Section 00 22 00 Page 19

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 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 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 deficiencies 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.

Section 00 22 00 Page 20

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) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

Section 00 22 00 Page 21

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this…