Am-0001_W9128F21R0054.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SECURITY CAMPUS, SGBP212905 (FY20), OFFUTT AFB, NEBRASKA

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

Date for receipt of proposals is 16 SEP 2021 at 1200 hours CDT.

Government Point of Contact: Melissa Harlon, Contract Specialist, Melissa.R.Harlon@usace.army.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 38

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Aug-2021

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W9128F21R0054

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Aug-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

19-Aug-2021

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DIST

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVENUE

OMAHA NE 68102-4901

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9128F21R0054

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AM 0001 - SUMMARY OF CHANGES

19 August 2021 Solicitation No. W9128F 21 R 0054

Date of Issue: 02 AUG 2021 Date of Receiving Proposals: 16 SEP 2021

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0001 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Construction of SECURITY CAMPUS, SGBP212905, OFFUTT AFB, NE.

TO: Prospective Offerors and Others Concerned

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

a. Specifications. (Descriptive Changes.)

Section 00 22 00. The section is revised and reissued with this amendment. For convenience, on the revised specification pages, changes have been identified with highlighting, all portions of the revised specification pages apply regardless of whether changes are shown with highlighting.

b. Specifications (New and/or Revised and Reissued). NONE

c. Drawings (Reissued). NONE

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

3. Electronic Proposals. Provide proposals via the instructions provided in Section 00 21 00 of the Request for Proposal.

4. Offers will be received until 12:00 p.m., local time at place of receiving proposals, 16 SEP 2021.

Attachments:

Specifications listed in 1.a., above

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

19 AUG 2021

mrh/2490

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 00 EVAL CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 00

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK

Design and Construct the Security Campus project at Offutt AFB, NE. This project will be executed using a design-build project delivery method, which will require the contractor to complete the design and provide the government with complete facilities and warranty based on the solicitation requirements and subsequent contract award documents.

Estimated of the magnitude of this project is between $50,000,000 and $90,000,000.

Design and construct the Security Campus which includes the Security Operations Center, Indoor Firing Range, Military Working Dog Kennel (MWDK), and Storage Facility. The project also includes all necessary site work, utilities, pavements, and security fencing.

Security Operations Center (4,148 Square Meters) which includes administration space, interview/integration rooms, high density storage, emergency dispatch desk, armory and vault for small arms and ammunition, guard mount room, arms cleaning room, cybercafé, testing and training rooms, mechanical and electrical and telecommunication rooms, loading area, and other support spaces.

This project includes a 28-lane Indoor Firing Range facility (2,816 Square Meters) having two (2) classrooms, simulator room, vehicle bay, armory, arms cleaning room, small arms and ammunition storage vault, administration and support spaces, and an exterior 3-lane machine gun range.

This project also includes a Military Working Dog Kennel (945 Square Meters) to house and support ten

(10) canines. The facility includes administration space, tack storage, veterinary services with exam room, canine food storage and preparation, ten (10) kennels, outdoor recreation and training area for the Military Working Dogs, and other support spaces.

Lastly, the project includes an open bay Storage and Supply Warehouse (1,343 Square Meters) with an attached awning over the adjacent outdoor MWDK area.

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. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without conducting discussions with offerors 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.

The proposal shall describe the capability of the offeror to perform the requirements of the solicitation.

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.

To evaluate all proposals effectively and equitably, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government. Proposal clarity and organization are mandatory. Failure to submit organized proposals as requested may adversely affect an offeror’s evaluation.

Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and 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. Any legally organized offeror may submit a proposal, provided that the offeror or offeror’s teaming partner/subcontractor has or will have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines and provided that the requirements specified in FAR clause 52.236-25, “Requirements for Registration of Designers”, are met. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved. See Attachment 11 for Contractor Team Arrangements.

3. TWO-PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SOLICITATION SELECTION PROCEDURES

The acquisition approach for this project will follow a best-value tradeoff, Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures following FAR Part 15 and FAR Subpart 36.3. In Phase 1 of the Two-Phase selection process, Offerors will submit technical proposals that demonstrate their ability to successfully execute the work described within the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the proposals submitted in Phase 1 and will invite a maximum of three (3) Offerors to compete in Phase 2. An amendment will be issued to selected Offerors from Phase 1 inviting them to submit Phase 2 technical and price proposals for consideration.

At the conclusion of Phase 2, the Government’s intent is to award one (1) contract under this solicitation to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government.

4. PAST PERFORMANCE RATING METHOD

The Past Performance evaluation factor (Factor 1) 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 considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance and the quality of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. A 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 three aspects to the Past Performance evaluation which are recency, relevancy, and quality. These three aspects are described below:

a. Relevancy and Recency. The first two aspects of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how relevant and recent previous experience accomplished by the Offeror is to the anticipated work to be accomplished under this project scope. The most preferred recent Past Performance record for a project is one that has a construction completion date (otherwise known as a building occupancy date (BOD)) within the past seven (7) ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation release. At a minimum, for projects to be determined recent, projects shall at least be well underway (meaning designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within the past seven (7) ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation release. Relevancy is defined as similarity of items stated within this solicitation such as: types of projects, dollar value, contract type, and relative complexity. With respect to relevancy, more relevant Past Performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance confidence assessment. Relevancy is not a separate proposal rating but is used to develop an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The four levels of relevancy ratings are:

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

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

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

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

b. Quality of Contractor Performance. The third 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.”

5. OBTAINING 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 (see Attachment 6). Contact your client point of contact (POC) for the project you need a past performance record and request the POC to complete the PPQ. The PPQ included in this solicitation is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project the Offeror may need a past performance record for to meet the requirements in this synopsis.

Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client POC. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). It is the Offeror’s responsibility to follow-up with client POCs to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Melissa Harlon, Contract Specialist, via email at Melissa.R.Harlon@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs; 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. TECHNICAL RATING METHOD

The evaluation ratings for Technical Factors 2, 3, 4 and 5 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 2 Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience, Factor 3 Project Management Plan and Factor 4 Organizational and Technical Approach and Factor 5 Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule. The evaluation rating that will be used for Factor 6 Small Business Participation is described further below.

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

RATING DEFINITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

7. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION RATING METHOD

The small business participation evaluation for Factor 6 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.

8. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

TABLE 3:

Volume I Factors (Phase 1) Descending Order of Importance

Factor 1 – Past Performance 1st Most Important Factor

Factor 2 – Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience 2nd Most Important Factor

Factor 3 – Organizational Approach 3rd Most Important Factor

Volume II Factors (Phase 2) Descending Order of Importance

Factor 4 – Technical Approach 4th Most Important Factor

Factor 5 – Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule

5th Most Important Factor

Factor 6 – Small Business Participation 6th Most Important Factor

Phase 2, Volume III, Factor 7 Price and Pro Forma Information – All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

9. BASIS OF AWARD & DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described within the solicitation, and will award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the Government utilizing the best value tradeoff process as described in FAR 15.101-1 and the Two-Phase Selection Procedures as described in FAR Subpart 36.3.

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.

Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Preaward Debriefing of offerors or FAR

15.506 Postaward Debriefing of Offerors.

10. PROPOSAL CHARACTERISTICS

10.1. PAGE LIMITATIONS AND FORMAT

Page limitations for Volumes I & II (Evaluation Factors 1 through 6) are shown in the table below. Title Sheets, Tables of Content, Dividers, and blank pages are not included the page limitations below and should not be numbered. Do not submit cover letters for any file submitted, however, a title sheet is recommended as the first page of each file identifying your firm’s name and the file’s title. Any extraneous information or cover letters that provides additional information about your firm that is not requested by this solicitation will not be reviewed or evaluated.

Pages for each factor should be separately and sequentially numbered (i.e., the first page submitted for evaluation for each factor should be “1”). All text shall be at least 10 pt. font and easily read. All text shall be typed and single-spaced. Each page shall be 8-1/2” x 11” (organizational chart and project schedule are the only documents that may be submitted on an 11” x 17”). Margins should be no less than 1” (right, left, top, and bottom).

Pages that exceed the page limitations for any factor will not be reviewed and the information contained on those pages will not be considered for evaluation. Page limitations are per factor, i.e., an Offeror may not reduce the page count for one factor in order to submit additional pages for another factor.

TABLE 4:

Volume I, Technical Proposal (Phase 1) Evaluation

Factor Title Page Limitation

1 Past Performance 1 page per project example plus a 1-page teaming narrative; no page limit on CPARS/PPQs

Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience

2 pages per resume

3 Organizational Approach 6 pages total (all inclusive) Volume II, Technical Proposal (Phase 2)

4 Technical Approach 10 pages total (all inclusive)

Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule

5 pages for the narrative and no page limit on the summary schedule

6 Small Business Participation No page limit

Phase 2, Volume III, Factor 7 Price and Pro Forma Information, when solicited, will not have a page limitation.

Phase 1, Volume I, Technical Proposal, shall be submitted as the following separate files (also reference Section 10, PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS below):

W9128F21R0054_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS

W9128F21R0054_FIRMNAME_FACTORS1_thru_3

When requested via amendment to those offerors selected for Phase 2, Volume II, Technical and Volume III Price and Pro Forma Information, shall be submitted as the following separate files (also reference Section 11, PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS below):

W9128F21R0054_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS

W9128F21R0054_FIRMNAME_FACTORS4_thru_5

W9128F21R0054_FIRMNAME_FACTOR6

W9128F21R0054_FIRMNAME_PRICE_PROFORMA

10.2 REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FILE

There is no page limit for the Required Documents file.

For Volume I, the following shall be submitted within the file titled “W9128F21R0054_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS” in the sequence listed below:

Title Sheet Table of Contents Completed SF 1442, to include acknowledgement of amendment(s) Contractor Team Arrangement Requirements (if applicable) Acknowledgement of amendment(s) on SF30s can be submitted as well, but not required.

Representations and Certifications (other than those completed online through https://www.sam.gov)

For Volume II (when requested via amendment to those offerors selected for Phase 2), the following shall be submitted within the file titled “W9128F21R0054_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS” in the sequence listed below:

Title Sheet Table of Contents Completed SF 1442, to include acknowledgement of amendment(s) Contractor Team Arrangement Requirements (if applicable and if not submitted in Volume I) Acknowledgement of amendment(s) on SF30s can be submitted as well, but not required.

10.3 COMPONENT REQUIREMENTS

a. Title Sheet: The title sheet shall contain:

Solicitation number Name, title, address, email, and telephone number of the Offeror.

Offeror’s tax identification number (TIN) Names, titles, emails, and telephone numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the

Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

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

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

b. SF 1442: The SF 1442 shall be completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror.

Include the DUNS number and CAGE code in Block 14 of the SF1442 along with the Offeror’s name and address,

c. Contractor Team Arrangement Requirements: For Contractor Team Arrangements, including Joint Ventures, submit the information required by “Contractor Team Arrangements” paragraph, below.

11. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Reference Section 00 21 00 Instructions to Offerors.

12. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

12.1 CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGMENTS OTHER THAN JOINT VENTURE/ MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ

All offerors proposing a team arrangement other than a Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé, shall submit the following information in the Required Documents file:

a. A listing of each team arrangement member’s corporate name (no abbreviations), address, point of contact, phone number, DUNS Number, and Cage Code.

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

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

and

(2) Be signed by the appropriate individual(s) of each company.

12.2 JOINT VENTURE TEAM ARRANGEMENTS (INCLUDING MENTOR-PROTÉGÉS)

No contract may be awarded to a Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé that is not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. The Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé must have its own registered Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. Any Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé agreement that is required to be approved by the Small Business Administration (SBA) shall be approved in accordance to the applicable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If the applicable requirements are not met prior to the due date for proposals, the proposal will be rendered unawardable.

a. In the cover letter of your proposal, provide the complete names, addresses, and phone number of the firms comprising the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé.

b. A copy of the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé agreement.

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

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

“The parties hereto expressly understand and agree as follows:

1. (Name, title, and company) is the principal representative of the Joint Venture. As such, all communications regarding the administration of the contract and the performance of the work thereunder may be directed to him or her. In the absence of (same name, title, and company), (enter name, title, and company of alternate) is the alternate principal representative of the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé. These individuals have authority to sign on behalf of the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé.

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

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

12.3 INTEGRITY AND VALIDITY OF CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

The Contracting Officer will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided that the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed and validation of formal agreements and relationships (i.e., Mentor-Protégé agreements, Joint Ventures, partnerships, etc.)

are provided in the offer and submitted with the proposal responding to the solicitation. Nothing in the solicitation authorizes contractor team arrangements in violation of antitrust statutes or limits the Government’s rights to:

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

b. Determine, based on the stated contractor team arrangement, the responsibilities of the Prime

Contractor (see FAR Subpart 9.1);

c. Provide to the Prime Contractor data rights owned or controlled by the Government;

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

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

13. PHASE 1: VOLUME I FACTORS

13.1 VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

13.1.1 Submission Requirements (Page limitations: no more than a one (1) page narrative per project example submitted; no more than a one (1) page narrative to describe any past teaming experience; no page limitations on official past performance records such as PPQs and/or CPARS)

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.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EXAMPLES: The Offeror shall submit four (4) projects that were awarded directly to the Offeror as the Prime Construction Entity and four (4) projects that were awarded either directly to the Lead Designer as the Lead Design Entity or a Design-Build project where the primary designer of that Design-Build project is the Lead Designer. Additionally, the Offeror may submit one (1) additional project performed by the Prime Construction Entity teamed with the Lead Design Entity. The Offeror can either submit project information using Attachments 3 and 4 or submit project information in a format similar to Attachments 3 and 4. Total number of projects submitted shall not exceed nine (9) projects. Limit one (1) page per project submitted. If more than one (1) page is submitted per project, only the first page will be evaluated. One additional page is allowed for describing past teaming experience between current team members. Teaming experience information is most preferred on projects that had a construction completion date within the past seven (7) ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation release. At a minimum, teaming experience information must be on projects that are well underway (meaning designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within the past seven (7) ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation release. 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 seven (7) ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation release; however, all projects submitted shall at least be well underway (meaning designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within the past seven (7) ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation release.

PROJECT INFORMATION:

One (1) or more of the design projects should clearly demonstrate experience with an Indoor Firing Range.

One (1) or more of the construction projects submitted shall clearly demonstrate experience with construction of a campus of facilities where multiple facilities were under construction simultaneously.

Additionally, each project example submitted should demonstrate experience on similar projects of similar or greater value and scope to the facility type represented. Campus examples submitted should have a value at time of contract award between $50M and $90M. The proposed prime construction and lead design entities shall have performed as the prime or lead design entities on the projects submitted.

Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements set forth in the solicitation. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information within the 1-page past teaming experience narrative, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. 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. If projects were design-build, so identify them.

Construction Project information should CLEARLY include:

(a) Type of Facility Represented

(b) Name of Firm

(c) Name of Project

(d) Location of Project

(e) Owner, including reference point of contact (POC) with confirmed contact information

(f) General Scope of Construction Project (include if the project was design-build-build (construction only) or design-build)

(g) Summary of Firm’s Role in the Project

(h) Construction Cost at time of award

(i) Construction Cost at completion (if completed)

(j) Percentage (%) and Type of Work Subcontracted Out

(k) Dates Construction Began and Completed (Month/Year)

(l) Explanation as to how the project is relevant to this solicitation

Design Project information should CLEARLY include:

(a) Type of Facility Represented

(b) Name of Firm

(c) Name of Project

(d) Location of Project

(e) Owner, including reference POC with confirmed contact information

(f) General Scope of Construction Project

(g) Summary of Your Role in Design of this Project

(h) Identify Estimated (“E”) or Actual (“A”) Construction Cost

(i) Percentage (%) and Type of Work Subcontracted Out

(j) Dates Design Began and Completed (Month/Year)

(k) Explanation as to how the project is relevant to this solicitation

Do not include extraneous information that is not requested.

In addition, the offeror shall submit past performance evaluations and ratings for each project the offeror included in this proposal factor. Reference Paragraph 7 above for obtaining a past performance record.

No other past performance record shall be submitted other than those related to the projects submitted for this factor.

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 submitted that are not covered in the CPARS database or other Government Performance Rating System, submit a PPQ. A PPQ form is attached to this solicitation for convenience (see Attachment 6).

A CPARS record or a complete PPQ shall be submitted for each project submitted under this factor 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.

13.1.2 Evaluation Criteria

The Government’s overall confidence level for this factor will be based on the offeror’s Past Performance to include recency and relevancy of the projects submitted and the quality of performance.

Past Performance on projects will examine how well an Offeror has performed on relevant projects considering such criteria as, but not limited to: 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. In respect to Design-Build projects submitted for the Lead Designer, it is recommended that a PPQ for the Lead Designer be submitted in addition to any CPARS, if available. 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.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

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.

13.2 VOLUME I – FACTOR 2 – KEY PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE

13.2.1 Submission Requirements (The page limit for this factor is two (2) pages per resume for plus any letters of commitments)

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. Offerors may use the Key Personnel Resume form at the end of this Section (Attachment 7) or a format similar to the Attachment 7.

Indicate the position title on each project listed in the resumes. Provide the name, owner, dollar amount, date of completion, and brief scope of each resume project.

Include resumes for the following key personnel:

- Project Manager (Prime Contractor employee) responsible for the overall project: The project manager should demonstrate 10 years of experience as a Project Manager, managing facilities projects.

- Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager (Prime Contractor employee): CQC System

Manager should demonstrate 10 years of experience as a Quality Control Manager on facilities projects. CQC System Manager shall comply with personnel requirements listed in Section 01 45

00.00 10.

- General Superintendent (Prime Contractor employee): The superintendent should demonstrate

15 years of experience as superintendent, managing multiple trades and subcontractors.

- Design Manager (Lead Design Entity): The Design Manager should demonstrate at least 5 years of experience as a Design Manager

Offeror shall provide unequivocal letters of commitment from all proposed key personnel NOT currently employed by the offeror. Use the form letter (Attachment 8) at the end of this section. Letters of commitment should be included in the Required Documents file (reference paragraph 10 above).

13.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

The following criteria are not listed in any particular order of importance:

a. The Government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous experience in similar type work, to manage, control and perform the design, and to perform construction.

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

c. Project Managers that hold active architect or engineer professional registration may be rated more favorably.

d. Offerors that propose key personnel who worked on projects submitted in Factor 1 may be rated

e. Key personnel that exceed the years of experience in their position may be rated more favorably.

f. Previous design-build experience may be rated more favorably.

g. Previous Federal government project experience on active duty military installations may be rated

13.3 VOLUME I – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH

13.3.1 Submission Requirements (The page limit for this factor is six (6) pages total)

Provide information that describes the offeror’s Project Management approach to executing the design-build contract per the detailed requirements herein. Clearly and concisely describe the organizational and technical approaches to project management and execution, and contract duration. Limit the information to six (6) pages or less. If more than six (6) pages are submitted, only the first six pages will be evaluated.

Organization. List the design and construction entities and describe their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each entity’s roles and responsibilities on the project. A copy of the teaming or joint venture agreement(s) shall be submitted in the Required Documents file (reference paragraph 10 above). Include a simple organizational chart, illustrating the organization, including the proposed quality control group(s).

Identify the design firm(s) chosen for the project, if not to be self-performed. The offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its lead design entity(ies) and key subcontractors (see attachment 9). Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team.

Include a key personnel organization chart that clearly depicts the key positions and the names of the personnel, their firm affiliations and their job locations and their job/position title within the organization.

The key personnel organization chart shall be consistent with the corporate organization chart, with the matrix of responsibilities assigned to the D-B team entities, and with the list of key personnel to be provided under the Factor 2.

General Approach for Design and Construction. Describe the general approach to design and construction of the campus. This section should demonstrate the particular roles of the design and construction entities.

13.3.2 Evaluation Criteria

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

b. General Approach for Design and Construction.

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

13. PHASE 2: VOLUME II FACTORS

*NOTE: DO NOT SUBMIT PHASE 2: VOLUME II UNTIL AFTER THE AMENDMENT IS ISSUED ONLY

TO THOSE OFFERORS SELECTED FOR PHASE 2.

13.1. VOLUME II – FACTOR 4 –TECHNICAL APPROACH

13.1.1 Submission Requirements (The page limit for this factor is ten (10) pages total)

Provide information that describes the offeror’s organization and intended…