Am-0002_W9128F21R0080.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

W9128F

B-21: ADAL FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY, PN FXBM1093407, FY22, ELLSWORTH AFB, SOUTH DAKOTA

See attached documentation for content of the amendment revisions to solicitation

New date for receipt of Volume I proposals is 22 OCT 2021 at 1400 hours CDT

Government Point of Contact: Michele Renkema, Contract Specialist, Michele.A.Renkema@usace.army.mil

U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA

Contracting Division (CENWO-CT) 1616 Capitol Ave Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901

See Item 6

W9128F21R0080

10/12/2021

09/14/2021

10/12/2021

Am #0002 - 1

Am #0002 - 2 (Continuation SF 30)

12 OCT 2021

Solicitation No. W9128F 21 R 0080

Date of Issue: 14 SEP 2021 Date of Receiving Volume I Proposal: 22 OCT 2021

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0002 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Construction of B-21: ADAL FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY, PN FXBM1093407.

TO: Prospective Offerors and Others Concerned

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

a. Specifications. (Descriptive Changes.)

(1) Standard Form 1442 (SF1442), Page 00 10 00-1, item 9.A. and 9.B., delete the name and email of the contract specialist and substitute “Michele Renkema” and “Michele.A.Renkema@usace.army.mil”.

(2) Section 00 21 00, Page 23, paragraph 1.28 “OFFEROR’S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS”, delete the name and email of the contract specialist and substitute “Michele Renkema” and “Michele.A.Renkema@usace.army.mil”.

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

Pages or Sections Deleted Pages or Sections Substituted or Added 00 22 00 00 22 00 01 14 00 01 14 00

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

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

4. Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m. CDT on 22 OCT 2021.

Attachments:

Specifications listed in 1.b., above

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

12 OCT 2021

nep/2160

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 1 of 31

SECTION 00 22 00

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK

Add/Alter (ADAL) the existing Flight Simulator Facility at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota: This project will be executed using a design-bid-build (DBB) project delivery method, which will require the contractor to provide the government with a complete facility and warranty based on the solicitation requirements and subsequent contract award documents.

Estimate of the magnitude of this project is $20M to $40M.

This project will construct an addition to the existing B-1B simulator facility to support a variety of B-21 training activities at EAFB, SD. This project will provide +/- 30,300 SF of secure training and simulator space in support of B-21 operations at EAFB. This project will include multiple spaces constructed to secure area standard Intelligence Community Directive/Intelligence Community Standard 705 (ICD/ICS 705). See 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS for additional information and requirements. The project will include associated paving, site features, utilities, and infrastructure for simulators and training in support of the emerging B-21 airframe. The project may also include bid options for furniture, furnishing and equipment (FF&E), intrusion detection systems (IDS), access control systems (ACS), uninterrupted power supply (UPS), and closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems.

Facilities will be designed as permanent construction in accordance with the DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-01, General Building Requirements and UFC 1-200-02, High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements. The facility should be compatible with applicable DoD, Air Force, and base design standards. In addition, local materials and construction techniques shall be used where cost effective. This project will comply with DoD antiterrorism/force protection requirements per unified facilities criteria. All work shall be in accordance with RFP documents issued within this solicitation.

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

Competition for this contract will be full and open competition. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) and NAICS 237310 (Highway, Street and Bridge Construction), with a corresponding small business size standard of $39.5M.

THE OFFEROR SHOULD BE REGISTERED IN SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

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

DUE.

2. TECHNICAL RATINGS

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

15. It provides the advantages of a traditional Best Value Trade-off procurement method but

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 2 of 31 advertises the 95% or 100% backcheck design while the 100% ready to advertise design is being developed. The Bifurcated Best Value process means that a portion of technical proposals will be due first. At that time, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will convene and begin to independently evaluate each proposal against the factors in the solicitation. Not less than 30 days after submission of Volume I proposals, the amendment for 100% ready to advertise design will be issued and offerors will have not less than 30 days to submit their price proposals (Volume II) to include Factor 5, Small Business Participation Plan and Price. Upon receipt of Volume II, the SSEB will reconvene to evaluate the remaining evaluation factors. Price Analysis review and the Source Selection Authority review of the Best Value Trade-off will commence after Volume II submission.

Offerors must submit a Volume I (Technical) proposal in order to submit a Volume II (Pricing) proposal. Offerors shall assume that revisions to Volume I (Technical) proposals will not be allowed, accepted, or evaluated after formal Volume I submission on the requested date – unless requested by the Government by amendment or other formal correspondence.

The evaluation ratings for Technical Factors 1, 2, and 4 will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the particular strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The Source Selection Team (SST) will use a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1. The Combined technical/risk ratings will be used to evaluate Factor 1 Specialized Experience, Factor 2 Project Management Plan, and Factor 4 Key Personnel. The evaluation rating that will be used for Factor 3 Past Performance and Factor 5 Small Business Participation is described further below.

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

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

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

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

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

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 3 of 31

RATING DEFINITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

3. PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

The Past Performance evaluation factor (Factor 3) assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror's recent Past Performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the Past Performance evaluation, Relevancy and Contractor Performance, which are described below:

a. Relevancy. The first aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how relevant previous experience accomplished by the Offeror is to the anticipated work to be accomplished under this project scope. Recent is defined as Past Performance on contracts that had a construction completion date (otherwise known as a building occupancy date (BOD)) within the past ten (10) years of this solicitation release. Relevancy is defined as similarity of items stated within this solicitation such as: types of projects, dollar value, contract type, and relative complexity. With respect to relevancy, more relevant Past Performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance confidence assessment. Relevancy is not a separate proposal rating but is used to develop an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The four levels of relevancy ratings are:

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

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

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 4 of 31

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

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

b. Contractor Performance. The second aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The Past Performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s Past Performance on past contracts;

rather, the Past Performance evaluation process gathers information from stakeholders on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Source Selection Evaluation Board will review this Past Performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 5 of 31

4. SMALL BUSINESS RATING METHOD

The small business evaluation for Factor 5 will utilize the following ratings as stated in the below table for this solicitation.

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

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

5. 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://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

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 6 of 31 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 - [*Am-2]

(2) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) may be used to provide or supplement a firm’s past performance with other than U.S. Governmental clients. Contact your client point of contact (POC) for the project you need a past performance record and request the POC to complete the PPQ. The PPQ included in this solicitation is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project the Offeror may need a past performance record for to meet the requirements in this synopsis. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client POC. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). It is the Offeror’s responsibility to follow-up with client POCs to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Michele Renkema, Contract Specialist, via email at Michele.A.Renkema@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs; this does not preclude an Offeror submitting a previously completed PPQ as long as the full PPQ is submitted and completed in its entirety. This also does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If a PPQ is to be submitted for a project, the complete PPQ shall be submitted (either by the client POC or the Offeror) prior to proposal closing date.

6. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

Table 3: Volume I Required Submittal Items (Not Rated)

Location Description Descending Order of Importance

TAB A SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments Not Rated

TAB B Representations & Certifications Not Rated

TAB C JV Agreement or Teaming Agreement (if applicable). Not Rated

Table 4: Volume I Evaluation Factors

Importance

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

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

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

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

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 7 of 31

Table 5: Volume II Required Submittal Items (Not Rated)

Importance

TAB A SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments Not Rated

TAB B (See Vol II Evaluation Factors Below)

TAB C (See Vol II Evaluation Factors Below)

TAB D Small Business Subcontracting Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable

TAB E Any new JV Agreement or Teaming Agreement (if applicable). Not Rated

Table 6: Volume II Evaluation Factors

Location Volume II Factors Descending Order of Importance

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

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

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

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

7. BASIS OF AWARD

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

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

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 8 of 31 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.

8. VOLUME I PROPOSAL CHARACTERISTICS

Proposals shall be submitted by the time and date as specified in Section 00 10 00, Page 1. 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. Due to heightened security at Government installations, the proposal shall be delivered to the following. Offers must be submitted electronically via DOD Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) at https://safe.apps.mil/ to the following recipients:

[*Am-2]

1. Michele Renkema, Michele.A.Renkema@usace.army.mil

2. William Rawe, William.T.Rawe@usace.army.mil

**Offerors accessing the DOD SAFE site as a GUEST (a “Guest” is defined as a user who is not assigned a CAC) must request a package invitation from the Contract Specialist listed in Section 00 22 00 a minimum of 48-business hours prior to the close of the RFP.**

For the purposes of determining whether the proposal was received "late" in accordance with FAR 15.208, the date and time the file(s) are received by the USACE Outlook Server or uploaded into the DOD SAFE website as identified in the DOD SAFE notification e-mail sent to the Contract Specialist(s)/ Contracting Officer will be the time and date the Government received the proposal. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal.

Page limitations for Volumes I & II (Evaluation Factors 1 through 6) are identified within the instructions for each factor where applicable. Title Sheets, Tables of Content, Dividers, and blank pages are not included in the page limitations and will not be counted as such. A one-page cover letter or title sheet is recommended as the first page of each file identifying your firm’s name, the file’s title, and describing any applicable contractor team arrangements as defined in Tab C below. Any extraneous information or cover letters that provide 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, risk assessment 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, Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 9 of 31 i.e., an Offeror may not reduce the page count for one factor in order to submit additional pages for another factor.

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

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

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

8.3. TAB C. Contractor Team Arrangements. If applicable, the offerors shall provide a copy of the firm’s JV Agreement.

8.3.1 Contractor Team Arrangements 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.

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 10 of 31

8.3.2. 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 title sheet/cover page 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.

8.3.3. Integrity and Validity of Contractor Team Arrangements

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 11 of 31

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.

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

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

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EXAMPLES: The Offeror should submit three (3) projects similar in project size, scope, and complexity to this project to be performed by the Prime Offeror. Offeror should limit each project example to two (2) pages per project submitted. If more than two (2) pages are submitted per project, only the first two pages will be evaluated. In addition to the three

(3) project examples, the Offeror may submit a one page summary to describe any past teaming experience between current team members as it relates to the three (3) submitted project examples. The page limitation for Factor 1 shall be a maximum of seven (7) pages. Any information presented beyond the page limit will not be evaluated. All project examples submitted should have a completion date (or BOD) no greater than the past ten (10) years from the advertisement of this solicitation. Projects should be substantially complete, meaning more than 90% invoiced and paid.

Each project example submitted shall meet the following criteria:

1. Past project examples submitted for this factor shall have been awarded to the Offeror (either singly or one of the participants in a JV named on the SF1442 for this solicitation (W9128F21R0080)). 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.

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 12 of 31

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 W9128F21R0080 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0080.

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 W9128F21R0080 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0080.

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 W9128F21R0080 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0080.

Yes

4 Past Project was awarded to Company “AY,” a JV composed of Company A (not Prime Offeror for RFP W9128F21R0080) 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 W9128F21R0080.

Yes

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

Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F21R0080 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0080. 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 W9128F21R0080 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0080. Company X will use Company R as a teaming member/subcontractor but Company R is not part of a JV with Company X for W9128F21R0080. 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 W9128F21R0080 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0080. Company YZ will use Company R as a teaming member/subcontractor but Company R is not part of the JV. The past project was awarded to Company R as a Prime Contractor (singly or as a member of a JV), but not to Companies Y or Z (singly or as a member of a JV).

PROJECT INFORMATION: Additionally, each project example submitted should demonstrate experience on similar building and site improvement projects of similar or greater value ($15M or greater) and scope. Projects whose contract award was less than $5M shall not be considered for evaluation. At least one project submitted shall demonstrate experience constructing a new facility that complies with ICD/ICS 705 of at least 10,000 square feet.

Project information per project example should CLEARLY include:

Summaries for each project submitted to include the name, address, telephone and email of a representative of the owner (as well as one alternate individual not affiliated with your firm) familiar with your firm’s experience on the project that can verify the experience cited;

Original contract award amount and final construction cost;

Location of project;

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

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 13 of 31

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

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

Do not include extraneous information that is not requested.

The Offeror should demonstrate recent, relevant construction experience on similar building projects using Attachment 1, ‘Construction – Specialized Experience Form’. Offerors may identify other federal, state or local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements set forth in the solicitation. If the Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Offerors may list government, private or commercial customers.

8.4.2 Evaluation Criteria

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

Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

At least one (1) project example that exceeds the scope, magnitude, and/or complexity contemplated for this project as described within this solicitation.

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

More than one project constructed to the ICD/ICS 705 standard.

Projects that contain greater than 20,000 SF of secure operations planning and/or secure administrative space.

New and/or add/alter type projects for aircraft simulators over $15M in value.

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

Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

Projects lacking similarity to the scope, complexity and/or magnitude of this project.

Omission or incompleteness of any requested information that is not otherwise a deficiency.

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

Deficiencies may be given for each of the following criteria:

Proposals missing information as required under paragraph 8.4.1 (seven bullets).

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

Projects submitted whose construction award was less than $5M.

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

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 14 of 31

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

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

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

Organizational Approach. List and describe key subcontractors, their roles and responsibilities, how they will be utilized, and any contractual arrangements that have been established to this point. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each entity’s roles and responsibilities on the project. Identify the work (including %) which will be self-performed by the Prime Contractor. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its lead entity(ies) and key subcontractors. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include an Organizational Chart, including the proposed quality control group(s). Include key personnel in the organization chart. Clearly illustrate key positions, names of the personnel, their firm affiliations, job locations and their job/position title within the organization (see specification 01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS and 01 45 00.00 10 QUALITY CONTROL).

Technical Approach for Construction. Describe the technical approach to construction of the facility. Include any considerations to the project which will increase efficiencies in the schedule (panelization, pre-engineered components, commissioning, efforts to minimize the impacts to existing base operations), increased quality (batching of concrete), etc. This approach should also include site security and access management procedures (see specification 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS) or special procedures to address the potential for concurrent construction on or near an active airfield flightline. Include considerations for management of both the “Secure Area” construction security (in accordance with UFC 4-010-05 and ICD/ICS

705) and work near the Ellsworth Air Force Base (EAFB) flightline.

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

Summary Schedule. Provide a schedule on your plan to complete all work based on an arbitrary estimated, non-binding Notice to Proceed date of 1 May 2022. Provide a summary schedule or diagrams separately in an appendix to the TAB. Clearly label the summary schedule under the TAB. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule. The schedules shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his/her choice; however, schedules

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 15 of 31 shall be graphically represented. The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration. Give attention to the following features:

(a) Show the overall construction phase for the facilities, the site work and the utilities.

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

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

(c) Show turnover of facility. The duration to complete the facility and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

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

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

8.5.2 Evaluation Criteria

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

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

Proposals that demonstrate a clear understanding and/or usage of local subcontractors, the subcontractor market, and economy and/or how it will impact this project.

Proposals with schedules that demonstrate an understanding of processes inherent to

USACE/NAVFAC/AFCEC.

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

Proposals that demonstrate an understanding of how the requirements associated with UFC 4-010-05 and ICD/ICS 705 will affect the construction of this project.

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

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

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

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

Am #0002 Section 00 22 00 Page 16 of 31

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

Proposals that do not demonstrate a clear understanding and/or usage of local subcontractors, the subcontractor market, and/or economy and how it will impact this project.

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

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

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

8.5.1 Summary Schedule (a) through (e).

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

Deficiencies shall be given for each of the following criteria:

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

Omission of one (1) or more of the four (4) elements as stated above for the Project Management Plan (Organization Approach, Technical Approach, Risk Assessment, Summary Schedule). Any other material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

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

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

8.6.1 Submission Requirements (There is no page limitation for Past Performance Evaluations)

Submit past performance evaluations and ratings for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Volume I - Factor 1 - Specialized Experience. Reference Paragraph 5 above for obtaining a past performance record.