Am-0001_Div00.pdf

W9128F22R0018

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

Cadet Field House, Phase 3 Construction, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO

The purpose of this amendment #1 is to

1. extend proposal due date

2. add additional description in CLIN 0003;

3. deleted CLIN 0007 and CLIN 0008 (no longer required) and added CLIN 0013;

4. Revise 00 22 00 (identified highlighting);

6. update delivery schedule; and

7. Incorporate a new w age determination See summary of changes for details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 44

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-Aug-2022

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 W9128F22R0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Jul-2022

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 X is extended, 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

29-Aug-2022

CODE

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION, CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) SCHEDULE

The required response date/time has changed from 02-Sep-2022 02:00 PM to 23-Sep-

2022 02:00 PM.

CLIN 0003

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

All work complete for removal of asbestos-containing Pipe insulation on pipe runs. Assume existing piping is 6” diameter.

To:

All work complete for removal of asbestos-containing Pipe insulation on pipe runs. Assume existing piping is 6” diameter. Include insulation on tanks and other equipment.

CLIN 0007

The pricing detail quantity has decreased by 18.00 from 18.00 to 0.00.

CLIN 0008

The pricing detail quantity has decreased by 18.00 from 18.00 to 0.00.

CLIN 0013 is added as follows:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0013 1 Job South East ADA Ramp

FFP

Entire work to complete and install South East ADA Ramp adjacent retaining wall and structure and South East Exterior Stair.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Z2FB

NET AMT

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 00

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

This is a best value solicitation for the construction/renovation for the Repair Cadet Field House Phase 3, Building 2169 US Air Force Academy, Colorado. The intent of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to solicit proposals and award a firm-fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government. 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.

The proposal shall describe the capability of the offeror to perform the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW). 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.

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

2. BASIS OF AWARD

To arrive at a source selection decision, the Government will evaluate the factors and proposed costs/price. The Government intends to award to the firm providing the proposal which is considered by the SSA to be the best value to the Government using best value trade-off methods. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Contract award should not exceed the estimated construction cost magnitude described in Section 00 21 00. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within the cost magnitude. There is no obligation to approach or match the estimated construction cost magnitude in the offer.

CONTRACT FUNDING: Award of this project will be a firm fixed price contract. However, funding will be dependent on the approved 2023 budget.

3. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Proposals shall not exceed the page limits described. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein. Provide all information in tabbed sections.

Written materials (other than organizational chart): 8 ½” x 11” format, using 10 point or larger font size. For each factor, provide a title sheet on the cover, Table of Contents, and file titled with appropriate factor number. Provide a title sheet within each electronic file identifying the prime, consortium, or joint venture’s name, address, telephone, fax and email address and point of contact. Include the signature, title and contact information of the official that can bind the firm.

Document name and factor number shall appear in the bottom right corner of each page (along with the revision number and revision date for the amended page, if necessary).

Note: The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, as indicated below.

4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

This solicitation is available for full and open competition, on an unrestricted basis. All proposers, including joint ventures, must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and have completed their Representations and Certifications through SAM.

There will be no public opening. All proposals submitted will become, upon receipt, the property of the U.S.

Government and will not be returned. After evaluation of proposals, the original will be retained for the official contract file. Extra copies of the awardee’s proposal will be submitted to the Field and Area Offices in support of their contract administration functions. Any extra copies of the proposals deemed unnecessary by the government will be destroyed.

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly indicate compliance with the proposal submission requirements. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, proposals submitted should include the most favorable terms from a technical and price standpoint. Do not assume that offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposal.

5. SUBMITTING PROPOSALS

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

1. Jae.H.Chang, whose email address is Jae.H.Chang@usace.army.mil and

2. Monica A. McKensey whose email address is Monica.A.McKensey@usace.army.mil

Offers 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. Offers must be submitted electronically via Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment

(PIEE) Solicitation at https://piee.eb.mil/. Offerors must be registered in PIEE before they can submit a proposal.

REGISTER FOR ACCESS TO PIEE:

Every Vendor must register in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment for the specific applications they wish to use. During registration, offerors will need to register for the solicitation module with the relevant role (Proposal Manager).

To use an application in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment system, you must establish a personal account in the system.

This account is activated by your Government Administrator or the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment Customer Support Center.

You will need to take several steps to establish your personal account:

On the PIEE Home Page, click the Help/Training button in the upper right hand corner for steps needed to complete before registering.

1. Complete your Vendor activation requirements (See Vendors Getting Started section on the Help/Training page).

2. Set up your PC to use the applications (See Machine Setup link on the Help/Training page). Self-register as "Vendor" or your Contractor role for your CAGE codes (See the demo below for help with Self Registration)

3. Have your GAM activate your account.

Additional registration instruction and step-by-step walkthrough can be found at:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/portal/overview/vendorRegister.xhtml

UPLOADING PROPOSAL TO PIEE:

Detailed instruction on the uploading of proposals can be found at:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xhtml

PIEE Web based training: https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/

In the event an offeror is unable to register for a PIEE account or otherwise is unable to upload their proposal to PIEE, the offeror shall email the individuals identified below no later than 48 business hours prior to the offer due date and time, stating the issue they are having with PIEE, and request instructions for an alternate method to submit their proposal. This alternate method will be in the form of either email or DOD Safe.

Contract Specialist: Jae Chang at Jae.Chang@usace.army.mil Contracting Officer: Monica A. McKensey at Monica.A.McKensey@usace.army.mil

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 PIEE Solicitation website as identified in the PIEE Solicitation 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.

Coordinate directly with the Contract Specialist for any questions related to submission requirements or format.

Title the single files in the following format:

W9128F-22-R-0018 Company Name_Volume_I_Technical W9128F-22-R-0018 Company Name_Volume_II_Price_and_Pro_Forma_Information

(Note: Company name may be abbreviated)

Offerors will submit Volume I & II by the proposal due date listed in the SF 1442. It is imperative that none of the pricing or Volume II information show up in Volume I.

6. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

a. All proposals and documentation which have been properly submitted will be evaluated. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors stated in the solicitation to select the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. Because of the number of proposals anticipated, uniformity of all proposals is essential to assure fair and accurate evaluation. All proposals must comply with the instructions in the solicitation. Proposals that do not conform to the RFP requirements may be considered to have a “deficiency”. If a proposal is suspected of having a deficiency, it will be brought to the immediate attention of the SSA. If the determination is made that a deficiency exists, the proposal will not be evaluated further and will be eliminated from further consideration. The affected offeror will be promptly notified of the decision. Properly conforming proposals will be forwarded to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for evaluation.

b. Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Tradeoff Process, FAR 15.101-1. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically-rated proposal to achieve a best–value contract award. Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the Offeror's ability to perform the resultant contract successfully. Proposals will be evaluated to identify strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies contained in them and to determine ratings for stated evaluation factors. See definitions and descriptions of terms and ratings in c. below.

c. Evaluation Definitions.

(1) Strength: 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.

(2) Significant Strength: 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.

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

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

(5) 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.

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

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

(8) Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range

7. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. Factor 1 is the most important factor. Factor 2 is the second most important factor. Factor 3 is the the third most important factor and factor 4 is the fourth most important factor. Factor 5 is the least important factor. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are significantly more important to cost or price. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within the estimated construction cost magnitude. There is no obligation to approach or match the construction cost magnitude in the offer.

This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

VOLUME 1 –TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Description Relative Importance

TAB A Factor 1 – Past Performance / Experience 1st Most Important Factor

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

TAB C Factor 3 – Key Personnel 3rd Most Important Factor

TAB D

Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Commitment Document

4th Most Important Factor

VOLUME 2 – Factor 5 PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Location Description Relative Importance

TAB A

Price (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

Factors 1, 2, 3, & 4 combined are significantly more important than Factor 5 (price).

TAB B Evidence of Bondability Not Rated

TAB C Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

8. TECHNICAL FACTOR 1, PAST PERFORMANCE / EXPERIENCE

The past performance / experience evaluation (Factor 1) results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance / experience evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. 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. The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope of this contract for overall application to the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings described hereinafter. Relevancy shall be determined utilizing the similarity definition found in below table, based on size, relevance, and complexity of the projects and the similarity of those projects to the project in this solicitation.

The following ratings will be used for assigning performance relevancy to the offeror’s past performance:

**This relevancy rating is not a separate proposal rating but only used in developing an overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor.

Adjectival Rating Definition

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 magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance.

The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor; as well as level of support for such items as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. (see Attachment A). The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, and customer satisfaction; as well as level of support for such items as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for construction errors warranty work, and safety. The Government also places a higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation; for example, but not limited to, telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CPARS/CCASS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully.

A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the current procurement.

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

Neutral Confidence 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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

Offerors for which no past performance record is available will not have that factor evaluated, either positively or negatively, in the evaluation of the proposal package. An “unknown/neutral” rating shall be assigned when an offeror provides no past performance data and/or where none can be readily obtained. When arriving at a consensus score for past performance, evaluators shall consider a “neutral” rating as one that neither helps nor harms an offeror’s chances of being awarded a contract.

Information obtained from owners, contract administrators, or other points of contact from past performance questionnaire or Contractor Performance Assessment System (CPARS) evaluations and personal knowledge of the SSEB members may affect the evaluation rating given for the Past Performance factor being evaluated. The Government reserves the right to contact any owner, contractor administrator or other points of contract furnished by the offeror to verify accuracy of information submitted for Factors.

9. TECHNICAL FACTOR 2, 3, AND 4.

Each factor’s technical/risk rating shall be evaluated and assigned a rating based on the following:

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Definition

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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

NOTE: If, at any level of evaluation, an Offeror’s proposal is evaluated as not meeting a minimum requirement

(that is, Red-Unacceptable) this must be detailed in the narrative assessment.

10. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

All proposals shall contain the information stated herein. Proposal clarity, organization (as defined in this solicitation) and cross-referencing is mandatory. No material (information not part of proposal) shall be incorporated by reference. Material not specifically identified below will not be evaluated. If offerors do not want the data contained in the proposal disclosed by the Government, the proposer shall follow the procedure specified in Section 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, paragraph: RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE AND USE OF DATA. However, portions of the selected proposal will be incorporated into the contract and are subject to disclosure notwithstanding restrictive markings.

a. Volume 1 shall consist of Factors 1 through 4 and be divided as follows:

Factor Factor 1 – Past Performance / Experience Factor 2 – Project Management Plan Factor 3 – Key Personnel Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Commitment Document

b. Volume 2 - Shall be a separate PDF file containing the information shown below. This volume shall include the following information, in the order identified herein. Additional information on the content is shown in Section 11.

SF 1442 (Reference Section 00 10 00)

Pricing Schedule (Reference Section 00 10 00)

Supplemental Pricing Breakdown (Reference Section 00 10 00)

Representations and Certifications (Reference Section 00 45 00)

Pre-Award Survey Information, as defined in Section 11

c. Teaming Arrangements - For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Section 9.601. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently-proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal. In the case of subcontractor submissions, the subcontractor must submit the final cost of their portion of the project. An Offeror that relies upon the experience and performance history of a member or members of a proposed contractor team arrangement will be expected to maintain that arrangement during performance of any contract awarded to that Offeror under this RFP. As a part of their proposal, the Offeror must provide a contractor team agreement signed by all parties, identifying the legal name(s) of all entities and describing the nature of each entity’s relationship (teaming/partnering, joint venture, mentor/protégé, etc.) and their role on this project. This documentation shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror's technical proposal, prior to any Factors.

10.1 TAB A. VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE / EXPERIENCE

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

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 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) narrative pages per project submitted. If more than two (2) narrative 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 two (2) page narrative to describe any past teaming experience between current team members as it relates to any or all of the three (3) submitted project examples. The page limitation for Factor 1 shall be a maximum of eight (8) pages, plus past performance evaluations for each project (described below). 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 (90% threshold may be calculated by using the approved billings to date divided by the original contract amount).

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 (W9128F22R0018)). The company shall have been the Prime Contractor for the past project, either singly or as a member of the Joint Venture to which it was awarded.

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

Scenario Examples

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

1 Past project was awarded to Company X only. Company X is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F21R0032 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0032.

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 W9128F21R0032 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0032.

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 W9128F21R0032 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0032.

Yes

4 Past Project was awarded to Company “AY,” a JV composed of Company A (not Prime Offeror for RFP W9128F21R0032) 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 W9128F21R0032.

Yes

5 Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”). Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F21R0032 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0032. 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 W9128F21R0032 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0032. Company X will use Company R as a teaming member/subcontractor but Company R is not part of a JV with Company X for W9128F21R0032. 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 W9128F21R0032 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F21R0032. 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 ($25M or greater) and scope. Projects whose contract award was less than $20M shall not be considered for evaluation. At least one project submitted shall demonstrate experience renovating a facility where operations were maintained simultaneously or where the facility was continually occupied during construction activities.

Project information per project example should CLEARLY include:

Project title and location.

Summary of the project discussing major features and the relevance or similarities to this project.

Original contract award amount and final construction cost.

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

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

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

Current percentage (%) complete of the project (must be at least 90% paid).

Subcontractors utilized on the project, the extent to which they were utilized (by percentage of cost), and if they are proposed to be utilized for the Cadet Fieldhouse Project.

Prime Contractor Personnel on the project, what role they held, and, if they are proposed to be utilized for this contract, what role they will hold.

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.

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.

In addition, the Offeror shall submit past performance evaluations and ratings for each project the Offeror included in its proposal this factor. Reference Paragraph 5 above for obtaining a past performance record. There are no page limitations on official past performance records such as PPQs and/or CPARS. No other past performance records shall be submitted other than those related to the three (3) 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 2).

A CPARS record or a complete PPQ shall be submitted for each project submitted under this factor prior to proposal closing date.

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.

10.1.2 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. The Government’s overall confidence level for this factor may also be based on the Offeror’s past teaming experience narrative, if applicable.

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

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

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.

10.2 TAB B. VOLUME I – FACTOR 2 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

10.2.1 Submission Requirements (The page limit for this factor is fifteen (15) pages total including organizational approach, technical approach, and risk assessment (no more than 2 of these pages can be 11x17 size);

no page limitations on the summary 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 (at a minimum, the mechanical subcontractor). 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. Address any unique challenges, opportunities, and constraints inherent to this contract (i.e. phasing, work delays, scheduling, equipment height restrictions, hazardous materials abatement, facility occupancy during construction activity, etc.).

This approach should also include management procedures to address the potential concurrent occupation of the facility and schedule and access restraints documented on the construction drawings and in Section 01 30 00.24

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS.

Risk Assessment. In tablular / 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 15 January 2023. 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 their choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented. The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration. If the proposed contract duration differs from the RFP contract duration, provide a narrative and reasoning to explain the difference. Give attention to the following features:

(a) Show the overall construction phase for the contract. 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 major work milestones and scheduled activities (e.g. Order of Work restrictions and any other activity that will affect schedule as identified on the construction drawings and Section 01

30 00.24 OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS).

(c) Show overall turnover and/or intermediate turnover milestones. The durations to complete the work and turn over 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.

10.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

Proposals that demonstrate a detailed and coherent plan and provide 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/AFCEC.

Proposals that demonstrate an understanding of the facility schedule and access restraints documented in

Section 01 30 00.24 OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS.

Proposals that illustrate an understanding of construction practices inherent to Front-Range 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 merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

A project management plan that does not demonstrate a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements associated with Section 01 30 00.24 OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS.

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 Summary Schedule whose duration is greater than the RFP contract duration which as determined by the Government may increase cost or create a risk of contract/performance failure or Government mission failure.

A Summary Schedule that condenses contract duration below the RFP contract duration which as determined by the Government may increase cost or create a risk of contract/performance failure or Government mission failure.

A Summary Schedule which does not address all five features as described under Para 8.5.1 Summary Schedule (a) through (e) or is otherwise unclear as determined by the Government.

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:

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).

A Summary Schedule that does not clearly indicate a critical path.

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.

10.3 TAB C. VOLUME I – FACTOR 3 – KEY PERSONNEL

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

Submit 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 similar roles as proposed for this solicitation.

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

- Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager(s): CQC System Manager should have 5 years of experience as a Quality Control Manager or superintendent or project engineer on similar projects to this solicitation. CQC System Manager shall comply with personnel requirements listed in Section 01 45 00.00 10.

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

Each resume should include the following information:

- Proposed role/title for this solicitation

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

10.3.2 Evaluation Criteria

Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

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

Key personnel with recent relevant experience with projects constructed in an occupied facility where coordination of construction activities with the occupant’s concurrent use of the same areas of the facility occurred.

Federal government experience.

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

Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

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

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

One…