Amendment 0004 - 11 May 22.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to add w hich documents are needed in the Required Documents file as part of the proposal, Attachment #9 (if applicable) goes in Vol II Tab E under Pre-Aw ard Information, updated Attachment 5, updated Attachment 7, revise and reissue Specs and Draw ings.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-May-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 W9128F22R0053

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Apr-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 is extended, X is not extended.

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

11-May-2022

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DIST

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVENUE

OMAHA NE 68102-4901

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9128F22R0053

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 00 EVAL CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 00

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

5.0 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

6.0 TECHNICAIAL RATING

7.0 VOLUME 1 – TECHNICIAL PAST PERFORMANCE AND SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

8.0 VOLUME 1 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

9.0 VOLUME 1 – KEY PERSONNELL

10.0 VOLUME 2 – PRICE INFORMATION AND REPRESENTATION, CERTIFICATIONS AND

OTHER STATEMENTS TO OFFORS

11.0 CPARS

ATTACHMENTS

1 – NOT USED

2 – NOT USED

3 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

4 – NOT USED

5 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

6 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

7 – KEY PERSONNEL

8 – LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY PERSONNEL

9 – LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

10 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.0.1 The Government intends to issue an 8(a) Small Business solicitation and award a Stand-

Alone contract. This is a “Best Value-Tradeoff” solicitation for the Construction of the ADAL Fitness Center, Schriever AFB, CO. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and award a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government.

This Contract is a three (3) years base with three (3) option periods. The Government reserves the right to exercise Option Items 0004-0006 within 365 days of Notice to Proceed. Abbreviations: Operations and Maintenance (O&M), Military Construction

(MILCON).

1.1. THIS SOLICITATION IS OPEN TO 8(A) SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION ONLY

All Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) in the same manner as they are proposing for this solicitation.

The Primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this solicitation is 236220, with a size standard for small business of $39.5 million dollars.

Proposals submitted must be sufficiently detailed to allow for an effective and equitable evaluation by the Government. There will be no public proposal opening for this contract.

Proposals submitted will become, upon receipt, the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned. After evaluation of proposals, electronic copies will be retained for the official paperless contract file. All other copies will be destroyed or forwarded to the Field and Areas Offices in support of their contract administration functions.

1.2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTION

Offer shall submit proposals to Michele Renkema, Contract Specialist, by email at michele.a.renkema@usace.army.mil and Glenda Canty, Contracting Officer, email glenda.a.canty@usace.army.mil no later than the time and date as specified in Section 00 10 00, in accordance with the instructions in this solicitation. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHODS

(FACSIMILE, REGULAR MAIL, HAND CARRIED, ETC.) WILL BE ACCEPTED.

The Offeror's proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format, preferably with Optical Character Resolution (OCR).

Reference Paragraph "File Descriptions" below. The two (2) volumes listed shall be submitted as “SEPARATE” single files. Offerors may break down each volume if they exceed the maximum email file size of 40MB. Offerors are encouraged to send all files in the same email transmission, if possible.

1.2.1. RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS

For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the Government considers the date and time the submission is received via email. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted to the designated recipient. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

1.2.2. FILE DESCRIPTION

Include a "File Description" for each file(s) you upload. The "File Description" will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.) Offerors shall use the following example for file descriptions:

Volume I, Technical Proposal, shall be submitted as the following separate files:

W9128F21R0053_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS

W9128F21R0053_FIRMNAME_FACTORS 1_thru_3

Volume II, PRICE_PRO_FORMA

W9128F21R0053_FIRMNAME_PRICE_PROFORMA

It is imperative that none of the pricing or Volume 2 information is included in Volumes 1.

(Note: Company name may be abbreviated)

REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FILE

There is no page limit for the Required Documents file.

For Volume I, the following shall be submitted within the file titled “W9128F22R0053_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS” in the sequence listed below:

• Title Sheet

• Table of Contents

• Completed SF 1442, to include acknowledgement of amendment(s)

• Contractor Team Arrangement Requirements (if applicable)

• Acknowledgement of amendment(s) on SF30s can be submitted as well, but not required.

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

1.2.3. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Written materials: 8 ½” x 11” format using 10 point or larger font size. All text shall be typed and single-spaced, and each page shall be 8-1/2 by 11 inches. For each volume, provide a title sheet on the cover, table of contents and bookmarks matching the Table of Contents. Provide a title sheet identifying the prime, consortium, or joint venture’s name, address, telephone, and email address and point of contact. Include the signature, title and contact information of the official that can bind the firm. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, where indicated below. 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.

1.2.4. RETURN ADDRESS REQUIREMENTS

Offeror(s) must ensure that ALL mail sent to the Omaha District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, either pre-contract or post-contract award, has a return mailing address on the outside of the envelope, package, box, etc. ANY MAIL addressed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including but not limited to bids, modifications to bids, proposals, revised proposals, bid guarantees, bonds, correspondence, etc., will be REJECTED by the US Army Corps of Engineers mail room facility located at 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901 if it does not contain a return mailing address. THERE

WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS.

1.2.5 CAD AND ELECTRONIC DESIGN FILES (PROVIDED)

If provided, the CAD survey files, and other electronic design files are provided on an as-is basis. Any Government provided survey, and the other electronic design files are provided to assist the Contractor in preparing their proposal using their own commercially purchased software. The Contractor shall take all professionally prudent and reasonable actions to verify the accuracy of the data provided and shall assume all liability from the use of these files. The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any other software necessary to view the files provided. No other CAD design files will be provided for proposal preparation other than those provided at the time of RFP issuance. No assistance with the files will be provided.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

2.1. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described within the solicitation and will award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the Best Value to the Government utilizing the subjective tradeoff process as described in FAR 15.101-1 and the Single-Phase Design Build Selection Procedures as described in FAR Subpart 36.3.

2.2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without conducting discussions with offerors. However, in the event the Source Selection Authority (SSA) concludes conducting discussions is in the best interest of the Government. The SSA will document the rationale for the competitive range determination, in which the SSA will review and approve the determination. If the SSA 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 SSA may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

2.3. Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Pre-award Debriefing of offerors or FAR 15.506 Post-award Debriefing of Offerors.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

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

3.2. The proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the requirements of the RFP.

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

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

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

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

TABLE 1:

Volume 1 - Technical Factors Location Description Page Count Factor 1 Volume 1 TAB A Past Performance and

Specialized Experience No page limit for Past Performance and 5 pages for Specialized Experience

Factor 2 Volume 1 TAB B Project Management Plan 10 pages Factor 3 Volume 1 TAB C Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience 8 pages (each resume shall not be more than 2 pages per Key Personnel)

Volume 2 – Price Information, Representation, Certification, and other Statements to Offeror N/A Volume 2 TAB A SF 1442 – Solicitation, Offer and Award, SF30 N/A

N/A Volume 2 TAB B Section 00 10 00 – Pricing (fully Burdened Labor Rate –

FFP)

N/A

N/A Volume 2 TAB C Contractor Team Arrangement (if applicable)

N/A

N/A Volume 2 TAB D Representation, Certification, and Other Statement of Offerors

N/A

N/A Volume 2 TAB E Required Pre-Award Information

N/A

N/A Volume 2 TAB F Evidence of Bondability N/A

4.1. INQUIRES/QUESTONS

Prospective Offerors shall submit contracting and technical inquiries and questions concerning this solicitation document via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at www.projnet.org/projnet. Please refer to Section 00 21 00 of this solicitation for Bidder Inquiry instructions.

***Please Note: Offerors shall only submit one (1) question per inquiry, i.e., each query should have a unique corresponding ProjNet bidder inquiry number assigned. All inquiries containing multiple questions shall be rejected. The Offeror is permitted to submit multiple inquiries. ***

4.2. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENT

Requirements:

All Offerors proposing a team arrangement other than a Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé, shall submit the following information:

a. A listing of the team arrangement members’ 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 partner. 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 other entity (type and proportion of work to be performed) and

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

4.3. 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 too the applicable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If the applicable requirements are not met prior to the due date for the proposals, the proposal will be rendered unawardable.

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

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

3. 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).

4. 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.

4.4. INTEGRITY AND VALIDITY OF CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

The Contracting Officer will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided that the arrangements are identified, and company relationships are fully disclosed and validation of formal agreements and relationships (i.e., Mentor- Protégé agreements, Joint Ventures, partnerships, etc.) are provided in the offer and submitted with the proposal responding to the solicitation. Nothing in the solicitation authorizes contractor team arrangements in violation of antitrust statutes or limits the Government’s rights to:

a. Determined on the basis of the stated contractor team arrangement, the responsibilities of the Prime Contractor (see FAR Subpart 9.1).

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

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

d. Hold the Prime Contractor fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of team arrangement.

5.0. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

All offers received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.3, DoD Source Selection procedures, and Army Source Selection Supplement. The principal objective of this process is to select responsible Offerors who submit the offers that are the Best Value to the Government. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all technically acceptable, responsible proposals received in response to this solicitation.

6.0. TECHNICAL RATING

The evaluation ratings for Technical Factors 1, 2, and 3, will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The Source Selection Team 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 2. The Combined technical/risk ratings will be used to evaluate Factor 1 Past Performance and Specialized Experience, Factor 2 Project Management Plan, and Factor 3 Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience, The evaluation rating that will be used for Factor 1 Past Performance is described in Paragraph 7.0 below.

Table 2 - Combined Technical/Risk Rating Color Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding Proposal indicates and 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.

Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies are defined as follows:

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.

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

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

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

7.0 VOLUME 1 - TECHNICIAL

7.1 VOLUME 1 -TAB A – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE AND SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements: Submit past performance evaluation and ratings for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Specialized Experience.

If available, submit Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) Performance Evaluations ratings. For projects which were designed and/or constructed for other government entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available. For projects cited in Volume 1 - Tab A - Specialized Experience not covered in the CPARS database or other Government Design Performance Rating System, submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 6) Previously completed PPQs are acceptable. Do not submit PPQs for projects evaluated via CPARS or CCASS. In the event an Offeror submits a PPQ for a project for which a CPARS evaluation is available, the CPARS evaluation will be considered authoritative. The titles of the projects shall be consistent with the previous experience projects submitted at Factor 1.

For each project, the offeror shall include Project # - Title (matching Factor 1), Contract and task order number as applicable, a client point of contact including email and telephone number. The offeror shall provide information to document the relevancy of each previous experience project as it relates to requirements of the Scope of Work of this solicitation. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of services/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, work for federal or non-federal clients, and degree of subcontracting/teaming. 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 than past performance of less relevance.

If the Government does not receive past performance information for the project(s) identified by the offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the offeror through other sources, or the offeror has no past performance record, the offeror will be given a “neutral” confidence rating. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, employment histories of key personnel, or major subcontractors performing key elements of the project.

The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any available source. The Government will consider information submitted by the offeror, as well as any other relevant and reliable information obtained from any available source. The Government will consider information submitted in Government databases such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), as well as any other relevant and reliable sources of documented past performance information. The Government will evaluate the relevancy of the information, the source of the information, and general trends in performance, along with any other information, which may help the Government, assess performance risk. Information on significant problems encountered, customer dissatisfaction, and corrective actions taken should be provided.

The Government reserves the right to contact any and all individuals identified in the projects submitted for Volume I, Factor 1, Specialized Experience. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide current contact information for the individual identified therein. The Offeror may provide additional points of contact (POCs) with the customer (prime contractor, if appropriate). The POC information should include the POC’s title, telephone number and e-mail address. The POCs may be contacted to assess the scope of work performed and to evaluate performance of the projects listed under the Previous Experience tab of Section I under this Volume I, if necessary.

The intent of this past performance information is to provide POC information, not reiterate information provided in Volume I, Factor 1, Specialized Experience

The Government intends to assess the relative risks associated with the Offeror's performance based on the past performance information provided in the proposal. A significant achievement, unexplained or unresolved problem, or lack of relevant data may significantly impact the risk rating by the Government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the offeror to include all relevant information, including demonstrated corrective actions, in its proposal.

7.1.1. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

In the event that a formal past performance evaluation has not been completed via CPARS or CCASS the Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0, Attachment 6) is provided for the Offeror or it’s team partners to submit to the client. The PPQ should be completed by an owner or owner’s representative not affiliated with your firm. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed PPQs shall be submitted with your proposal or to the designated personnel listed below prior to the Phase 1 proposal due date. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the designated Government's point of contacts, via email at michele.a.renkema@usace.army.mil, and glenda.a.canty@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The Government may utilize utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Do not submit PPQs for projects evaluated via CPARS or CCASS. In the event an Offeror submits a PPQ for a project for which a CPARS evaluation is available, the CPARS evaluation will be considered authoritative.

7.1.2.. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Government Utilization of Alternate Information Sources for Past Performance

The Government reserves the right to contact any persons who may be knowledgeable about the project or projects (this is not limited to contracts identified by the Offeror) submitted in an Offeror’s proposal. In addition, the Government may review and take into consideration other sources of information pertinent to the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance. Sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Questionnaires 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.

7.2. Evaluation Criteria

The Past Performance evaluation factor (Factor 4) 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 and the quality 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 three (3) aspects to the Past Performance evaluation which are recency, relevancy, and quality, which are described below:

a. Relevancy and Recency. The first two aspects of the Past Performance evaluation are to determine how relevant and recent previous experience accomplished by the Offeror is to the anticipated work to be accomplished under this project scope. At a minimum, for project to be determined recent project as 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 from the date of this solicitation release. Relevancy is defined as similarity of items stated within this solicitation such as: types of projects, dollar value, contract type, and relative complexity. With respect to relevancy, more relevant Past Performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance confidence assessment. Relevancy is not a separate proposal rating but is used to develop an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The four levels of relevancy are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

After evaluating recency, relevancy and quality of 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.”

7.3. VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements: (The page limit for this factor is four (4) pages).

7.3.1. Construction Projects. The Offeror shall submit two (2) projects performed by the Prime Construction Entity and two (2) projects performed by the Design Entity. Limit one

(1) page per project submitted, with one (1) additional page allowed for describing past teaming experience between current team members, for a maximum of five (5) pages. Any information presented beyond the page limit will not be evaluated.

7.3.2. Teaming Experience. The Offeror should describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described in the project list. The above information is limited to projects that are well underway (as defined in paragraph 8.1.3) or that has been completed and turned over no longer than ten (10) years preceding the issue date of this solicitation. If a contractor’s team experience submissions are with subcontractor in the local area they will rated more favorably

7.3.3. Project Information. All projects submitted should demonstrate experience on similar building and site improvement projects of similar or greater value and scope. Similar Commercial or Military type buildings (relevant): Fitness Centers with Gymnasium, Large Warehouse and COF High Bays with Administrative space. Project information shall CLEARLY include:

- Summaries for each project submitted

- LEED certification level/status

- Contract award amount and final construction cost

- Location

- Date when the project was started (Month/Year)

- Original contract finish date and actual finish date (Month/Year)

- All summaries shall contain 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.

- Please do not include extraneous information that was not requested.

The Offeror should demonstrate recent, relevant construction experience on similar building projects using, Construction – Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 3).

Offerors may identify other federal government, state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements set forth in the RFP. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Submit projects completed and turned over no longer than ten (10) years preceding the date of this Solicitation (recent). The government will also consider projects that are well underway. A project that is well underway is defined as the construction is greater than fifty percent complete as of the date of this 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. If projects were design-build, so identify them.

7.4. 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 of the following criteria:

Experience on similar projects that meet or exceed the scope of this project.

Federal Government project experience. Projects that demonstrate experience on similar military projects shall be rated more favorably than experience on other Federal or non-Federal projects. Demonstrated experience with USACE Military construction contracts.

The more recent the project the more the rating may be. Projects submitted that are well underway may be considered less relevant and rated less favorably. Joint Venture partners should each demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project or explain in the supplemental narrative how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

If a contractor’s team experience submissions are with subcontractor in the local area they will rated more favorably

Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

Unclear or incomplete project information or description which makes it difficult for the Government to determine whether a project meets the requirement stated in paragraph 7.3.3.

Projects lacking similarity, complexity and/or magnitude to the scope 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 7.3. FACTOR 1 –

SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE.

Submission of less than three (3) project examples as required.

Any project example submitted for which the Offeror was not the Prime

Contractor, Joint Venture participant or teaming partner at the time of project execution.

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

8.0 VOLUME 1 TAB B - FACTOR 2 – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN

8.1. Submission Requirements:

8.1.1. 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 and technical approaches to project management and execution, proposed contract duration, and summary schedule. Limit the narrative information to ten (10) pages or less.

8.1.2. Organization. List the construction entity (ies) and describe their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each entity’s roles and responsibilities on the project. A copy of the teaming or joint venture agreement(s) shall be appended to the plan (not included in the page limitation). Identify the firm(s) chosen for the project, if not to be self-performed. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its lead entity (ies) (see attachment 5). Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing the how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include a simple 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. The organizational chart shall be consistent with the matrix of responsibilities assigned to the team entities, and with the list of key personnel to be provided under Volume 1, Tab C, Factor 3, “KEY PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES AND

EXPERIENCE”.

8.1.3. Technical Approach for Construction. Proposals that clearly and concisely demonstrate a thorough understanding of the constraints and impacts of the project construction. The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline construction and manage labor and other resource constraints, in an effort to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule including such things as fast-tracking, etc. The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces on-site craft labor and susceptibility to inclement weather delays.

8.1.4. Proposed Contract Duration: Unless changed during negotiations, this duration will become the contractually binding performance period. The Government will evaluate the performance period, as proposed by the offeror in the Contract Line-Item Schedule.

Conflicting contract durations stated may be rated less favorably. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the Government may take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports the proposed duration.

Proposals will be evaluated based upon logic, constraints, and typical construction durations. The Government will rate the proposed duration matching the benchmark duration as “acceptable”. A proposed duration that is longer than the proposed benchmark duration may be viewed as less favorable than a duration that meets the benchmark. The Government may consider an unreasonably condensed contract duration, which places additional cost or schedule risk on the Government, or which may create a risk of contract or performance failure, as a weakness or a deficiency. No advantage may be considered for differences less than 21 calendar days.

8.1.5. Summary Schedule: Submit a summary level schedule for construction. Provide schedules or diagrams separately in an appendix to the TAB (not included in the narrative page limitation) in a size that is easily read. Summary schedule shall be bound and clearly labeled as Tab B-Appendix. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule. The schedules shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his/her choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented. The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration.

Give attention to the following features:

(a) Show the overall construction phase for the facility, 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. Identify any proposed phased turnovers. The time 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.

8.2. 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.

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

Proposals that offer methods to streamline construction, 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 the project.

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 or Significant Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

A Schedule unreasonably shorter than the proposed contract duration indicates the Offeror is placing additional risk on the Government.

Any delays between the scheduled completion date and the required performance completion period.

Offerors not including field overhead costs in the contract price for the full proposed performance duration.

Field overhead cost in the contract price not reflecting the proposed schedule.

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, Proposed Contract Duration, Summary Schedule). Any other material failure of a proposal to meet the Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

This factor will be rated as a deficiency if the Offeror has not selected a lead entity (ies). Joint venture participants’ contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

Not addressing submission requirements for this factor.

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

9.0. VOLUME I – FACTOR 3 – KEY PERSONNEL, CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirement: The page limitation for this criterion is eight (8) total pages, each resume shall be no more than 2 pages per Key Personnel requested. Provide a brief resume using the Attachment 7 - Key Personnel Resume form at the end of this section. Indicate the position title on each project listed in the resume.

9.1 Include resume for the Key Personnel below:

- Project Manager responsible for the overall project (Prime Construction Contractor Employee)

- Construction Quality Control System Manager (Prime Construction Contractor Employee)

- General Superintendent (Prime Construction Contractor Employee)

- Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) (Prime Construction Contractor Employee)

9.1.1. The minimum requirement for the Project Manager is five (5) years of experience as a Project Manager, managing projects similar to this solicitation, with multiple subcontractors and familiarity with scheduling. The Project Manager shall be a registered professional engineer (P.E.), a Registered Architect (R.A.) or have a bachelor’s degree in Engineering, Architecture, Construction Engineering, or Construction Management.

9.1.2. The minimum experience requirement for the Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager is five (5) years of experience as a Quality Control Manager on similar projects to this solicitation. CQC System Manager shall comply with personnel requirements listed in Section 01 45 00.00 10 Quality Control.

9.1.3. The minimum experience requirement for the Superintendent is five (5) years’ experiences as superintendent, managing multiple trades and subcontractors.

9.1.4. The SSHO shall have 5…