Am-0004_Solicitation_W9128F23R0007.pdf

W9128F23R0007

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

CONSOLIDATE PREP SCHOOL DORMITORIES, PNXQPZ, US AIR FORCE ACADEMY, COLORADO

Edits have been made to Sections 00 22 00, w ith highlights and strike-throughs notating the changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 58

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Feb-2023

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 W9128F23R0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Jan-2023

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

09-Feb-2023

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

The standard size code has changed from $39,500,000 to 45,000,000.00.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 00

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK

Design and Construction of the Consolidate Cadet Prep School Dormitory at the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado: This project will be executed using a Design-Build (DB) project delivery method, which will require the contractor to provide the government with a complete design, facility and warranty based on the Request for Proposal (RFP).

The estimated construction cost of this project is between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000.

This project will provide a new, 126-room and 252-person four-story cadet dormitory that includes administration support, training manger’s areas, laundries, storage, mechanical, communication and utility connections. The maximum square footage for this facility is 88,630 SF / 8,234 SM.

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

The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.215-1. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint. Offerors shall organize their proposals as described herein.

Proposals may be determined non-compliant for failure to follow this format and may be rejected from further consideration.

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

THE OFFEROR SHOULD BE REGISTERED IN SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT WEBSITE

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

2. TECHNICAL RATINGS

The acquisition approach for this project will be a Two-Phase Design-Build Best Value RFP following FAR Part 15. The Two-Phase Design-Build process means that proposals will be evaluated in Phase One to determine which offerors will submit proposals for Phase Two. The Phase One proposals will include Past Performance and Key Personnel to be submitted. At this time, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will convene and begin to independently evaluate each proposal against the factors in the solicitation. An amendment for Phase Two proposals will then be issued, and those proposals shortlisted by the SSEB from Phase One will be asked to submit Technical, Project Management Plan, and Price and Pro Forma (Volume II) to include the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Upon receipt of Phase Two proposals, the SSEB will reconvene to evaluate the remaining evaluation factors. Price Analysis review and the Source Selection Authority review of the Best Value Trade-off will commence after Phase Two submission.

The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor, except that performance risk ratings are assigned to past performance (see below). Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase 1 submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1.

The Government reserves the right to request proposal clarifications, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified offerors to shortlist for Phase 2.

It is the intent of the Government to select a maximum of three (3) of the most highly qualified offerors to shortlist for Phase 2.

Proposals are intended to be evaluated, and award made, without discussions with the offerors, unless discussions are determined to be necessary. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it.

Upon completion of each Phase of proposal evaluation, if discussions are determined to be needed, the Government may establish a competitive range for the purpose of conducting written discussion. A competitive range is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that the Government decides that discussions with offerors are required or are considered to be in the Government’s best interests. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

Offerors must submit a Phase One (Past Performance and Key Personnel) proposal in order to submit a Phase Two (Technical, Project Management Plan, Small Business Participation Plan, and Price and Pro Forma) proposal. Offerors shall assume that revisions to Phase One proposals will not be allowed, accepted, or evaluated after formal Phase One submission on the requested date – unless requested by the Government by amendment or other formal correspondence.

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

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength 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 or significant 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 is un-awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

RATING DEFINITIONS

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

Significant Strength: is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

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

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

3. PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

The Past Performance evaluation factor (Factor 1) assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror's recent Past Performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. The aspects to the Past Performance evaluation are Relevancy and Contractor Performance, which are described below:

a. Recency. The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. The recency timeframe established should be based on the acquisition and the market/industry. For example, some efforts would require longer recency periods to avoid restricting competition simply due to the lack of item production

b. Relevancy. The next aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how relevant previous projects accomplished by the Offeror is to the anticipated work to be accomplished under this project scope. Recent is defined as Past Performance on contracts that had a construction completion date (otherwise known as a building occupancy date (BOD)) within the past ten (10) years of this solicitation release, or at a minimum projects shall at least be substantially complete, meaning more than 90% invoiced and paid, within the past ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation release . Relevancy is defined as similarity of items stated within this solicitation such as: types of projects, dollar value, contract type, and relative complexity. With respect to relevancy, more relevant Past Performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance confidence assessment. Relevancy is not a separate proposal rating but is used to develop an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The four levels of relevancy ratings are:

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

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

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

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

c. Quality of 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 recenty, relevancy and quality, 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.”

4. SMALL BUSINESS RATING METHOD

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

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

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

5. OBTAINING PAST PERFORMANCE RECORDS

Past performance records may be obtainable by Offerors using one of the following methods:

(1) Accessing Past Performance information directly from Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) website at https://www.cpars.gov/ for CCASS completed before 27 June 2014 and for merged CPARS completed after 1 July 2014. CPARS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major federal performance reporting systems and can be accessed at the aforementioned website.

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

Federal and Contractor users can use the PKI login category if they have PKI.

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

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

You will also need your Unique Entity ID (EID) and Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) to log onto CPARS. The MPIN number was selected by whoever registered your company in the System for Award Management (SAM) Registry at https://sam.gov/. If you do not know your MPIN number, you will need to contact the SAM help desk by emailing them from the email link on the SAM web page. Please be aware that they will only release the MPIN number to the person who originally registered your company. Additional instructions on locating your MPIN is located in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section under the Help tab, or -

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

6. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

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

Location Description Descending Order of Importance

TAB A SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments Not Rated

TAB B Representations & Certifications Not Rated

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

Table 4: Volume I Evaluation Factors

Descending Order of Importance

TAB D Factor 1 – Past Performance 2nd Most Important Factor

TAB E Factor 3 – Key Personnel 4th Most Important Factor

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

Descending Order of Importance

TAB A SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments Not Rated

TAB B

Any new JV Agreement or Teaming Agreement (if applicable).

Not Rated

TAB C Small Business Subcontracting Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable

Table 6: Volume II Evaluation Factors

Location Volume II Factors Descending Order of Importance

TAB D Factor 2 – Project Management Plan 3rd Most Important Factor

TAB E Factor 4 – Design - Technical 1st Most Important Factor

TAB F Factor 5 – Small Business Participation Plan 5th Most Important Factor

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

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

7. BASIS OF AWARD

The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described within the solicitation and will award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the Government utilizing a two-phase approach under the best value tradeoff process as described in FAR 15.101-1. Volume I will only be evaluated during Phase 1 of this solicitation. Volume II will be evaluated during Phase 2 of this solicitation. Both volume ratings will be included when determining the best value to the Government. All evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price; however, the RFP may be cancelled in the event that prices substantially exceed programed cost estimates. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within the cost limitation The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Official must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal (within the cost limitation) would justify award to that offeror.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without conducting discussions with Offerors. However, in the event the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) concludes conducting discussions is in the best interest of the Government, the PCO will document the rationale for the competitive range determinatioc. If the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

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

7.1. EVALUATION OF OPTIONS. Per FAR 52.217-5, except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement.

Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

8. VOLUME I

Proposals shall be submitted by the time and date as specified in Section 00 10 00, Page 1. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) applied to all documents that will enable word searches to be conducted using Adobe-compatible PDF software. The two (2) volumes listed below shall be submitted as “SEPARATE” single files. Due to heightened security at Government installations, the proposal shall be delivered to the following. Offers must be submitted electronically via DOD Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) at https://safe.apps.mil/ to the following recipients:

1. Scott Dwyer, Scott.Dwyer@usace.army.mil

2. Amanda Eaton, Amanda.E.Eaton@usace.army.mil

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

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

Page limitations for Volumes I (Evaluation Factors 1-3 and 5) are identified within the instructions for each factor where applicable. Title Sheets, Tables of Content, Dividers, and blank pages are not included in the page limitations and will not be counted as such. A one-page cover letter or title sheet is recommended as the first page of each file identifying your firm’s name, the file’s title, and describing any applicable contractor team arrangements as defined in Tab C below. Any extraneous information or cover letters that provide additional information about your firm that is not requested by this solicitation will not be reviewed or evaluated.

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

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

8.1. TAB A. Standard Form (SF1442), Solicitations, Offer, and Acknowledgement of Amendments. The SF1442 shall be completed by the offeror and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with instructions at FAR 4.102. Include with the offeror’s name and address in BLOCK 14 of the SF1442, your company’s EID, CAGE, and Tax Identification numbers. Offerors shall acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in Block 19. If the offeror fails to acknowledge all amendments, the proposal (Volumes I and II) will be considered as non-compliant and shall not be evaluated further.

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

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

8.3.1 Contractor Team Arrangements Other Than Joint Venture/ Mentor-Protégé.

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

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

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

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

and

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

8.3.2. Joint Venture Team Arrangements (Including Mentor-Protégés).

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

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

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

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

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

“The parties hereto expressly understand and agree as follows:

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

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

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

8.3.3. Integrity and Validity of Contractor Team Arrangements

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

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

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

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

Contractor (see FAR Subpart 9.1);

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

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

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

8.4 TAB D. VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

8.4.1 Submission Requirements (Page limitations: no more than a three (3) page narrative per project example submitted; no more than a one (1) page narrative to describe any past teaming experience; no page limitations on official past performance records such as PPQs and/or CPARS)

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

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: The Offeror shall submit four (4) projects performed by the Prime Construction entity. The Offeror shall submit four (4) projects performed by the Lead Design entity.

Additionally, the Offeror may submit on (1) additional Design-Build project performed by the Prime construction Entity teamed with the Lead Design Entity. Total number of projects submitted shall not exceed nine (9) projects. One additional page is allowed for describing past teaming experience between current team members as it relates to any or all of the nine (9) submitted project examples. Any information presented beyond the page limit of 28 pages will not be evaluated. The project examples requested within this factor must be of relevant scope and complexity to the solicited project.

TEAMING EXPERIENCE: The Offeror shall demonstrate any previous teaming experience between current team members. Teaming experience information is limited to projects that are well underway (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or that have been completed and turned over no longer than ten years preceding the issue date of this solicitation.

PROJECT INFORMATION: All projects submitted should demonstrate experience on similar projects of similar or greater value to this project. Submit projects that are currently well underway (designed and at least 90% construction progress completed based on payments approved by the customer or completed and turned over no longer than ten (10) years preceding the issue date of this solicitation). The proposed prime construction and lead design entities shall have performed in the same role as the prime or lead entities on the projects submitted. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements set forth in the RFP. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. If a Mentor-Protégé, the protégé firm is not required to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications necessary to perform the contract. The protégé shall submit a minimum of one prior project to support their experience and capabilities. If the Offeror has multiple functions or division, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team members. If projects were design-build, indicate as such.

Project information shall CLEARLY include:

a. Type of Facility Represented

b. Name of Firm

c. Name of Project

d. Location of Project

e. Owner, including reference POC with confirmed contact information

f. General Scope of Construction and/or Design Project

g. Summary of Firm’s Role in the Project

h. Construction Cost at Completion

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

j. Dates Construction Began and Completed

k. Contract Type

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.

Each project example submitted shall meet the following criteria:

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 (W9128F23R0007). 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 W9128F23R0007 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0007.

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 W9128F23R0007 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0007.

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 W9128F23R0007 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0007.

Yes

4 Past Project was awarded to Company “AY,” a JV composed of Company A (not Prime Offeror for RFP W9128F23R0007) 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 W9128F23R0007.

Yes

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

Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F23R0007 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0007. 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 W9128F23R0007 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0007. Company X will use Company R as a teaming member/subcontractor, but Company R is not part of a JV with Company X for W9128F23R0007. 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 W9128F23R0007 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0007. 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-$100M) and scope.

Projects whose contract award was less than $25M shall not be considered for evaluation.

Project information per project example should CLEARLY include:

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

Original contract award amount and final construction cost;

Location of project;

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

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

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

Do not include extraneous information that is not requested.

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

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 four (4) 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 or with the submission of the proposal.

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)/Unique Entity ID (EID) 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), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), 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.

8.4.2 Evaluation Criteria

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

Past Performance on projects will examine how well an Offeror has performed on relevant projects considering such criteria as: 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.

The Government may, at its discretion, contact individuals other than those identified by the Offeror as references 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.

Experience with an academic dormitory/residence hall facility may be rated more favorably.

Experience with projects on active Military Installations may be rated more favorably.

Experience on similar projects that exceed the scope and value of this project may be rated more favorably.

Projects that are not “well underway” or completed as defined above may be rated less favorably.

Previous Design-Build experience may be rated more favorably.

The Government may consider previous recent teaming experience (within past 10 years) among the team members as a strength. The more relevant the experience, the more favorably it may be rated.

Note: The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing DoD or Government appraisal systems, or through interviewing owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to very supplied information.

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 SSEB may recommend and 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.

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

8.5.1 Submission Requirements (The page limit for this factor is ten (10) pages total including organizational approach, technical approach, proposed duration, and risk assessment).

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.

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.