Amendment 0005.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 correct language in the 00 22 00.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 28

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Jun-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 W9128F23R0012

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-May-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

15-Jun-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:

W9128F23R0012

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

00 22 00

SECTION 00 22 00

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK

Construct a Weapons Loader Trainer (WLT) Facility at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota: This project will be executed using a design-bid-build (DBB) project delivery method, which will require the contractor to provide the government with a complete, renovated facility and warranty based on the Request for Proposal (RFP).

The estimated construction cost of this project is between $20,000,000 and $40,000,000.

This is a Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) construction project that serves as part of a multi-year facilities beddown in support of the B-21 program at EAFB, SD. This project will renovate roughly 60,000 interior square feet of an existing large, +/- 120,000 SF hangar facility (known as PRIDE Hangar and/or B7504). The majority of renovated space will include a new large weapons loader training (WLT) bay. The new structure encloses a mock-up of an aircraft fuselage for weapons loading training activities. Other renovated spaces include administrative, training, and utility areas. Various areas within the facility will be secure spaces. The renovation may also include water intrusion corrections on the existing hangar bay door and abatement or remediation of existing hazardous materials in and around the facility, as well as internal and site-side infrastructural accommodations.

Accommodations may include but are not limited to site features, fire protection and suppression systems, and interior and exterior utilities (comm, electrical, water, sanitary, etc.). This project will include a space or spaces constructed to secure area standard Intelligence Community Directive/Intelligence Community Standard 705 (ICD/ICS 705) See 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS for additional information and requirements.

The 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).

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. SOLICITATION SELECTION PROCEDURES

The acquisition approach for this project will be a Best Value Tradeoff RFP following FAR Part 15 procedures. This process provides the 100% ready to advertise design. Upon receipt of proposals, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will convene and begin to independently evaluate each proposal against the factors in the solicitation. Once the SSEB Evaluation Report has been received, the Price Analysis review and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) review of the Best Value Tradeoff will then commence.

Offerors shall submit Volume I (Technical) and Volume II (Pricing) proposal concurrently as described below.

3. TECHNICAL RATINGS

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

Table 1: 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 unawardable, 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 that has appreciable merit, or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance

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

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

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

4. 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. There are two aspects to the Past Performance evaluation, 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.

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 from the date 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.

b. Relevancy. The first 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. 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

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

c. Quality of Performance (Products or Services). The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304[c][2]). The past performance evaluation conducted 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 customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2). The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment (see paragraph 3.1.3.3). A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance rating, whether using the confidence assessment rating or Acceptable/Unacceptable, is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

After evaluating recency, relevancy and quality of 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.

Neutral Confidence: No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparce that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

5. SMALL BUSINESS RATING METHOD

The small business evaluation for Factor 4 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.

6. 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, Michele Renkema, Contract Specialist, via email at michele.a.renkema@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs; this does not preclude an Offeror submitting a previously completed PPQ as long as the full PPQ is submitted and completed in its entirety. This also does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If a PPQ is to be submitted for a project, the complete PPQ shall be submitted (either by the client POC or the Offeror) prior to proposal closing date.

7. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

Table 3: Volume I Required Submittals (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 1st Most Important Factor

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

TAB F Factor 3 – Key Personnel 3rd 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 (See Vol II Evaluation Factors Below)

TAB C (See Vol II Evaluation Factors Below)

TAB D Small Business Subcontracting Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable

TAB E

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

Not Rated

Table 6: Volume II Evaluation Factors

Location Volume II Factors Descending Order of Importance

TAB B Factor 4 – Small Business Participation 4th Most Important Factor

TAB C Factor 5 – Section 00 10 00, Pricing Schedule

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

8. BASIS OF AWARD & DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

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

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

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

15.506 Postaward Debriefing of Offerors.

9. PROPOSAL CHARACHTERISTICS

9.1. PPROPOSAL SUBMISSION, PAGE LIMITATIONS, AND FORMAT

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 emailed to the following. If the proposal is too large for email, Offers may be submitted electronically via DOD Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) at https://safe.apps.mil/ to the following recipients:

1. Michele Renkema, michele.a.renkema@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 & II, Technical Proposal (Evaluation Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4) are shown in the table below. Title Sheets, Tables of Content, Dividers, and blank pages are not included the page limitations below and should not be numbered. [*Am-0002] A one-page cover sheet 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 specifically requested in the proposal submission requirements of this solicitation - will not be reviewed or evaluated. [**Am-0002]

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.

Table 7: Page Limitations Volume I, Technical Proposal

Evaluation Factor

Title Page Limitation

1 Past Performance 3 pages per project example plus a 2-page teaming narrative; no page limit on CPARS/PPQs

2 Project Management Plan 20 pages total (all inclusive) 3 Key Personnel 6 pages total – 2 pages per resume

Volume II, Technical Proposal 4 Small Business Participation Plan No page limit 5 Price No page limit

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

W9128F23R0012_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS

W9128F23R0012_FIRMNAME_FACTORS1_thru_3 W9128F23R0012_FIRMNAME_FACTOR2_Appendix_Schedule

Volume II, Price Proposal, shall be submitted as the following separate files (also reference Section 10, PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS below):

W9128F23R0012_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS

W9128F23R0012_FIRMNAME_PRICE

9.2. REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FILE

There is no page limit for the Required Documents file.

For Volume I, the following shall be submitted within the file titled “W9128F23R0012_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS” in the sequence listed below:

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

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

For Volume II, the following shall be submitted within the file titled “W9128F23R0012_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS” in the sequence listed below:

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

9.3. COMPONENT REQUIREMENTS

a. Title Sheet: The title sheet shall contain:

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

Offeror’s tax identification number (TIN) Names, titles, emails, and telephone numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

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

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

b. SF 1442: The SF 1442 shall be completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. Include the Entity ID (EID) number and CAGE code in Block 14 of the SF1442 along with the Offeror’s name and address.

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

10. PROPOSAL CHARACHTERISTICS

Reference Section 00 21 00 Instructions to Offerors.

11. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

11.1. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS OTHER THAN JOINT VENTURE/MENTOR-

PROTÉGÉ

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

b. A copy of the signed team arrangement agreement or binding letter of commitment between each team member. All team arrangements 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.

11.2. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS OTHER THAN JOINT VENTURE/MENTOR-

PROTÉGÉ

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 Entity ID (EID) 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. [*Am-0002] In a cover letter of your proposal for this factor, provide the complete names, addresses, and phone number of the firms comprising the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé [**Am- 0002].

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.

11.3. INTEGRITY AND VALIDITY OF CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGMENTS

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.

12. VOLUME I FACTORS

12.1. VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

12.1.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Submission Requirements (Page limitations: no more than a three (3) page narrative per project example submitted; no more than a two (2) page narrative to describe any past teaming experience; no page limitations on official past performance records such as PPQs and/or CPARS)

There are three aspects to the performance confidence evaluations: recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered.

Relevance and quality of performance will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. The project examples requested within this factor must be of relevant scope and complexity to the solicited project.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EXAMPLES: The Offeror should submit three (3) projects similar in project size, scope, and complexity to this project to be performed by the Prime Offeror. Offeror should limit each project example to three (3) pages per project submitted. If more than three (3) pages are submitted per project, only the first three pages will be evaluated. In addition to the three (3) project examples, the Offeror may submit a two-page summary to describe any past teaming experience between current team members as it relates to the three (3) submitted project examples. Any information presented beyond any page limitation will not be evaluated. All project examples submitted should have a completion date (or BOD) no greater than the past ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation release; however, all projects submitted 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.

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 (W9128F23R0012). 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:

Table 8: Scenario Based Examples

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 W9128F23R0019and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0019.

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 W9128F23R0019 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0019.

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 W9128F23R0019 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0019.

Yes

4 Past Project was awarded to Company “AY,” a JV composed of Company A (not Prime Offeror for RFP W9128F23R0019) 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 W9128F23R0019.

Yes

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

Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F23R0019 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0019. 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 W9128F23R0019 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0019. Company X will use Company R as a teaming member/subcontractor but Company R is not part of a JV with Company X for W9128F23R0019. 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 W9128F23R0019 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0019. 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 ($20M-40M) and scope.

Projects whose contract award was less than $10M shall not be considered for evaluation. At least one project submitted shall demonstrate experience with performing renovations or addition/alteration of a federal facility with similar clear-span storage, training, simulator and/or maintenance facility (large bay facility, etc.) of at least 15,000 total affected square feet.

Project information per project example should CLEARLY include:

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

Original contract award amount and final construction cost;

Location of project;

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

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 construction experience on similar building projects using Attachment 1, ‘Company Specialized Experience - Construction / Prime Contractor’. 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.

In addition, the Offeror shall submit past performance evaluations and ratings for each project the Offeror included in its proposal this factor. Reference Paragraph 6 above for obtaining a past performance record. No other past performance record shall be submitted other than those related to the three (3) projects submitted for this factor.

If available, submit the respective CPARS record for the project. For projects which were designed and/or constructed for other government entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available. For projects submitted that are not covered in the CPARS database or other Government Performance Rating System, submit a PPQ. A PPQ form is attached to this solicitation for convenience (see Attachment 2).

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

Government Utilization of Alternative Information Sources for Past Performance

The Government reserves the right to contact any persons who may be knowledgeable about the project or projects (this is not limited to contracts identified by the Offeror) submitted in an Offeror’s proposal. In addition, the Government may review and take into consideration other sources of information pertinent to the evaluation of the Offeror’s Past Performance, including both the previous experience projects and other similar projects performed by the Offeror. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, Past Performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE)/ 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), 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.

12.1.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

Past Performance on projects will examine how well an Offeror has performed on relevant projects considering such criteria as: 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 in order to verify the information contained therein. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror's performance history but may attribute more importance to work that is similar to the scope contemplated for this project.

Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably regarding past performance, the SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in the best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

12.2. VOLUME I – FACTOR 2 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

12.2.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

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

The Offeror shall provide a narrative that describes the Offeror’s Project Management approach to executing the contract pursuant to the following four (4) elements. Clearly and concisely describe the organizational approach, technical approach, risk management approaches to project management and execution, and a summary schedule to include a proposed contract duration.

Organizational Approach. List and describe key subcontractors, their roles and responsibilities, how they may be utilized, and any contractual arrangements that have been established to this point. Clearly describe any key teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each entity’s roles and responsibilities on the project. Identify the type of work and estimated work (including %) which will be self-performed by the Prime Contractor for this project. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include an Organizational Chart (which can be displayed on 11” x 17” sized sheet), that demonstrates key personnel in the organization to include the proposed quality control group(s). Clearly illustrate key positions, names of the personnel, their firm affiliations, job locations and their job/position title within the organization.

Technical Approach for Construction. Describe the technical approach for conducting this work while concurrent construction is ongoing within the PRIDE hangar AND within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The technical drawings and specifications will reflect those basic requirements and we'll want to acknowledge and provide their specific approach as a part of Factor 2.

Include any considerations to the project which will increase efficiencies in the schedule (panelization, pre-engineered components, commissioning), etc. This approach should also include site security and access management procedures (see specification 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS) or special procedures to address construction activities [*Am 0005] near an active military flightline. Describe the technical approach to managing escorts for site access in a secure area.

Risk Assessment. In spreadsheet format, submit a list of risks specific to this project. Identify the degree of risk, impact of the risk (schedule, cost, safety, etc.), whether it’s within or outside the Offeror’s control, and a brief statement on how to mitigate the risk(s). This may be displayed on 11” x 17” sized sheet(s).

Summary Schedule. Provide a schedule on your plan to complete all work based on an arbitrary estimated, non-binding Notice to Proceed (NTP) date of 1 September 2023. Provide a summary schedule or diagrams (may be on 11” x 17” sized sheet(s)) separately as an appendix to Factor 2 (the schedule is included in the overall page limitation). 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 NTP, 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 facilities, the site work and the utilities. Include any long lead items and any fast-tracking starts. It isn’t necessary to show the detailed breakdown construction (e.g., by trades) of each facility, site work and utilities.

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

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

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

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

12.2.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

Proposals that demonstrate a clear and executable understanding of the order of work, construction phasing, and access management procedures defined in the RFP drawings and specification 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS in context of the offeror’s plan to perform the work communicated by their technical approach for construction.

Proposals that illustrate a clear understanding and/or approach for work in a facility with concurrent construction under separate contract(s).

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

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

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

Proposals with schedules that demonstrate an understanding of processes inherent to

USACE/NAVFAC/AFCEC.

Proposals that demonstrate an understanding of how the requirements associated with Intelligence Community Directive/Intelligence Community Standard 705 (ICD/ICS 705), along with security and access management will affect the construction of this project. Reference Section 01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS for requirements.

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

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

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

Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

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

Proposals that do not demonstrate a clear and executable understanding of the order of work,…