Am 0001 - Fire Station.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 the number of years from seven (7) to six (6) in Factor 1 - Vol I, Tab A - Past Performance and Experience Evaluation criteria #2. Past performance has been revised to include definition of "substancially complete". In this amendment the site visit information has been updated to reflect a POC.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 29

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-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 W9128F23R0016

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Feb-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

22-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:

W9128F23R0016

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

52.236-27 SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (FEB 1995)

(a) The clauses at 52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions, and 52.236-3, Site Investigations and Conditions Affecting the Work, will be included in any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation. Accordingly, offerors or quoters are urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed.

(b) Site visits may be arranged during normal duty hours by contacting:

Site Visit Date & Time: 27 February 2023 at 0900 MST Name: Fort Carson Resident Office North, Building 1219 Address: 1626 Evans St, Fort Carson, Colorado Telephone:

POC: Doug Foster email douglas.e.foster@usace.army.mil

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION 00 22 00

SECTION 00 22 00

Basis of Award, Instruction to Offeror, and Evaluation Criteria

GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK

This subjective tradeoff solicitation for the construction of the Fire Station Support Facility at Fort Carson, Colorado. The selected contractor will deliver this project using a One Step Design-Bid-Build

(DBB) project delivery method. This requires the contractor to provide the government with a complete facility and warranty based on the solicitation requirements and subsequent contract award documents.

The estimated construction cost of this project is between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000.

Competition for this contract will be Restricted to Small Business Only.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction), with a corresponding small business size standard of $45M.

THE OFFEROR SHOULD BE REGISTERED IN SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT WEBSITE

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

BASIS OF AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described within the solicitation and intends award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the Government 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.

DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

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.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

VOL 1, TAB A: PAST PERFORMANCE AND EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements: Page limitations: no more than a one (1) page narrative per project; no more than one (1) page per project to present photographs or images (no text other than an image title shall be included on that page); and no page limitations on official past performance records such as PPQs and/or CPARS; and no more than a one (1) page narrative to describe any past teaming experience between current team members as it relates to any or all submitted projects.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EXAMPLES: The Offeror should submit three (3) projects similar in project size, scope, and complexity to this project that were performed by the Prime Offeror. All project examples shall demonstrate experience on similar building and site improvement projects of $10M or greater value.

Projects whose contract award was less than $10M shall not be considered for evaluation. In addition to the three (3) project examples, the Offeror may submit a one (1) page narrative to describe any past teaming experience between current team members as it relates to any or all submitted project examples. Any information presented beyond any of the page limits will not be evaluated. Only projects that are substancially complete will be considered for evaluation. Substancially complete means at least 90% invoiced and paid by the awarding agency or customer.

Additionally, at least one (1) project submitted shall demonstrate experience constructing a new facility of at least 10,000 square feet.

Each project example submitted shall meet the following criteria:

1. The project shall have been awarded to the Offeror (either singly or one of the participants in a JV named on the SF1442 for this solicitation). 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. A small business contractor may use a past performance rating for work performed as a member of a joint venture or for work performed as a first-tier subcontractor, consistent with the Small Business Administration Rule 3245-AH71.

2. The project shall be complete within six (6) years from the date the offers are due.

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 W9128F23R0016 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0016.

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 W9128F23R0016 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0016.

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 W9128F23R0016 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0016.

Yes

4 Past Project was awarded to Company “AY,” a JV composed of Company A (not Prime Offeror for RFP W9128F23R0016) 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 W9128F23R0016.

Yes

5 Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”). Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W9128F23R0016 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0016. 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 W9128F23R0016 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0016. Company X will use Company R as a teaming member/sub-contractor but Company R is not part of a JV with Company X for W9128F23R0016. 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 W9128F23R0016 and has signed the SF 1442 for W9128F23R0016. Company YZ will use Company R as a teaming member/sub-contractor 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 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;

a. Original contract award amount and final construction cost;

b. Location of project;

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

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

e. Percentage (%) performed by the Prime Offeror; and

f. Percentage (%) and type of work subcontracted out.

g. CPARS record or a complete PPQ shall be submitted for each project submitted under this factor.

Do not include extraneous information that is not requested.

The Government reserves the right to contact any persons who may be knowledgeable about the project or projects (this is not limited to contracts identified by the Offeror) submitted in an Offeror’s proposal. In addition, the Government may review and take into consideration other sources of information pertinent to the evaluation of the Offeror’s Past Performance, including both the previous experience projects and other similar projects performed by the Offeror. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, Past Performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE)/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, Joint Venture, teaming arrangement, or parent firm/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

If subcontractor experience is submitted for consideration as part of the proposal, the offeror should include a commitment signed by offeror and subcontractor certifying that if a contract is awarded resulting from the proposal, the parties commit to joint performance as proposed. If the signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of ensuring detailed, current, accurate, and complete Past Performance and Experience information rests with the Offeror. The past performance information required in this solicitation shall be provided by the Offeror. Proposals that do not contain the information requested risk rejection or less favorable performance rating by the Government.

VOL I, TAB B: PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN, TECHNICAL APPROACH, AND SUMMARY

SCHEDULE

Submission Requirements: The page limit for this factor is fifteen (15) pages total including organizational approach, technical approach, proposed duration, and schedule.

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

Organizational Approach. List and describe key subcontractors, their roles and responsibilities, how they will be utilized, and any contractual arrangements that have been established to this point. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each entities’ roles and responsibilities on the project. Identify the work (including %) which will be self-performed by the Prime Contractor. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its lead entity(ies) and key subcontractors. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the construction process and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team will be managed.

Include an Organizational Chart, including the proposed quality control group(s). Include key personnel in the organization chart. Clearly illustrate key positions, names of the personnel, their firm affiliations, job locations and their job/position title within the organization (see specification 01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS and 01 45 00.00 10 QUALITY CONTROL).

Technical Approach for Construction. Describe the technical approach to construction of the facility.

Include any considerations to the project which will increase efficiencies in the schedule or increased quality. This approach should also include site security and access management procedures.

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

Summary Schedule. Provide a schedule on your plan to complete all work based on an arbitrary estimated, non-binding, Notice to Proceed date of 21 June 2023. Provide a summary schedule or diagrams separately in an appendix to the TAB. Clearly label the summary schedule under the TAB. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule. The schedules shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Schedules shall be graphically represented. The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration. Give attention to the following features:

1. Show the overall construction phase for the facility, the sitework and the utilities. Include any long lead items and any fast-tracking starts. It isn’t necessary to show the detailed breakdown construction by trades.

2. Show schedule line items for environmental permits, notifications, and utility connection permits.

3. 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.

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

5. 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, or weather). Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

VOL I, TAB C: KEY PERSONNEL

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

Submit resumes for the following key personnel. If more than two (2) pages are submitted per resume, only the first two (2) pages will be evaluated. Each resume should demonstrate experience and expertise on similar projects in the same roles as proposed for this solicitation.

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

Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager(s): CQC System Manager should have five (5) years of experience as a Quality Control Manager on similar projects to this solicitation.

CQC System Manager shall comply with personnel requirements listed in Section 01 45 00.00 10.

General Superintendent: The superintendent should have five (5) years’ experience as superintendent managing multiple trades and subcontractors.

Each resume should include the following information:

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

RELATIVE INPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Relative Importance Factors- All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The individual factors’ relative importance is Factor 1 is the most important factor, Factor 2 is the second most important factor, and Factor 3 is the third most important factor.

Basis for Award –The requirements specified in the solicitation are considered minimum requirements.

A more favorable evaluation rating may be given for exceeding the minimum requirements. See table below for relative importance (in descending order) of selection factors.

Table 1: Evaluation Factors

Location Description Descending Order of Importance

Vol I, Tab A

Factor 1 –- Past Performance and Experience

1st Most Important Factor

Vol I, Tab B Factor 2 –- Project Management Plan, Technical Approach, and Summary Schedule 2nd Most Important Factor

Vol I, Tab C Factor 3 –- Key Personnel 3rd Most Important Factor

Table 2: Volume II Required Submittal Item

Location Description Descending Order of Importance

Vol. II TAB A

SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments Not Rated

Vol. II TAB B

Representations & Certifications Not Rated

Vol. II TAB C

Joint Venture or Teaming Arrangement (if applicable).

Not Rated

Vol. II

TAB D

Factor 4– Pricing Schedule

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

Vol. II TAB E

Evidence of Bondability Not Rated

FACTOR 1 – VOL I, TAB A - PAST PERFORMANCE AND EXPERIENCE EVALUATION

The Past Performance and Experience evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluations result in one overall confidence rating, considering the three elements of past performance: recency, relevancy, and quality.

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in construction activities that are needed to meet the contract’s requirements. The Past Performance factor submission requirements and the method that the Government will use to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance is detailed in Factor 1 -Past Performance description below.

There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). While relevancy is also evaluated individually, all past performance aspects will be used to develop an overall confidence assessment rating for the Past Performance factor.

The Government’s overall confidence level for this factor will be based on the Offeror’s Past Performance to include recency, relevancy, 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.

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 regarding 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.

Recency - The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. With respect to recency, more recent past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than less recently completed projects.

Recency criteria related to this solicitation is outlined in the Past Performance Submission Requirements section. The Government will consider projects that are complete within six (6) years from the date the offers are due.

Relevance - The second aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how relevant previous experience accomplished by the Offeror is to the anticipated work to be accomplished under this project scope. 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 definitions are:

Table 3: Specialize Experience Adjectival Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Contractor Performance. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance 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.

The Government will review all past performance information submitted. The past performance information required in this solicitation shall be provided by the Offeror. Past performance information may also be obtained from questionnaires. At the Government’s discretion, past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractors Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency for recency, relevance and quality.

Table 4: Past Performance Adjectival Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

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.

Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will assign a final Performance Confidence Assessment for this factor based on the evaluation of recent and relevant past performance information and the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts. The Government 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. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the terms below:

The Government will evaluate the relative merits of each Offeror’s past performance by following the recency, relevancy, and confidence assessment procedures. The evaluation of past performance will examine how well Offerors have performed on recent and relevant projects considering such criteria as but not limited to: comparison of past experience to requirements contemplated under this scope;

frequency of performance of similar projects; length of work history; performance metrics and trends;

customer satisfaction; performance evaluation ratings; cost growth and adherence to budget; time growth, timeliness, adherence to schedule; quality, quality control, management of personnel and subcontractors, compliance with safety standards/safety plan, regulatory compliance, overall customer satisfaction, and responsiveness to customer concerns.

Projects submitted without qualifying past performance data to support them may be considered for relevancy; however, the lack of qualifying performance data may have a significant negative impact on the confidence assessment.

If an Offeror submits no past performance evaluations and the Government is unable to locate evaluations in CPARS or other performance rating systems, a Neutral Confidence rating will be given.

The Government will consider the experience provided in the example projects when determining the relevancy of past performance data and use those submissions as a part of the confidence assessment. A lack of, or degraded, recency and relevancy may impact the confidence assessment that the Government provides.

FACTORS 2 & 3 -TECHNICAL RATINGS DEFINED

The evaluation ratings for the technical factors will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The Source Selection Evaluation Board will use a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The combined technical/risk ratings, presented in Table 1, will be used to evaluate Factor 2, Project Management Plan, Technical Approach, and Summary Schedule, and Factor 3, Key Personnel.

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.

Table 5: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings – Factors 2 & 3 Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates 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 with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of 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 - 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.

Other Evaluation Definitions:

Clarification - Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated.

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

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

FACTOR 2 – VOL I, TAB B - PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN, TECHNICAL APPROACH, AND

SUMMARY SCHEDULE EVALUATION

Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

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

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

Proposals with schedules that demonstrate an understanding of processes inherent to

USACE/AFCEC.

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

Proposals that 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 risks.

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

A proposed schedule which does not address the five (5) features as described under Section 00 21 00 Paragraph Summary Schedule (1) through (5).

Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government identifies as a flaw that may increase cost or risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiencies shall be given for each of the following criteria:

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

Omission of one (1) or more of the four (4) elements as stated above for the Project Management Plan (Organization Approach, Technical Approach, Risk Assessment, Summary Schedule).

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

FACTOR 3 – VOL I, TAB C - KEY PERSONNEL EVALUATION

Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

Key personnel that demonstrate experience that is within six (6) years of date of proposal submission and exceeds the minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar type work.

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

Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

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

One (1) or more personnel with a preponderance of past projects that do not exhibit experience with projects of similar scope, magnitude, or complexity to the proposed project.

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

Deficiencies shall be given for each of the following criteria:

Omission of one (1) or more of the resumes required for evaluation.

Any other material failure 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.

FACTOR 4 – VOL II, TAB D – PRICING SCHEDULE

The contract will be a Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) contract. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed priced effort. The total evaluated price will be the summation of CLIN prices (to include option CLINs) proposed by the Offeror in the CLIN Pricing Schedule (refer to Section 00 10 00). The total evaluated price will be the price used for purposes of conducted the best-value tradeoff analysis. The base and all options, if any, shall be included in the price evaluation. The total evaluated price will not be scored or rated.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) requires firm-fixed-price contract line items. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that unbalanced pricing between CLINs or Options is not occurring. All offers shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

Unbalanced pricing exists where the prices of one or more-line items are significantly overstated or understated, despite an acceptable total evaluated price and as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The CLIN prices will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Price reasonableness will be determined by using proposal price analysis techniques as detailed in FAR 15. Price analysis of the individual proposed CLIN prices will be performed using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b). Cost analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(c) may also be used to evaluate data other than certified cost or pricing data to determine cost reasonableness when a fair and reasonable price cannot be determined through price analysis alone. Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether the CLIN prices proposed by the Offeror are reasonable. Because the price evaluation will represent a portion of the total evaluation, it is possible that an Offeror will not be selected for award for proposing unreasonable prices.

The Government is likely to not make award if the construction cost range set for this project is exceeded. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price analysis described above.

VOLUME II

Volume II consists of all information required to support proposed prices. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408 and the requirements set forth below. The Offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the price schedule, SF1442 and continuation sheets. Proposals may be determined non-compliant and rejected from further consideration for failure to follow the following format and provide all the items listed below.

Offerors shall include a cover sheet in Volume II as required by FAR 52.215-1 (c) and (2). The cover sheet must provide the following information:

Solicitation Number.

Name, address, telephone, and electronic email address.

Statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item as reflected on the proposal schedule attached to the SF1442. (Note: Failure to agree with all terms, conditions, and provisions in the solicitation may result in the offeror’s proposal being rejected as non-compliant)

Names, title, telephone number, and electronic email address of person(s) authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal and any contract that may result from that proposal.

Acknowledgement that your company’s record in the System for Award Management website is current per FAR Clause 52.204-13, System for Award Management Maintenance. (This clause is in Section 00 72 00 of this RFP)

Following the proposal cover sheet, Volume II shall be organized into the following tabbed sections:

VOL II, TAB A. Standard Form (SF1442), and Acknowledgement of Amendments. The offeror must complete and execute the SF1442 with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with requirements in FAR 4.102. Include with the offeror’s name and address in BLOCK 14 of the SF1442, the offeror’s Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), 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.

VOL II, TAB B: REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS

Offerors shall present their completed electronic Representation and Certifications from the SAM.gov website. If the offeror’s representations and certifications are not current in the System for Award Management (Sam.gov), then the offeror must include Section 00 45 00, Certifications/Representations including the Representation & Certifications cover page in their proposal.

VOL II, TAB C: JOINT VENTURE (JV) or TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS (if applicable)

Integrity and Validity of All 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.

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

Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures

A small business joint venture offeror must submit, with its offer, the representation required in paragraph

(c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, in accordance with 52.204-8(d) and 52.212-3(b) for the following categories:

(A) Small business;

(B) Service-disabled veteran-owned small business;

(C) Women-owned small business (WOSB) under the WOSB Program;

(D) Economically disadvantaged women-owned small business under the WOSB Program; or

(E) Historically underutilized business zone small business.

Joint Venture Team Arrangements (Including Mentor-Protégés).

No contract may be awarded to a Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé that is not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. The Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé must have its own registered Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. Any Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé agreement that is required to be approved by the Small Business Administration (SBA) shall be approved in accordance with 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.

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.

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

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).

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.

Teaming Arrangements OTHER than joint venture or mentor/protégé:

All offerors that have a teaming arrangement, other than JV or mentor/protégé shall submit the following information in the Required Documents file:

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

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:

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).

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

VOL II, TAB D – PRICING SCHEDULE

The proposed price for this project shall be in the form of the Proposal/Price Schedule provided in this solicitation. Offerors may not modify the price schedule wording or format. As this is a firm fixed-price contract, price proposals will not be considered which provide for subsequent increases in price. No qualified price proposal of any type will be accepted; therefor, all offers containing such qualifications will be considered unacceptable. If the offeror does not comply with all requirements of the proposal forms, the proposal may be considered non-compliant and eliminated from consideration.

Supplemental Price Breakdown. After Volume II submission, and if deemed necessary to analyze cost/price elements of the price proposals, the Government may request a price breakdown of the Contract Line Items in an Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. If requested, this information will not be needed sooner than three (3) working days after the proposal submission due date.

VOL II, TAB E – EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

Bond Ability: In accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-15 PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS, the following information should be submitted with each proposal. No formal bond is requested at this time.

Submission of this information will expedite the award process:

(1) Financial:

Name, address, and e-mail address of Financial Institution.

Name and phone number of financial individual (primary and alternate) to be contacted.

(2) Bonding Information for the Prime:

Provide the name, address, regular phone number, and e-mail address of the Offeror’s Surety Company.

(3) Small Business Information.

Please Note: The Government will not pay for the provision of any information nor…