Phase 2 - Grand Forks Bldg 631 - 27 Mar 23.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 start Phase 2 and the duration of this project w ill be 910 days. Only those firms w hom w ere notifed of their inclusion in Phase 2 are authorized to submit Phase 2 proposals.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 26

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Mar-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 W9128F23R0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Nov-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 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

27-Mar-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:

W9128F23R0018

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

The required response date/time has changed from 10-Jan-2023 02:00 PM to 11-May-2023 02:00 PM.

The contractor period of performance end date has decreased by 399 days from 1309 days to 910 days.

The required performance has changed from Disaster Resiliency Program (DRP)Renovate Bldg 631 Formal Training Unit (FTU)Grand Forks AFB, NDTHIS SOLICITATION IS UNRESTRCTED Offer due date and time for Phase One proposals is 12/30/2022 at 2:00 PM CT submitted directly to Michele.A.Renkema@usace.army.mil. to Disaster Resiliency Program (DRP)Renovate Bldg 631 Formal Training Unit (FTU)Grand Forks AFB, NDTHIS SOLICITATION IS UNRESTRCTED Offer due date and time for Phase Two proposals is 05/11/2023 at 2:00 PM CT submitted directly to Michele.A.Renkema@usace.army.mil. .

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTION

SECTION 00 21 00

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (RFP)

09/22

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SOLICITATION RESTRICTIONS

1.1.1 GENERAL CONTRACTOR

THIS SOLICITATION IS UNRESTRICTED

1.1.2 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST

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

1.2 COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENT AND AMENDMENTS

Copies of the solicitation and amendments are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All solicitation documents will be posted to the U.S. General Services Administration website at:

https://SAM.gov/

It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to check the websites for any amendments. The offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation. A list of interested vendors (potential offerors and subcontractors) is available on the beta.sam.gov web site listed above (registration required).

1.3 OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Questions and/or comments relative to these documents should be submitted via Bidder Inquiry as indicated below. Questions and/or comments relative to these bidding (proposal) documents that is proprietary in nature or if Bidder Inquiry system (See Below) is out of service should be submitted to the Contract Specialist:

Contract Specialist - Primary POC:

Michele Renkema michele.a.renkema@usace.army.mil

1.3.1 BIDDER INQUIRY

Technical inquiries and questions relating to technical requirements, proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at: https://www.projnet.org/projnet/ No Later Than ten (10) calendar days before due date of proposals, in order that they may be given consideration or actions taken prior to receipt of offers. The Bidder Inquiry system is to be used to ask and receive answers to all non-proprietary questions.

To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below. A prospective vendor who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email, followed by an answer to the comment/question after it has been processed by our technical team.

All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through ProjNet.

The Solicitation Number is: W9128F23R0018

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: is 6HC65P-Y6WKKA

a. Registration for ProjNet Bidder Inquiry Access

If you are already registered, go to Entering Bidder Inquiries in ProjNet Bidder Inquiry System below.

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

b. Entering Bidder Inquiries in ProjNet Bidder Inquiry System

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

8. Follow online screen instructions to enter specific bidder inquiries for the project.

c. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

d. The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

e. Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

1.3.2 PLAN HOLDER'S LIST

For Viewing a List of Interested Vendors (i.e., Plan-holders List) and Receiving Notifications or e-mail of changes regarding a solicitation, U.S. General Services Administration has these features available https://SAM.gov/). For this solicitation, go to https://SAM.gov/ and register as a vendor or enter username and password to login. If you wish for General Contractors, Subcontractors, Suppliers, Plan Rooms or Print Shops to have the ability to contact you, click on the "Add me to Interested Vendors" for the solicitation.

1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

Scope of project includes all work required to renovate and construct the Disaster Resiliency Program (DRP) Formal Training Unit Bldg. 631, Grand Forks, North Dakota. The project also includes all necessary site work, utilities, pavements, and passive barriers. Work shall be in accordance with Request for Proposal documents issued with this solicitation.

1.5 EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD

See Section 00 22 00 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

1.6 SOURCE SELECTION BOARD (SSB)

The Contracting Officer has established a Source Selection Board to conduct an evaluation of each proposal received in response to this Solicitation. The evaluation will be based exclusively on the merits and content of the proposal and any subsequent discussion required. The identities of the SSB personnel are confidential, and any attempt by the proposers to contact these individuals is prohibited.

1.7 FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL TAXES

It is the Contractor's responsibility to investigate applicable federal, state and local taxes and any specific exemptions that may exist. This includes any applicable Value-Added Taxes (VAT), sales, use, and excise taxes. See General Conditions (Contract Clause) 52.229-3 FEDERAL, STATE AND

LOCAL TAXES.

PART 2 PRODUCTS (NOT USED)

PART 3 EXECUTION (NOT USED)

-- End of Document --

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:

Name:

Address:

Telephone:

Please provide the information below NLT 5 business days after receipt of this Amendment/RFP.

W9128F23R0018 Renovate Bldg. 631 Formal Training Unit

Grand Forks AFB, ND

Site Visit

Return NLT 5 business days after receipt of RFP

First Last Middle SSN DL State

****Please encrypt before sending and send two separate emails: Worksheet and then password. ****

(End of provision)

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 00

Section 00 22 00 Instructions to Offerors Phase 1

1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. Construction of the magnitude of this project is between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000.

1.2. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) with a corresponding small business size standard of $39.5M.

1.3. Offerors must register in the System for Award Management website (sam.gov) prior to the submission of a proposal. If the offeror is already registered, but NAICS code 236220 is not in the registration’s representations and certifications, separate representations and certifications must accompany the offer.

1.4. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without conducting discussions with offerors 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 must organize their proposals as described herein. The Government may determine proposals non-compliant for failure to follow this format and may reject them from further consideration.

1.5. The proposal must describe the capability of the offeror to perform the requirements of the solicitation. The proposal should be specific and complete in every detail and should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the requirements. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent. Failure to submit organized proposals as requested may adversely affect an offeror’s evaluation.

1.6. Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized offeror may submit a proposal, provided that the offeror or offeror’s teaming partner/subcontractor has or will have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines and provided that the offeror meets the requirements specified in Contract clause, “Requirements for Registration of Designers”. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

2. TWO-PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SOLICITATION SELECTION PROCEDURES

2.1. The acquisition approach for this project will follow a subjective tradeoff, Two-Phase Design- Build Selection Procedures following FAR Part 15 and FAR Subpart 36.3. In Phase one (1) of the Two-Phase selection process, Offerors will submit technical proposals that demonstrate their ability to successfully execute the work described within the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the proposals submitted in Phase one (1) and will invite a maximum of three (3) Offerors to compete in Phase two (2). The Government will issue an amendment to selected Offerors from Phase one (1) inviting them to submit Phase two (2) technical and price proposals for consideration.

2.2. At the conclusion of Phase two (2), the Government’s intent is to award one (1) contract under this solicitation to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government, considering evaluation factors from both phases and price.

3. PROPOSAL CHARACTERISTICS

3.1. PAGE LIMITATIONS AND FORMAT

3.1.1. Page limitations for Volumes I & II (Evaluation Factors 1 through 5) in the table below. The page limitations do not count Title Sheets, Tables of Content, Dividers, and blank. Do not submit cover letters for any file submitted, however, the Government recommends a title sheet as the first page of each file identifying your firm’s name and the file’s title. The Government will not review or evaluate any extraneous information or cover letters that provides additional information.

3.1.2. Offerors should separately and sequentially number Pages for each factor (i.e., the first page submitted for evaluation for each factor should be “1”). All text must be at least 10 pt. font and legible. Each page must be 8-1/2” x 11” (organizational chart and project schedule are the only documents on an 11” x 17”). Margins should be no less than 1” (right, left, top, and bottom).

3.1.3. The Government will not review pages that exceed the page limitations for any factor and will not consider the information contained on those pages for evaluation. Page limitations are per factor, i.e., an Offeror may not reduce the page count for one factor to submit additional pages for another factor.

3.1.4. Offerors must submit pro form information for Volume I to include acknowledgment of all amendments.

Phase 1 Volume I Technical - All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined is approximately equal to all non-price, technical factors.

*NOTE: DO NOT SUBMIT PHASE 2: VOLUME II UNTIL AFTER THE AMENDMENT IS ISSUED ONLY

TO THOSE OFFERORS SELECTED FOR PHASE 2.

Phase 2 Volume II Technical - All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined is approximately equal to all non-price, technical factors.

Location/Factor Description Page Count Tab C – Factor 3 Technical Approach & Summary of

Schedule The page limit for Technical Approach is ten (10) pages total. The page limit for Summary of Schedule narrative is five (5) pages. There is not page limit for the schedule.

Tab D – Factor 4 Organizational Approach The page limit for this factor is six (6) pages total.

Tab E – Factor 5 Small Business Participation Plan There is no page limitation for this factor

* NOTE: DO NOT SUBMIT PHASE 2: VOLUME III UNTIL AFTER THE AMENDMENT IS ISSUED ONLY

TO THOSE OFFERORS SELECTED FOR PHASE 2.

Phase 2 Volume III - PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Location/Factor Description Page Count Tab F – Factor 6 Price There is no page limitation for this

Factor.

3.1.5. Phase 1, Volume I, Technical Proposal, Offeror’s must submit the following separate files (also reference paragraph 3.2, REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FILE below):

W9128F23R0018_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS

W9128F23R0018_FIRMNAME_FACTORS1_&_2

3.1.6. When requested via amendment to those offerors selected for Phase 2, Volume II, Technical and Volume III Price and Pro Forma Information, offerors must submit the following separate files (also reference paragraph 3.2, REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FILE below):

W9128F23R0018_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS

W9128F23R0018_FIRMNAME_FACTORS3_thru_5

W9128F23R0018_FIRMNAME_FACTOR6_PRICE_PROFORMA

3.2. REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FILE

3.2.1. There is no page limit for the Required Documents file.

3.2.2. For Volume I, offerors must submit the following within the file titled “W9128F23R0018_FIRMNAME_REQD_DOCS” in the sequence listed below:

Location/Factors Description Page Count

Tab A – Factor 1 Past Performance, Construction No page limit on Past Performance

Tab B – Factor 2 Key Personnel Capabilities & Experience 16 pages (each resume shall not be more than 2 pages per Key Personnel)

• 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 is acceptable as well, but not required if the offeror acknowledged amendments on the SF 1442.

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

3.2.3. For Volume II (when requested via amendment to those offerors selected for Phase 2), offerors must submit the following within the file titled “W9128F23R0018_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.

3.3. COMPONENT REQUIREMENTS

3.3.1. Title Sheet: The title sheet must 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 solicitation.

• 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 solicitation.

3.3.2. SF 1442: Offeror’s must complete the SF 1442 and a person authorized by the offeror must sign. Include the Unique Entity ID and CAGE code in Block 14 of the SF1442 along with the Offeror’s name and address. If the offeror is a joint venture, 8(a) mentor protégé or has some other corporate structure where multiple Unique Entity ID are applicable, the offeror must list all appropriate Unique Entity ID in the proposal

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

3.4 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

• Factor 1: Previous Experience

• Factor 2: Key Personnel Capabilities & Experience

• Factor 3: Technical Approach & Summary of Schedule (Phase 2 Only

• Factor 4: Organizational Approach (Phase 2 Only)

• Factor 5: Small Business Participation Plan (Phase 2 Only)

• Factor 6: Cost/Price Proposal for the Sample Project (Phase 2 Only) *

* Factor 6: All evaluation factors in Phase I and II, other than cost or price, when combined, are equal to cost or price

4. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

4.1. INTEGRITY AND VALIDITY OF CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS

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

• Require consent to subcontracts (see FAR Subpart 44.2).

• Determine, based on the stated contractor team arrangement, the responsibilities of the Prime Contractor (see FAR Subpart 9.1).

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

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

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

4.2. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGMENTS OTHER THAN JOINT VENTURE/ MENTOR-

PROTÉGÉ

4.2.1. All offerors proposing a team arrangement other than a Joint Venture/Mentor- Protégé, must 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, Unique Entity ID, 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 must:

(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 each will perform); and

(2) Appropriate individual(s) of each company must sign the agreements.

4.3. JOINT VENTURE TEAM ARRANGEMENTS (INCLUDING MENTOR-PROTÉGÉS)

4.3.1. Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé entities must register in System for Award Management (SAM) database prior to submitting an offer. The Joint Venture/Mentor- Protégé must have its own registered Unique Entity ID. Any Joint Venture/Mentor- Protégé agreement that is required to be approved by the Small Business Administration

(SBA) must be approved in accordance with the applicable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If the offeror does not meet applicable requirements prior to the due date for proposals, the Government will consider the proposal unawardable.

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

4.3.3. The proposal must include a copy of the Joint Venture/Mentor-Protégé agreement.

4.3.4. 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 must be signed by the principal representative of the Joint Venture/ Mentor-Protégé (or the alternate principal representative, if the principal representative is unavailable).

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

4.3.6. 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.

5. PHASE 1: VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

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 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.

Relevancy - 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. However, they may or may not overshadow older performance records considering the nature of the ratings, statements, and volume of records. 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:

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.

Quality. The third aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine the quality of the performance on past contracts. The Past Performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s Past Performance on past contracts; rather, the Past Performance evaluation process gathers information from stakeholders on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Source Selection Evaluation Board will review this Past Performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

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), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency for recency, relevance and quality.

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 the past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the terms below:

Substantial Confidence - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

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

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) - No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a) (2) (iv), “In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance.”

In the case of an offeror without a record of recent, relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror may receive a Neutral Confidence rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable. 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.” However, the Government reserves the right to consider assessments of substantial or satisfactory confidence more favorably than an unknown confidence assessment.

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.

5.1. OBTAINING PAST PERFORMANCE RECORDS

5.1.1. 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 website.

5.1.2. 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.

5.1.3. External Certificate Authority

5.1.3.1. 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.

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

5.1.5. You will also need your Unique Entity ID 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 in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section under the Help tab, or –

5.1.6. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) may be used to provide or supplement a firm’s past performance with other than U.S. Governmental clients (see Attachment 6).

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 must 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 must be submitted (either by the client POC or the Offeror) prior to proposal closing date.

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

5.1.8. 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.

5.2. Submission Requirements (Page limitations: no more than a two (2) page narrative per project example submitted; no more than a one (1) page narrative to describe any past teaming experience; no page limitations on official past performance records such as PPQs and/or

CPARS)

5.2.1. CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EXAMPLES: The Offeror must submit three (3) projects that were awarded directly to the Offeror as the Prime Construction Entity and three (3) projects that were awarded directly to the Lead Designer as the Lead Design Entity, or as the primary designer on a design-build contract. The Offeror can either submit project information using Attachments 3 or submit project information in a format similar to Attachments 3. Total number of projects submitted must not exceed six (6) projects. Limit two (2) pages per project submitted. If more than two (2) pages is submitted per project, only the first two (2) pages will be evaluated. One (1) additional page is allowed for describing past teaming experience between current team members.

Teaming experience information is most preferred on projects that had a construction completion date within the past ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation release. All project examples submitted should have a completion date or Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) no greater than the past ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation release;

however, all projects submitted must at least be well underway (meaning designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within the past ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation release.

5.2.2. PROJECT INFORMATION:

5.2.2.1. One (1) or more of the design projects and one (1) or more of the construction/renovation projects should clearly demonstrate experience with an accredited secure working area constructed in accordance with UFC 4-010-05 and ICD/ICS 705.

5.2.2.2. One (1) or more of the construction projects submitted must clearly demonstrate experience with construction/renovation of at least one of the following: an administration building that has secure areas/aerospace simulator facility/formal training unit (FTU).

5.2.2.3. Additionally, each project example submitted should demonstrate experience on similar projects of similar or greater scope to the facility type represented. Project examples submitted should have a value at time of contract award greater than $25M. The proposed prime construction and lead design entities must have performed as the prime or lead design entities on the projects submitted. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are comparable to the Government’s requirements set forth in the solicitation. If the offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Identify projects that are design-build.

5.2.2.4. Construction Project information should CLEARLY include:

(a) Type of Facility Represented

(b) Name of Firm

(c) Name of Project

(d) Location of Project

(e) Owner, including reference point of contact (POC) with confirmed contact information

(f) General Scope of Construction Project (include if the project was design-build- build (construction only) or design-build)

(g) Summary of Firm’s Role in the Project

(h) Construction Cost at time of award

(i) Construction Cost at completion (if completed)

(j) Percentage (%) and Type of Work Subcontracted Out

(k) Dates Construction Began and Completed (Month/Year)

(l) Explanation as to how the project is relevant to this solicitation

5.2.2.5. Design Project information should CLEARLY include:

(a) Type of Facility Represented

(b) Name of Firm

(c) Name of Project

(d) Location of Project

(e) Owner, including reference POC with confirmed contact information

(f) General Scope of Construction Project

(g) Summary of Your Role in Design of this Project

(h) Identify Estimated (“E”) or Actual (“A”) Construction Cost

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

(j) Dates Design Began and Completed (Month/Year)

(k) Explanation as to how the project is relevant to this solicitation

5.2.2.6. Do not include extraneous information that is not requested.

5.3. Factors 2, 3, 4 and 5 – Technical Ratings

The evaluation ratings for the combined technical/risk rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.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.

Combined Technical 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.

5.3.1 Rating Definitions:

5.3.1.1. 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.

5.3.1.2. 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.

5.3.1.3. Weakness - means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

5.3.1.5. Deficiency – is 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.

5.4. Other Evaluation Definitions:

5.4.1 Omission - A failure to provide information required by the solicitation and depending on the nature and extent of the omission it may be evaluated as a weakness, a significant weakness or a deficiency.

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

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

5.4.4. 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.

5.5. Evaluation Criteria

The Government intends to evaluate the three (3) projects from both the prime an ddesigner submitted by each Offeror to determine each Offeror's previous experience. Under this evaluation factor, the Government intends to evaluate the projects submitted with each Offeror’s proposal to assess the breadth, depth and relevance of each Offeror’s proposed experience with performing the design-build requirements called for in this RFP and as described in Paragraph 5.2.1. An Offeror that submits projects that demonstrate the breadth, depth and relevance of its experience with performing the work called for under this RFP will be rated more favorably than Offerors that submit proposals that do not demonstrate the breadth, depth or relevance of an Offeror’s experience with performing the work called for in this RFP. Each Offeror’s proposal will be thoroughly evaluated against this evaluation criteria and, using the definitions significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies before assigning an overall adjectival rating. To ensure that each Offeror has a better understanding of the areas that the Government intends to emphasize when assessing an Offeror’s relevant experience with performing work called for under this RFP, the Government provides the following guidance concerning the assignment of proposal significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

Strengths or Significant Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

Diversity of experience across the three (3) project examples from prime and designer submitted that clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to perform the scope of work identified in 00 10 00 and have similar characteristics, such as size, complexity, the number of trades employed and whether the DoD was the customer.

Offeror clearly demonstrates the successful completion of a project that included construction of a new, or renovation to an existing, DoD secure facility that meet DoD requirements and security protocols for Special Access Programs (SAP) in accordance with ICD/ICS 705. To include security sensors, alarms, cybersecurity measures, raised access flooring, clean agent suppression systems, and an emergency generator. For project experience demonstrated by repairs/renovations to an existing secure working area, the contract value of the completed system repairs shall be equal to or greater than $25,000,000.

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

• Experience which does not fully demonstrate the Contractor’s capabilities to perform the aspects of this project as describe in 00 10 00.

• Omission or incompleteness of any requested information listed in Paragraph 5.2.1 that is otherwise not stated as a deficiency.

• Any other aspect of a proposal that the evaluators and/or the SSA believe is…