18R0026_Specs-AM1R1.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

This amendment is issued to include the evaluation criteria for source selection, and the site visit w ill be rescheduled from 1 March, 2019 to 5 March, 2019.

This amendment is also being issued to include language for an offer guarantee (FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee)

Cutoff for RFIs w ill remain 19 March, 2019.

Proposal due date w ill remain 5 April, 2019.

All other terms and conditions of this solicitation remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W912BU18R0026

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Feb-2019

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 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.

U0001

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

26-Feb-2019

CODE

CONTR DIV-CONTRACTS BR

USACE, PHILA DISTRICT

WANAMAKER BUILDING

100 PENN SQUARE EAST

PHILADELPHIA PA 19107-3390

W912BU 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912BU18R0026

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The following have been added by full text:

52.228-1 BID GUARANTEE (SEP 1996)

(a) Failure to furnish a bid guarantee in the proper form and amount, by the time set for opening of bids, may be cause for rejection of the bid.

(b) The bidder shall furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment, e.g., bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier's check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States.

The Contracting Officer will return bid guarantees, other than bid bonds, (1) to unsuccessful bidders as soon as practicable after the opening of bids, and (2) to the successful bidder upon execution of contractual documents and bonds (including any necessary coinsurance or reinsurance agreements), as required by the bid as accepted.-

(c) The amount of the bid guarantee shall be __20__ percent of the bid price or $_3,000,000.00_, whichever is less.-

(d) If the successful bidder, upon acceptance of its bid by the Government within the period specified for acceptance, fails to execute all contractual documents or furnish executed bond(s) within 10 days after receipt of the forms by the bidder, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract for default.-

(e) In the event the contract is terminated for default, the bidder is liable for any cost of acquiring the work that exceeds the amount of its bid, and the bid guarantee is available to offset the difference.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)

Amendment No. 0001

RFP W912BU-18-R-0026

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT (continued)

a. INSIDE COVER SHEET, Please delete the Inside Cover Sheet in its entirety and substitute the revised Inside Cover Sheet, annotated Amendment No. 0001, attached hereto.

b. SECTION 00 22 00 – PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA: Please add Section 00 22 00, Procedures for Submittal of Offers and Proposal to the contract documents, annotated Amendment No. 0001, attached hereto.

c. Please indicate receipt of this amendment on Standard Form 1442 (SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD) as Amendment No. 0001. Failure to acknowledge all amendments may be cause for rejection of the bid.

This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing.

Amendment No. 0001

19 February 2019

REQUEST NO. W912BU-18-R-0026

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

FOR

CONSTRUCT AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR

DOVER AIR FORCE BASE

DELAWARE

I. NOTE THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENT OF THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CLAUSE

WHICH MAY APPLY TO THE CONTRACT RESULTING FROM THIS SOLICITATION.

II. OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE REPRESENTATION AND CERTIFICATIONS

PORTION OF SECTION 00 45 00 OF THIS SOLICITATION AND SUBMIT THIS WITH THEIR

PROPOSAL.

III. PRE-PROPOSAL SITE VISIT. PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS ARE INVITED TO VISIT THE

SITE OF THE WORK TO ACQUAINT THEMSELVES WITH THE SITE CONDITIONS AND ANY

PROBLEMS INCIDENT TO THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK. A SITE VISIT WILL BE HELD

ON 05 MARCH 2019. THE SITE VISIT WILL BEGIN AT 10:00 AM FROM THE AIR

MOBILITY COMMAND MUSEUM PARKING LOT, 1301 HERITAGE ROAD, DOVER AFB, DELAWARE

19902-5301. VISITORS WILL BOARD MILITARY TRANSPORTATION TO BE ESCORTED TO

THE PROJECT SITE. TRANSPORTATION WILL DEPART PROMPTLY AT 10:00 AM. ALL

THOSE PLANNING TO ATTEND SHOULD CONTACT MR. TOM LAVENDER, NO LATER THAN

28 FEBRUARY 2019, VIA EMAIL AT THOMAS.S.LAVENDER@USACE.ARMY.MIL TO BE PLACED

ON THE DOVER AFB VISITORS LIST. INFORMATION REQUIRED: NAME, DATE OF BIRTH,

DRIVER’S LICENSE (STATE & NUMBER), COMPANY NAME, AND PHONE NUMBER.

DIRECTIONS TO THE AIR MOBILITY COMMAND MUSEUM ARE AS FOLLOWS:

FROM DELAWARE ROUTE 1, TAKE EXIT 91 (ROUTE 9/KITTS HUMMOCK/LITTLE

CREEK). FOLLOW ROUTE 9 NORTH FOR ABOUT 0.5 MILES. TURN LEFT ONTO

HERITAGE ROAD (MUSEUM ACCESS ROAD). THE ROAD IS CLEARLY MARKED WITH

SIGNS. PROCEED TO THE MUSEUM PARKING LOT.

IV. ALL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THIS PROCUREMENT MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER

THAN 04:00 P.M. ON 19 MARCH 2019. RESPONSES MAY NOT BE PROVIDED TO REQUEST

FOR INFORMATION (RFI'S) RECEIVED AFTER THIS CUTOFF DATE.

Section 00 22 00

SECTION 00 22 00 - PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Basis For 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. Appropriate consideration will be given to three (3) non-price evaluation factors in addition to the price evaluation . The non-price factors include: Management, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE MORE IMPORTANT than PRICE.

Factors And Sub-Factors To Be Evaluated.

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon compliance with the contract specifications and an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Management: Each offeror’s management information will be reviewed to determine a clear understanding of the work and an ability to coordinate resources to ensure successful and safe pursuit of the work within the specified period of performance.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance information will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3. Small Business Participation: The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions.

Factor 4: Price: The resulting award will be a firm-fixed price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each factor as it applies to the Plans and Specifications. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each management factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for construction of a new aircraft maintenance hangar at Dover Air Force Base, DE. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror, whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government, all factors considered.

1.2 The basis of award is the Tradeoff Process. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

Amendment 0001

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's past performance and management capabilities necessary for successful completion of the project.

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

2.3 Offerors are required to submit a proposal made up of Management, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Price. All proposal materials shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. Refer to Paragraph 4 for Volume I and Volume II contents.

Volume I shall be submitted in original plus two (2) paper copies and one electronic copy on CD*. Volume I shall not exceed 75 pages. Any pages submitted by the Offeror beyond the stated limit will not be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board.

Volume II shall be submitted in original plus two (2) paper copies and one electronic copy on

CD.* Volume II shall be placed in a separate envelope. DO NOT INCLUDE VOLUME II ON THE SAME CD AS VOLUME I. Volume II shall not exceed 25 pages. Any pages submitted by the Offeror beyond the stated limit will not be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board.

Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

*NOTE: Provide the complete Volume I on CD (one copy). The paper copy of the proposal shall be used for evaluation and will control any conflicts or discrepancies between the two media. Offeror is responsible for ensuring the paper copy is consistent with the electronic copy of the proposal.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of a Technical Evaluation Team (TET) and a Price Evaluation Team (PET) will evaluate the proposals. The TET and PET are comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers and the User/Customer. Offerors are advised that the evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Non-price factors will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is the Tradeoff Process.

3.2 The evaluation process consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, non-price factor evaluation, price factor evaluation, and trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all information required for both the non-price and price proposal were received.

3.2.2 Non-Price Evaluation: The TET will evaluate and rate the non-price factors of the proposals against the RFP requirements. Past Performance will be rated based on relevancy and confidence. Remaining factors will be rated using an adjectival-based system.

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The PET and Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the non-price proposal evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the non-price evaluation.

3.2.4 Trade-off Analysis: The SSEB will provide a consensus recommendation to the Contracting Officer/SSA and after all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of non-price proposals and compare prices. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and sub-factors below. Management Factor is more important than Past Performance Factor and Past Performance Factor is more important than Small Business Participation Factor. Management Subfactors are considered equally important. The combined non-price factors are considered significantly more important than cost or price. Offerors are reminded to include their best terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interest of the Government.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I – Management (Three-Ring Binder)

Subfactor A Management Plan

Subfactor B Safety Subfactor C Schedule Subfactor D Experience

4.3 Volume I – Factor II – Past Performance (Three-Ring Binder)

4.4 Volume I- Factor III- Small Business Participation Plan (Three-Ring Binder)

4.5 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information (Sealed Envelope)

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated

Tab B Subcontracting Plan Not Rated

Tab C Joint Venture Agreements Not Rated

Tab D Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Not Rated

Proof of Financial Ability

Tab E Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.6 Ratings

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Management Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition 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.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition 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 with minimal risk to the Government.

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 with low risk to the Government.

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 with high risk to the Government.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will 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.

4.7 Definitions

a. 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. See FAR 15.001.

b. Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

c. Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

d. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

e. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

f. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

g. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

h. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or

“FAPPIS.”

5.0 Volume I – Factor I – Management

5.1 Subfactor A – Management Plan

5.1.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a management plan for the project that describes how your labor, resources, subcontractors and material suppliers will be coordinated and used to ensure successful and safe completion of the project. Describe how you will manage, supervise and coordinate the subcontractors' work and who in the organization will be responsible for this management and coordination. Discuss how you will manage safe construction practices on an active and operational airfield. Discuss how the progress will be managed through the use of a detailed schedule. Discuss which resources are available but will not be present at the site. Provide an organizational chart for this project showing home office support, on-site management and the responsible chain of command. Joint venture offerors must show the respective areas of responsibility for each partner. Clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel on the organizational chart. Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Contractor Quality Control Manager, and Site Safety and Health Officer and other disciplines listed in Specification Section 01 45 00 Contractor Quality Control Experience Matrix shall be identified and their resumes provided to confirm compliance with education and experience requirements of the contract specifications.

Describe Offeror’s proposed approach to managing the construction of these facilities, including construction phasing, coordinating sub-contractors, constructing adjacent to active and operational airfield, processes for requests for information, shop drawing and submittal reviews and approval, LEED documentation, progress meetings, turnover of operations and maintenance manuals and training requirements, as-built drawings, and contract completion and closeout.

Generally describe the items the Offeror will self-perform to comply with the requirements for self-performed work. Describe in general terms the team’s quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the construction.

5.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Comprehensive plans that demonstrate a clear understanding of the work and an ability to coordinate resources to ensure successful pursuit of the work will be considered to meet the RFP requirements. Plans that do not demonstrate a clear understanding of the work, that do not demonstrate a capability to coordinate resources, or that do not demonstrate appropriate excess capacity will be considered to not meet the RFP requirements. Plans will be evaluated based on the level of involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed by subcontractors. The TET will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the offeror’s organizational chart or managing a successful project. An organizational chart that clearly depicts a highly qualified on-site team supported by appropriate resources off-site and that clearly defines responsibilities will be considered to meet the RFP requirements. Charts that are confusing, cluttered with duplicative entries, or that do not clearly define responsibilities will be considered to not meet the RFP requirements.

5.2 Subfactor B – Safety

5.2.1 Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: (For a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each Contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. EMR and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

(a) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

For the three (3) previous complete calendar years and no earlier than 2014, the Offeror shall submit its EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three (3) year period). If you have no EMR, the Offeror shall affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and upward or downward trends shall be addressed as part of this element.

(b) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate:

For the three (3) previous complete calendar years and no earlier than 2014, the Offeror shall submit its OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate, the Offeror shall affirmatively state so, and explain why.

Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate data and upward or downward trends shall be addressed as part of this element.

(c) Approach for Safety:

The Offeror shall describe the plan that it will implement to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as a part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Also, describe any proposed procedures and equipment to enhance safety which exceed the requirements of the specifications. The Approach for Safety shall be limited to two pages.

5.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, and any innovative safety methods that the Offeror plans to implement for this procurement. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Environmental and Safety Application Management System (ESAMS), and other related databases. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

- OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(a) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

The Government will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating. Lower EMRs will be given greater consideration in the evaluation.

(b) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate:

The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART Rate to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater consideration in the evaluation.

(c) Approach to Safety:

The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. The Government will also evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which procedures and equipment are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement.

5.3 Subfactor C - Schedule

5.3.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a bar chart schedule utilizing days in lieu of dates, showing how the work will be performed and completed as specified in Section 00 70 00, Clause 52.211-10. The summary schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented. At a minimum identify preconstruction activities, mobilization, and all efforts indicated in the Proposal Price Breakout Schedule (Bidding Schedule). Procurement of long lead items, site work, final clean up, and demobilization shall be included in the schedule.

5.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The TET will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of events associated with the construction process and completion requirements. The SSEB will also evaluate the offeror’s capability to complete the schedule within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. Should the Government accept shorter duration(s) than that required by 52.211-10 the accepted schedule will take precedence over 52.211-10. NOTE: The SSEB will evaluate the offeror’s schedule using days, not dates. If an offeror includes dates in the schedule, the dates will be used to calculate days and the dates will not be considered to create binding dates.

5.4 Subfactor D – Experience

5.4.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide descriptions of three (3) three projects substantially completed or completed by the prime contractor as of the date of this solicitation within the last five (5) years which are similar to this project in size and scope. Substantially complete is defined as greater than seventy-five (75) percent complete as of the date of this solicitation. Projects considered similar to this project include new construction of aircraft maintenance hangars of at least 75,000 SF. State whether the project and included the following project elements: working with USACE on Military Bases/installations, large, open spaces with clear spans in excess of 200 feet, structural steel frames, reinforced masonry and cast in place concrete, standing seam metal roofing, air-cooled chillers utilizing distributed pumping and boiler-fed hot water system, GBCI LEED certification (including Enhanced Commissioning), construction projects in close proximity to an active, operating Military airfield, installation of a vertical lift fabric door, and installation of a fire protection system to include low level high expansion foam system. Generally describe the items the Offeror self-performed.

5.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The TET will evaluate the relevancy of recent experience, defined as within the last five (5) years as of the date of this solicitation, identified in the proposal. Documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope to this project will be considered relevant.

Conversely, proposals that do not show documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope will not be considered relevant. Projects considered similar to this project include new construction of aircraft maintenance hangars at least 75,000 SF in size.

Additional consideration may be given for recent project experience that demonstrates experience with the following project elements: (1) working with USACE on Military Bases/Installations, (2) large, open spaces with clear spans in excess of 200 feet, (3) structural steel frames, reinforced masonry, and cast in place concrete, (4) standing seam metal roofing, (5) air-cooled chillers utilizing distributed pumping and boiler-fed hot water system, (6) GBCI LEED certification (including Enhanced Commissioning), (7) construction projects in close proximity to an active, operating Military airfield, (8) installation of a vertical lift fabric door, and (9) installation of a fire protection system to include low level high expansion foam system.

6.0 Volume I – Factor II – Past Performance

6.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide descriptions of three (3) projects substantially completed or completed by the prime contractor as of the date of this solicitation within the last five (5) years which are similar to this project in size and scope. Substantially complete is defined as greater than seventy-five (75) percent complete as of the date of this solicitation. Projects considered similar to this project include new construction of aircraft maintenance hangars of at least 75,000 SF and include the following project elements: working with USACE on Military Bases/Installations, large, open spaces with clear spans in excess of 200 feet, structural steel frames, reinforced masonry and cast in place concrete, standing seam metal roofing, air-cooled chillers utilizing distributed pumping and boiler-fed hot water system, GBCI LEED certification (including Enhanced Commissioning), construction projects in close proximity to an active, operating Military airfield, installation of a vertical lift fabric door, and installation of a fire protection system to include low level high expansion foam system. The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15% of the direct contract labor (including testing and layout personnel), exclusive of other general condition or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, or subcontractors to be considered similar. An IDIQ contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the contract to be considered similar.

Formats for Project Details are included for your use. Use as many forms as necessary to meet the criteria. If you elect not to use the formats, all information identified on the formats is still required for evaluation of this item.

Provide two references for all of the experience identified in paragraph 6.1. Reference information should include project name, location, owner's name, point of contact, telephone number, and email address. Also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. which support past performance on these projects. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture must submit their own DUNS number with the JV proposal. Projects performed by other contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement.

6.2. Evaluation Criteria:

The TET will evaluate the relevancy of recent experience, defined as within the last five (5) years as of the date of this solicitation, identified in the proposal. Documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope to this project will be considered relevant.

Conversely, proposals that do not show documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope will not be considered relevant. Projects considered similar to this project include (1) new construction of aircraft maintenance hangars at least 75,000 SF in size, experience with the following: (2) working with USACE on Military Bases/Installations, (3) large, open spaces with clear spans in excess of 200 feet, (4) structural steel frames, reinforced masonry, and cast in place concrete, (5) standing seam metal roofing, (6) air-cooled chillers utilizing distributed pumping and boiler-fed hot water system, (7) GBCI LEED certification (including Enhanced Commissioning), (8) construction projects in close proximity to an active, operating Military airfield, (9) installation of a vertical lift fabric door, and (10) installation of a fire protection system to include low level high expansion foam system.

The TET will assign a confidence rating to each offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal in response to paragraph

6.1. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. The Government may also use other tools such as CPARS, CCASS, ACASS, FAPPIS, Dun & Bradstreet, etc. or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance.

7.0 Volume I – Factor III – Small Business Participation Plan

7.1 Submission Requirements

ALL OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

PROPOSAL. The Small Business Participation Proposal shall be based on the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) and/or Offeror’s best effort and be required to address each of the following areas individually:

a. The extent in which the small business programs listed in FAR 19 (small business, small disadvantaged business, woman-owned small business, HubZone, service disabled veteran owned small business, etc.) are specifically identified in the Small Business Participation Proposal;

b. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the Total Contract Value (TCV) in percentages; the extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments, i.e. teaming agreements signed, are to be considered more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

c. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform on this acquisition;

d. The realism of the Small Business Participation Proposal, i.e. aggressive goals.

The Small Business Participation Proposal shall be organized as follows:

(1) Prime Contractor type of business (check all that apply):

( ) Large Prime ( ) Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions

(HBCU/MI)

Or

( ) Small Business Prime; also categorized as a:

( ) Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) ( ) Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) ( ) Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business ( ) Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) ( ) Service Disabled, Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

(2) Total combined percentage of work (and the equivalent in dollars) to be performed by both large and small businesses (include work to be performed by both the Prime and Subcontractors)

**Example: If the Prime proposes a price of $1,000,000 (including all options) and small business(es) will provide $250,000 in services/supplies as a prime or subcontractor, then the percentage planned for small business is 25% and 75% for large business(es) which totals 100%.**

Total Percentage planned for Large Business(es): ________________% = $_________________

Total Percentage planned for Small Business(es): ________________% = $_________________

Total: 100% (when combined, Large and Small Business totals must equal 100% and Total Contract Value)

(3) Indicate the total percentage of participation to be performed by each type of subcategory of small business. The percentage of work to be performed by Small Businesses that qualify in multiple small business categories may be counted in each category.

**Example: Victory Prop Mgt (WOSB and SDVOSB) performing 2%; and the Williams Group (SDB, HUBZone and WOSB) performing 3%. Results equate to: SDB 3%; WOSB 5%;

SDVOSB 2%; VOSB 2%). All SDVOSBs are also VOSBs, however VOSBs are not automatically SDVOSBs.**

% of Total Contract Value

Small Disadvantaged % Small Woman Owned % Small HUB Zone % Small Veteran Owned % Small Service Disabled Veteran Owned

Each percentage above shall be accompanied by detailed supporting documentation regarding individual commitments.

(4) List principal supplies/services (be specific) to be performed by Small Businesses:

Name of Company

Type of Service/Supply

Small Small Disadvantaged Small Woman Owned Small HUB Zone Small Veteran Owned Small Service Disabled Veteran Owned

(5) Prior Performance Information: Provide any information substantiating the Offeror’s track record of utilizing small business on past contracts i.e. eSRS reports, SF294s and 295s, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) reports.

(6) For Large and Small Businesses provide descriptive information for all small business categories. Any information concerning long-term relationships with Small Business subcontractors, such as mentor-protégé relationships, should be provided.

(7) Extent of Commitment: Provide documentation describing the extent of commitment to use small businesses for this acquisition – either as small business prime, written contracts, teaming agreements, letters of intent, joint ventures, or as subcontractors as defined in FAR Part 19.

(8) Small Business Subcontracting Plan: Each other than Small Business Offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all of the elements required by FAR Clause 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252-219- 7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan). This Plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation Plan. The Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather, a requirement for award to a Large Business. The approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into any resultant contract(s).

7.2. Evaluation Criteria:

ALL OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION PROPOSAL. The Small Business Participation Proposal will be evaluated on the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) and/or the Offeror’s best effort, and the level of small business commitment that is being demonstrated for the proposed acquisition and the level of commitment that was demonstrated in utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts.

Pursuant to DFARS PGI 215.304(c) the following elements will be considered in evaluating an Offeror’s Participation Proposal:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

c. The complexity and variety of the work such firms are to perform;

d. The realism of the proposal;

e. Past performance of Offerors in complying with the requirements of the FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52-219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan;

f. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the proposed Total Contract Value. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) for this procurement. The MQR for this procurement are small business: 15% of the Total Contract Value; Small Disadvantaged Business: 5%;

Women Owned Small Business: 5%; HubZone: 3%; Veteran Owned Small Business: 3%;

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business: 3%; and

g. The extent to which the Offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participations percentages, or lack thereof. The Department of Defense (DOD) has established small business goals as an assistance to assure small business receives a fair proportion of DOD awards.

8.0 Volume II - Price and Performa Information (Submit in a separate envelope). PLEASE DO NOT

INCLUDE VOLUME II ON THE SAME CD AS VOLUME I.

8.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.

8.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and Section 00010, Proposal Price Breakout Schedule. Both of these forms are included in Section 00010 of this solicitation.

8.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The price will be evaluated on the proposal in the detail required by Section 00010. The price will be reviewed by the PET and Contracting Officer/SSA for fair and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis.

8.2 Tab B - Subcontracting Plan

8.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Large business offerors shall submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR Clauses 52.219-8 and 52.219-9. Subcontracting plans must adequately address the required statutory elements. You may use the attached sample sub-contracting plan as a starting point. Percentage goals apply to the total amount being subcontracted.

8.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Submitted information will be reviewed for adherence with FAR Clauses 52.219-8 and 52.219-9.

Subcontracting plans must adequately address all required statutory elements.

8.3 Tab C – Joint Venture and Mentor-Protégé Agreements

8.3.1 Submission Requirements:

Small business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSBC, etc) submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture shall submit evidence from the Offeror's SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist. Joint Venture agreements and approved 8(a) Mentor-Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal.

8.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

8.4 Tab D- Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

8.4.1 Submission Requirements:

A. Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address and telephone number of firm's banking institution.

B. Bonding Capability. Submit information showing offeror's ability to be bonded for this project. Include the name, address and telephone number of the firm's bonding company.

8.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

8.5 Tab E - Pre-Award Information

8.5.1 Submission Requirements:

A. The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Section 00600, Representations and Certification.

B. The offeror shall submit the following information:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

b) Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references

c) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

8.5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

9.0 DISCUSSIONS

a. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 14 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

b. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least three (3) business days prior to their discussion session.

THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE ALSO INCLUDED AS A SEPARATE ATTACHMENT

Project Detail Sheet

Your firm’s name _______________________________________________________________

Name of Project/Location/Square Footage____________________________________________

General Scope of Project

Your role (prime, joint venture, subcontractor) and work your company self-performed_______________________________________________________________________

Percentage of Work completed by Prime Contractor Personnel: ___________________________%

Construction Cost:

At Award: $_______________ Reason for the cost growth:

Final Cost $_______________ ___________________________________

Award Date: ____________

Scheduled Completion: _____________ Reason for the time growth:

Actual Completion: _____________ ___________________________________

Extent and type of work you subcontracted out

Owner’s Point of Contact (POC) for reference (name and company and telephone number)

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.