W912BU24R0001 Amendment 0004.pdf

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PHILADELPHIA

POC: TIFFANY CHISHOLM, 1650 ARCH STREET, 4TH

PHILADELPHIA PA 19103-2004

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 provide responses to RFIs submitted to the Government as it relates to this project. This amendment also includes 100 as-builts draw ings as part of the responses to RFIs. The due date for Phase I submission has been extended. All Phase I proposals are due by 19 DEC 2023 by 5:00PM.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 23

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Dec-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 W912BU24R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Nov-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer 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

13-Dec-2023

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS AND ENGINEERS - PHILA

1650 ARCH STREET

PHILADELPHIA PA 19103

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE W912BU

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912BU24R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO RFIS

1. Are humidity requirements required in HVAC equipment and controls to provide a maximum humidity level? UFC 3-410-01 dictates design conditions. Maximum specific humidity must not exceed 80 gr/lb in any space.

2. Are humidifiers required to provide minimum humidity levels?’ No.

3. Is seismic bracing and or foundations required? If the existing system has it, then yes. If it doesn’t, then no.

4. Are existing electric cabinet heaters required to be replaced? If yes, are they replaced in kind or should they be hot water type with exposed piping to them?

Cabinet heaters are not in scope.

5. Are the present quantity of temperature control zones adequate?

Please adhere with the zoning as currently installed.

6. Can any or all of the existing ductwork be reutilized? Bid as shown. As stated in the solicitation, value engineering change proposals will not be assessed during preaward proposal evaluation. However, post-award value engineering change proposals are encouraged and may later be considered pursuant to FAR 52.248- 3.

7. Can existing grilles be reutilized? See response to RFI 6 above.

8. Can the existing hangers and hardware be reutilized? See response to RFI 6 above.

9. The existing VRF system is a three pipe system. Can we use a two pipe system as part of the new design and installation? VRF system is not acceptable as a solution. Bid as shown.

10. Are the three existing hot water heaters to be replaced? Not in scope.

11. Page 38 of 59 asks us to use Attachment 1 to provide a narrative for our project examples; however, Attachment 1 is the Past Performance Questionnaire. Can you please provide the required format where we can include a narrative discussion of each project example?

Please use Attachment 2 when answering this portion of the RFP per Amendment 0002 of the solicitation. All prospective offerors are required to follow the instructions in Amendment 0002 when submitting a proposal. Amendment 0002 provided corrections to the initial solicitation that was posted.

12. Page 30 of 59 states that proposals are due 12/10/23; however, this date is a Sunday. Would the government consider extending the proposal due date to Monday, December 11th?

Amendment 0004 to this solicitation was posted to PIEE and SAM.gov extending the due date of the project to 19 DEC 2023 BY 5PM EST.

13. The RFP requires us to provide our proposal in 11 point Arial or Times New Roman font. Attachment 2 was provided in Calibri 10 point font. Is it acceptable to leave the font as is in Attachment 2, as long as our answers are provided in 11 point Arial font?

Yes, leave font as is and provide responses in 11-point Arial font or Times New Roman.

14. Attachment 2 requires us to provide the contract number in multiple places if the highlighted project was a federal project. Would it be acceptable to only provide the contract number once, in the block for “Project Name & Contract No:”?

Yes, the contract number may be entered once in the block for “Project Name & Contract No:” if the same contract is being referenced.

15. Attachment 2 has a block for “HVAC”; however, later on in the “Detailed

Explanation of Relevancy” block it also asks us to explain how the project experience is relevant to the HVAC systems repairs. Would the government consider removing the block titled, “HVAC”?

No, this will not be removed as the requirement is for HVAC.

16. Volume II requires us to provide a Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority. Can you please provide this form?

The USACE Philadelphia District does not provide this form. Please visit https://file.dos.pa.gov/forms/business to get this form. The form is called the “Foreign Registration Statement.” If you are a corporation based in another state and want to do business in Pennsylvania, you will need a certificate of authority to operate in Pennsylvania. Companies can get one by filing as a foreign corporation with the Corporations Division of the Pennsylvania Secretary of State. After your company submit your forms, the state of Pennsylvania will return a completed certificate of authority to your company.

17. Page 57 of 63 in Amendment 0002, paragraph IX asks us to provide, “…a narrative description of the roles and responsibilities of the key personnel (name/title/firm) identified below and include an organizational chart depicting the hierarchical structure of the team members responsible for project execution. References to team members should at least include reference to the relevant business entity and should include reference to Key Personnel or other individuals where known.

Any of these entities or individuals is considered a “team member.” However, there are no key personnel requirements in the RFP. Can you please confirm that we do NOT need to provide this information at this time?

This paragraph has been removed from the requirements of the Phase I proposal.

All other conditions of Section L remain unchanged. See Amendment 0004.

18. Page 57 of 63 of Amendment 0002, Paragraph V states, “In the case of Offerors that large, multi-function firms (consisting of subsidiaries), experience must only be submitted by the segment of the firm (e.g., division, group and unit) that is submitting a proposal in response to the solicitation.” However, since the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has ruled in favor of allowing the evaluation of experience to consider past performance information regarding affiliated companies, and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a)(2)(iii) allows the evaluation to consider key personnel who have relevant experience, can you please confirm that Sister Company experience is acceptable for Phase I, Volume I – Past Performance Proposal (Factor 1)?

See response to RFI 17 above.

19. Page 56 of 63, paragraph F states that projects will be determined relevant if the work was new construction which had a scope defined as HVAC install/replacement/upgrade along with supporting electrical and building automation systems in an existing government office building. New construction would not typically be performed in an existing building. We respectfully request that the government remove the requirement to submit one similar new construction project.

New construction is acceptable. Bid as directed.

20. Can you please clarify if this project is 8(a) set-aside or Total Small Business set-aside?

This is a competitive 8(a) set-aside project.

21. Paragraph 5.3 BUILDING AUTOMATION SYSTEM states: “The contractor must submit a request in writing through the Contracting Officer to obtain a Certificate to Operate (CTO) from the USARC G2/6 in order to have the DDC system operate over the external ARNET. The request should occur in conjunction with shop drawing submittals which must give the USARC G2/6 the six months they require to process the request for a CTO.” Can USACE confirm that the contractor will not be responsible for submitting a comprehensive Cybersecurity package to obtain a CTO but only the requirements listed above?

Follow Appendix E and submit the information required by it. The government does not expect the winning offeror to have to run the control systems through the rigors of the RMF process. The 99th RD will be able to provide the winning offeror further information on system configurations and controllers that have already been vetted and that can be placed on the ARNET. The USAR have updated their EBCS guide since this solicitation package was issued. An amendment will be issued to provide the updated guide.

22. Binary would like to ask if the replacement of the existing VRF system in lieu of the 4-pipe system in the scope of work, as a possible VE option for the Customer?

There are newer technology VRF systems that are superior to the first-generation existing LG in place and would reduce the overall cost and impacts to the facility instead of a 4-pipe hydronic system. Since the VRF is already in place a replacement version would be much more efficient and cost friendly. It would also give better overall redundancy to the building and integration into the building automation system.

Bid as shown.

23. Request for additional site visit

There will be no additional site visit scheduled as part of Phase I of this requirement. A site visit may be offered to those highly qualified offerors who move on to Phase II.

24. LIST OF COMPANIES WHO ATTENDED THE SITE VISIT

VISITOR’S NAME

CONTRACTOR

Chester Edward Milavec Jr Punyepa Services LLC Dominic Meli ARK Construction Management, LLC D’Aydra Allen Tribal 1 Blaise Christian Harper Joseph George Harper Michael Charles Kost Matthew Ryan Williamson

K2 Contracting Group, LLC

Harvey Levin Gene Krumenacker Mike Fedorowicz Ben Gallo Ennio Bruno

G Force Engineering & Construction Services

Marc Antonioli Southland Industries

Pablo Chavez New Dominion Construction Josh Titter Matthew Tress Henry Duus Kyle Daihl

Eagle Eye Electric, LLC

Nayanbhai Kakadiya KUNJ Construction Corp.

Joe Cantinella Ainsworth John Murphy GPI Pramod Panackal Mina Gadelsayed

GDS MECHANICAL, INC.

Susan Troy Mike Troy Andrew Cooper

Troy Mechanical

Scott Coleman Diverse Infrastructure Joseph Henry Bonded Systems, Inc.

Mike Wachowski McHugh Associates

25. Note to offerors: Copies of the full set of as-builts are uploaded as part of this amendment (100 items total)

26. Confirmation that building 5510 (AMSA23) is not included in the project.

Building 5510 (AMSA23) is not included in the project as it is not included in the scope.

SECTION 00 72 00 - GENERAL CONDITIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

SECTION L

A. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor in the event that the Past Performance and Technical evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

PHASE I -

The past performance evaluation of Phase I is comprised of the following factors:

PHASE I

FACTOR 1 Past Performance

ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS, WHEN COMBINED, ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO PRICE

Factor 1: Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

PHASE II – The Phase II amendment will be issued to those Offerors selected from Phase I. Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government to determine those offerors for inclusion in Phase II evaluations without communications and based solely on responses to the Phase I factors. Therefore, the Phase I proposal should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. Factor 1 from Phase I will advance to Phase II. Factor 1 shall not be resubmitted as part of Phase II. Assigned ratings from Phase I for Factor 1 will not be revised but will be utilized for final evaluation and best value trade-off analysis as part of the Phase II evaluations.

The technical evaluation of Phase II is comprised of the following factors:

PHASE II

FACTOR 2 Phase II: Overall Design Concept/Technical Approach FACTOR 3 Phase II: Price

Factor 3 is more important than Factors 1 and 2 individually. ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS, WHEN

COMBINED, ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO PRICE.

Factor 2. Overall Design Concept/Technical Approach: The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offerors’ overall technical approach to the project.

Factor 3: 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 Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria contained in the RFP. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph D of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price Offeror.

Post-award value engineering change proposals are encouraged and may be considered pursuant to FAR 52.248-3. Value engineering change proposals will not be assessed during pre-award proposal evaluation.

NOTES TO OFFERORS - PHASE I

IMPORTANT NOTES REGARDING THIS ACQUISITION

B. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

This is a competitive acquisition for the award of a Fixed Price, Two-Phase Design-Build (DB) construction C-type contract. It is anticipated to be solicited and restricted to ONLY 8a contractors. The contract will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government based on the tradeoff process in Phase I and II. The best value determination will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, considering recommendations and any minority opinions presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment.

NOTES TO OFFERORS

This is a two (2)-phase Design-Build procurement. This Request for Proposals (RFP) is for Phase I only. Phase I submissions will be reviewed, and the most highly qualified proposals will be invited to submit Phase II proposals.

After evaluating Phase I proposals, the Contracting Officer will select the most highly qualified Offerors and request that only those Offerors submit proposals for Phase II. The maximum number of Offerors that will be selected to submit Phase II proposals shall not exceed five (5). Offerors shall not submit any proposals under Phase II submission criteria at this time. Phase II of the solicitation will be issued in an amendment directly to those Offerors selected for Phase II. Submitting any information under Phase II criteria may lead to disqualification of your proposal. This is a full and open competitive 8(a) RFP. Offerors responding to this RFP are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained in this section.

Bid bonds are not required to be submitted until Phase II submissions. Additionally, a bid schedule and expanded specifications and details regarding the concept design is provided in Phase II via an amendment to this RFP.

1. GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Submission Deadlines: Offers must be submitted via Procurement Integrated Enterprise

Environment (PIEE) submission or via email to the POCs below not later than the following dates and times:

o For Phase I: 18 19 December 2023 by 5:00 PM EST; and o For Phase II (as applicable): 19 February 2024 by 5:00 PM EST.

Post-award value engineering change proposals are encouraged and may be considered pursuant to FAR 52.248-3. Value engineering change proposals will not be assessed during pre-award proposal evaluation.

USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS IN SOURCE SELECTION:

There will be no use of non-government advisors in evaluating both Phases of this acquisition.

PROPOSAL CONDITIONS:

Only one award to a single offeror will result from this solicitation.

Contractors must provide all required documents for Phase I and bid all items in Phase II in the bid schedule (included with Phase II amendment), with no exceptions. Should a contractor fail to fully complete the bid schedule, its offer will not be considered responsive to the solicitation and ineligible for the resultant contract award.

COMPETITION: Competitive 8a restricted best value source selection competition.

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS:

All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the procedures set forth below.

SUBMIT PROPOSALS OR MODIFICATIONS TO PROPOSALS BY PIEE (instructions are below).

You may also submit your proposal via email to Tiffany Chisholm at tiffany.z.chisholm@usace.army and Cherita Williams via email at Cherita.l.williams@usace.army.mil.

SF 1442 BACK (Page 2 of the Solicitation): Offerors are required to acknowledge the receipt of all amendments to the Solicitation on the Standard Form 1442 in Block 19. Offerors shall fully complete all the required areas located under the section designated as “OFFER” (refer to Items 14 through 20C).

On the SF 1442, be sure to include: company name, address, tax identification number, Unique

Entity Identifier (UEI), and Cage Code. In Phase II, please submit your price schedule with sufficient backup documentation to enable us to do a thorough analysis of the proposed offer (price). Ex: If the offer includes materials, the supporting documentation will include vendor quotes.

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically, as described below. The RFP will provide the submission requirements and receipt date for proposal submittal. The Offeror’s proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

No paper copies, CD-ROMs, or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) (https://piee.eb.mil/) or via email to Tiffany Chisholm, Contract Specialist tiffany.z.chisholm@usace.army.mil and Cherita Williams, Contracting Officer, Cherita.l.williams@usace.army.mil. The PIEE Solicitation Module Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. Information regarding how to set up a vendor registration is included in this link:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/portal/overview/vendorRegister.xhtml

Any portion of the offer that is changed (or offer revisions) should be annotated and dated. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its title, a cover sheet to include the Offeror’s UEI, CAGE Code, address, NAICS and business size in accordance with the System for Award Management (SAM) and Point of Contact Information, such as email and phone number, and page numbers (e.g., page 1 of 23).

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS:

For the purpose of establishing whether an offer is considered timely, the Government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive offers.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring that offers are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the offers to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

All offers shall be submitted no later than the time and date specified on the SF 1442, block 13.

Offeror offers received after the required time and date deadline will not be evaluated. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their offers after submitting it in response to the original Solicitation, and so any submissions should be submitted on the best terms possible and free of errors.

WHAT:

Content Requirement. All information shall be contained in the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each Section and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

Offers shall be submitted electronically, as described. The offer shall not contain classified data.

The use of hyperlinks in offers is prohibited.

An Offeror’s proposal shall consist of all information and material submitted in writing for evaluation in response to this solicitation. The submission of false or misleading information shall be grounds for disqualification of the proposal.

EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY TO SIGN BIDS/PROPOSALS: Evidence of the authority of individuals signing bids/proposals to submit firm bids/proposals on behalf of the bidder/offeror is required except where the bid/offer is signed, and shows that it is so signed, by: The President, Vice-President, or Secretary of incorporated bidders; a partner in case of partnership; the owner in the case of sole proprietorships. Failure to submit with the bid satisfactory evidence of authority of all other persons may be cause for rejection of bid as an invalid or non-responsive bid.

WHEN: Offers must be submitted no later than the offer submission time. Offers submitted after the offer submission time will be considered late offers.

SUBMISSION FORMAT:

Submissions shall be in searchable Adobe PDF format and legible (Cost/Price Proposal), which shall be in Excel spreadsheet).

Each Offeror is limited to five (5) maximum files/volumes per upload (total size cannot exceed 1.9

GB).

The Offeror’s name, solicitation number, and solicitation closing date and time must be affixed to the outside of each volume. Offerors must organize their proposals as described and outlined below. Each volume must have a table of contents and a cover sheet to include the Offeror’s CAGE Code, address, NAICS and business size in accordance with the System for Award Management (SAM) and Point of Contact information, such as email and phone number. Each volume’s contents must be separated by tabs as discussed below.

FILE DESCRIPTIONS: Include a “File Description” for each file you upload. PIEE Submission/Email subject line and file name must be titled as follows:

o W912BU24R0001_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I;

o W912BU24R0001_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II, etc.

NOTES:

Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII) in the File Description.

The Government will not be responsible for offers delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive offers. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that offers are submitted to reach the designated recipient.

Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the offer to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

All amendments to the Solicitation (if any) must be acknowledged.

BONDS AND INSURANCE: The Contractor will be required to furnish proof of insurance, including copies of the required endorsements, and performance and payment bonds within ten (10) calendar days following the Contractor’s receipt of the contract award.

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation are to be submitted via email to Tiffany Chisholm, Contract Specialist tiffany.z.chisholm@usace.army.mil and Cherita Williams, Contracting Officer, Cherita.l.williams@usace.army.mil.

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

PLEASE NOTE: THE LAST DAY FOR INTERESTED BIDDERS TO SUBMIT THEIR

CONTRACTING AND TECHNICAL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION IS 04 December 2023. NO OTHER REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER 04 December 2023 5:00

PM (EST).

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE I (PAST PERFORMACE)

This is Phase I of a Two-Phase request for proposal (RFP) issued in accordance with FAR Subpart

36.3. This RFP is currently requesting submission of proposals under Phase I submission criteria ONLY. After evaluating Phase I proposals, the Contracting Officer will select the most highly qualified Offerors and request that only those Offerors submit proposals for Phase II. It is the Government’s intention to advance no more than five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase I to Phase II.

For Phase I - Offer must be submitted, in accordance with the general instructions above, via

Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) submission or via email to Tiffany Chisholm at tiffany.z.chisholm@usace.army and Cherita Williams via email at Cherita.l.williams@usace.army.mil by 5:00 PM EST on the due date 18 19 December 2023.

The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. The proposals must be in an 8-1/2” x 11” format. Pages must be numbered. The minimum acceptable type size is eleven (11) point with a minimum of one-inch margins on all sides. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode. Paragraphs should be single spaced and separated by at least one blank line. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required.

CONTENTS: For Phase I, each Offeror is required to submit a proposal consisting of the following volumes (binders) in separate electronic files CLEARLY MARKED IN THE FORMAT DESCRIBED

ABOVE:

Phase I: Volume I – Past Performance Proposal, Part 1 (Factor 1); and

Phase I: Volume II – Administrative Documents.

PHASE I VOLUME DESCRIPTIONS:

Phase I, Volume I (Past Performance Proposal, Factor 1):

o Proposals will be evaluated, by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) as established by the Source Selection Authority (SSA), based upon the factors listed below.

Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals as further described below.

o The total number of pages must not exceed 25 pages in the aggregate. Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government. (If applicable, tabs are not included in the page count.) CPARS and Past performance Questionnaires are not to be included in the page count.

o The factor is rated individually based on the information contained in that specific factor; that is, evaluations will not be made across the factors, nor will information found in one factor be used in the evaluation of another factor. Factor 1 will be adjectivally rated.

Phase I, Volume II – Administrative Documents:

o SF 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award). Note – All amendments must be acknowledged in block 19;

o Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority;

o Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications;

o Proof of Bonding Capability up to $5 Million; and o Joint Venture and Mentor-Protégé Agreements:

If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14 of the SF 1442 or the Offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the Offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (formally DUNS number) with the proposal.

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 MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ AGREEMENTS MUST

BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL.

Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Failure to comply with these regulations could result in the offeror being found ineligible for award on an acquisition set-aside for small business concerns.

3. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS – PHASE II

Only Offerors notified by the Procuring Contracting Officer as advancing to Phase II may submit a proposal for Phase II.

For Phase II - Offer must be submitted, in accordance with the general instructions above, via Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) submission or via email to Tiffany Chisholm at tiffany.z.chisholm@usace.army and Cherita Williams via email at Cherita.l.williams@usace.army.mil by 5:00 PM EST on the due date 19 February 2024.

Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format (except Cost/Price Proposal, which shall be in Excel spreadsheet).

The Overall Design Concept/Technical Project Approach, as a part of the overall proposal, will be incorporated into and made part of the contract upon award.

No deviation or substitutions will be permitted after award unless approved in writing by the Contracting Officer.

CONTENTS: For Phase II, each Offeror is required to submit a proposal consisting of the following volumes in separate electronic files CLEARLY MARKED IN THE FORMAT DESCRIBED ABOVE:

Phase II: Volume III – Overall Design Concept/Technical Approach (Factor 2);

Phase II: Volume IV – Price Proposal (Factor 3); and

Phase II: Volume V – (Administrative Documents).

PHASE II VOLUME DESCRIPTIONS:

Phase II, Volume III – Overall Design Concept/Technical Approach (Factor 2):

o Provide an overall Design Concept/Technical Project Approach, not to exceed fifteen (15) typed 8.5” x 11” pages, for the project that provides a narrative describing key aspects of the design and construction to include: architectural, civil/site, structural, geotechnical/foundation, mechanical (HVAC and associated controls), plumbing, electrical, communications, and fire protection engineering, in addition to schematic drawings not exceed ten (10) Pages (11” x 17”) (not counted in the 15 page narrative page limit) to convey design intent and operational and maintenance aspects of the system, and a project schedule identifying and describing how the critical elements shall be completed in accordance with the solicitation.

o The Government will evaluate the overall technical approach of this design, construction, commissioning, and operation and maintenance project and its capability to execute an awarded contract with a cohesive and collaborative team effort and design excellence.

Phase II, Volume IV – Price Proposal (Factor 3):

o The Offeror shall submit a completed price schedule as an Excel spreadsheet as part of this factor. The Offeror shall not include or provide pricing in any other part of the proposal.

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

o In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.402 and 15.403-1, certified cost or pricing data are not required because adequate competition is expected for this procurement. Information other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to the extent necessary to determine fair and reasonable price. FAR 52.215-20 – Alternate IV will be included in the solicitation and specify, only to the extent necessary, the pricing data and format to permit an adequate evaluation of the proposed price in accordance with FAR 15.403-3.

o There are no page limitations for this volume. Proposal information included in this volume which is not directly related to price will be disregarded.

Phase II, Volume V – (Administrative Documents). The administrative documents for Phase II must be placed in a separate file and shall contain the following:

o Re-signed SF 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award). Note – All amendments must be acknowledged in block 19 of the SF 1442.

o Bid Bond – The Offeror is required to submit a bid bond in accordance with FAR 28.101-2 (b). The bid guarantee amount shall be at least 20 percent of the bid price but shall not exceed $3 million. This is to be submitted in original form and sent to the Contracting Office with an electronic copy included. In addition, the Surety shall provide a letter to validate the Offeror’s aggregate bonding capability any ongoing projects currently being performed.

o For Responsibility Determination, offerors will be required to submit the following:

Financial Information & Bonding Capability (past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet ratings and / or number, etc.); and

Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount.

NOTE: Any portion of the proposal that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated and dated. Each volume shall be clearly labeled.

C. EVALUATION OF FACTORS

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor in the event that the Past Performance and Technical evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

The past performance evaluation of Phase I is comprised of the following factors:

PHASE I

FACTOR 1 Past Performance

ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS, WHEN COMBINED, ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO PRICE

The technical evaluation of Phase II is comprised of the following factors:

PHASE II

FACTOR 2 Phase II: Overall Design Concept/Technical Approach FACTOR 3 Phase II: Price

Factor 3 is more important than Factors 1 and 2 individually. ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS, WHEN

COMBINED, ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO PRICE.

NOTE: The Phase II amendment will be issued to those Offerors selected from Phase I. Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government to determine those offerors for inclusion in Phase II evaluations without communications and based solely on responses to the Phase I factors. Therefore, Phase I proposal should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. Factor 1 from Phase I will advance to Phase II. Factor 1 shall not be resubmitted as part of Phase II. Assigned ratings from Phase I for Factor 1 will not be revised but will be utilized for final evaluation and best value trade-off analysis as part of the Phase II evaluations.

Factor 1. Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 2. Overall Design Concept/Technical Approach: The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offerors’ overall technical approach to the project.

Factor 3. 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 Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria contained in the RFP. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph D of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price Offeror.

Post-award value engineering change proposals are encouraged and may be considered pursuant to FAR 52.248-3. Value engineering change proposals will not be assessed during pre-award proposal evaluation.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

2. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

A. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

B. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

C. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of technical requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

3. PHASE I Evaluation. Factor 1- Past Performance:

A. Past Performance of the proposals will be evaluated, by the Source Selection Evaluation Board

(SSEB) as established by the Source Selection Authority (SSA), based upon the factors listed below. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals. Factor 1 will be adjectivally rated pursuant to the instructions, including Tables 1 and 2, below.

B. This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed past performance and evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance and experience on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance and experience, focusing on performance and experience that is relevant to the contract requirements. Projects submitted where the Offeror performed as a Prime may be evaluated more favorably.

C. Projects must meet the minimum criteria listed below in order to be considered recent and relevant and will be evaluated against the requirements of the RFP. The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum value. Projects will be evaluated for relevancy based on the description of the project. Past performance evaluations on projects that are not recent and relevant will not be considered. Projects that demonstrate multiple characteristics as defined below of the Phase I Proposal Submission Requirements may receive higher relevancy ratings.

Table 1 - 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.

D. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

1. Using the format provided in Attachment 2, provide no more than a three (3) page narrative per project example submitted. Provide a CPARS or PPQ for every project submitted under Factor 1. There are no page limitations on official past performance records such as PPQs and/or CPARS). All project information shall be presented in narrative form. Any charts or other graphics used to show areas of similarity (e.g., checklists) will not be reviewed.

2. There are three aspects to the performance confidence evaluations: recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. Relevance and quality of performance will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. The project examples requested within this factor must be of relevant scope and complexity to the solicited project. For Past Performance, the Government is assessing (1) the degree of how similar (relevant) the Offeror’s recent past performance effort is compared to the scope and size, and of effort and complexities this solicitation requires, and (2) how the Offeror performed on that effort.

a. To be considered recent, projects submitted must demonstrate past performance by the physical and substantial completion of similar projects within 10 years of the original date of this RFP issuance.

b. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project, to include commissioning activities. Projects that are fully complete may be provided greater consideration. More consideration will be given to projects completed in a 5-year time frame.

c. “Similar Projects” shall be determined relevant if the work was new construction or renovations: (1) of/in a government building with a minimum of 40,000 square feet and

(2) which had a Scope defined as HVAC install/replacement/upgrade along with supporting electrical and building automation systems in an existing government office building. MATOC & SATOC Work will be counted at the task order level.

E. The Offeror shall submit past performance information on a maximum of five (5) Design-Build (DB) and/or Design-Bid-Build projects which are similar to this project in scope and size. Do not submit more than five (5) projects. Any projects submitted which exceed the five (5) project limit will not be evaluated.

F. For Past Performance to be rated at least Satisfactory Confidence, Offerors must demonstrate successful recent completion of both (i) at least one similar new construction project, as defined above, and (ii) at least one similar renovation project, as defined above; or alternatively, successful recent completion of one project that includes both new construction and renovation, as defined above. At least one (1) of the projects must be design-build.

G. Similar contracts may include construction projects in a variety of sizes, a variety of construction disciplines, varying degrees of technical complexity and both DBB and DB projects, however they must meet the minimum definition of similar projects as above.

NOTE: Contracts that exhibit multiple characteristics may be considered more relevant. Successfully completed DB projects with the most relevant features will be given more consideration.

H. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to identify, detail and demonstrate the relevancy of submitted projects to the solicitation criteria elements, especially experience performed by any entity other than the prime Offeror. The evaluation boards will NOT make assumptions.

I. The following are to be used in determining the status of the Offeror’s team for evaluations of project submissions under Factor 1 – Past Performance:

I. In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a Prime Contractor and Subcontractor(s), where the Prime Contractor submits the proposal in response to this solicitation, the Prime Contractor is considered the “Prime Offeror.”

II. In the case of joint ventures, the “Prime Offeror” experience can come from any of the entities involved in the venture.

III. In the case of mentor/protégé relationships, the relationship must be established by the two Offerors and approved by the chosen Government Agency prior to proposal submission.

Once the relationship has been approved, the “Prime Offeror” experience can come from the any of entities involved in the relationship. The approved mentor/protégé document from the Government Agency must be submitted along with the teaming agreement.

IV. In the case of additional projects submitted where the submitting entity performed as a subcontractor on the submitted projects, the submitting entity must identify the scope and the final cost of their portion of the project along with total project cost and all other required information.

V. In the case of Offerors that large, multi-function firms (consisting of subsidiaries), experience must only be submitted by the segment of the firm (e.g., division, group and unit) that is submitting a proposal in response to the solicitation.

VI. In the case of affiliates, Past Performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate”, as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. This commitment and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate.

VII. An Offeror that relies upon the experience and performance history of a member, members or affiliates of a proposed contractor team arrangement must provide a binding agreement such as a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement or letter of commitment signed by all parties to the agreement (reference details for Volume I above).

Agreements shall be submitted with Volume I. Member includes designer/design firm, EDS manufacturer, and other key subcontractors for the work relevant to the project submitted.

VIII. Any of the above referenced entities or individuals is considered a “team member.” If the Offeror team is made up of more than one firm, describe the business relationship(s), the authorities of the team members, and the delegation of authorities, if any, within the team.

Business relationships include contractor team arrangements per FAR 9.601 (partnerships, joint ventures, and subcontractor arrangements), arrangements between…