amendment_0001.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

KC46a Tinker AFB, OK Infrastructure Stage 1 Amendment 0001 revises section 00 21 00 and section 00 22 10.

The changes are highlighted in red.

An error w as made w hen posting the original solictation. The Div 00`s w ere posted as solictation 1. The technical narrative and draw ing w as posted as solictation 2. The Div 00`s, technical narrative and draw ing should have been posted as one solictation. A conformed document w ill be posted on FBO w ith all three documents combined into one document.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 22

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Oct-2015

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 W912BV-15-R-0088

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Sep-2015

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

02-Oct-2015

CODE

CONTRACTING DIV

USACE, TULSA 1645 S 101 E AVE

TULSA OK 74128-4609

W912BV 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912BV-15-R-0088

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 11 00 - SF 1442 AND CLIN SCHEDULE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 11 00 - SF 1442 AND CLIN SCHEDULE

The required response date/time has changed from 21-Oct-2015 12:00 AM to 27-Oct-2015 10:00 AM.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES TO OFFERORS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SECTION 00 21 00

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

1.2 GOVERNMENT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

1.3 COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

1.4 OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

1.5 SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE

1.6 PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE‐CONTRACT COSTS

1.7 PRE‐PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

1.8 ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS

1.9 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS

1.10 JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

KC‐46A Depot Maintenance Complex Support Infrastructure Tinker AFB

1.2. GOVERNMENT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

The Offeror(s) must ensure that ALL mail sent to the Tulsa District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, either pre‐contract or post‐contract award, has a return mailing address on the outside of the envelope, package, box, etc. ANY MAIL addressed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including but not limited to bids, modifications to bids, proposals, revised proposals, bonds, correspondence, etc., will be REJECTED by the US Army Corps of Engineers mail room facility located at 1645 S. 101 E. Ave, Tulsa, OK 74128, if it does not contain a return mailing address. There will be no exceptions.

USACE Tulsa District Point of Contact is Nathan Kloeckler:

Phone: 918‐669‐7657 Email: Nathan.R.Kloeckler@usace.army.mil

1.3. COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

Copies of the solicitation and amendments are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All solicitation documents will be posted through the Army’s Single Face to Industry (AFSI) to the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website at:

http://www.fbo.gov

Solicitation number: W912BV‐15‐R‐0088

It shall be the contractor’s responsibility to check the websites for any amendments. The offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation.

1.4. OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Questions and/or comments relative to the document should be submitted via Bidders Inquiry at:

https://www.projnet.org/projnet/binKornHome/index.cfm?strKornCob=HomePagePublic.

Instructions for registering in the ProjNet Bidder Inquiry system are available on the above web site.

The Bidder Inquiry Key for this project is: 9CQ3V8-NNPKUF

Any information given to an offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.

Note: All questions and/or comments should be entered in Bidder’s Inquiry no later than 7 calendar days prior to the proposal deadline, so they may be given consideration or action taken prior to receipt of offers.

1.5. SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE

The small business size standard for NAICS Code 237990 is $33.5 Million.

1.6. PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE‐CONTRACT COSTS

This Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit the Government to pay, as a direct charge, any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal.

1.7. PRE‐PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

The Government intends to hold the pre‐proposal conference *AMD 001** during stage 2**. The date, location, and time will be announced by Amendment. The offeror must submit, via e‐mail, the firm’s name, address, point of contact, telephone number, and number of personnel planning to attend to the following no later than two (2) working days prior to the conference:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District ATTN: Nathan Kloeckler 1645 S. 101 E. Ave.

Tulsa, OK 74128 Phone: 918‐669‐7657 Fax: 918‐669‐7495 Email: Nathan. R.Kloeckler@usace.army.mil

** AMD0001**All interested offerors are urged to attend. During this conference, the requirements set forth in the solicitation will be reviewed and discussed, with part of the conference to include a question and answer period.

1.8. ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS

Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP, (including attachments). The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

1.9. PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS

The submittal method for proposals is electronic via AMRDEC SAFE web site or email:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/.

The following email addresses must be entered for notification of proposal receipt and download availiability:

nathan.r.kloeckler@usace.army.mil

Proposals will be received until the time and date shown on Standard Form SF 1442 or as amended on SF30. Mail proposals to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District ATTN: Nathan Kloeckler, CESWT‐CT 1645 S. 101 E. Ave.

Tulsa, OK 74128

The Packaging Proposalsshall be marked:

”Proposal for Solicitation Number: W912BV‐15‐R‐0088”

1.10. JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

When proposing as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture shall sign the SF 1442 and the bid bond unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. In addition, a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration. If this is an 8(a) or HubZone joint venture, the offeror shall ensure that it complies with the applicable requirements of 13 CFR Part 124 and 13 CFR Part 126, respectively

SECTION 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, BASIS OF

AWARD ONE-STEP-BEST VALUE, DESIGN-BUILD (SINGLE AWARD)

The following have been modified:

STAGE 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Section 00 22 10 - Stage 1 of a 2 Stage Selection Procedures

PREQUALIFICATION OF SOURCES

1.0 OVERVIEW

In Stage 1, the principal objective is to pre-qualify the five most highly qualified offerors to submit offers for Stage

2. However, if the Government determines that fewer or more than five offerors should be pre-qualified based upon the evaluation criteria, the Government has the discretion to adjust that number. . In Stage 1, Offerors shall submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to perform the contract.

The proposal should be practical, legible, clear and coherent.

Offerors must submit a complete Stage 1 proposal to be considered for Stage 2. STAGE 1 DOES NOT

INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

In Stage 2 of the two stage selection procedure, the offerors that were pre-qualified in Stage 1 will be requested by the Government to submit proposals that include technical and price information. Prior to Stage 2, an amendment will be issued to only the pre-qualified offerors from Stage 1 inviting them to submit technical and price proposals for consideration. The amendment will request additional information needed to complete the submission of Stage 2 proposals. In Stage 2, the Contracting Officer will award one contract.

Offerors must submit a complete Stage 2 proposal to be considered for award. Failure to submit a complete proposal may result in the entire proposal being rejected.

2.0 GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

For Stage 1, all offerors shall be required to submit a proposal with the minimum content as specified herein.

Proposals without the minimum content may be rejected. Proposals will be received until the date and time indicated on Standard Form 1442 at the following address:

U.S. Army Engineer District, Tulsa

CESWT-CT-E

ATTN: Nathan Kloeckler 1645 E 101ST ST South, Tulsa, OK 74128

3.0 STAGE 1 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1. The Stage 1 proposals shall be submitted as follows:

Submit the Stage 1 proposal in a tabbed, three-ring binder identified by the Solicitation Number, project title, name, address, and telephone number of the Offer. Arrange tabs as follows:

Volume 1, Technical Proposal:

TAB A, SF 1442

TAB B, FACTOR 1 Corporate Experience TAB C, FACTOR 2 Past Performance TAB D, FACTOR 3 Management Plan/Key Personnel

2. Proposal Characteristics

a) Submit one original **AMD001**and seven copies of the proposal . Eelectronic copy.ies should be provided that are equivalent to the printed original copy. The CD/DVD should be in PDF format and be *Optical Character Recognition (OCR) compatible. All text must be legible and easily read. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the offeror. Offerors shall limit proposals to a maximum of 50 pages. A page is defined as text or information on one side of the paper. If it is printed double sided, each face will be counted as a page. Factor 2 – Past Performance will not be counted towards this page limitation.

*OCR is a common method of digitizing printed texts so that they can be electronically searched, stored more compactly, displayed on-line, and used in machine processes such as machine translation, text-to-speech, key data extraction and text mining.

b) Each Volume of the proposal shall be identified by the Solicitation Number (W912BV-15-R-0085), project title (KC46A Infrastructure, Tinker AFB), name, address, and telephone number of the Offer, and the following on the volume in bold letters:

Stage 1 Volume 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

3. Additional Information to be provided:

Pro Forma Requirements to be provided for Stage 1: This information should be submitted in an envelope labeled “Pro Forma Requirements”. This information consists of the following:

1) The offeror will submit a cover letter containing:

a. Solicitation number.

b. Name, address, email, and telephone and fax numbers of the offeror.

c. Names, title, email, and telephone and fax numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

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

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

RFP.

f. CAGE Codes for the offeror, and all teaming partners who participated in the Factor 1 –

Corporate Experience Projects

2) Acknowledgement of all amendments to the RFP in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 (amendment form).

3) The completed Section 00 45 00 of the RFP (Representations and Certifications), Printed Entity Record from System for Award Management (SAM)

4) Letter from Surety stating Offer is capable of providing a Bid Guarantee in Stage 2 as required in FAR 52.228-1.

5) Financial statement and bank letter that verify that sufficient funds will be available to finance the work.

6) For Joint Ventures, the information required by paragraph “Joint Ventures”.

7) Identify if this proposal is being submitted as a HUBZone entity.

3.0 STAGE 2 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

To avoid confusion, the Stage 2 evaluation criteria will be issued in stage 2 via amendment.

4.0 INQUIRIES/QUESTIONS

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation shall be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at (https://www.projnet.org). To submit and review inquiry items, prospective offerors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective offeror who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email. Another email to the same address will notify the prospective offeror once the reply is available for viewing.

***Please Note: Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions shall be rejected.

The Solicitation Number is: W912BV-15-R-0088

The Bidder Inquiry Key for Stage 1 is: 9CQ3V8-NNPKUF

Instructions for first-time ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

b) Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

c) Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

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

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

f) Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret

Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

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

Instructions for future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

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

6. Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

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

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

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

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

The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries ten calendar days before proposal due date in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response to inquiries and amend the solicitation if necessary.

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

The ProjNet call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago) or by appoin ment for OCONUS. The telephone number for the Call Center is 1-800-428-HELP. Email to staff@rcesupport.com.

5.0 JOINT VENTURES

Joint Ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities:

1) A certified copy of their Joint Venture agreement.

2) A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate.

a. The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

b. The management approach of the joint venture in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise and control the project and have custody and control of the assets of the Joint Venture and perform the duties necessary to complete the work.

c. The structure of the joint venture and decision-making responsibilities of the Joint Venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

d. The bonding responsibilities of the Joint Venture parties.

e. Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the Joint Venture to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the Joint Venture.

f. Identification of party maintaining the Joint Venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the Joint Venture.

g. Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

h. Identification of party having overall control of the Joint Venture.

Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual Joint Venture parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the Joint Venture.

The Joint Venture parties’ experience and/or past experience will be included as the experience and/or past experience of the Joint Venture.

6.0 OBTAINING A D.U.N.S. NUMBER

Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number. The Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number is a unique nine-character identification number provided by the commercial company Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). Call D&B at 1-866-705-5711 or access their website if you do not have a DUNS number. The site addresses are http://fedbgov.dnb.com/webform OR http://www.dnb.com/us/. The process to request a DUNS number via phone takes about 10 minutes and is free of charge. Internet request are fulfilled within 24 hours. You must have a different nine-digit DUNS number for each physical location or different address in your company as well as each legal division that may be co-located.

7.0 BASIS FOR - PREQUALIFICATION

In Stage 1, the principal objective is to pre-qualify the five most highly qualified offerors to submit offers for Stage

2. However, if the Government determines that fewer or more than five offerors should be pre-qualified based upon the evaluation criteria, the Government has the discretion to adjust that number. All proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated per the Stage 1 Technical Factors. The determination of the most highly qualified offerors in Stage 1 will be based on the evaluation of three Technical Factors. Corporate Specialized Experience, Past Performance, and Management Plan/Key Personnel. Factor 1 - Corporate Specialized Experience and Factor 2 - Past Performance are of equal importance, and Factors 1 and 2 are each significantly more important than Factor 3 - Management Plan/Key Personnel. Price will not be considered during Stage 1. Only those offerors determined to be the most highly qualified in Stage 1 will be invited to submit a proposal for Stage 2, and they will be the only offerors eligible to compete in Stage 2. Unsuccessful Stage 1 offerors will be notified at that time per FAR 15.503(a)(1). Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the competition before award may request a debriefing at that time.

In Stage 2, the Government intends to select for award the single responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and offers the best value to the Government. Offerors receiving an Unacceptable rating will not be considered for award. Offerors must receive an Acceptable rating to be considered for award.

The Government reserves the right to enter into discussions. In the event that discussions are not necessary then we intend to award without discussions, to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and offers the best value to the Government.

8.0 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

The principal objective of Stage 1 is to pre-qualify the five most highly qualified offerors to submit offers for Stage

2. The Government reserves the right to consider and evaluate information regarding past performance from sources outside the proposal. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all responsible proposals received in response to Stage 1 of this particular solicitation

Source Selection Team (If Applicable) The Source Selection Team (SST) is established as a separate organization and management chain of command whose only purpose is to accomplish the objective above. The organization consists of a Source Selection Authority (SSA), and a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The SSEB is comprised of separate Technical Evaluation and Price Evaluation teams. The organization is designed to ensure active ongoing involvement of appropriate contracting, technical, logistics, legal, price analysis, small business, and other functional staff management expertise.

Source Selection Procedure

The source selection procedures will begin with an initial review of proposals and continue with a technical evaluation conducted by the SSEB. The SSEB shall evaluate the proposals based solely on the evaluation criteria identified. The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the SSA who will review the evaluations conducted by the SSEB. The Contracting Ofiicer/SSA will determine the five most highly qualified offerors.

The CO/SSA will determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications or communications.

The proposals received in response to this Stage 1 of this solicitation will be evaluated individually to determine the five most highly qualified offerors. To be considered a most highly qualified offeror, each offeror shall specifically address each of the evaluation factors. Sufficient detail shall be provided, citing specific data as may be required, such that the proposal may be adequately evaluated. The proposal must show clearly that the offeror has an understanding of the work tasks required and has the capability and responsibility to accomplish the work.

The Government is not responsible for information overlooked during the evaluation which is not located in the appropriate proposal section. To ensure the evaluation credit is appropriately received for proposal material submitted, do not incorporate by reference documents not contained in the proposal. References to sections of the proposal shall be by specific paragraph number (and name, if applicable), page number, and section.

9.0 TECHNICAL RATING

The evaluation ratings for the Technical Factors will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the particular strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The SST will use a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in below:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

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 that 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 does not demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

Proposal is un-awardable.

Ratings will be assigned for each of the three Technical evaluation factors for each offeror. An offeror will not be considered a most highly qualified offeror, and therefore will not be pre-qualified to submit an offer for Stage 2, if the offeror is assigned a rating of Marginal or Unacceptable for any individual evaluation factor.

10.0 DEFINITIONS

Rating: The rating for the Technical factor and sub-factors will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable.

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.

Strength: Any aspect of a proposal when judged against a stated evaluation criterion enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

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

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

11.0 DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

Offerors may request a debriefing In accordance with FAR 15.505 Pre-award Debriefing of offerors, and FAR

15.506 Post-award Debriefing of offerors.

12.0 TECHNICAL FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED IN STAGE 1

TECHNICAL FACTORS – Stage 1

VOLUME 1, TAB A – FACTOR 1 – Corporate Specialized Experience.

Submission Requirements

The offeror shall submit a project portfolio with a maximum of five projects.

Data presented shall include construction projects relevant to this requirement **AMD001**as provided in the solicitations technical narrative **AMD001**which your team has completed, or which are currently under construction and are substantially complete. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies, state if this project represents a joint venture of the listed parties. Relevant construction experience will be limited to performance of projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to that outlined in the **AMD001**Technical Narrative**AMD001**. A maximum of five projects will be evaluated. If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects will be evaluated. Use the following format to provide project information:

a) Project Title, Contract Number and Location.

b) Project Contract Type (for example, Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity; Design/Build, Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus; Construction Manager at Risk, etc.)

c) Total Dollar Amount

d) Start and Completion Dates (Month/Year) or percentage until complete

e) Role of Firm, provide a detailed description (address type of work performed, to include design, and percentage of work, as applicable for each team member) (also include any proposed team members that were directly involved in this project, including work performed, roles and responsibilities)

f) Brief Description of Project (address how this relates to this solicitation **AMD001** and technical narrative**)

g) Provide a list of the management team and their responsibility at a minimum include Project Manager, Quality Control Representative and Construction Superintendent.

h) Customer Primary Point of Contact and alternate POC (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current phone number, and e-mail address)

i) Awards or recognition received, where applicable

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the extent of relevant experience of the prime contractor and its proposed team in the roles they will have in this project. The extent of relevant experience will be determined based on the similarity of the submitted projects to the size, scope, and complexity of the construction required by **AMD001** the solicitations technical narrative**.

To determine strengths and weaknesses, the agency will give more consideration to the following:

a) A higher number of relevant projects, up to a maximum of five.

b) Projects constructed on Military installations.

c) Projects involving large scale pavement placements including apron, runways, taxiways, etc.

d) Projects incorporating site development grading and excavation.

e) Projects constructed in proximity to an active Military or Commercial Runway, taxiway, etc

f) Projects with a value of $25 million or greater.

g) Fully completed projects, rather than substantially complete projects.

h) Projects completed after 2010.

i) Projects involving construction in conditions dealing with concurrent work from adjacent contractors.

j) Projects that demonstrate experience managing multiple large activities simultaneously on a secure and confined site.

k) Projects that demonstrate experience of the team members commensurate with their proposed role on this project.

l) Projects that demonstrate experience with utility system placement.

VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 2 - Past Performance.

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 1, the offeror shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (see below) to a representative of the owner that can provide the owner’ s opinion of the offeror’ s past performance for the project. The Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Offerors should organize all Past Performance Information based on the Factor 1 Projects, which normally have project titles and are numbered 1-5, so that reviewers can match the owner’ s opinion with the corresponding Factor 1 Project. There is no page limit for this factor.

Form PPQ-0 shall be utilized and offerors shall submit the PPQ with their proposal submission to the Contracting Office designated proposal submission location. The contract specialist or Contracting Officer will not require the PPQ to be sent directly from the client. The offeror may submit the completed PPQ-0.

Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (see below), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’ s point of contact, Nathan Kloeckler via email Nathan.R.Kloeckler@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

If you have questions regarding the attached questionnaire, or require assistance, please contact the Contract Specialist at

(918) 669-7657.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the bu rden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the completed questionnaires are submitted by the closing date. The Government may contact and interview the owner’ s representative on the Past Performance questionnaires, and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the owner’ s representative, if the owner’ s representative is not available.

The Government will evaluate the responses from the customers from which Past Performance Questionnaires have been received. The Government may contact and interview points of contact on the Past Performance Questionnaires. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed references, if the listed reference is not available. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 1, to ensure the agency has all relevant past performance information, the offeror shall submit copies of Federal/DoD/Navy/Army performance reviews that are likely already in the agency’s databases or likely within the agency’s arm’s reach, i.e. Contractor’s copy of CCASS or CPARS evaluations.

To improve accuracy of database searches, the offeror will also provide the CAGE Codes for the prime contractor and all teaming partners, i.e. design firms, key subcontractors, Joint Venture Partners, whose experience is being relied on Factor 1.

Evaluation Criteria:

The past performance evaluation will be based on the offeror’ s record of relevant and recent past performance information.

Relevance: The relevancy determination will be based on the Factor 1 Evaluation Criteria for Corporate Specialized Experience**AMD001** as described in the technical narrative**

Offerors with no past performance information will not be rated favorably or unfavorably and will receive a neutral rating.

If discussions are held, Offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references in accordance with guidelines identified in FAR Part 15.3. In this case, comments will be extracted and provided to t e offeror. Copies of the questionnaires will not be furnished to the offeror and will remain confidential.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying construction services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

In reviewing each past performance effort by the offeror, the SST will first evaluate how relevant the recent effort is to the work required by this solicitation. The relevancy determination will be based on the Factor 1 Evaluation Criteria above, i.e., the similarity of the submitted projects to the size, scope, and complexity of the construction required by this Request For Qualifications.

Each past performance effort will be assigned one of the levels of relevancy shown in Table 2:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition Very Relevant Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

For each past performance effort, the SST will then evaluate how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

The past performance evaluation will not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process will gather information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

In conducting the performance confidence assessment, the offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

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

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

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

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner.

There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort

E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure

Yes No notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

VOLUME 1, TAB D – FACTOR 3 – Management Plan/Key Personnel.

Offerors shall submit a Management Plan that outlines the offeror’s intended approach for this project. Offerors should provide examples to support the plan based on the projects submitted for Factor 1. Relate team members’ previous role to the proposed role in this project. At a minimum, the offeror shall provide the following information:

1. Management Narrative.

a. Narrative shall include an explanation of whether the offeror will use its own resources exclusively, or those of a joint venture, a teaming arrangement, or a subcontract arrangement.

b. Describe the proposed management structure for the organization, describing how construction process will…