W912BV22R0004 0003.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

Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build, Unrestricted w ith Small Business Reserve, Vertical Construction MATOC

Amendment 0003 Updates Section 00 22 00. Changes for Amendment 0003 are highlited in green.

The POC for this amendment is Ryan Kelly, Ryan.J.Kelly@usace.army.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Jun-2022

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 W912BV22R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-May-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

27-Jun-2022

CODE

CONTRACTING DIV

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, TULSA DISTRICT

2488 E. 81ST STREET

TULSA OK 74137-4290

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912 BV22R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

PHASE 1 SELECTION PROCEDURES

Section 00 22 00 - Supplementary Instructions PHASE 1

SELECTION

PROCEDURES

SECTION 00 22 00

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW OF PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.1 The market research analysis supports the establishment of an unrestricted solicitation with a Small Business Reserve IAW FAR 19.503, Reserves (a) & (b)(1). This strategy will provide a target of five (5) small businesses for the reserve, which could include one (1) Historically Underutilized Business Zone firm, one (1) Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business firm, and one (1) Women-Owned Small Business firm, and a target of five (5) unrestricted firms with a total value of $495 million in shared contract capacity. The target of five Small Business awards for the reserve will be made to those Small Business firms evaluated as the best value contractors regardless of socioeconomic category. A socioeconomic category preference shall not apply during the source selection process. The acquisition incorporates the contract reserve process IAW FAR 19.504(c)(1)(i), Orders under Reserves. At the task order level, if the requirement under FAR 19.504(c)(1)(i) is not met, fair opportunity will be provided to all offerors within MATOC.

1.2 FAR 36.3, Two Phase Design Build Selection Procedures

1.2.1 Phase 1. In Phase 1 of the 2-phase design build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) submit specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute design-build construction and design-bid-build construction contracts resulting from this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select a maximum of 12 of the most highly qualified Phase 1 Offerors to compete for the MATOC contracts in Phase 2. Of the 12 most highly qualified Phase 1 Offerors, a maximum of six (6) small businesses will move forward to Phase 2 for the Small Business Reserve.

1.2.2 Phase 2. In Phase 2, the selected Offerors will submit proposals in accordance with the Section 00 22 20 PHASE 2 DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD. The Government will evaluate the Phase 2 proposals in accordance with the criteria described in Section 00 22 00, which is provided as informational purposes only and subject to revision. The final version will be provided during the Phase 2 process.

1.3 Offerors will not be participating in a sealed bid procurement process under

W912 BV22R0004

this acquisition method. Issuance of this Request for Proposal does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

1.4 Proposal Submissions and the Trade-Off Process. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non- cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest-priced proposal. Offerors submit their performance and capability information for review and consideration by the Government. For those Offerors selected to compete during Phase 2, relative importance among technical factors are provided in Section 00 22

20 PHASE 2 DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD.

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) reviews, evaluates, and rates the proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP. A competitive range consisting of the most highly qualified technical Offerors will be established prior to discussions (if held;

however, the Government does not intend to enter into discussions). The SSEB will review, evaluate and rate the initial task order project technical proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP for those Offerors included in the competitive range.

Concurrently, the Government analyzes price proposals of Offerors utilizing the initial task order project price proposal. Price will not be rated but will be a factor in making the final best-value determination for award. The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor and subfactor (if any). The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other . The Source Selection Authority (SSA) compares proposals to one another and determines the best value for the government. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented.

1.5 Initial Task Order Project. Those Offerors selected to compete during Phase 2 of the solicitation shall submit Technical and Price proposals for the initial task order as part of Phase 2 Proposal submittals. See Section 00 22 20 PHASE 2 DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD. The scope of work for an initial task order project will be provided to Phase 2 Offerors in Section 01 10 00 TASK ORDER STATEMENT OF WORK. The initial task order project price proposal, which will be a combination of a seed task order price and a sample construction phase services task order price, will be used to evaluate price for the basic MATOC contracts.

The initial task order may be awarded to one of the most highly rated contractors in the MATOC pool if it is in the best interest of the Government.

1.6 Task Orders. Task orders shall be issued bilaterally against this MATOC as either Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Fixed-Price Award Fee (FPAF), Fixed-Price Incentive (FPI) Firm Target (FPIF) or Successive Targets (FPIS) type contracts. Individual task orders will be competed among the contracts awarded under this MATOC pursuant to FAR 16.505. Each task order will be reviewed IAW FAR 19.504(c)(1)(i), Orders under Reserves. If the requirement under FAR 19.504(c)(1)(i) is not met, fair opportunity will be provided to the MATOC pool.

Generally, award will be made to the contractor that provides the best value to the Government, unless otherwise indicated.

1.7 Performance of Work. If the Contractor is awarded a contract, the contractor shall perform work in accordance with Section 01 00 00 BASE MATOC STATEMENT OF WORK, with the Scope of Work provided with each Task Order (Section 01 10 00 TASK ORDER STATEMENT OF WORK), and with strict accordance with the terms and conditions specified within the RFP and each Task Order.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit: Firms formally organized as construction contractors, or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures as a partnership in accordance with FAR 9.601.

Offeror entities other than corporations must provide copies of its organizational papers with its proposal, including without limitation, any partnership agreements, joint venture agreements, operating agreements and articles of organization for limited liability companies, etc. Because this MATOC will have a target of five (5) Small Business (SB) concerns comprise a small business reserve within the MATOC, small businesses may submit. Additionally, large businesses may also submit to make up the desired total of ten (10) total contractors.

2.1.1 The size standard for this solicitation is as shown in Section 00 45 00 REPRESENTATIONS AND

CERTIFICATIONS.

2.2 Where to Submit: Offerors shall submit their proposal to the Tulsa District at the address shown in Section

00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS.

2.3 Submission Deadline. Proposals shall be received by the Tulsa District no later than the time and date specified in Block 10 of Standard Form 1442, or as extended by amendment, if any.

2.4 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

2.4.1 In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. Failures to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affect an Offeror's evaluation. Offerors should provide sufficient detail and clearly define all items required in this section.

The Contracting Officer may remove any Offeror from further consideration during any phase of the procurement if the Offeror fails to meet the submittal requirements of the RFP or to reduce the competitive range for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

2.4.2 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as shown in paragraph 3.0, “Phase I Proposal Submittal Summary.”

2.4.3 Page Formatting for Submissions.

2.4.3.1 Proposals shall be tabbed and labeled in a manner to afford easy identification from a Table of Contents.

Font size shall not be less than 10 point. Do not use condensed font. Each page shall be identified with the appropriate page number centered at the bottom of the page. Sheet size of the proposal contents shall be 8-1/2 inches x 11 inches where sheets are prepared specifically for this proposal; however, if drawings, charts, or other graphics are submitted, sheets no larger than 11 inches x 17 inches shall be used; 11 x 17 inch sheets will be counted as two 8-1/2 inch x 11 inch sheets.

2.4.3.2 A cover sheet shall be provided (see below). The second sheet shall be a Table of Contents. Offers that violate these rules unnecessarily delay the evaluation process and may be rejected by the Government after the initial evaluation without receiving any further consideration. The Government will not evaluate any information beyond the page limitation noted in the following paragraphs of this section.

2.4.4 Electronic Format: The Offeror shall provide the complete proposal in .pdf format using Adobe Acrobat software to print to a .pdf file. The “find” feature within Adobe must be functional to search the proposal text. Do not scan or copy the documents into a .pdf file. The text portion of the proposal shall be contained as a single .pdf file with bookmarks. Sections of the proposal shall be linked to the index in logical order.

2.4.5 Proposal revisions shall be submitted as page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g., bold face print or underlining. The source of the revision, e.g., Error, Omission, or Clarification, or amendment shall be included and be annotated for each revision. Proposal replacement pages shall be numbered, shall be clearly marked “REVISED” and shall show the date of revision. A revised copy of the entire proposal in .pdf format shall be provided.

2.4.6 “Confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal.

Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET FORMAT:

Solicitation Number: W912BV22R0004

Title: INDEFINITE DELIVERY CONTRACTS (IDC) MULTIPLE AWARD TASK

ORDER CONTRACT (MATOC) FOR DESIGN-BUILD OR DESIGN-BID-BUILD

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF VARIOUS MILITARY AND CIVIL

WORKS PROJECTS WITHIN THE SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION, TULSA DISTRICT

(SWT) BOUNDARIES OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Name, address, email address(es), telephone and facsimile number(s) of Offeror.

Company CAGE code, UEI (Unique Experience Identifier) number, and Federal ID number.

Indicate Offerors Business Size: i.e. Small Business, HUBZone, Women Owned Small Business, etc, or Other than Small Business.

used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must be clearly marked in accordance with the instructions at FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data,”

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL SUMMARY

The Phase 1 proposal shall be tabbed and submitted in the following format. Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria for each Tab are included in the following paragraphs. All information shall be provided within these tabbed sections and shall not be included as an appendix or attachment.

TABLE: Phase 1 Proposal Format

Location Factor Description Relative Importance

TAB A

N/A

SF 1442

Proposal Data Sheet

Accounting System Status

Not Rated

TAB B Factor 1 Past Performance Most Important Factor

TAB C Factor 2 Design and Construction Execution Approach 2nd Most Important Factor (less important than Factor 1)

TAB D Factor 3 Organization/Management Team 3rd Most Important Factor

(less important than Factor 2)

TAB E N/A Financial Capacity Go/No Go

4.0 TAB A - STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

4.1.1 Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror.

4.1.2 Submit a completed Proposal Data Sheet. See the form (Attachment 1) at the end of this section.

• If the offeror is a Joint Venture a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal. All members of the joint venture shall sign the SF 1442 and the bid bond Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

• If the Offeror has teaming agreements and/or letters of commitment, include a copy.

4.1.3 Accounting System Status (Optional for Small Businesses)

• All Unrestricted firms will be required, at the base contract level and subsequently for each applicable task order, to have a certified cost accounting system that will permit timely development of all necessary cost data in the form required by all the types of contracts listed below in accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 16. An audit report/letter IAW FAR Part 31 must be submitted by all unrestricted firms during the Phase I RFP proposal systems for evaluation. The types of contracts and task orders includes: Firm Fixed-Price (FFP), Fixed-Price Award Fee (FPAF), Fixed-Price Incentive Firm Target (FPIF); and Fixed-Price Incentive Successive Targets (FPIS) Contracts.

• Firms within the Small Business Reserve may submit proposals for actions that may require an adequate accounting system based on the contract type. These Small Business Reserve firms will not be required to have the above referenced certified accounting system, however, a Small Business

Reserve firm may not be awarded a task order that requires a certified accounting system if a fixed-price incentive type task order is contemplated, and an adequate certified accounting system has not been reviewed/approved and in place on the base contract. If a small business contemplates submitting proposals for a fixed price incentive type contract, it is highly recommended to submit certified accounting system documents IAW FAR part 16 and part 31 under the phase 1 RFP for the base MATOC contracts.

• The offeror shall provide a current audit/report/findings/letter and point of contact with phone number or e-mail address from the offeror’s Federal Government Cognizant Audit Agency or any commercially recognized auditing or accounting firm stating that the offeror’s accounting system is adequate for accumulating costs under the applicable Government contracts, if available. If it has been over twelve (12) months since the accounting system has been designated as adequate, the offeror shall also provide a statement that the accounting system has not changed since being approved.

• Unrestricted offerors will not be invited to phase two or be eligible for an Award (Except for the Small

Business Reserve) without an audit/report/letter from a Federal Government Cognizant Audit Agency or any commercially recognized auditing or accounting firm stating that the offeror’s accounting system is adequate.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Above submission items are not rated.

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three aspects to the performance confidence evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered. Relevance and quality of performance will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

5.1 RECENCY OF PAST PERFORMANCE

The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine if the past performance is recent. Recent is defined as completed, or currently in progress with at least 50% construction completed, within the past five (5) years as of the date the solicitation was issued.

5.2 RELEVANCY OF PAST PERFORMANCE

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant the past performance is.

Relevant projects means a minimum value of $20,000,000 or greater ($7,000,000 or greater for Small Business Reserve). Projects submitted should reflect Design-Build, Preconstruction Services, and Construction experience in various types of construction-related work, including new construction, alterations, renovations and repairs, and design-build construction as described in Section 01 00 00 BASE MATOC STATEMENT OF WORK, paragraph

3.0 and shall include at least one (1) project with a contract value equal to or greater than $20,000,000 (greater than $7,000,000 for Small Business Reserve). The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine technical capability to perform the proposed contract and how well it satisfied its customers. The information presented in the Offeror’s proposal, together with that from other sources available to the Government, will comprise the input for evaluation of this factor. The following list is indicative of the variety of work that may be performed at the task order level under this contract. Items that may be evaluated with greater relevancy include, but are not limited to:

• SAFETY - Life safety upgrades, inflammatory gases and substances, industrial safety, industrial hygiene, fire protection, airfield pavements, confined-space entry, radioactive and laser operations, hazardous materials, protection of work sites and property, and protection of workers.

• CIVIL - Ability to provide minor civil work (e.g., excavations, utility work, etc.)..

• ARCHITECTURAL – Ability to provide architectural repairs and/or modifications.

• ENVIRONMENTAL - Removal and disposal of asbestos, lead-based paint, underground storage tanks, lighting ballast, transformers and other hazardous materials.

• STRUCTURAL – Ability to provide structural engineering, repairs and/or modifications.

• INSTRUMENTATION - Instrumentation for energy monitoring and control systems, direct digital control and fire protection.

• COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS - Conventional communication systems and fiber optics.

• SECURITY - Facility security systems; anti-terrorism/force protection measures.

• ELECTRICAL - Ability to provide electrical engineering, replacement, repairs and/or modifications to existing facilities.

• MECHANICAL – Ability to provide mechanical engineering and construction for replacement, repairs, and/or modifications to facility heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC), and plumbing systems.

• PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES – Providing conceptual cost estimates, review and evaluation of design documents for constructability, identification of construction related problems or errors in design or design documentation, recommendations on construction feasibility, guidance on factors related to construction costs including estimates of alternative designs or materials and possible economies, and value engineering services.

The Government will consider the extent of the Offeror’s recent experience, the degree of relationship (relevancy) of such experience to this project, demonstrated familiarity with the applicable codes and local conditions.

Submitted projects do not need to be demonstrate all experience items listed above; however, the more work elements that are included in a project, the more relevant the experience and the more credit will be given. Items that may be evaluated with greater relevancy include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Projects designed for and constructed for the Corps of Engineers or other DoD Components.

b. Experience with task-order-type contracts.

c. Projects that demonstrate experience within the Southwestern Division (SWD) Area of

Responsibility (AOR).

d. Fully completed projects rather than partially or substantially complete projects.

e. Projects that demonstrate experience of Key Personnel commensurate with their proposed role on this project.

f. Projects with a value greater than $20,000,000 (greater than $7,000,000 for Small Business

Reserve).

g. Projects that demonstrate experience with High Performance and Sustainable Building (HPSB)

Guiding Principles Certification per UFC 1-200-02, LEED Certification or other third-party sustainability certifications.

h. Projects that demonstrate capability to provide and mange preconstruction services, to include developing conceptual cost estimates, evaluation of design documents for constructability, identification of construction related problems or errors in design, recommendations on construction feasibility, guidance on factors related to construction costs including estimates of alternative designs or materials and possible economies, and value engineering.

5.3 QUALITY OF PAST PERFORMANCE

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

The Government determines the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. Evaluation will include, but is not limited to, the extent to which the offeror attained applicable goals for small business participation under contracts that required subcontracting plans, if applicable.

5.4 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. It will be based on the past performance of the firms or that of its predecessor, as defined in FAR 52.204-20, if applicable. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its key personnel apart from that of the entity.

5.4.1 In the case of firms for which there is no information on past contract performance, or where past contract performance information is not available, or has been determined not to be recent or relevant, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the firm’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the Government may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with the stated solicitation criteria.

5.5 OFFEROR’S SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Offeror shall submit up to ten (10) recent projects demonstrating the offeror’s recent and relevant experience using the Project Information Worksheet – (Attachment 2) at the end of this section. Project examples must include one (1) project with a contract value equal to or greater than $20,000,000.00 (greater than $7,000,000.00 for Small Business Reserve). For each of the projects submitted, 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 CPARS evaluations). There is a two page limit per project for this factor.

5.5.1 For each project that does not have a CPARS evaluation, offerors shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire form PPQ-0 (Attachment 4) 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) and sample transmittal letter (Attachment 3) included in the solicitation are provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the owner for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the owner point of contact.

5.5.2 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 owner. 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 an owner for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and owner information for the respective project(s).

Offerors should follow-up with owners/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the owner requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’ s point of contact shown in Section 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS and on the PPQ-0 form via email prior to proposal closing date. If you have questions regarding the attached questionnaire, or require assistance, please contact the Contract Specialist shown in Section 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS. All PPQs must be submitted prior to the proposal closing date.

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

5.5.4 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 owners, if the owner’ s representative is not available.

5.5.5 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.

5.5.6 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), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

5.5.7 To improve accuracy of database searches, the Offeror must also provide the CAGE Codes for the prime contractor and all teaming partners (i.e., design firms, key subcontractors, Joint Venture Partners).

5.5.8 The Government may contact references for information regarding the Offeror’s past performance on the project and for the purposes of assessing and verifying the scope of the work performed. Offerors should provide accurate, current, and complete contact information for references provided in the project descriptions.

5.5.9 Joint Ventures. If Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies for the purpose of this RFP, the proposal shall clearly identify the contractual responsibilities of each firm and the work to be performed by each;

describe the nature of the association; indicate whether the firms have experience working together in construction ventures, including how long and how many projects. In addition, each company, including joint ventures, shall list their Government contract experience. Provide a copy of the commitment letter of the firms or the Joint Venture Agreement. Prior to award of any contract, a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement will be required. If approval of the Joint Venture Agreement is required by the Small Business Administration (SBA), failure to timely provide an approved Small Business Administration Joint Venture Agreement may prevent award of a contract.

i. Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV) shall obtain a Unique Experience Identifier (UEI) number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as the offering Joint Venture.

The Offeror shall submit up to ten (10) "recent", "relevant" projects performed by the JV that reflect the JV's ability to perform the work required in this solicitation.

ii. If the Offeror cannot provide a sufficient number of projects as the JV, the Offeror must provide those

"recent", "relevant" projects that it has performed as the JV, and then supplement the record with additional "recent", "relevant" projects performed by each JV member in their individual capacities. In such instance, each JV member may individually submit up to five (5) projects, to exclude any performed as the JV. In such instances the combined experience projects, submitted by each member of the JV, shall not exceed the maximum number of projects stated in paragraph 5.5. Projects performed by an individual JV member shall reflect the JV member's experience commensurate with their role on this project or demonstrate how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project

iii. The Joint Venture shall provide a brief narrative stating the roles that each partner of the Joint Venture will perform on this project and how the presented projects demonstrate the JV member's experience commensurate with their role on this project or how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

5.6 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's responsiveness to the solicitation regarding past performance using the sources identified above. New companies and Joint Ventures shall be evaluated on their own past performance, or that of its predecessor as defined in FAR clause 52.204-20 Predecessor of Offeror, if relevant, to determine the company’s ability to perform satisfactorily under the elements of evaluation.

5.6.1 The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the Offeror to the scope of this contract for overall application to the performance confidence assessment ratings described hereinafter. The past performance relevancy rating are described below:

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

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

5.6.2 The Government will next consider how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance.

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.

Neutral Confidence: 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.

5.6.3 Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor as defined in FAR Clause 52.204-20, Predecessor of Offeror, if relevant. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the Offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance confidence assessment will be considered “Neutral Confidence”.

Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. The Government will evaluate past performance based on the elements listed below:

• QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION. Based on all information available, the Government will assess the quality of the actual construction undertaken and the standards of workmanship exhibited by the Offeror.

• TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror completing past projects within the scheduled completion times.

• CUSTOMER SATISFACTION. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the

Offeror’s past customer satisfaction, cooperation with customers, and interaction on past projects.

• SUBCONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s management of subcontractors, including mitigation of conflicts and resolution of disputes at the lowest level. For large businesses, the Government will also evaluate compliance with subcontracting plans.

• DOCUMENTATION. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s level of meeting customer satisfaction on timeliness and quality of the documentation, reports, and other written materials completed by the Offeror on past projects.

• SAFETY RECORD. All information available with respect to the Offeror’s safety record, to include

CCASS/CPARS rating for safety, lost time incident rate, safety incentive program, safety awards, and other indications of improvements in safety will be taken into consideration in evaluating the Offeror’s overall safety record.

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 - DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION EXECUTION APPROACH

Design capability is an important element of this contract. Design work is incidental to construction; however, design/build task orders may be issued under this contract. Offerors will be evaluated on the designers’ ability to support the design requirements for task orders issued under this contract based on their qualifications and experience.

6.1 OFFEROR’S SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Qualifications and experience for the designers to be utilized in support of this contract shall be provided using Standard Form (SF) 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Offerors shall submit Part 1, Section E, F, and H of an

SF330.

6.1.1. The offeror’s narrative shall address the approach to address the following challenges. The following information will be included in Section H and will not exceed 12 pages of the Section H maximum of 32 Pages.

a) Understanding of the process to adequately address and anticipate both the benefits and risks associated with Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build processes for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or other DoD component projects.

b) Discussion on the utilization of alternative delivery methods and preconstruction services to include a comparison of differences between the public and private sector constraints.

c) Procurement and shipping of long lead items that could be acquired within the scope of this MATOC.

d) Sourcing and management of major materials (e.g. borrow material, steel, concrete, etc.) and mitigation of major supply chain issues.

e) Obtaining access to work locations.

f) Coordination with local property owners and stakeholders.

g) Compliance with contractual, administrative, and other requirements.

h) Hiring qualified laborers and maintaining a qualified workforce.

i) Coordination with multiple contractors on site.

6.1.2. Personnel Qualifications. Key design personnel for SF 330, Part I, Section E, are defined as: Mechanical

Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Structural Engineer, Civil Engineer, and Architect. Minimum qualifications for each key designer are professional engineering or architect registration plus a minimum of 5 years design experience in his/her respective discipline. Two resumes for each discipline (architecture, mechanical, electrical, civil, structural) shall be submitted under Section E. Resumes will be limited to 2 pages each.

6.1.3. Example Projects. Provide up to five (5) example projects in SF330, Part I, Section F, that demonstrate the designer’s ability to support the design requirements for the variety of work that may be performed under this contract. Refer to 5.2 above for a list of the variety of work that may be performed under this contract. Section F shall not exceed 10 pages with a maximum of 2 pages per project example.

6.1.4. CADD Capabilities.In SF330, Part I, Block H, describe your CADD capabilities and experience with "MicroStation CONNECT Edition 10.14.02.001", "AutoCAD version 2020" and “Revit BIM” software and your ability to provide CADD files compatible with each of these CADD formats. CADD Capabilities are included in the 32 page limitation for Section H. .

6.1.5. Team Experience. In SF330, Part I, Section H, discuss any prior work experience between the design team and the Offeror. Also discuss design team experience for the Corps of Engineers (COE) or other DOD agencies, and design experience within SWD geographic boundaries, particularly at or near major military installations. Team Experience summary will fall within the 32 page limitation for Section H.

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.2.1 The Government will review the proposal to ensure it meets the submission requirements.

a) Offerors who address each of the submission requirements as stated above will be considered acceptable.

b) Evidence of understanding and mitigating the construction execution challenges specific to the Tulsa District SRM and Military Construction Programs through traditional Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build processes may be considered a strength.

c) Demonstrated expertise in, or subject matter knowledge of, the risks and benefits associated with alternative delivery methods in public sector construction may be considered a strength.

d) Offerors should demonstrate understanding and experience in the execution of preconstruction services.

An acceptable discussion would identify experience performing preconstruction services, how preconstruction services influenced project success, and how preconstruction services mitigated relevant risks and benefited the owner and/or stakeholders.

e) Approaches that provided innovative means and/or methods for operating in unforeseen conditions including, but not limited to, emergencies, qualified labor and resource shortages, real estate coordination, restricted access, supply chain demands, on site coordination, environmental compliance issues, and long lead item procurement process may be considered a strength.

Narratives shall substantiate the offeror’s construction approach by relating how effectively the offeror’s team applied technical solutions to design and project execution challenges relative to vertical & horizontal construction projects. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach on the basis of its breadth, its depth, and its relevance to the work that will be required in the Solicitation.

6.3 Design Personnel Qualifications. Resumes will be evaluated for qualifications and relevant technical experience to support the design requirements of this contract.

6.3.1 Personnel Qualifications. Resumes will be evaluated for qualifications and relevant technical experience to support the design requirements of this contract.

6.3.2 Example Projects. Projects will be evaluated and rated for relevancy compared to the variety of work that may be performed under this contract.

6.3.3 CADD Capabilities. The Government will review the designer’s CADD capabilities, experience, and compatibility with Microstation version 08.11.09.829, AutoCAD version 2015.

6.3.4 Team Experience. Prior work experience between the design team and the Offeror or design experience with the COE or other DOD agencies are not requirements for this solicitation. However, additional consideration will be provided for prior experience in any of these areas.

7.0 TAB D – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATION/MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s organization/management team by considering the Offeror’s understanding and capability of successfully managing the project to completion. This Factor will have a 30 page limit. The following elements will be evaluated:

• Personnel Qualifications.

• Home Office Management and Support.

7.1 OFFEROR’S SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

7.1.1 Personnel Qualifications. Offeror shall identify the principal program personnel as outlined in Section 01 00 00 BASE MATOC STATEMENT OF WORK, with their areas of responsibility and relationship with the management structure. Principal program personnel are defined as, but not limited to, Program Manager, Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Quality Control System Manager. Qualifications for the Program Manager and Project Manager shall be as required by Section 01 00 00 BASE MATOC STATEMENT OF WORK. For evaluation purposes, the requirements for the Quality Control System Manager (CQC Manager) shall be an individual with a minimum of 10 –years’ construction experience on similar type contracts. The requirements for the Site Superintendent shall be an individual with 10-years’ construction experience managing multiple subcontractors on similar type contracts. Individual task orders may allow reduced requirements for the CQC System Manager and the Site Superintendent based on the scope of the task order. Key design personnel qualifications will not be evaluated as part of this factor. Offeror shall provide key personnel resume information that includes as a minimum, the following. Limit to two (2) pages per person:

• Name and Title

• Specific assignment on this project

• Name of Firm (If different from Offeror)

• Number of years with this firm/with other firms

• Education - Degree(s)/year/specialization

• Active registration: number/state/year

• Specific experience, including dates, and qualifications relevant to this project

Offerors are encouraged to provide descriptive analysis of why they feel their proposed personnel meet the criteria for principal program personnel experience. Limit to two (2) pages total.

7.1.2 Home Office Management and Support. Limited to 20 pages of the 30 total pages for this factor.

7.1.2.1 Describe the home office organization, responsibilities and lines of authority established for the contract.

The use of a flow chart diagram of the home office management/support structure is encouraged.

7.1.2.2 Describe your plan and capabilities to respond to the Government's notification of a proposed task order requirement. Include your plan and capabilities to estimate, prepare, submit and/or negotiate task order proposals within the range anticipated under the awarded contract; your plan to interface with the Government for informational, collaborative and historical purposes regarding a wide variety of construction projects for a wide variety of customers simultaneously; your plan for task order management under the awarded contract, including your plan for conducting meetings and in-process reviews.

7.1.2.3 Describe your plan for managing subcontractor performance, acquisition, execution and administration.

7.1.2.4 Describe your material purchasing system and capabilities.

7.1.2.5 Describe your resources in personnel, construction plant and equipment available to self-perform required work under individual task orders. Fully describe the type of work your firm is capable of self-performing and describe the types of work you intend to self-perform, if awarded this contract.

7.1.2.6 Describe your resources available and your capabilities to support this project concurrently with other projected on-going or new work. Describe your resources available and your capabilities to manage and execute several concurrent task orders. State why your firm is especially qualified to undertake this contract.

7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.2.1 Personnel Qualifications. The Government will review the key personnel provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate the recent experience of the key personnel in similar projects. Resumes will be evaluated for qualifications and relevant technical experience to this project. The key personnel example projects should closely resemble the project identified in this solicitation. No substitution will be allowed without adequate reason and possible consideration to the Government.

7.2.2 Home Office Management and Support. The Government will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the Offeror’s organization, systems and plans for responding to task order requirements, estimating, submitting and negotiating proposals, for completing construction (new construction, alterations, or repairs), for managing subcontractors, capability and commitment to self-perform the required percentage of work, and the…